minininja wrote:Part of the problem I think is the power of communications technology like youtube. It's not like making a joke down your local pub. It's like making a joke in everyone's local pub, and town hall, and living rooms. It's difficult to know how to handle it the potential reach it has.

I read some thoughtful comments on this by Robin Ince here.

You are removing the context of a wind up directed at your girlfriend at the moment of making it public.

You are removing your friends’ knowledge that you are a decent liberal guy. You are now someone sat opposite a dog saying “gas the Jews” for a laugh. To this new audience, you may no longer be the man you know you are.
You are in an arena filled with anti-semitic abuse and heavy with holocaust denial.

I don't agree. He's mistaking the context for the medium. Saying that you can't joke about the Nazis on the Holocaust on Youtube is like saying that uploading the infamous Fawlty Towers episode to Youtube would be problematic (for reasons other than copyright) because some people on Youtube are holocaust deniers. But it wouldn't, because the context is built up throughout the episode and even the series to the point that when Basil does something incredibly offensive and racist, you are laughing at the ridiculousness of him as a character. Now obviously this comedian doesn't build the context up as skillfully as John Cleese, but it is clearly established at the start of the video. And call me old-fashioned, but I don't think that people should be convicted of a hate crime because of their lack of skill as a writer.

But as Jonathan Pie mentioned above, the prosecution even said that context and intent were irrelevant. It's basically saying that someone can be convicted if another person (possibly hearing it out of context) is too stupid to follow the logic of what they are doing and then gets offended by it, or if, and this is exactly what the prosecution did, deliberately misunderstands it.

I'm logging off for the evening. I thought I'd just leave this here first.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12139150

Oddly topical again.

CarlPierce wrote:When people from the 'offended' group start defending the comic i.e David Baddiel it is clear that there is more than enough reasonable doubt regarding the nature of the 'offense' even if giving 'offense' is somehow criminal. This conviction is unsafe as well as being unjust. Certainly NOT in the public interest either.

Again, I'll just disagree on the premises if not the conclusion here. There are plenty of gay people whose views on what constitutes homophobia I couldn't be paid to hear. If them coming forward with their views of a situation created reasonable doubt, then almost nothing would count as homophobia. And in Baddiel's case, we have some actual words from him and they don't seem to amount to much yet. The norms of and around Nazism, anti-Semitism, white supremacy, fascism, etc, have changed. "Edgy" humour (often about Nazism and WW2 crimes), "it's just a joke", irony, and also free speech activism, these are all things you can hear from them.

Thommo wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:It's not a representation of an argument, but a principle. My principle is exactly the same, minus the caveat that this human right can be applied or removed, as suits someone in a position of authority.

Ok, I wonder if anyone holds this version of the principle as you have stated it.

I also wonder whether the value of being able to argue from what you called first principles is significant. All versions of the harm principle have caveats, even those as broad as Mill's conception.

What is clearly wrong is the idea that this or similar laws take into consideration what individual people feel offended by. When a law says that something is offensive, it will not consider the feelings of individual people but what an objective observer would consider offensive, i.e. what is the social norm.

A parallel can be drawn to laws regulating lewd behaviour in public. For example

§ 2601. Lewd and lascivious conduct

A person guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior shall be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than $300.00, or both.

https://legislature.vermont.gov/statute ... /059/02601

Now, what behaviour is considered lewd or lascivious does not depend on what an individual person thinks about the question, but what is the current norm in society.

NineBerry wrote:
Now, what behaviour is considered lewd or lascivious does not depend on what an individual person thinks about the question, but what is the current norm in society.

[Doing my best Jordan Peterson imitation] The current norm in society (you know the one I mean) is that everyone is a special snowflake -- who won't stand up straight and put zer shoulders back. Ze's asking to be bullied so ze'll have a casus belli. Oh, wait. No gender-neutral pronouns. Fuck it. Who knows what anyone's gender is these days? The chaotic feminine is situated squarely in the first three letters of the word 'sheeple'.

NineBerry wrote:What is clearly wrong is the idea that this or similar laws take into consideration what individual people feel offended by. When a law says that something is offensive, it will not consider the feelings of individual people but what an objective observer would consider offensive, i.e. what is the social norm.

That's a very valid point, and I think that is how it's done, more or less.

Nonetheless the judge and prosecutor are still making a subjective judgement of what that norm is and a subjective judgement of how the material compares to that norm. Certainly the allegation that context does not matter doesn't appear to be drawn from any societal norm I would recognise.

I'm reminded of the famous archetypal quote of the legal profession being out of touch with societal norms: "...when you have read it through, would you approve of your young sons, young daughters – because girls can read as well as boys – reading this book? Is it a book that you would have lying around in your own house? Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?"

I read an article today in the times today about another free speech case:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... -rm387fjdb

Most recent article I can find from another source online is not from a neutral source:
https://www.spuc.org.uk/news/news-stori ... ife-leader

I'm actually interested (in that I genuinely do not know) as to how some of the people here articulating a strong preference for a strong version of the principle of free speech feel about this case. It strikes me as both less threatening and less hateful than Meechan's case from the little I've read, but I can't say I'm happy with people using abortion clinics as their venue for conducting this discussion.

I would say that is a different matter entirely because in that case the speech is actually directly confronting people. It is more a case of coercion than of banned speech.

NineBerry wrote:I would say that is a different matter entirely because in that case the speech is actually directly confronting people. It is more a case of coercion than of banned speech.

How is it coercive?

Intimidating someone who wants to enter a specific building

Ok, then how is it intimidating? I realise we can't take the word of the group themselves as gospel, but they do claim:

"Nowhere in the Court documents is there any suggestion that Dr Edwards or any other participant in the vigil has said or done anything abusive or insulting to anyone visiting or working in the Hospital," she continued. "The documents provided by the Council to the Court actually acknowledge that our Vigil has been completely peaceful at all times and that any disturbance has been created by pro-abortion counter protesters. This has been confirmed in writing by the police so it is difficult to understand why the Council have chosen to target a respected member of a peaceful vigil."

And I haven't been able to find any information contradicting that, so I'd be interested to know why you think otherwise.

I'll just add a few words regarding my own opinion: I don't see this as more offensive than what Meechan did, I don't see what they are doing as coercive, or intimidating and I don't see it as less of an infringement on absolute free speech. There is a difference, which is the one Purplerat (I think) articulated earlier - that the "offended" or perhaps in this case "psychologically pressured" group cannot avoid this speech entirely, they can only ignore it.

Perhaps that is the dividing line? It's certainly a difference between a physical vigil and a Youtube video. But either way, Ricky Gervais may say that you can't believe in free speech without supporting people's right to say things you might think are grossly offensive. I still disagree with him, and this case appears to be another example.

Seeking an abortion is, usually, a very difficult and traumatic experience for a woman. A stressful experience where ideally, most women would like to be free of additional stress and where they can receive the service in a discrete manner.

A group outside protesting the service, no matter how peaceful they might be, is only going to add to the trauma of the experience for the women. Whilst the vigil may not have intended to intimidate anyone, it will almost certainly have been intimidating to women seeking to access services and this is something that those involved in the vigil will have been aware of as a possible consequence of their actions.

Their right to free speech doesn't mean that their are entitled to a platform or a space for that speech.

Individuals seeking abortion services certainly have a right and an expectation, to be able to seek those services in such a way that minimises the stress of their difficult experience. I am honestly shocked the council has not already punted the whole bloody vigil away from that area.

I agree with you, what I'm trying to do is tease out the differences between the situations. Matthew* (for example) assured me this was a matter of principle, that for him Free Speech is a solid first principle from which you can build a framework and that when you start adding exceptions you take away the solidity of that first principle foundation.

We've also seen several articles and posts which make clear that they object to the subjectivity involved in deciding what is offensive, and also people reject the idea of vulnerable or at risk groups (and thereby saying there's no difference between how offensive the Meechan video is to Jews and how offensive it is to Nazis - indeed several posters, not necessarily overlapping with that group, have said it's more offensive to Nazis, which I have found utterly baffling, although my incredulity means precisely nothing of course).

I think you and I, Sendraks, and possibly Nineberry don't agree with those assertions and probably do feel that vulnerable groups cannot be ignored, and that history of pressure, racism, abuse or whatever else is a relevant factor. I'd definitely take that into account in the abortion case and consequently accept your argument about the stress and difficulty of the experience and therefore accept this as a limit on free speech. I'm not sure how you square that circle if you take a much stronger line on the harm principle and the foundational or axiomatic value of free speech.

There is one sentence in the post that, whilst I don't disagree, am certain does not apply and is worth a mention:

Sendraks wrote:Their right to free speech doesn't mean that their are entitled to a platform or a space for that speech.

They are not demanding they be given a space. They are using a public space, that without interference is accessible by all. What they are asking is that nobody (well, the government and law specifically does not) interferes. It is us who are disagreeing, and saying that their default rights be overridden by the harm that (we perceive that) they are causing.

*And I apologise to you Matthew if I've taken your name in vain or you don't feel that sentence accurately paraphrases the view you described, please correct me or elaborate if it's inaccurate.

Or maybe the Holocaust just isn't far enough in the past. A few centuries ago, joking that "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" might have ruffled a few feathers, both of inquisitors and their victims. I guess you'd have to look at some 500-year-old jokes and try to figure out how norms may have changed.

It's probably true that the law is used more these days to try to even the playing field, whatever that means, than it ever has been before. But because applications have been tried, it gives someone else the idea of claiming something unfair is proceeding.

You'd draw the line at making it too difficult to petition, but it might be too late for that.

While I'm not entirely sure about how I feel about the specific cases listed above I do see the argument for limiting protests in front of abortion clinics from the perspective that seeking medical care is also a right so it becomes a case of conflicting rights.

A comparable situation might be limiting speech in polling places (i.e. prohibiting campaigning within x number of feet of a polling place on election day) to ensure that the right to vote is being preserved.

purplerat wrote:A comparable situation might be limiting speech in polling places (i.e. prohibiting campaigning within x number of feet of a polling place on election day) to ensure that the right to vote is being preserved.

I'm just wondering whether we have such a prohibition here. You categorically cannot campaign inside a polling station, but I'm not sure there's any restriction on the use of public spaces outside. A quick google search shows this:

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/ ... ersion.pdf

3 Campaigning outside polling places
3.1 Campaigners should be allowed to put their messages to voters on polling day, including in public spaces outside polling places.
3.2 Campaigners should keep access to polling places and the pavements around polling places clear to allow voters to enter.

I'm not sure if there are more restrictions.

ETA: This too:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/_ ... n-LGEW.pdf

You must not:
•Campaign near polling stations in a way that could be seen by voters as aggressive or intimidating (for example, large groups of supporters carrying banners, or vehicles with loudspeakers or heavily branded with campaign material).
•Breach the requirements on secrecy of the ballot. This is an essential part of any modern democracy and breaches are taken seriously.
•In particular, if you (or your agents) are attending postal vote opening sessions, you must not seek to identify and publicise how votes have been marked on individual ballot papers.Tellers are volunteers for candidates who stand outside polling stations and record the elector numbers of electors who have voted.
•Before the close of poll, publish exit polls or any other data based on information given by people about how they voted after they have cast their vote, including a postal vote.

Thommo wrote:They are not demanding they be given a space.

If they are planning to contest the councils decision, then yes they are demanding that they have that space. They're just doing it in a post-hoc way. I'd be very surprised if this was something they'd not been prepared to do from the outset.

Thommo wrote:It is us who are disagreeing, and saying that their default rights be overridden by the harm that (we perceive that) they are causing.

I agree that it hinges on the perception of harm being done, something which I do not have evidence on. If that particular service has seen a drop off in use during the course of the vigil that goes against what they'd normally expect to see, then regardless of the "peaceful" nature of the vigil, it would be having an impact on women seeking a critical service. Seeking medical care is a right after all and if a women is deterred from seeking this service, her right is potentially being infringed.

Most babies are born in September. Most women notice they are pregnant five to six weeks after conceiving. Most abortions in the UK happen at 3-9 weeks. So this protest, which I note is happening because it coincides with lent, is happening at a time of year when potentially demand for this particular service is highest.

Sendraks wrote:
Most babies are born in September.

Not to derail, but this is a statement, right? Or is something really weird going on where almost all of the fucking in the UK happens within a few weeks?

Sendraks wrote:

Thommo wrote:They are not demanding they be given a space.

If they are planning to contest the councils decision, then yes they are demanding that they have that space. They're just doing it in a post-hoc way. I'd be very surprised if this was something they'd not been prepared to do from the outset.

No, that's not right. The law has intervened, they are asking that they not be be made an exception of.

There is a huge difference between demanding a platform and not having the government intervene.

Sendraks wrote:

Thommo wrote:It is us who are disagreeing, and saying that their default rights be overridden by the harm that (we perceive that) they are causing.

I agree that it hinges on the perception of harm being done, something which I do not have evidence on. If that particular service has seen a drop off in use during the course of the vigil that goes against what they'd normally expect to see, then regardless of the "peaceful" nature of the vigil, it would be having an impact on women seeking a critical service. Seeking medical care is a right after all and if a women is deterred from seeking this service, her right is potentially being infringed.

Potentially and the right of Jews to live their lives peacefully and without threat to their lives and to go where they please is analogous. I'm sure we could theoretically find evidence of altered behaviour based on anti-semitism that would be analogous to a drop off in use of that abortion centre.