I've just been reminded of German free speech in a most worthy thread, and would like to broaden it to the EU. The British and Irish might unthinkingly assume it's a right. But I don't think Freedom of Speech is an EU requirement. I think that's what Americans would call 'states rights'... So in Poland, the ruling PiS have hijacked state television (and the courts but does claim grievance with Donald Tusk & Co) - In Germany there are harsh fines from speaking your mind on Facebook!.. In France, you can't even wear your burqa in public.
Freedom of Speech is States Rights over here in Europe and my country has it, and my country also floats, so; it's easy to forget it's not a Europe wide right in an EU that's virtually Europe wide.
This is an American board. On an English board, we would have been moderated on any number of the discussion we hold here. The law requires them to. I don;t feel this country has freedom of speech. I discuss politics every day and I self censor every day, and those days I forget to, a moderator does. Even on this board there is censorship. Even in America there are things I am not allowed to say. Don't make death threats about the President for example. Even in jest.
Trust me, the UK's had free speech since 1689. Also... If we never had freedom of speech, David Icke wouldn't have a career.
As you say, we have always had limitations on free speech in this country, we had blasphemy laws until 2008 for a start!
Well I think Free Speech should be an EU right, like the Freedom of Movement. I don't worry about the UK, we already have it.
Oh god. not Blasphemy Laws? I didn't realise we still had them in 2008. I remember Monty Pythons life of Brian being banned and also Jesus Christ Superstar, I think Jerry Springer the Opera came into trouble from it too. Maybe that was 2008? I'm not a hundred percent against censorship if I am quite honest with you. I want kiddie porn banned and so on. And I'd like certain other people to be shut up and only I allowed to say what I like. Like Mrs Baff for example. Or my mum.
Is there anywhere else in the UK like Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park where you can exercise your free speech on top of your soapbox and say whatever the Hell you like with out being charged with disturbing the peace?
Europeans never fully adopted free speech. It might take away from their historic reliance on monarchial power. The evidence of restrictions on free speech are now going to go even further with the GRDP regulations where a person can demand that what you might have said about them be removed from the internet. Imagine that. I can't wait until democrats try that shyte in this country.
Well, as I've noted, What Germany do in Germany is Germany's problem. Those of us with Free Speech shouldn't let backwards attitudes effect us.
These children, this child like country that's as old as the falling of the Berlin Wall (Hell I'm older than Germany).. aren't mature or grown up enough to trust their people with Freedom of Speech. Germany[edit] See also: Censorship in Germany Wikisource has original text related to this article: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany Freedom of expression is granted by Article 5 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which also states that there is no censorship and that freedom of expression may be limited by law. The press is regulated by the law of Germany as well as all 16 States of Germany.[104] The most important and sometimes controversial regulations limiting speech and the press can be found in the Criminal code: Insult is punishable under Section 185. Satire and similar forms of art enjoy more freedom but have to respect human dignity (Article 1 of the Basic law). Malicious Gossip and Defamation (Section 186 and 187). Utterances about facts (opposed to personal judgement) are allowed if they are true and can be proven. Yet journalists are free to investigate without evidence because they are justified by Safeguarding Legitimate Interests (Section 193). Hate speech may be punishable if against segments of the population and in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace (Section 130 [Agitation of the People]), including racist agitation and antisemitism. Holocaust denial is punishable according to Section 130 subsection 3. Membership in or support of banned political parties (Section 86). Currently banned parties include the SRP and the KPD, but historically all non-Nazi parties have been banned (1933–1945). Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations (Section 86). Use of Symbols of Unconstitutional Organizations (Section 86a). Items such as the Swastika or clothing of the FDJ is banned. Disparagement of the Federal President (Section 90). the State and its Symbols (Section 90a). Insult to Organs and Representatives of Foreign States (Section 103). Rewarding and Approving Crimes (Section 140). Casting False Suspicion (Section 164). Insulting of Faiths, Religious Societies and Organizations Dedicated to a Philosophy of Life if they could disturb public peace (Section 166). Dissemination of Pornographic Writings (Section 184). Outdoor assemblies must be registered beforehand.[105] Assemblies at memorial sites are banned.[106] Individuals and groups may be banned from assembling, especially those whose fundamental rights have been revoked and banned political parties.[106] The Love Parade decision (1 BvQ 28/01 and 1 BvQ 30/01 of 12 July 2001) determined that for an assembly to be protected it must comply with the concept of a constituent assembly, or the so-called narrow concept of assembly whereby the participants in the assembly must pursue a common purpose that is in the common interest.[107] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country Now compare this to a country that gave America its Free Speech. United Kingdom[edit] See also: Censorship in the United Kingdom The Bill of Rights 1689 grants the parliamentary privilege for freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament and is still in effect. United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[135] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However, there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[136][137][138] sending any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature),[139][140][141] incitement,[142] incitement to racial hatred,[143] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorismincluding encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[142][144][145] glorifying terrorism,[146][147][148]collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[149][150] treasonincluding advocating for the abolition of the monarchy (which cannot be successfully prosecuted) or compassing or imagining the death of the monarch,[151][152][153][154][155] sedition (no longer illegal, sedition and seditious libel (as common law offences) were abolished by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (with effect on 12 January 2010)),[152]obscenity,[156] indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[157] defamation,[158] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[159][160] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[160] scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[160][161] time, manner, and place restrictions,[162] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising. UK laws on defamation are among the strictest in the western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the defendant. However, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 guarantees freedom of speech (within institutions of further education and institutions of higher education) as long as it is within the law (see section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986).[163] UK defamation law may have recently experienced a considerable liberalising effect as a result of the ruling in Jameel v Wall Street Journal in October 2006. A ruling of the House of Lords—the then highest court of appeal—revived the so-called Reynolds Defence, in which journalism undertaken in the public interest shall enjoy a complete defence against a libel suit. Conditions for the defence include the right of reply for potential claimants, and that the balance of the piece was fair in view of what the writer knew at the time. The ruling removed the awkward—and hitherto binding—conditions of being able to describe the publisher as being under a duty to publish the material and the public as having a definite interest in receiving it. The original House of Lords judgment in Reynolds was unclear and held 3–2; whereas Jameel was unanimous and resounding. Lord Hoffman's words, in particular, for how the judge at first instance had applied Reynolds so narrowly, were very harsh. Hoffman LJ made seven references to Eady J, none of them favorable. He twice described his thinking as unrealistic and compared his language to "the jargon of the old Soviet Union." The Video Recordings Act 2010 requires most video recordings and some video games offered for sale in the United Kingdom to display a classification supplied by the BBFC. There are no set regulations as to what cannot be depicted in order to gain a classification as each scene is considered in the context of the wider intentions of the work; however images that could aid, encourage, or are a result of the committing of a crime, along with sustained and graphic images of torture or sexual abuse are the most likely to be refused. The objectionable material may be cut by the distributor in order to receive a classification, but with some works it may be deemed that no amount of cuts would be able to make the work suitable for classification, effectively banning that title from sale in the country. Cinemas by convention use BBFC classifications, but recordings refused a classification by the BBFC may still be shown in cinemas providing the local authority, from which a cinema must have a licence to operate, will permit them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country
