Freedom of Speech in the UK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

I don't think we're talking about outright insults, but an expression of opinion

---

But what if I am of the opinion that his mum is a xxxx?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans

Ringing someone with the express intetion of using phrases guaranteed to cause them offence is not the same thing as this.

---

Perhaps. However I said "Free speech does not mean that you can say anything to anyone and expect them to listen and smile at you while you insult them" which is true (in my mind anyway). For once I actually agree with Tamburello.

The preacher had some pretty unpleasant views, but so long as he was expressing them peacefully he's entitled to them. The question is whether he overstepped the mark and became threatening or caused a disturbance, which is a whole separate issue.

I've a feeling this case will never see the inside of a courtroom, the PCSO will be retrained, and the papers will carry on sensationalising relatively trivial stories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans

Ringing someone with the express intetion of using phrases guaranteed to cause them offence is not the same thing as this.

---

The bloke was stupid though, he has his beliefs (fair enough even if I don't agree) but when a policeman announces that he's gay most people would have the common sense not to say "it's still a sin" in the same way that I wouldn't say that I think most BiB are ignorant and bitter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Brockman

The preacher had some pretty unpleasant views, but so long as he was expressing them peacefully he's entitled to them. The question is whether he overstepped the mark and became threatening or caused a disturbance, which is a whole separate issue.

---

Is there not a crossover point where the PCSO should be allowed to carry out his duty without being told that he's a sinner? I don't completely agree with locking the bloke up but I can see why he was and believe that he brought it on himself in a stupid manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Jan Yeo

Is there not a crossover point where the PCSO should be allowed to carry out his duty without being told that he's a sinner?

---

He should have eloquently put the man in his place and moved on. Prison cells are not for well-meaning old men with nutty religious views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Nice one.

I've got some choice Italian phrases guaranteed to cause offence.

Can I have your mothers phone number?

After all, it's my right to insult her, so refusing to allow me to do so is a gross violation of my freedom of speech.

---

2 different things.

You have every right to insult anyone. Of course Slander or libel can be addressed in a civil court.

I also retain the right to pop your melon if you do.

I have a question for those who approve of the arrest.

Where do you stop? Do you arrest somebody who says that the Muslim practice of stoning for infidelity is evil because it upsets Muslims?

Do you arrest me if I say Susan Boyle sucks?

Where does it stops? You can't have it both ways!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

But what if I am of the opinion that his mum is a xxxx?

---

I don't think you'd deserve to get arrested.

If you get slugged in the face, well, then that's a different matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

It isn't a right like it is in the US Constitution......that is unique...

---

Free Speech IS a right in the UK. In fact it dates right back to before the creation of the United States itself. The reason why the US has the Right to Free Speech is because it was already a right in the UK.

Bill of Rights Act 1689:
- That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

The United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and in fact the whole of the British Empire inherited the right to free speech from this act.

Furthermore:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

You have every right to insult anyone. Of course Slander or libel can be addressed in a civil court.

---

Mr Vop is 100% correct. We've even seen in Australia just this week, that even Slander is acceptable provided the conditions are "normal"

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/its...-1225861843616
a local court magistrate in Sydney ruled yesterday that the word "prick" was part of the everyday vernacular as he cleared a university student of an offensive language charge.
...
Mr Williams said he wasn't satisfied that a "reasonable person" would be offended by the word prick in general conversation.

It's also of note that the preacher Dale McAlpine wasn't charged under the provisions of free speech, but rather was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress”. This is precisely the same sort of question legally as Gordon Brown calling that lady a "bigot". Did it cause her “harassment, alarm or distress”?

Quite frankly a preacher being arrested for openly stating his moral beliefs is disgusting. I sincerely hope that this case gets thrown out before it ever reaches a court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Free Speech IS a right in the UK. In fact it dates right back to before the creation of the United States itself. The reason why the US has the Right to Free Speech is because it was already a right in the UK.

Bill of Rights Act 1689:
- That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

The United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and in fact the whole of the British Empire inherited the right to free speech from this act.

Furthermore:


Mr Vop is 100% correct. We've even seen in Australia just this week, that even Slander is acceptable provided the conditions are "normal"

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/its...-1225861843616
a local court magistrate in Sydney ruled yesterday that the word "prick" was part of the everyday vernacular as he cleared a university student of an offensive language charge.
...
Mr Williams said he wasn't satisfied that a "reasonable person" would be offended by the word prick in general conversation.

It's also of note that the preacher Dale McAlpine wasn't charged under the provisions of free speech, but rather was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress”. This is precisely the same sort of question legally as Gordon Brown calling that lady a "bigot". Did it cause her “harassment, alarm or distress”?

Quite frankly a preacher being arrested for openly stating his moral beliefs is disgusting. I sincerely hope that this case gets thrown out before it ever reaches a court.

---

Rollo..remind me to just consult you on legalities...you did put it all in perspective. Our Constitution doesn't say in specific words that free speech is protected in anyone clause, not clear like the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, hence my confusion.

I did know that the British common law and legal traditions are very much part of the legal system in both our nations (and the Anzac's as well) but didn't know that clause.