put away the thesaurus dude.

Yes, incitement is a bit murky. Any laws surrounding it should be carefully considered.

Yes, incitement is a bit murky. Any laws surrounding it should be carefully considered.

As they are by the authorities. Unfortunately the tabloid press and the populists don’t operate to the same high standards.

This is the issue which keeps coming up in this thread. That the row over free speech takes situations where incitement and racial prejudice are occurring in a public arena insisting that it is a free speech issue. It isn’t, it’s a public order issue. — Punshhh

You snuck racial prejudice in there. That isnt incitement. By Incitement I mean direct calls to violence. Expressing opinions other than that, no matter how much I disagree or am disgusted by, is free speech.

Where it occurs in private, not in a public arena it is allowed (within reason) and there are no restrictions on what you can say. But in a public space, it can be amplified by group activity and bad actors can use it to stir up a crowd. — Punshhh

Thats the responsibility of the bad actors and the crowd. As long as there is not a direct call to violence its free speech and I want it protected.

I think he was suggesting I was acting in bad faith, not you. — Punshhh

Ah, I see what he meant now.

As they are by the authorities. Unfortunately the tabloid press and the populists don’t operate to the same high standards. — Punshhh

Incitement is just as easily used as an excuse that shut down free speech when it is wielded as a weapon by press and authorities. Thats why its tricky with incitement, it becomes a tool of politics and culture wars. Bad actors in the press and in positions of authority are exactly the reason free speech is so so so important. Free speech protects all other rights and authoritarians, dictators etc always come for language and speech first.

Bad actors in the press and in positions of authority are exactly the reason free speech is so so so important. Free speech protects all other rights and authoritarians, dictators etc always come for language and speech first.

Quite, so it’s not applicable in the case of the U.K. then.

And with regard to the press, in the U.K. the press is shouting the loudest about protecting free speech. Unless, by the way it’s the kind of free speech they don’t like.

The UK is fucked on free speech. Its insane so many refuse to even admit there is a problem, but humans are gonna human what can you do?

You snuck racial prejudice in there.

Not snuck, it’s also a public order issue, because it spreads easily and once embedded is very difficult to dislodge. Take the case of the Southport riots, everyone rioting had strong feelings of racial prejudice. Racism has a peculiarly visceral, or primeval effect on people.

The UK is fucked on free speech. It’s insane so many refuse to even admit there is a problem, but humans are gonna human what can you do?

It isn’t, it’s a culture war fabrication whipped up by the tabloid media and populists.

Riots are the “public order” issue. Peoples feelings do not justify violence. Public order is maintained through laws other than free speech laws, like no rioting and violence and looting.

↪Alexander Hine put away the thesaurus dude. — flannel jesus

And the bovine beast that chews the straw once, chews it for a second time.

Riots are the “public order” issue. Peoples feelings do not justify violence. Public order is maintained through laws other than free speech laws, like no rioting and violence and looting.

And the riots were incited through social media groups and the tabloid press. Now what are the police supposed to do about that? Just sit back and let the mob just roam around on the streets?

In the U.K. the authorities seem powerless when the ring leaders are politicians, or Media moguls. Either there aren’t the requisite powers in place, or they won’t go near them for fear of a backlash and greater public disorder.

It is commonplace for the authorities to label an issue political and then just leave it alone taking no action. So rather than the authorities clamping down, or repressing free speech. The opposite is happening. Political free speech is left alone, even when it is inciting a breakdown in public order, or crossing a line into racial prejudice. Leaving the authorities only able to deal with offenders when they commit criminal offences.

This is where the breakdown is happening. So infact free speech is alive and well in the U.K. and now includes incitement, where it is labelled political and racism because it’s alright for people to be racist if they have legitimate concerns about immigration. Infact it seems to be a greater offence in the media space for someone to accuse someone of being racist, than to actually be racist.

So…no problem to see here.

So…no problem to see here.

That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying it isn’t about free speech, but rather about public order and the authorities grappling with the recent developments in social media. While trying not to get drawn into political rows.

So…no problem with free speech to see here.

So…no problem with free speech to see here.

I answered that earlier in the thread;

As a person on the ground I can’t think of any speech, which wasn’t already taboo, being restricted in the population. What there is is some cancellation in University speaking events around sensitive issues such as gender, transsexuality, issues which have been exploited by the populists and some political correctness around these issues in institutions. These are limited circumstances and forums, while the public at large has no restriction at all on their free speech.

If you can give an example of speech which is becoming more restricted I’d be interested to know. Then we would have something to debate.