Freedom of Speech; Fact or Fiction?

[SYZ]

The Australian newspaper's Washington correspondent,
Adam Creighton, penned an opinion piece this week about
the violent disorder after the Southport stabbing attack,
arguing that "ordinary Britons" were being locked up by an
overzealous judiciary for their "opinions and social media
posts". He says this was a dangerous attack on free speech:
"the West is becoming more censorious than even traditional
authoritarian regimes".

He cited the case of 61-year-old David Spring, who was jailed
for 18 months for his part in a far right-led riot.   Spring was
locked up for yelling "who the fuck is Allah" and calling police
officers "cunts" at an anti-immigration protest near Downing St
in July this year.

The record shows that Spring pleaded guilty to violent disorder
after footage showed him at the front of a crowd threatening and
chanting at police officers.  The judge told Spring: "What you did
could, and it seems did, encourage others to engage in disorder".

Creighton's article also uses a viral video from an anonymous X
account, Radio Genoa, as evidence that another elderly man was
arrested merely for posting offensive comments online. Although
Radio Genoa is well known for posting racist, anti-immigrant content,
the Australian newspaper embedded a link to the questionable video.

  —Excerpted from The Guardian Australia, 16 August 2024.

 A couple of questions then:

 Are the Allah and police insults in public worthy of jailing?

 Or are they, rather, legally justifiable as "free speech"?

 Is 18 months excessive in consideration of, say, probation instead?

 Did, or could, the defendant's offensive language actually cause others
 to act with disorderly behaviour?    How would authorities prove that?

[jerry mcmasters]

I would want to see the video myself. The article is poorly written imho. "...footage showed him at the front of a crowd threatening and
chanting at police officers." Going only by the article, I don't see calling the police cunts as threatening them. Why did the guy plead guilty to "violent disorder"?

[Cavebear]

The Australian newspaper's Washington correspondent,
Adam Creighton, penned an opinion piece this week about
the violent disorder after the Southport stabbing attack,
arguing that "ordinary Britons" were being locked up by an
overzealous judiciary for their "opinions and social media
posts". He says this was a dangerous attack on free speech:
"the West is becoming more censorious than even traditional
authoritarian regimes".

He cited the case of 61-year-old David Spring, who was jailed
for 18 months for his part in a far right-led riot.   Spring was
locked up for yelling "who the fuck is Allah" and calling police
officers "cunts" at an anti-immigration protest near Downing St
in July this year.

The record shows that Spring pleaded guilty to violent disorder
after footage showed him at the front of a crowd threatening and
chanting at police officers.  The judge told Spring: "What you did
could, and it seems did, encourage others to engage in disorder".

Creighton's article also uses a viral video from an anonymous X
account, Radio Genoa, as evidence that another elderly man was
arrested merely for posting offensive comments online. Although
Radio Genoa is well known for posting racist, anti-immigrant content,
the Australian newspaper embedded a link to the questionable video.

  —Excerpted from The Guardian Australia, 16 August 2024.

 A couple of questions then:

 Are the Allah and police insults in public worthy of jailing?

 Or are they, rather, legally justifiable as "free speech"?

 Is 18 months excessive in consideration of, say, probation instead?

 Did, or could, the defendant's offensive language actually cause others
 to act with disorderly behaviour?    How would authorities prove that?

OK, first, you combined "Allah and police" insults in the same argument. And that forces a "both but not either" choice. Bad logic.

"Free speech" sometimes demands tolerance for mean, nasty, outrageous speech. Thoughts and speech are protected. It is only when things turn to actin that law applies.

A sentence is up to a judge. Sometimes people get different sentences for doing the same thing by the same judge with extenuating circumstances.

The last depends on the context. "We should take over" can be a direct call to violence or a mere desire. A judge is there to decide such things.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I would want to see the video myself.  The article is poorly written imho.  "...footage showed him at the front of a crowd threatening and
chanting at police officers."  Going only by the article, I don't see calling the police cunts as threatening them.  Why did the guy plead guilty to "violent disorder"?

Right, 18 months for pointing and name-calling seems over-the-top. I couldn't find video, but here's a still photo of David Spring in action at the riot:


https://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/news/245...ah-jailed/

If that was the extent of his offensive behavior, then it looks like the authorities overreacted.

[Edible crust]

The authorities gave prompt and tough sentences to put a stop to the riots, seems to have worked.

[Dexta]

We've never had freedom of speech in the UK. Freedom of speech is a USA thing enshrined in their constitution.

[Minimalist]

The judge told Spring: "What you did could, and it seems did, encourage others to engage in disorder".

Seems to me he was jailed for inciting a riot not for insulting fucking allah or the cops.

[jerry mcmasters]

Authorities crackin' skulls of protesters that get violent- I'm all for it. Have no idea if that's the case here.

[jerry mcmasters]

The judge told Spring: "What you did could, and it seems did, encourage others to engage in disorder".

Seems to me he was jailed for inciting a riot not for insulting fucking allah or the cops.

But the actions described are...insulting Allah and the cops.  There's more to the story (I hope).

[Minimalist]

Yes...the writer of the story had his agenda and the judge had his.

Looks as if the judge's carries more weight!

[Paleophyte]

The Australian newspaper's Washington correspondent,
Adam Creighton, penned an opinion piece this week about
the violent disorder after the Southport stabbing attack,
arguing that "ordinary Britons" were being locked up by an
overzealous judiciary for their "opinions and social media
posts". He says this was a dangerous attack on free speech:
"the West is becoming more censorious than even traditional
authoritarian regimes".

He cited the case of 61-year-old David Spring, who was jailed
for 18 months for his part in a far right-led riot.   Spring was
locked up for yelling "who the fuck is Allah" and calling police
officers "cunts" at an anti-immigration protest near Downing St
in July this year.

The record shows that Spring pleaded guilty to violent disorder
after footage showed him at the front of a crowd threatening and
chanting at police officers.  The judge told Spring: "What you did
could, and it seems did, encourage others to engage in disorder".

Creighton's article also uses a viral video from an anonymous X
account, Radio Genoa, as evidence that another elderly man was
arrested merely for posting offensive comments online. Although
Radio Genoa is well known for posting racist, anti-immigrant content,
the Australian newspaper embedded a link to the questionable video.

  —Excerpted from The Guardian Australia, 16 August 2024.

 A couple of questions then:

 Are the Allah and police insults in public worthy of jailing?

 Or are they, rather, legally justifiable as "free speech"?

 Is 18 months excessive in consideration of, say, probation instead?

 Did, or could, the defendant's offensive language actually cause others
 to act with disorderly behaviour?    How would authorities prove that?

Hilariously slanted Opinion Piece utterly misrepresenting how lies and rumours spread on social media, sometimes deliberately, sparked violent unrest.

One question: If this had been a Muslim mob running rampant in the UK would you be standing up for their rights?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Australian newspaper's Washington correspondent,
Adam Creighton, penned an opinion piece this week about
the violent disorder after the Southport stabbing attack,
arguing that "ordinary Britons" were being locked up by an
overzealous judiciary for their "opinions and social media
posts". He says this was a dangerous attack on free speech:
"the West is becoming more censorious than even traditional
authoritarian regimes".

He cited the case of 61-year-old David Spring, who was jailed
for 18 months for his part in a far right-led riot.   Spring was
locked up for yelling "who the fuck is Allah" and calling police
officers "cunts" at an anti-immigration protest near Downing St
in July this year.

The record shows that Spring pleaded guilty to violent disorder
after footage showed him at the front of a crowd threatening and
chanting at police officers.  The judge told Spring: "What you did
could, and it seems did, encourage others to engage in disorder".

Creighton's article also uses a viral video from an anonymous X
account, Radio Genoa, as evidence that another elderly man was
arrested merely for posting offensive comments online. Although
Radio Genoa is well known for posting racist, anti-immigrant content,
the Australian newspaper embedded a link to the questionable video.

  —Excerpted from The Guardian Australia, 16 August 2024.

 A couple of questions then:

 Are the Allah and police insults in public worthy of jailing?

 Or are they, rather, legally justifiable as "free speech"?

 Is 18 months excessive in consideration of, say, probation instead?

 Did, or could, the defendant's offensive language actually cause others
 to act with disorderly behaviour?    How would authorities prove that?

Hilariously slanted Opinion Piece utterly misrepresenting how lies and rumours spread on social media, sometimes deliberately, sparked violent unrest.

One question: If this had been a Muslim mob running rampant in the UK would you be standing up for their rights?

If they were wagging a finger at the police and shouting "Fuck god", absolutely. If they were inflicting or inciting violence, why, no.

[Rhythmcs]

You get a year in jail in the us for incitement. I can't imagine anyone just getting the year though, people inciting riots tend to be committing other offenses as well. In us law, incitement includes threats if they could be immediately acted on. A large crowd can immediately act all over the cops face, and courts are going to be sympathetic to the fucking cops. Disorderly is a term of art - limited only by the nuisance an offender has made of themselves and the imaginations of the responding officers.

The j6 guys caught a whole bunch of disorderlies, violent and otherwise.

[mordant]

 Are the Allah and police insults in public worthy of jailing?

 Or are they, rather, legally justifiable as "free speech"?

 Is 18 months excessive in consideration of, say, probation instead?

 Did, or could, the defendant's offensive language actually cause others
 to act with disorderly behaviour?    How would authorities prove that?

Insulting someone, real or imaginary, is not in itself illegal in the US.

Threatening someone, or inciting others to violence by threats or insults, might be, depending on the circumstances. In the US it is usually connected with "hate speech", which is pretty well-defined.

18 months is or isn't excessive depending on whether it's a first offense, the seriousness of the outcome, and the (lack of) contriteness of the offender. There's no objective generic answer to the question.

Since humans are hyper social herd animals, of course offensive, emotionally charged language could "cause" others to be disorderly. Whether it actually rose to that level in a particular case is up to the judge or jury's review of the evidence.

[brewerb]

There are limits to free speech, especially when it harms another. Slander is one example.

[Edible crust]

There were groups of young Muslim men out on the streets too. Allahu Akbar was being chanted. Two groups of knobheads going head to head. The far right and the religious shite.

[jerry mcmasters]

There are limits to free speech, especially when it harms another. Slander is one example.

In the U.S. harming others is the only restriction on free speech.  I think...I may be overlooking something but I can't think of what it would be or why.  Other nations I think have the same application but a more expansive definition of harm.

[brewerb]

There are limits to free speech, especially when it harms another. Slander is one example.

In the U.S. harming others is the only restriction on free speech.  I think...I may be overlooking something but I can't think of what it would be or why.  Other nations I think have the same application but a more expansive definition of harm.

I think it also extends to threats to harm (i.e. terroristic) but needs to be taken into context.

[Dānu]

Child pornography need not involve harm to be unprotected speech. Same with threats.

[Minimalist]

There are limits to free speech, especially when it harms another. Slander is one example.

But no one goes to jal for slander....it is a civil matter.

[Minimalist]

There are limits to free speech, especially when it harms another. Slander is one example.

In the U.S. harming others is the only restriction on free speech.  I think...I may be overlooking something but I can't think of what it would be or why.  Other nations I think have the same application but a more expansive definition of harm.

Brandenburg v Ohio

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".[2][3]: 702  Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. 

So, one idiot in a nursing home telling a bunch of his/her wheelchair bound cronies that the Jews were the cause of all their problems and they should go beat them up is unlikely to produce imminent lawless action because most of them couldn't get their wheelchairs out into the street.


But, OTOH, a President of the United States telling an angry mob of assholes that they should march down to the capitol and "take their country back" not only could, but, did, create such immediate lawless action.  But the fucks on SCOTUS seem fine with that so fuck them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There are limits to free speech, especially when it harms another. Slander is one example.

... which is not a crime punishable with prison time, here. It's a civil offense argued by civil litigation.

There are instances where speech may rise to the level of criminal offense here. No being familiar with UK law, I can't say if this is an example. As for what I've seen under American jurisprudence it isn't.

[Fireball]

I remember seeing a couple of women getting into a fight where no serious injury seems to have been inflicted, yet there are laws in OZ addressing this, and I also recall that it was called "affray" and carried as much as 10 years in prison, if convicted. This is in regards to some gal loading her shopping cart with the last of the toilet paper (in the early days of the COVID pandemic), and another gal taking exception to that. This kind of shit goes on all the time in the US, and people just walk away. I guess the US is exceptional in some strange ways.

I'm reminded of the Clash song, "Know Your Rights".

[brewerb]

There are limits to free speech, especially when it harms another. Slander is one example.

But no one goes to jal for slander....it is a civil matter.

Consequences are consequences. If it costs it's not free.

[brewerb]

There are limits to free speech, especially when it harms another. Slander is one example.

... which is not a crime punishable with prison time, here. It's a civil offense argued by civil litigation.

There are instances where speech may rise to the level of criminal offense here. No being familiar with UK law, I can't say if this is an example. As for what I've seen under American jurisprudence it isn't.

If it costs it's not free.