Let's start simple: you think death threats should be illegal, right?

I don’t think anything should be illegal, especially not speech.

I don’t think anything should be illegal — NOS4A2

Do you have anything in this world you care about? Anything at all? Would you care much if you died right now? If not, that's a perfectly understandable viewpoint. But that's not how the world works or how normal people are or think. Certainly you recognize that.

I definitely see where you're coming from, but it's not cleanly divested from violent rhetoric enough for me to say "oh the uk jails anybody for saying anything non-woke". — flannel jesus

fwiw, I don't claim this. It is getting dangerously close, but that only works with my internal nuanced use of 'woke' which hasn't fit with any uses i've seen around here.

People have been temporarily jailed for tweets completely devoid of suggestions of violence, but never fully sentenced and imprisoned. Jailed is, of course, already too far, and I consider that a trampling of free speech in its own right, but of course not quite bad as sentencing and imprisoning. — flannel jesus

Definitely not as bad, but the slippery slope is almost at completion at this stage. The idea that we shouldn't be worried about it strikes me as sanguine to a fault. Most comments tend be specifically about 'illegal migrants'. A group which is not protected.

Do you have anything in this world you care about? Anything at all? Would you care much if you died right now? If not, that's a perfectly understandable viewpoint. But that's not how the world works or how normal people are or think. Certainly you recognize that.

I care about a lot of things. The impositions of state jurists isn’t one of them.

Do you require law to know how to act around others?

I frequently hear, "You can go to prison for a politically incorrect tweet these days!"

Now if that's true, this is definitely an issue worth being concerned about. — flannel jesus

Great. Problem solved. It is true, I'm a Canadian, and I have no idea how you can spend so much time living in the UK and not know this to be true?

Crimes, some with prison sentences, are the extreme end of the sanctions, numbered in the thousands, but non-crime hate incidents are a better indicator of free speech under siege in the UK.

I know this to be true from sources like Greg Lukianoff noting that there have been 250,000 non-crime hate incidents investigated since 2016. Lukianoff and his org, FIRE, are American, but likely the most powerful free speech voice on the planet, happy to defend the fire left and far right both.

Just google Lukianoff and UK non-crime hate incidents.

"I think women are stupid" or "I think asians aren't very good at driving", there shouldn't be any legal action at all for something like that. — flannel jesus

What about that guy sentenced to years in jail for telling his mom something racist in their own home?

So I did some looking yesterday, googled around, and almost all cases of someone going to prison for a tweet, it wasn't things as harmless as that — flannel jesus

The only ones you found seem to be on the extreme end. I think of the parents who spent the night in jail for critiquing their kids school. Try conservative sources. If you live in a progressive bubble, you won't hear this stuff. And the moment you step outside the bubble, you see the problem.

The bubble is the problem. And of course, this applies to the right too. The JD Vances of the world are transparent hypocrites on free speech.

Lucy Connolly seems to be the example people are referring to in their 'incitement' argument. Please make the case for her 31 month jail sentence being justifiable.

I am not going to source this, given you have obviously not researched, but please, do this five minutes of googling and I will engage with you in good faith, with all the sources you might request.

if we take a sober (and not idealistic) look at today's world, we can conclude that freedom of speech will be further restricted. — Astorre

You seem not to find this terrifying?

The laws pertain to everyone in a given jurisdiction, including those who do not reach for pitchforks upon hearing words. As such, millions and millions lose their rights to speak and to hear whatever speech they want because some who live among us fear words.

I care about a lot of things. The impositions of state jurists isn’t one of them. — NOS4A2

But why are they state jurists though? They're fulfilling the will of the people. Said will being peace, law, and order. This requires a robust and powerful underlying system of codes and ordinance.

These series of remarks seem to imply you don't care about what other people want, only yourself (and those whom you favor or who otherwise think like you). This is the mindset of a small child with little understanding of the larger world around him.

Do you require law to know how to act around others? — NOS4A2

I like to think not, but I would never delude myself into thinking every other person, even the majority, does. There's 8 billion people on this rock. You've likely only ever even been in the same room with a few hundred thousand of them. And that's a very liberal estimate.

You know how to act because someone or something taught you how to. One might assume that's because you were raised in a functional healthy household with both parents who knew and were equipped mentally, physically, and financially to raise a child (that child being you).

Not everybody has that luxury. Did you not know this?

But why are they state jurists though? They're fulfilling the will of the people. Said will being peace, law, and order. This requires a robust and powerful underlying system of codes and ordinance.

These series of remarks seem to imply you don't care about what other people want, only yourself (and those whom you favor or who otherwise think like you). This is the mindset of a small child with little understanding of the larger world around him.

You and I both know neither one of our wills have affected any law, code, or ordinance. No jurist has ever fulfilled anything that you or I have ever willed. And if you already possess a will for peace, law, and order, a system of enforcement ought to be entirely redundant.

I don’t care what you want, but only because I don’t know what you want. What I do know is, these institutions, like the ones they are adapted from, have been a scourge on the earth and the species, and the sort of obsequious fealty to them is unimpressive. The admission that you require them in order to satiate your own fears does not imply that everyone else does.

I like to think not, but I would never delude myself into thinking every other person, even the majority, does. There's 8 billion people on this rock. You've likely only ever even been in the same room with a few hundred thousand of them. And that's a very liberal estimate.

You know how to act because someone or something taught you how to. One might assume that's because you were raised in a functional healthy household with both parents who knew and were equipped mentally, physically, and financially to raise a child (that child being you).

Not everybody has that luxury. Did you not know this?

Who has killed more people, your imaginary criminal, or governments? Who has led to more famine? Genocide? War? Who takes from the fruits of your labor in order to fund his activities? Who drops bombs on weddings, or nukes on cities? The one you describe as not being raised in a functional household, or the ones you now defend?

It’s interesting that most people saying the U.K. has a problem with free speech are not in the U.K.
Not only that, but the examples they cite are only within the areas of commentary being stoked up by the far right. Where the issue is not being stoked up, not a word.

You and I both know neither one of our wills have affected any law, code, or ordinance. — NOS4A2

A ripple in a pond can always knock against something larger. Societal rules did not predate society. It is literally the result of people before us, maintained by those of us who understand and respect their sacrifices. Sacrifices that, again, due to theirs, you and I don't have to make, and therefore lose meaning and reverence toward. As you perfectly illustrate.

The admission that you require them in order to satiate your own fears does not imply that everyone else does. — NOS4A2

"Show me a man without fear, and I'll show you a man with nothing left to lose, whose death would only benefit the world around him." - M.E. Outlander

Who has killed more people, your imaginary criminal, or governments? Who has led to more famine? Genocide? War? Who takes from the fruits of your labor in order to fund his activities? Who drops bombs on weddings, or nukes on cities? The one you describe as not being raised in a functional household, or the ones you now defend? — NOS4A2

This is a lot to unpack. Allow me a few moments, or perhaps a day or two to get back to this.

What about that guy sentenced to years in jail for telling his mom something racist in their own home? — Jeremy Murray

What about it? I obviously don't know about it - and I still don't. You've just written a sentence on a forum, not given me a link to a reputable source about it. I want something real man, not just people blabbering. I want to -know- it's happening. You telling me is next to useless, link me up.

When I google, "guy sentenced to years in jail for telling his mom something racist in their own home", I get no results. You haven't even given me a name to google.

Arrests for Tweets by county is something like"

1. UK 12,500+
2. Belarus - 6,000+
3. Germany - 3500+
4. China 1200 + — AmadeusD

A claim like that should really ping the BS meter.

From a quick googling, it's from a meme spread by Tommy Robinson (for non-Brits who are not familiar with him: he's someone who's been in and out of jail many times for violent offences, and is popular on the right for being an outspoken racist). The data isn't cited, but seems to come from different sources, and so compares apples and oranges.

In the case of the UK, the data is the total people arrested in 2023 under the Communications Act and the Malicious Communications Act. Importantly, these aren't just arrests for "mean tweets": it covers obscene images and direct threats targeted at individuals. From the Times article that originally published this data, a police spokesman claimed a large proportion of these arrests are domestic-abuse related.

...so incidentally; the 2023 figure might include an arrest of...Tommy Robinson, who was stalking and harassing someone at the time.

Yep. Bullshit.

You don’t mention that out of the 12,000 or so arrests in 2023, there were only 1,119 sentencings, according to the Times article you cite.

We can hold these numbers against other statistics of that year, like that only 5.7 per cent of crimes were solved by police. The charge rate was at 3.6 per cent for sex crimes, with rape at 2.1 per cent. Apparently that’s around 2.7 million crimes being dropped without a suspect being found.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/crime-unsolved-data-labour-b2384679.html

No wonder people are pissed off in the UK, where it appears everything is policed except crime.

A ripple in a pond can always knock against something larger. Societal rules did not predate society. It is literally the result of people before us, maintained by those of us who understand and respect their sacrifices. Sacrifices that, again, due to theirs, you and I don't have to make, and therefore lose meaning and reverence toward. As you perfectly illustrate.

Societal rules and the sacrifices involved in maintaining them… maybe you can name one of these societal rules and one of these sacrifices that you so much revere, because so far I have no idea what you’re talking about.

You guys really aren't honest interlocutors are you?? The point that matters was this, which you conveniently ignored:

Largely, it is the pattern of intimidation that people have an issue with - it's hard to put people in prison over words, like the above cases. But cases like Elizabeth Kinney illustrate extremely well how hte UK is attempting, using law enforcement, to dampen and reduce speech. — AmadeusD

I don't require those numbers to be correct for this point to stand, I didn't cite them as some authority, I didn't get them from a meme. Your continued dishonesty is continually noted.

Tommy Robinson (for non-Brits who are not familiar with him: he's someone who's been in and out of jail many times for violent offences, and is popular on the right for being an outspoken racist). — Mijin

I see you've devolved into several fallacies at once. Good job. I can see why Banno likes it.

Thus liberal democracies [...] do have legislation that basically is illiberal. — ssu

Right, and that's my point. I'm not sure how this fact can simply be smoothed over.

You guys really aren't honest interlocutors are you?? The point that matters was this, which you conveniently ignored: — AmadeusD

Engaging with your cite (and pointing out the flaws) is not being an "honest interlocutor"?
What exactly am I allowed to post in this discussion forum? I must agree with you uncritically?

I don't require those numbers to be correct for this point to stand, [...] — AmadeusD

Yes you do; that's the whole point of trying to cite something.
Your argument is baseless right now, and, to use your words I think a bit more accurately than you did: an honest interlocutor should be questioning whether their position is actually correct at this point.

I see you've devolved into several fallacies at once. Good job. — AmadeusD

If I posted anything incorrect then please correct me.

In the meantime I was trying to do you a favor: as well as the claim in the meme being absurd on its face, it was posted by someone with a history of posting false things on social media. He's been successfully sued multiple times as well as serving a jail sentence for contempt of court -- all for things he made up. As well as starting multiple riots with disinformation.

So I am trying to demonstrate to you a bit of critical thinking.
But no the problem was with us telling you it was nonsense or what kind of source you are getting your information from.

I don't require those numbers to be correct for this point to stand — AmadeusD

:grin:

"Anecdotal evidence reliable? One man says 'yes!'"

Engaging with your cite (and pointing out the flaws) is not being an "honest interlocutor"?
What exactly am I allowed to post in this discussion forum? I must agree with you uncritically? — Mijin

I did not cite it - you'll note from my language that this is obvious. As I've addressed. Please read clearly and carefully before responding. I think it's pitiful to be engaging in this way.

Yes you do; that's the whole point of trying to cite something. — Mijin

As above. You do not read posts clearly before responding. It makes things very difficult.

Your argument is baseless right now — Mijin

Err, nope. You haven't even identified it, despite my pointing it out clearly and concisely. And here you go anyway. This also shows that the comments above about domestic-abuse related crimes both doesn't hold up, and doesn't make sense.

ChatGPT warns that, given the limitations in the data, arrests are likely to be higher.

There we go. Now my argument is perfectly well founded, even based on your misreadings and fallacies.

If I posted anything incorrect then please correct me. — Mijin

Fallacies are not 'incorrect'. They are bad arguments. You:

1. Poisoned the well;
2. Made statements without backing (about an identifiable person);
3. Strawmanned.

Anti-Islam isn't racist. It isn't even bigoted. It's having a preference against a religion. Antichristian themes have been well-accepted across most of society (to the point of extremely offensive provocation) for decades. Nothing wrong with it.

The majority of claims about Robinson stem from reports. Not facts. He's clearly not the greatest spokesperson for anything, but these claims are just lazy and uninteresting.

Still not actually doing anything. Cool man. Perhaps just don't post in threads you have nothing to add to.

Right, and that's my point. I'm not sure how this fact can simply be smoothed over. — Leontiskos

It's a de facto part of a democracy. Having democracy and a justice state is just a safety valve (and something that gives legitimacy for power). The people (and their representatives) can still have quite illiberal tendencies. And one still needs for peace things like military deterrence.

Ideologies are fine when they are building blocks for actual policies. But if idealism and ideological purity is the only guiding light when you decide actual policies, you get zealots who basically throw the baby out with the bathwater and create enormous damage.

I've always said that if you would have a democracy that would be the closest to libertarian values, the libertarians themselves would be the ones very disappointed with the system. But that's their problem, not mine.

I've always said that if you would have a democracy that would be the closest to libertarian values, the libertarians themselves would be the ones very disappointed with the system. But that's their problem, not mine. — ssu

LOL. Yep.

As I pointed out in my first post to you, the issue is that liberalism provides no grounds for the preservation of the realm (and your example of martial law is but a single, more extreme, example of this). Combine this with the common liberal view that that which cannot be justified by liberalism is "very problematic," and you arrive at a remarkably deep level of political incoherence. The pure liberal can't justify martial law, but it's so much worse than that. The pure liberal can't even justify the distinction between citizens and non-citizens. Again, smoothing this over as if it were a minor problem with liberalism is wild.

As I pointed out in my first post to you, the issue is that liberalism provides no grounds for the preservation of the realm (and your example of martial law is but a single, more extreme, example of this). Combine this with the common liberal view that that which cannot be justified by liberalism is "very problematic," and you arrive at a remarkably deep level of political incoherence — Leontiskos

Given your dissatisfaction with liberalism, has there ever been an established political system in the world you can point to as your preferred alternative, or is this an ideal yet to be realized?

Combine this with the common liberal view that that which cannot be justified by liberalism is "very problematic," and you arrive at a remarkably deep level of political incoherence. The pure liberal can't justify martial law, but it's so much worse than that. The pure liberal can't even justify the distinction between citizens and non-citizens. Again, smoothing this over as if it were a minor problem with liberalism is wild. — Leontiskos

It's only a problem or incoherent when you take liberalism as the premis and then use logic to look at the consequences of what then all politics and laws should be like.

Even if you have liberalism, you also have collectivism, all the conservative and religious values etc that mold the behaviour of a society and these other ideas don't go, or have to go, hand-in-hand with liberalist ideology.

I think the real problem is that collectivism or ideologies based on the well being of the collective were utterly damaging nightmares in the 20th Century, namely Marxism-Leninism and Fascism/Nazism. Liberalism that starts from the individual has difficulties then to focus on the group or society as a whole. It simply assumes that as the society is made of individuals, then there's not much else than think of the society as just an aggregate of individuals. Well, people as part of a family or a larger group don't actually behave as the self-centered individual.