Thoughtcrime in Britain

http://azizonomics.com/2012/11/12/thoughtcrime-in-britain/

by Cbasedlifeform • 14 years ago

61 36 14 years ago

R_Edward• 14 years ago

Well, that's certainly disturbing. Arrested for burning a paper poppy. I always thought Great Britain was rather more progressive than us colonials.

EliRivers• 14 years ago

If I understand correctly, it's actually not the burning of a poppy that's the crime, but (in this case) the posting of it online with associated commentary. I don't know if that's better, worse, or more of the same.

NickPollard• 14 years ago

Unfortunately we don't have an equivalent of the First Amendment in the UK, so people aren't quite as used to Free Speech being thought of as an unalienable right.

Whilst generally speech is fairly free, and we have a pretty diverse media, there have been numerous laws impeaching upon Free Speech, particularly recently, generally in terms of avoiding obscenity and protecting children. It's a worrying trend, and one I wish we could revert.

I've been wondering a lot recently what the best way is that I can help campaign against this - it's my biggest bugbear with UK politics currently, far more than the economy or other social issues. Any suggestions?

maratd• 14 years ago

The UK and most of the colonies have legal systems that are based on common law. Which means precedent is everything.

If you really want to do something about this problem, break the law, get arrested, and defeat the law in court. Or make friends with somebody who did that and assist that in their legal fight, assuming they decide to fight.

Of course, your probability of success is slim, but that's a quick way of getting rid of something profoundly stupid by a sole individual.

richy_rich• 14 years ago

http://reformsection5.org.uk/

jeremysmyth• 14 years ago

Although this isn't the act under which the guy was arrested, it is another example of ...vague and thoughtcrimey law in the UK.

http://reformsection5.org.uk/

Also, and probably importantly, there's a large public (and legal - see the various judicial outcomes) reaction against the stupidity of laws like this.

hughlomas• 14 years ago

Why hasn't Britain adopted some sort of free speech law in the spirit of the US's first amendment? They've had over two hundred years to do so. Can anyone provide insight into why?

Nursie6• 14 years ago

There seem to be a large number of people (lets call them dumbasses) who are quite happy with the status quo, and rather like the idea that people can be put away for saying the wrong thing.

This is (of course) because in their minds they are part of the in-crowd and people caught by these unjust laws are part of the out-crowd and are therefore 'other'. Many humans do not care about what happens to anyone that can be defined as 'other'. It never seems to occur to them that it could be used against themselves or their relatives. They also seem to trust government implicitly.

Perhaps it's a generational thing. I hope this changes.

lttlrck• 14 years ago

It would not do what you think it would.

"In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise."

Source Wikipedia.

Nursie6• 14 years ago

Grossly offensive apparently.

I despair of this country, I really do. The whole system around speech laws is a mockery of justice. People with no connection to the country sue each other here because the material may have been available in the UK. People are arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for little more than being insensitive buttholes.

We desperately need a first amendment in our own law. Freedom of expression is supposedly guaranteed under EU law but these cases never seem to make it that far.

sambeau5• 14 years ago

This article misses two important points:

1) Britain has never had free speech.

2) This was not a thought crime. It was a deliberate insult: an act of insensitivity and rudeness intended to give offence.

You cannot walk onto a cinema and shout fire and you cannot legally call someone a cunt to their face in public (with the deliberate intention of causing offence) without attracting the attention of the law.

While I'm sure there are many more pressing things that the UK's police force could (and should) be dealing with, calling this a thought crime is both naïve and stupid.

Nursie6• 14 years ago

1) Freedom of speech is supposed to be guaranteed under the human rights act 1998 (article 10), though there are so many exceptions to that law that it's probably useless

2) This was a picture posted on facebook, by a moron, not a threat. There is no provocation here, no immediate danger, no incitement to violence. It's ludicrous that it could be considered a crime.

sambeau5• 14 years ago

1) The human rights act isn't quite as clear cut as you make out and it makes for an interesting read. I was surprised to see that it it explicitly allows for governments to shoot and kill rioters for instance.

2) I never said it was a threat. I said it wasn't a thought crime.

electromagnetic• 14 years ago

Agreed, it's annoying that people can't comprehend this.

The fact here is that it was a deliberate insult and even with free speech it wouldn't have prevented the government from harassing him.

Without free speech? Well that's easy, charge him with felony treason. The law is still enforced, and was originally written in 1848. It doesn't even take a manipulation of the wording of the act to make his life hell.

> If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without ... devise, or intend to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels ... or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty's dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty, and such ... imaginations, ... or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing ... or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable ... to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life.

If they charged him for felony treason. He wouldn't be eligible for bail. He could be held in solitary confinement. It's an indictable offence, which means even dropped it could mar his record for life without it being pardoned. He could be sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for the term. He also might only be allowed a judicial hearing and no jury, meaning luck of the draw.

Sorry, but this is a bit of over zealousness to harass a jerk. If anyone actually wanted to destroy him a Felony Treason charge would have done the trick even with a freedom of speech law. So I really don't see how "freedom of speech" factors in here. It's hate speech and already violates a law just for that, free speech is already trumped by that.

dannyobrien• 14 years ago

"You cannot walk onto a cinema and shout fire". That's actually an interesting analogy you make given the context.

The "theater/fire" metaphor was first used by US Supreme Court Justice Holmes, to justify the imprisonment of anti-war protestors in World War I for distributing leaflets. It's exactly because such a broad justficiation can be so appealing and so easily misused that the US rejected that decision in favour of a far more narrow description of prohibited speech.

I realise that the UK can make a different stance on free speech, but it seems ironic to pluck as your standard the very language that was used in the United States to quash opposition to the war and mass deaths that the poppy is intended to commemorate.

sambeau5• 14 years ago

US Supreme Court Justice Holmes was using it as an analogy. I was not. I was using it as an example.

US Supreme Court Justice Holmes was wrong. His analogy was bad one that was thankfully rejected.

I may be wrong in this case about whether the freedom to insult people for no reason should be protected, I am still mulling it over, however I was not wrong and a free society is not wrong to sanction shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema.

aes2562• 14 years ago

There have been a number of troubling free speech cases in the UK over the last few months.

In July, a 17-year-old was arrested during the Olympics for tweeting abusive messages at diver Tom Daley.

In August, a 22-year-old man was arrested for posting racist tweets aimed at footballer Carlton Cole.

Also in August, a 44-year-old man was arrested for posting a message on Facebook praising Anders Breivik.

In September, a 22-year-old man was arrested for setting up a fan page on Facebook for Dale Cregan, shortly after Cregan was arrested by police, suspected of murdering two female police officers.

In October a 19-year-old man was sentenced to three months in prison for posting jokes about the missing five-year-old April Jones.

Also in October, a 20-year-old was given a community order for making an online post stating "all soldiers should die and go to hell"

josephlord• 14 years ago

I think that there is a difference between sending abusive messages to or at a particular person or group with the purpose of offending and from publishing them to your own contacts and subscribers. For me one could (at least if repeated) constitute criminal harassment and the other is free speech.

Some of the example you give fall on different sides of the line for me.

Racist messages may be a different matter. It is pretty clear that the UK does not have free speech in that area (including face to face - inciting racial hatred is a criminal offence) and I'm not sure that is a bad thing although I would like to imagine it is better to hear everything and beat racism with arguments that sounds like a naive view.

So from your list:

Tom Daley - probably an overreaction. Angry tweet mob response probably sufficient. Prolonged harassment of less popular people in more need of police intervention.

Carlton Cole - Potentially criminal on or offline. I wouldn't argue against police involvement.

Praising Brevik - shouldn't lead to arrest (unless racist itself) although might get you watched.

Dale Cregan fan - shouldn't be criminal just nasty and dumb.

April Jones - Ridiculous. Unless posted to the family or on a memorial site.

Soldiers - I don't think this should be a matter for the police or law enforcement at all.

[EDIT - The Poppy Case is I think completely ridiculous and he should have just been ignored and not given the attention especially as it sounded (on the radio news) like he had just posted to his friends on FB. If he sent it to fan page for the British Legion or a support page for those who had lost family in conflict it may be worth the police having a chat with him although as a one off I don't think it should be prosecuted even in that scenario.]

brackin• 14 years ago

Decisions seem to be based on public pressure or context. The man posting the picture of poppy's burning was arrested because it was Remembrance Day. Because of common law these cases are each setting precedence. Although many may believe it wouldn't go farther than this. There's nothing stopping judges ruling that publicly disagreeing with a political party or common held belief is a form of defamation.

If people rally around a case the police and courts are forced to react with harsh sentencing. Morally these people are in the wrong but a moral justification is different to a legal one.

Paul Chambers was found guilty for sending menacing electronic communication. He tweeted that he would blow up Robin Hood Airport when it closed after heavy snow. I've seen worse sarcastic tweets than this in my stream before, after the listed cases these tweets could result in legal action.

aes2562• 14 years ago

> Decisions seem to be based on public pressure or context.

That in itself is quite alarming, that the justice system seems to be bowing to the whim of the mob.

More worrying is that, in each of these cases, there were people who initially brought the communications to the attention of the police. In each case there was some busybody, with nothing better to do, who thought some hijinks on the Internet was worthy of a police investigation.

I have no doubt that the number of these cases being reported in the national news (at a rate of one every 1-2 weeks over the last six months) is re-enforcing the view that reporting offensive content to the police is an appropriate and proportionate action.

> Paul Chambers was found guilty for sending menacing electronic communication.

Chambers' conviction was quashed in July, in a rare display of common sense.

maeon3• 14 years ago

I'm not voicing my true opinion here because i'm worried i might get in trouble. I can't afford some lawsuits at this point in my life. maybe when i level up from my social class when my raise comes through... maybe.

Nursie6• 14 years ago

If you level up enough they won't touch you anyway...

jiggy2011• 14 years ago

I don't think you can really blame the state/police for this.

The overwhelming majority of the British public see these kinds of things as grossly offensive and in cases have created petitions wanting stuff like this to be illegal.

This first blew up when the group "Islam4UK" demonstrated in Luton against the royal anglian regiment's homecoming parade. This spawned the EDL group to counter-protest.

They later threatened to demonstrate in Wootton Basset (where dead soldiers are repatriated) and the uproar against this was huge with major newspapers all calling for the march to be banned.

It is now illegal to be a member of the Islam4UK group, so they have had to change their name a bunch of times.

jb17• 14 years ago

Yeah, the British public is a bit sensitive when it comes to the army (and the queen). Islam4UK is a good example. They were an openly islamist group that wanted to overthrow the state to implement one based on Sharia law. No one really cared about that until they insulted 'our troops' (which eventually led to them being banned).

fingerprinter• 14 years ago

> I don't think you can really blame the state/police for this.

This could come down to your view on the role of government, but I personally don't see that the majority opinion should be how a society is defined. There are dangers both ways, though I feel the government should always be pushing a more progressive social agenda. Gay marriage is a great current example. Obama is doing it right by pushing for it. Gillard in Australia is doing it wrong by saying "the people don't want it" and axing any proposals. Obama is fighting upstream for what is right and Gillard is basically saying "look, my hands are tied b/c the people don't want it". It's a cop-out for making an unpopular but right decision.

In the case of free speech, there is little wiggle room, IMO. People need to be free to say what they want. It may not be popular, but that isn't the point.

Long winded way of saying, the mass opinion shouldn't be the way we define civil societies. We need to do what is right. "Right" might be gray at times, but it is usually pretty clear when you get the smart people together and have them hash it out.

roco• 14 years ago

1984 was not a guidebook.

chernevik2• 14 years ago

Americans aren't in much position to complain about free speech in Britain. The US government just imprisoned a man for his connection with a video deemed "offensive" by that government -- if there was any criticism by anyone but a few right-wing cranks I missed it.

The man's nominal offense was a parole violation. Whether the government's pursuit of the violation, or the sentence given, were typical for such violations is beyond my expertise.

However the government went out of its way to see to it that his arrest (pardon, "brought in for questioning") was known to and photographed by the press. This was an obvious effort to communicate to elements abroad the distate of the government for the video. Maybe he had to prosecuted on the parole violation -- if so, that could and should have been done much more quietly.

No one seems to regard this particularly important, which I find very strange. One, anyone in the US who might want to say something "offensive" now has cause to wonder what opportunities they present to discretionary prosecution.

Two, and more important, the US government has just validated censorious behaviors of a great many governments. How exactly are we going to complain to the Chinese or Egyptian government for jailing dissenters when we have made a point of doing just that? Worse, we've just told all those dissenters that they cannot be sure that we will be supporting them if they get into trouble.

I don't really much care that his offense was nominally related to an international incident, or that he said means things about someone else's religion. The whole point of ignoring such problems is to deny the government _any_ excuse for censorship. Because once a government gets in the habit, it becomes quite easy to find excuses for the censorships it finds in its interests.

This was a shameful episode for Americans. Joined to a cultural squishiness on speech "offensive" to one religion in particular, it is disturbing. Join it with a few more episodes of government action and the lot will begin to become dangerous.

jdminhbg• 14 years ago

> Americans aren't in much position to complain about free speech in Britain.

The author appears to be British. So what does this have to do with anything?

chernevik2• 14 years ago

It has to do with any Americans who might be reading or commenting on this topic, on this board. I expect there are enough such to merit noting events in their own country.

That is so obvious I have to wonder why you are looking for arguments against even mentioning the matter.

jackcviers3• 14 years ago

All speech, including that inciting violence or dissent should be protected. If a populace allows imprisonment over utterances, rebellion against tyranny becomes impossible. Imagine Thomas Paine was imprisoned for "Common Sense" or the First Continental Congress was imprisoned for discussing independence, or that Martin Luther King was imprisoned for expressing the extremely unpopular and offensive notion of equality for all races, or Pope was imprisoned for his satire of slavery or Joyce for his depictions of people going to the restroom. Socrates was willing to go to death because of his ideals. The least of us should be willing to decry the suppression of opinion of any form at the risk of being offended or verbally injured or even incited to violence against the forces that support the suppression of Speech, lest we find ourselves the member of an oppressed, unpopular, and thus imprisonable or executable minority. To fail to protect the Speech of those with whom we disagree is to fail to live as free people. This was the salient theme in Orwell's 1984. Newspeak was an attempt not to remove offensive Speech, but to make impossible the act of expressing any thought through speech that may move the populace to action to throw off the shackles of tyranny that chained them to a life of slavery.

Britons have a right to be angry, and a right to express their anger at these arrests. They are an assault on the human rights of all citizens of the UK and the willingness of some on this topic to accept these assaults is both unsettling and unexpected.

Zenst• 14 years ago

He may of had a right to free speech, but there again so did those who's memories he was offending. It is also worth noting that free speech realy offers not extra right to utilise match's with regards to burning things to cause offence. Be him burning religious fiction or paper flowers, it is the way that free speech is expressed that is the crux of the issue and as a rule free speech does not advocate match's or fire. I feel that last point is important on many levels.

Thoughtcrime in Britain

Related Stories