Claudius

Why does it say in the sticky in this section that no law gives us the right to freedom of speech?

Phil

I guess because there isn't a law that says we have freedom of speach

just a guess mind

Claudius

of course there is

Phil

Go on then quote the Act

When Simon/Shaun posted that I spent a while scouring my legal books [Did A Level law a long long time ago] and I couldn't find it

Freedom of speach is fine, but you could sue me if I said Claudius is a **** and I beleive Simon/Shaun will correct me here but if I say it on THEIR BBS they can also be bought to account unless they remove it as soon as it is bought to their attention

so no freedom of speach then !!

Trashman

Suggest you run up & down outside Buck Palace and shout insults at the queen and add all IMHO afterwards. The only thing free is probably a trip to the tower

Think it's a common misconception - don't think even the 4th(?) amendment in the US actually gives you true freedom to say what you want.

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Probably is but only if you don't incite racial hatred, defame etc etc - so, no, there is no freedom of speech taken as a whole concept of the intention of those words.

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

& this is the SNP section and is not a general discussion forum so this is going to NSR...

Claudius

Damn, you make me search the net!

Human Rights Act 1998, article 10:



Article 10: Freedom of Expression Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

From what I understand from searching the web, this article is enforced locally (ie. in the UK) but the supreme authority is the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Someone correct me if that's not quite right.


I'm not sure I could sue you for saying the above, but obviously freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom to slander.

PS: try searching for speech with ee instead of ea, it may turn up more results

Phil

Found this
United Nations General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. (1.) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information an ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. (2.) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. (Article X, European Convention on Human Rights, Rome, 4.XI.1950) Freedom of speech and censorship are often phrased as opposite sides of a continuum th

tucker101uk

In america they have what is called the first amendment - which is a clause in the constitution of rights...which says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Which basically gives people/press the right to say or print what they damned well want, within reason. Depending on which judge you get, they may believe in this absolutely, or categorically - for example, should you enter into a contract with a hitman, and shout 'FIRE' in a crowded room...this could be viewed as unprotected under the first amendment...

Unfortunately in England i dont think we have such a law...

Phil

Got caught on the phone

But is it LAW its a resolution

Claudius

Apologes to those who discovered this in NSR. This thread was originally placed in "Scoobynet Policy", where the sticky I am referring to is placed. PTMW moved it here.

Phil

So basically I do not have Freedom of Speech

There is always a but

Freedom of speech but I can't call Claudius a **** [ no offence ]

Good thread BTW

gsm1

Why, does Buju Banton want to join SN?

tucker101uk

I could find out, but it would take weeks of trawling through my law text books, and doewn at the local library looking over the archives of English Civil Law!!!!

Claudius

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 says you do.


I dont know, but personally I dont mind you calling me a ****, you ****

Claudius

Naa, he has got a big black Merc with tinted windows and 20 inch chrome wheels

Trashman

So is it freedom to say what you like as long as you don't break the law in doing so? Doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

And I think you could sue Phil for defamation(sp?) of chararacter, even though he may genuinely have that opinion of you. (not saying he does BTW)

However, I could probably quote the human rights act if I asked, "are you a ****" even if said in a tone to imply that was my opinion.

Be careful what you quote from these posts

tucker101uk

Actually, techincally it doesnt.... it reads:

Shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority.

So this could be read in two ways, i could read, you are allowed to have personal opinions, which you are allowed to share amongst people, however you are not freely able to say things or broadcast things which are statements of 'fact'.

Article 19.

Defamation laws in many parts of the world severely curtail the publication or broadcasting of information in the public interest and even, in some cases, actual speaking of opinions.
The term ‘defamation’ is a convenient shorthand for a whole category of laws which restrict freedom of expression, purportedly to protect reputations. These restrictions go by many names, including slander, libel, insult and desacato laws. The precise label is unimportant – the issue here is how to strike the right balance between protecting reputations and dignity, on the one hand, and freedom of expression on the other.

Harsh defamation laws usually lead journalists to err on the side of caution - deciding to 'self-censor' and avoid publishing or broadcasting rather than risk the cost and inconvenience of a court case and associated punishments. This is particularly common where allegations of corruption or wrongdoing, including by public officials, are involved.

Even when journalists win cases, challenging accusations in court can be costly. The Guardian newspaper in Britain, for example, had three high-profile defamation cases in 1997, all of which it won. Despite this, it lost money and staff time and, in one instance, was not able to collect the £1m the court awarded to it from the other party.

IWatkins

There is no law in this country that stops you saying what you want and how you want. That is fundemental, the state doesn't prevent you from opening your mouth and allowing words to come out.

It is just when other people hear what you say when the problems start. As although the state doesn't control your freedom to speak, it does control what you are allowed to say. i.e. a load of laws come into play, e.g. Race Discrimination Act, Official Secrets Act, slander laws etc. etc.

Cheers

Ian

Chris L

Technically speaking (in the UK at least) - the only place that freedom of speech really exists is the House of Commons where an MP can use absolute Parliamentary Privilege to voice his / her opinion on any topic without fear of prosecution (this goes back to the 1689 Bill of Rights) - although even this has been challenged in the European Court of Human Rights.

As far as I know or undertsand, there is no actual law that enshrines the right to freedom of speech. I can say in my opinion (for instance) that I thought company A treated me badly - no problem. However I couldn't say company A were a bunch of robbing b******* who ripped me and my mates off - without some kind of evidence. The company (or individual) would be entitled to sue me (and importantly, the media used to repeat the libel - in this example, Scoobynet) for libel if the second statement wasn't true.

tucker101uk

well mumbling about your Mum for not letting to you stay up and watch the powerpuff girls whilst trudging up the stairs (she cant hear you!) isnt exactly defamation or slander is it!?!?

However if she heard you, she could press charges.... exactly as Ian says. Its a very shady subject, and there are organisations out there fighting for total freedom of speech.

Brendan Hughes

The words you should be looking at are "without interference by public authority". It's to stop political interference.

The government can't stop you saying certain things.

The webmaster, as a private authority owning (?) this BBS, certainly can.

If someone walked into your house and called you a tosser, do you think he could claim freedom of speech when you took retaliatory action? Of course not.

jasey

No but If someone came into your house to rob you and he got injured he could (and this has heppened) Sue you for his injuries - I guess you could alway say - But Officer he called me a to$$er so I hit him with my baseball bat .

I'm not trying to compare Shaun with a Burglar or Baseball bat wielding homeowner and nothing I have said represents the views of ScoobyNet or any of it's subsidiary companies.

Brendan Hughes

Ah, but then I'd claim freedom of expression

Leslie

Fascinating subject and more to it than meets the eye.

I suppose you can't be stopped by the authorities for saying what you like but the worry is what they might do to you for saying it!

Les

jasey

Not sure if "Battering someone with a baseball bat" would be considered expressing yourself.

No Burglars were harmed during the construction of these posts.

Diablo

The point is that although you have freedom to speak, there are many other laws that take prevelance over your right to do so.

So there is legislation that allows you to say what you want. There is also legislation that will kick your **** for doing so

Brit_in_Japan

Client: Can I say Tony Blair is a liar?
Solicitor: If you did that he could sue you for slander.
Client: Can I think Tony Blair is a liar?
Solicitor: Of course, you have the freedom to think whatever you like.
Client: In that case I think Tony Blair is a liar!

Ian Hislop, who has a richer working knowledge of the libel/slander laws is very careful what he says on HIGNFY, "allegedly" is a word used alot which seems to keep the solicitors at bay.


Note: names are used for illustrative purposes only, any references to any persons living or dead are purely coincidental

RB5_245

How on earth can something you say have an immediate effect on health!?

I can see the headline now 'Man dead after phone call'



Dave