6 ms·

We do not. There are so many caveats in relevant part of the human rights act. > The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibi

We do not. There are so many caveats in relevant part of the human rights act. > 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 rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part... While the US has restrictions on speech, there are far far fewer restrictions. The "uncodified constitution" that we have doesn't guarantee you "Freedom of Speech" either. I've read the relevant parts of the constitution in the UK. It gives Parliamentarians the right to unlimited speech. Finally "Freedom of Expression" and "Freedom of Speech" are not the same thing.

weavejester 1y ago
Speech is a form of expression; freedom of expression encompasses freedom of speech. To quote from the link you provided: "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." As you point out, all countries have some restrictions on speech. We can obviously agree that somewhere like North Korea has no freedom of speech, in the same way we can agree the Moon is clearly outside our atmosphere. But in the margins it comes down to where you draw the line. There's also a difference when it comes to theory and practice. In theory the US is more permissive; it lacks the ECHR's caveats that permit restricting speech to protect health, morals and territorial integrity. But in practice the US is rated as coming below the UK in the World Press Freedom Index and the Freedom of Expression Index. The US government has a lot of power to lean on organisations and individuals to stifle speech, which of course it's currently doing.
- RumourRider 1y ago
  No freedom of expression is a nebulous term that was invented obfuscate the very discussion we are having. It consider it to be nothing more than weasel words. Pointing at extreme examples like North Korea and pretending their isn't an issue because we are better them is classic whataboutism. I also don't care about what some random index that people pull out of their backsides. I care about the legality. Freedom of Speech in the US is enshrined in the constitution. It is not enshrined anywhere in UK law. As for the section you quoted, that is made effectively moot by the exceptions that I originally quoted. Generally I am pretty tired of people engaging in apologia for the British state.
  - weavejester 1y ago
    So your argument is that if we define freedom of speech according to US law, then only the US has freedom of speech? I mean, I agree with you on that, but it's a circular argument. My comparison to North Korea wasn't whataboutism; it was intended to illustrate that while there are obvious points for agreement (i.e. that the DPRK obviously has no freedom of speech), for many countries the comparison is less black and white. Which restrictions on free speech can you accept and still call it free speech? I also respectfully disagree with you that only legality matters. If a government is actively punishing those who speak against it, even if it is strictly legal for them to do so, then I'd question whether that country is has freer speech in practice. Few developed countries have a government as hostile to the press as the current US administration! I certainly don't align with the British government on many issues, encryption backdoors being one of them, but framing free speech as a binary is, I think, ultimately unhelpful. All countries have restrictions on speech, and drawing a line upon what is in reality a gradient over-simplifies the issue. I personally agree that morality and territorial integrity aren't adequate reasons to restrict speech, and I'd say that a country without those restrictions has freer speech (from a legal perspective) than those with them. But again, it's a relative comparison; I wouldn't say that a country had no free speech if they did have those restrictions.
    - RumourRider 1y ago
      > So your argument is that if we define freedom of speech according to US law, then only the US has freedom of speech? No. My point is that in the UK we do not have freedom of speech enshrined in constitution or law. I believe Freedom of Expression is weasel words to obfuscate the conversation as now you have an additional legal concept in the mix, with some nebulous definition that reads like a Terms and Conditions from one of the big tech players. That is it. > My comparison to North Korea wasn't whataboutism; it was intended to illustrate that while there are obvious points for agreement (i.e. that the DPRK obviously has no freedom of speech), for many countries the comparison is less black and white. Which restrictions on free speech can you accept and still call it free speech? It is the fact that it is brought up at all is engaging in whataboutism. Why are you even mentioning NK? Why do you care what old Kim Jong does? Really think about why you are even mentioning North Korea. I don't expect or want an answer BTW. > I also respectfully disagree with you that only legality matters. If a government is actively punishing those who speak against it, even if it is strictly legal for them to do so, then I'd question whether that country is has freer speech in practice. Few developed countries have a government as hostile to the press as the current US administration! I don't care about the left/right slop politics. I don't care who the "villian of the week" is. Most politics is presented to you in the same way as Scooby Doo. Why do you care about what Donald Trump is doing in the US? Please actually think about why you are even mentioning it. I don't expect (or want) an answer BTW. > I certainly don't align with the British government on many issues, encryption backdoors being one of them, but framing free speech as a binary is, I think, ultimately unhelpful. All countries have restrictions on speech, and drawing a line upon what is in reality a gradient over-simplifies the issue The very fact that you are making this argument about gradients of freedom, and everyone has restrictions etc. Is literally the issue. The conversation about it has been obfuscated deliberately. I don't care what restrictions they have in France, NK, China or anywhere else. That is their business. I care about the restrictions in the UK, why they exist and whether they are valid. As for the encryption back-doors, why do you think they actually want to do it? GCHQ just happens to be looking for more developers BTW! I know this for a fact because I had one of their recruiters phone me. I told him what I thought about the British state and not to ever call me again.
- Aloisius 1y ago
  Neither the World Press Freedom Index nor the Freedom of Expression Index are particularly good measures of government restrictions on individual's speech. The former includes things like how much editorial control journalists are subjected to, the right of journalists to unionize, the cost to print/distribute newspapers, whether journalists are subject to economic constraints (like being dependent on advertising money), etc. The later is not only far more opaque in how it measures things, relying on a panel of country-specific experts, but it also more press/media related and includes things like media bias and print/media perspectives which is more about diversity of press opinion than freedom of expression (arguably, media bias shouldn't negative affect a freedom of expression index unless it is government imposed). A more objective comparison of freedom of expression/speech would rate how the government would respond to specific instances of public and private speech - like say calling for the king/president/prime minister/etc. to be replaced, posting nudes (or going nude), blaspheme a particular religion, publishing embarrassing and reputation harming information about a celebrity/someone powerful/a judge/a religious figure, playing loud music outside, refusing to speak when ordered to by a police/judge/legislature/ruler, wearing the clothes various sexes, etc. It might be difficult to create perfectly equivalent speech across countries, but I think one could get close enough.
  - weavejester 1y ago
    I'm not sure I buy that we can entirely separate the freedoms of journalists from the freedoms of individuals; but I do like your idea of coming up with a list of criteria for measuring the freedom of speech for individuals. It seems a useful point of comparison. Where I think you'd need to be careful is in weighting the criteria.
  - RumourRider 1y ago
    These Indexes exist so that people (that may have an agenda) can point to it and say "well we aren't as bad as these other places" and can dismiss the actual issues that exist.

weavejester 1y ago

Speech is a form of expression; freedom of expression encompasses freedom of speech. To quote from the link you provided: "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." As you point out, all countries have some restrictions on speech. We can obviously agree that somewhere like North Korea has no freedom of speech, in the same way we can agree the Moon is clearly outside our atmosphere. But in the margins it comes down to where you draw the line. There's also a difference when it comes to theory and practice. In theory the US is more permissive; it lacks the ECHR's caveats that permit restricting speech to protect health, morals and territorial integrity. But in practice the US is rated as coming below the UK in the World Press Freedom Index and the Freedom of Expression Index. The US government has a lot of power to lean on organisations and individuals to stifle speech, which of course it's currently doing.

RumourRider 1y ago
No freedom of expression is a nebulous term that was invented obfuscate the very discussion we are having. It consider it to be nothing more than weasel words. Pointing at extreme examples like North Korea and pretending their isn't an issue because we are better them is classic whataboutism. I also don't care about what some random index that people pull out of their backsides. I care about the legality. Freedom of Speech in the US is enshrined in the constitution. It is not enshrined anywhere in UK law. As for the section you quoted, that is made effectively moot by the exceptions that I originally quoted. Generally I am pretty tired of people engaging in apologia for the British state.
- weavejester 1y ago
  So your argument is that if we define freedom of speech according to US law, then only the US has freedom of speech? I mean, I agree with you on that, but it's a circular argument. My comparison to North Korea wasn't whataboutism; it was intended to illustrate that while there are obvious points for agreement (i.e. that the DPRK obviously has no freedom of speech), for many countries the comparison is less black and white. Which restrictions on free speech can you accept and still call it free speech? I also respectfully disagree with you that only legality matters. If a government is actively punishing those who speak against it, even if it is strictly legal for them to do so, then I'd question whether that country is has freer speech in practice. Few developed countries have a government as hostile to the press as the current US administration! I certainly don't align with the British government on many issues, encryption backdoors being one of them, but framing free speech as a binary is, I think, ultimately unhelpful. All countries have restrictions on speech, and drawing a line upon what is in reality a gradient over-simplifies the issue. I personally agree that morality and territorial integrity aren't adequate reasons to restrict speech, and I'd say that a country without those restrictions has freer speech (from a legal perspective) than those with them. But again, it's a relative comparison; I wouldn't say that a country had no free speech if they did have those restrictions.
  - RumourRider 1y ago
    > So your argument is that if we define freedom of speech according to US law, then only the US has freedom of speech? No. My point is that in the UK we do not have freedom of speech enshrined in constitution or law. I believe Freedom of Expression is weasel words to obfuscate the conversation as now you have an additional legal concept in the mix, with some nebulous definition that reads like a Terms and Conditions from one of the big tech players. That is it. > My comparison to North Korea wasn't whataboutism; it was intended to illustrate that while there are obvious points for agreement (i.e. that the DPRK obviously has no freedom of speech), for many countries the comparison is less black and white. Which restrictions on free speech can you accept and still call it free speech? It is the fact that it is brought up at all is engaging in whataboutism. Why are you even mentioning NK? Why do you care what old Kim Jong does? Really think about why you are even mentioning North Korea. I don't expect or want an answer BTW. > I also respectfully disagree with you that only legality matters. If a government is actively punishing those who speak against it, even if it is strictly legal for them to do so, then I'd question whether that country is has freer speech in practice. Few developed countries have a government as hostile to the press as the current US administration! I don't care about the left/right slop politics. I don't care who the "villian of the week" is. Most politics is presented to you in the same way as Scooby Doo. Why do you care about what Donald Trump is doing in the US? Please actually think about why you are even mentioning it. I don't expect (or want) an answer BTW. > I certainly don't align with the British government on many issues, encryption backdoors being one of them, but framing free speech as a binary is, I think, ultimately unhelpful. All countries have restrictions on speech, and drawing a line upon what is in reality a gradient over-simplifies the issue The very fact that you are making this argument about gradients of freedom, and everyone has restrictions etc. Is literally the issue. The conversation about it has been obfuscated deliberately. I don't care what restrictions they have in France, NK, China or anywhere else. That is their business. I care about the restrictions in the UK, why they exist and whether they are valid. As for the encryption back-doors, why do you think they actually want to do it? GCHQ just happens to be looking for more developers BTW! I know this for a fact because I had one of their recruiters phone me. I told him what I thought about the British state and not to ever call me again.
Aloisius 1y ago
Neither the World Press Freedom Index nor the Freedom of Expression Index are particularly good measures of government restrictions on individual's speech. The former includes things like how much editorial control journalists are subjected to, the right of journalists to unionize, the cost to print/distribute newspapers, whether journalists are subject to economic constraints (like being dependent on advertising money), etc. The later is not only far more opaque in how it measures things, relying on a panel of country-specific experts, but it also more press/media related and includes things like media bias and print/media perspectives which is more about diversity of press opinion than freedom of expression (arguably, media bias shouldn't negative affect a freedom of expression index unless it is government imposed). A more objective comparison of freedom of expression/speech would rate how the government would respond to specific instances of public and private speech - like say calling for the king/president/prime minister/etc. to be replaced, posting nudes (or going nude), blaspheme a particular religion, publishing embarrassing and reputation harming information about a celebrity/someone powerful/a judge/a religious figure, playing loud music outside, refusing to speak when ordered to by a police/judge/legislature/ruler, wearing the clothes various sexes, etc. It might be difficult to create perfectly equivalent speech across countries, but I think one could get close enough.
- weavejester 1y ago
  I'm not sure I buy that we can entirely separate the freedoms of journalists from the freedoms of individuals; but I do like your idea of coming up with a list of criteria for measuring the freedom of speech for individuals. It seems a useful point of comparison. Where I think you'd need to be careful is in weighting the criteria.
- RumourRider 1y ago
  These Indexes exist so that people (that may have an agenda) can point to it and say "well we aren't as bad as these other places" and can dismiss the actual issues that exist.