Great Britain’s Free Speech Breakdown
The British were recently made aware of the dangers of a law that restricts offensive speech after the arrest of a teenager for using the word "cult" on a sign to describe the Church of Scientology.
Even in the United States, despite the opinion of some, free speech is not absolute. Some restrictions have to be created in order to protect the safety and certain rights of others. However, in the United States there is no right not to be offended.
The infamous extremists of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting homosexuality at the funerals of fallen service members angers people on all sides of the political spectrum. While some believe there should be boundaries between these protesters and the grieving families, very few argue that they have no right to express their hateful views. Voltaire’s famous and eloquent defense of tolerance and freedom of speech, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” has become a reflective theme in America.
Freedom of speech doesn’t seem to be as clear cut in the U.K. The Guardian informs us of an unnamed fifteen-year-old that was served a summons from the City of London for using the word “cult” on a sign to describe the Church of Scientology during a peaceful demonstration protesting the controversial religion. There has been an understandable outrage throughout the world over this incident, but the police were not outside the bounds of doing their job of enforcing the law. It is also important to note that their Human Rights Act Article Ten, granting freedom of expression, is much more specific in allowing restrictions for various reasons than our own Constitution.
The ridiculous element of this entire controversy is the very law the police were enforcing. After “strongly advising” him to remove his sign, they cited section five of the Public Order Act 1986 to the boy, before handing him a court summons and removing his sign. This law restricts free speech if it offends someone, and it opens the door wide for the “slippery slope” theory.
Here is a quote of the exact law in reference:
5. Harassment, alarm or distress.
- (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he-
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
This law is disturbing in countless ways and is reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984. It opens the floodgates to censorship and abuse of power. Even scarier, this law is similar to many of the “hate speech” laws politicians are trying to pass in America. Banning the free exchange of ideas just because they are insensitive, politically incorrect, or unpopular is a leap down a path toward destroying the very spirit and ideals behind individual freedom and responsibility.
To create a law that restricts speech based on whom it might offend is beyond ridiculous, and it is a dangerous road travel. Some people are offended by anything they disagree with, and sometimes the truth hurts. Some people are so sensitive they are offended by public prayer. Who makes this distinction? Do we allow the police and the state to make these crucial calls? Britain would certainly have a difficult time trusting the police to make these distinctions when they have been the subject of considerable controversy in accepting gifts from the Church of Scientology as recently as two years ago.
This could definitely be a test case for Britain on whether its many libel laws will destroy its traditions of free speech. The slippery slope argument is the first reaction from human rights lawyers, like Shami Chakrabarti. He stated, “This barmy prosecution makes a mockery of Britain’s free speech traditions. After criminalizing the use of the word ‘cult’, perhaps the next step is to ban the words ‘war’ and ‘tax’ from peaceful demonstrations?” If the trend of criminalizing the criticism of religions continues to spread in other European countries, freedom of speech will fall farther into danger, and drawing a line will become extremely difficult.
Thankfully, cooler and wiser heads have prevailed, and free speech lives another day. The Crown Prosecution Service told the police they would not be prosecuting the boy. International attention and strong support from human rights groups, like Liberty, may have been influential in this decision. Whatever the reason for the decision, it was the right one and a victory for free speech. However, the ridiculous law that put a kid in this situation in the first place still needs to be given a hard look, and, most likely, done away with.
This is also a great example for America to pay attention, heed warning, and hopefully recognize the dangerous consequences that political correctness threatens to free speech. Absolute free speech may not be found anywhere, but America has the most open and robust free speech found in the world. This is something we take for granted far too often. Hopefully, examples like this one in Europe can provide us with insight and an opportunity to stop and appreciate the freedoms we enjoy. It is to be devoutly wished that we will not allow the same thing to happen to our country because there are activist elements fighting to bring this same stifling trend to America and too often they are succeeding.
John Stephenson blogs at Stop the ACLU.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
29 Comments
1. Great Britain’s Free Speech Breakdown:[...] lobotero wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThe British were recently made aware of the dangers of a law that restricts offensive speech after the arrest of a teenager for using the word “cult” on a sign to describe the Church of Scientology. [...]
Jun 7, 2008 - 6:18 am 2. ZEITGEIST:[...] GREAT BRITAIN’S FREE SPEECH BREAKDOWN. [...]
Jun 7, 2008 - 7:19 am 3. Misanthropicus:Now we can add after Mark Steyn and Brigitte Bardot this (un-named) youth to the list of political asylum seekers in the US?
Jun 7, 2008 - 7:25 am 4. Darryl Boyd:It’s a safe bet that the same people who back these sort of laws are also convinved of the threat to Liberty posed by the surpression of the Rights of the prisoners at Gitmo. Conntradictory – yes. Arbitrary – no. For them it’s about who has the power to set National agendas, not what is just. Guess who they think should have the power.
Jun 7, 2008 - 8:18 am 5. Anónimo:Maybe not, after keith henson looked for asylum in Canada…
Jun 7, 2008 - 8:22 am 6. LeatherPenguin » The Coming General Campaign:[...] ground has already been prepped. Say anything against the ObamaMessiah, and expect to be treated like this, or along these [...]
Jun 7, 2008 - 8:32 am 7. JMH:It’s a good lesson for America to learn. Britain used to be a very free and liberty-loving society. Never quite as much as the US, but always near the top of the list.
That’s changed. Britain is sliding into the abyss. The creeping incrementalism of of the socialists has transformed the country into a Thought-Police state.
There are warning signs in the US. We better play attention.
Jun 7, 2008 - 8:52 am 8. Great Britain’s Free Speech Breakdown : Stop The ACLU:[...] Go check out the article on free speech in Britain that I wrote at Pajama’s Media. [...]
Jun 7, 2008 - 8:59 am 9. Sean:Um, who gets to decide what’s “offensive?” The police? It’s like being on an American unversity campus. There, only the left gets to decide what’s offensive and that means everything they disagree with is offensive.
I love how the left, same as the ones who drafted that law in the U.K., are the deciders and interpreters as to what is offensive and who can be insulted and who can’t.
If you don’t think this is happening, may I suggest you watch Evan Maloney’s “Indoctrinate U” documentary to see where America is headed if we don’t stop these insane thought crime laws.
Jun 7, 2008 - 9:58 am 10. dewi:Sean: it’s _much_ worse than you think That law was passed in 1986. The Prime Minister at the time was Margaret Thatcher.
Jun 7, 2008 - 10:05 am 11. Free speech fact of the day « Econstudentlog:[...] John Stephenson has more here, via Glenn [...]
Jun 7, 2008 - 10:08 am 12. Ed:Darryl,
I wish you had placed some cash in escrow with that “safe bet.” You lose. The people who most agitate to restrict our free speech rights are exactly the same ones who agitate to give the free lance foreign combatants at Gitmo the same rights as U.S. citizens. You have it exactly backwards.
Jun 7, 2008 - 10:18 am 13. MichaelW:Great post.
Minor point, though. It wasn’t Voltaire that wrote that line, but instead Evelyn Beatrice Hall writing under the pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906).
Jun 7, 2008 - 11:15 am 14. fgmorley:Political Correctness = Free speech as long as you agree with me.
Politically correct means always having to say you’re sorry.
Jun 7, 2008 - 11:57 am 15. Gerry:Micaelw, yes, I agree. Minor subpoint to yours. In author Hall/Tallentyre’s defense, she did make clear that this was her version of how Voltaire would have defended free speech.
Jun 7, 2008 - 12:44 pm 16. Saturday Afternoon - Where The Hell Is My Underwear - Laundry Time , An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings:[...] Great Britain’s Free Speech Breakdown – Pajamas Media (major MUST read) [...]
Jun 7, 2008 - 3:08 pm 17. Donald Sensing:“Banning the free exchange of ideas just because they are insensitive, politically incorrect or unpopular is a leap down a path toward destroying the very spirit and ideals behind individual freedom and responsibility.”
Which is, John, exactly the point of the people who push for and pass such laws. But you know that.
Jun 7, 2008 - 5:15 pm 18. brooklyn red:first they come for your guns…
Jun 7, 2008 - 5:16 pm 19. JMagi:I believe V said it best, “Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone’s death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who’s to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn’t be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you’ve seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot”
However the world has been turned upside its 1984 in 2008, David Icke is more right than even the most believing of the True Truth seekers are comfortable with.
If we as a people do not do something, then we lose everything, our hopes,our dreams and maybe our very lives all because of the corrupt political correctness of few power mongers hell bent on catatrophic destruction.
Censorship = leads to fear. From there they come for your guns and the means to protect yourself, your family, your religion, your peace and ironically your country.
However, as we all are in this together, Even Agent Smith contributes to the greater good for remedial reminders of motivation. It is purpose that created us.
Agent Smith Clone 1: It is purpose that created us
Agent Smith Clone 2: Purpose that connects us.
Agent Smith Clone 3: Purpose that pulls us.
Agent Smith Clone 4: That guides us.
Agent Smith Clone 5: That drives us.
Agent Smith Clone 6: It is purpose that defines us.
Agent Smith Clone 7: Purpose that binds us
No Force on heaven or earth can stop purpose, fear can diminish it it is in reality faith that gives purpose its true power.
Jun 7, 2008 - 6:36 pm 20. Uncle Ralph:In all the chat about the boy with the “cult” placard, I’ve yet to see any reference to the Redmond-Bate case of 1999 or any explanation of how the former squares with the statement of Lord Justice Sedley in that case that:
“Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”
Anyone familiar with British jurisprudence care to take a shot at sorting this out?
Jun 7, 2008 - 7:36 pm 21. Misanthropicus:RE: Uncle Ralph: “Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”
Anyone familiar with British jurisprudence care to take a shot at sorting this out?”
Uncle Ralph, I have to inform you that the British jurisprudence (and not the only Western one, for that matter) has lately incorporated in its discharge many philosophical elements distilled by the minds of Stalin, Pol Pot, Amin Dada, Bokassa and Mugabe. You still can question this issue – yet when retrieving your body your family will have to reimburse the government for the bullets used on you to clarify the matter.
Jun 7, 2008 - 9:03 pm 22. Steynianism 162 « Free Mark Steyn!:[...] FORMERLY GREAT BRITAIN’S Free Speech Breakdown, by John Stephenson. And “To ban Piglet in Britain is to many minds, an [...]
Jun 8, 2008 - 8:26 am 23. Javelin:Misanthropicus:
Jun 8, 2008 - 12:26 pm 24. Don Cox:Good work, they are all heinous Stalinist. Your Got any proof? Your type of warped, excessive dishonest post should be as protected as well as mocked.
It is true that there has been a big loss of freedom in Britain over the past 30 years. However, this particular case involves the Scientologists (an organisation it would be flattering to call a cult) and the City of London Police, who appear to be unduly cosy with the scientologists. I’m sure you will recall cases of links between organised crime and the police in some US cities.
The Crown Prosecution Service has dismissed the case. See here.
Jun 8, 2008 - 2:08 pm 25. » Great Britain’s Free Speech Breakdown:[...] rights of others. However, in the United States there is no right not to be offended. Click Here To Read The Complete Article Submitted By The [...]
Jun 8, 2008 - 8:54 pm 26. B Dubya:It is not for no reason that the unmistakably basic right to keep and bear the means to forceable reistance by every American citizen is writ into the basic fabric of the Bill of Rights. Those without the power to resist tryanny do not resist. Without firearms in the hands of the American colonials in the 1770’s, we would still be British subjects, or French, but not Americans. Without them now, the PC police would have no bridle to curb their more insane desires. Tyrants respect only force and are ruled by their own fears as much as anything. Let them continue to fear us, then.
Jun 9, 2008 - 2:49 pm 27. Afskaf de forbandede blasfemi- og racismeparagraffer! « Econstudentlog:For the record, I do not love Big Brother. Nor do I hold any degree of regard for his illigitimate offspring, the Obamasiah (may his name be soon added to the growing list of failed POTUS candidates from the Stalinist insired left).
[...] det kan ske. At det er vanvittigt er ikke nogen garanti for, at det ikke vil ske. Kig mod Canada. Kig mod Storbritannien. Hvor længe varer det, før vi slet ikke behøver kigge ud over vores egen grænse for at finde [...]
Jun 10, 2008 - 2:44 pm 28. link 736 | Molrak.com:[...] Pajamas Media » Great Britain’s Free Speech Breakdown [...]
Jun 12, 2008 - 6:27 am 29. Marginalized Action Dinosaur » International Pressure allows some free speech in not so Great Britain.:[...] a religion, barrister Shami Chakrabarti and Liberty, and possibly the Crown Prosecution Service. John Stephenson reports – This could definitely be a test case for Britain on whether their many libel laws will destroy [...]
Jun 14, 2008 - 5:35 pm