Was that when i said this?
It does seem that the UK in particular has gone overboard in prosecuting speech that defends terrorist organizations like ISIS and Palestine Action. But I’ve never agreed with the contrary assessment that the US idea of free speech absolutism is the right way to do it, either, because it leads to things like the homophobic lunatics at the Westboro Baptist Church disrupting with impunity a fallen soldier’s funeral, or cross-burning by KKK fanatics being regarded as “protected expression”.
Consider, as an alternative, the hate speech laws in Canada. In order to be prosecuted, hate speech must explicitly meet the criteria set out for “public incitement of hatred”, “wilful promotion of hatred”, or “wilful promotion of antisemitism”. There are also set out the conditions under which such speech is nevertheless defensible, such as (a) if it’s true, (b) if it’s a religious position made in good faith, (c) if it’s in the public interest. or (d) if such material is cited for the purpose of having it removed.
These seem to be to be reasonable criteria that are associated with specific definitions and reasonable defenses. There’s nothing “wishy-washy” about it and it has helped, in the past, to prosecute and in some cases expel people like Holocaust deniers and virulent anti-semites. Keeping the peace is not a bad thing, and has never interfered with legitimate free speech.
The real problem that drives the US to constitutional absolutism is that Americans have never trusted their government to enact laws that are always reasonable.
…it was when you said this:
Again, cite? What is an example of ways the European or UK constitutions protect free speech better than the US?
Yeah there are edge cases and situations where the protections of 1st amendment don’t hold but the UK and Europe also has those edges cases AS WELL AS not protecting fundamental rights at the heart of freedom of speech.
…that isn’t the argument I’m making.
I’m not talking about “edge cases.”
I’m talking about how free speech can be suppressed in ways that the constitution doesn’t apply. And I’ll point to the “Palestinian Exception”, or the “Red Scare”, or any time at all when the government and institutions are able to silence people in a completely constitutional way.
I laid out a very precise rational reasons of why the way the US defines specific human rights is objectively better without any jingoism or any assumption of American superiority.
You screamed “LOL dumb american exceptionalism!” and did nothing to counter the actual factual statements I made.
One of us is relying on blind faith in the superiority of their nation over others in the face of evidence to the contrary, and its not me
Per the article, this isn’t true.
The judge added: “The jury were sure that you knowingly crossed the line between the legitimate expression of your own views and the criminal act of inviting support for an organisation which was at the time engaged in appalling acts of terrorism.”
The judge said both men justified Isis’s most appalling acts and expressed contempt for democracy. They had “encouraged your audience … to believe that no one who failed to support the caliphate established by Isis could be a true Muslim,” the judge said.
Choudary was a key figure for a succession of Islamic militant groups. He was dismissed as a clown by some, but helped motivate at least 100 young people to turn to terrorism in Britain and Europe
Preaching that no true Muslim could fail to support ISIS and, my bolding, motivating people to turn to terrorism goes well beyond “saying nice things” and into the realms of material support.
…then explain what is happening with the Palestinian exception. Why are people losing their jobs, getting blacklisted, getting thrown in jail for the things they are saying?
No I didn’t.
You haven’t even addressed many of the things I’ve actually said.
Did he pay for those people to travel to ISIS territory? Did he give them money for weapons? Did he help them plan attacks? No. He just “motivated” them by saying nice things about ISIS.
The government is always going to point to people who have been "motivated’ by peoples opinions they don’t like. I’m sure they can find some people who have been motivated by Roger Waters, to vandalize stuff for Palestine.
You haven’t actually given any counter examples. You keep referencing the “Palestine exception”. Thats just a term that was invented by a Palestinian advocacy group to describe how western institutions (not just the US) show bias against the Palestinian cause. Please provide a cite showing exactly how the European or British constitution protects its people’s right to freedom of speech better than the US does.
“The Caliphate declared by ISIS in Syria is legitimate and every true Muslim should support it” is not merely saying nice things, come on. It is a religious directive to obey the commands of terrorists, quite plainly. And Choudhary knew that and said it with the intention of influencing people to join the ranks of a terrorist organisation. Of course that is properly a crime.
Yes it is, in exactly the same way as Roger Waters saying Palestine Action are a “great organisation” is. They are both statements that could could motivate people to support those organizations. I’m sure a hell of lot more people heard Roger Water’s statement of support and were “motivated” by it than some random YouTube extremist preacher.
…counter examples to what?
And an example of that is the US government withholding 400 million dollars forcing Columbia to suspend or expel 80 students. It’s an example of the using the power of the state to silence dissent, and it’s all most probably constitutional.
I don’t need to. Because this isn’t my position.
My position is that “freedom of speech” is a worldwide problem, that each country are grappling with different issues, and that one really can’t “rank” one against the other because there really are no points of comparison.
My position is that yes, the UK has a freedom of speech issue. Let’s talk about that because it’s important. But “a written constitution” is better than an “unwritten constitution” is a very different debate.
statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group
So that is less egregious than the UK equivalent which uses the term “cause alarm or distress” rather than 'incite hatred". If your freedom of speech doesn’t cover speech that will alarm or distress people you don’t have freedom of speech.
But still incite hatred is a very ambiguous open ended term. Its all well and good when the person deciding what counts as inciting hatred can be trusted to make an honest attempt at countering extremism.
But i am VERY glad there is not a Trump official going through everyone’s public statements to see of anyone could be prosecuted for “inciting hatred”. Using the term “Magat”? Saying Trump voters are idiots who deserve what they get? Saying conservative evangelicals want trans people dead? All sounds like inciting hatred to me, expect a visit from a team of heavily armed feds at any moment.
No it doesn’t. The government had to prove they knowingly sent money to Hamas not just that they said nice things about Hamas.
That would also be illegal in the UK but the government would not have needed to any of that evidence, dubious or otherwise, they could just have shown they said some nice things about Hamas and that would be enough.
As a Liberal, this is a great relief. Thank you for openly staying what you’re for, rather than pretending to be a Liberal.
Those of us who are liberal and believe in liberal values need to understand the dangers of allying ourselves with illiberal people on the left or the right against illiberal people on the opposite end of the spectrum. Because when it comes down to it, the horseshoe tends to close:
It’s crucial we understand what we are up against, because unfortunately we are besieged on all sides. (Thankfully, the left flank attack in the US at least is rather weak and pathetic, as the far left is pretty politically powerless here.)
I don’t want to live in Project 2025’s America; I also don’t want to live in the America described in the quoted segments.
Because the 1st Amendment only protects you from being arrested for your speech. Those other things are perfectly legitimate “consequences”, according to people in the ‘cancel culture’ thread just around the corner.
I agree with @griffin1977 that the 1st Amendment is much better than not having one: with a simple majority the UK government could vote to withdraw from the ECHR, and pass whatever Draconian restrictions on speech they wanted to tomorrow. Indeed, withdrawing from the ECHR is part of the Reform manifesto IIRC, and they are currently leading in the polls.
Still, free speech is in severe trouble around the world. Ultimately, rights depend not on laws, but on popular support, and the (classically) liberal consensus all our freedoms depend on is rapidly eroding.
Not that its relevant to this thread, but the Mensheviks were not in anyway less left wing than the Bolsheviks, in fact they were more Marxist insisting on following Marx’s theory that Russia had to have its bourgeois capitalist phase before it could have its communist revolution. Though the main difference was of course that they didn’t like Lenin (and Lenin didn’t like the Menshevik leaders), which was far more important than any doctrinal difference.
Feel free to create another sidetrack thread to this sidetrack thread of you want to discuss further 
The absolutely key word here is “trust”. If you can’t trust your government, both the executive branch and the judicial system, then no words written on a piece of paper are going to protect you. I mentioned the homophobic funeral disruptions by the Westboro Baptist “church”, KKK cross burnings being “protected speech”. @Banquet_Bear mentioned the Red Scare and the crackdown on campus protests against atrocities in Gaza. How about all the blacklistings during the Red Scare? Where was “free speech” then?
Are you kidding? Trump is cracking down on anyone who merely says bad things about him or whose positions he doesn’t like – threatening law firms, threatening TV networks, cutting major university grants. How easily the First Amendment is forgotten when a tyrant is in charge. Maybe it’s just me, but I much prefer a peaceful democracy with carefully limited hate speech laws balanced with intrinsic rights of free speech.
Yup but he is not prosecuting people for saying things he doesn’t like. He absolutely 100% would if he could, without a shadow of a doubt. If the US had Canadian hate speech law the prisons would be full of people who had “incited hatred” by saying mean things about Donald Trump