Free speech

[Ianonabike]

Or if you're feeling sarcastic, freeze peach. The ability to say your piece, if only to have it shot down, is at the heart of all discussion. It's what separates this forum from the main site, though I realise Ofcom might have something to say if it went too far.

Let's begin with this: where do you draw the line?

 

[wiggydiggy]

Meeting going on too long when its 8 minutes to 12 and I have a footlong subway waiting for me are getting pretty close to the line.

 

[cookiemonster]

Using 'free speech' to whip up hatred and violence against anyone you disagree with especially gay, trans, people of colour, other religions, people with disabilities and other political opinions (within reason for the last one).

You can criticise but whipping up hatred is where the line is drawn.

 

[CXRAndy]

Yeah just look at the democrats, been calling trump a fascist, Nazi since before 2016

 

[cookiemonster]

Yeah just look at the democrats, been calling trump a fascist, Nazi since before 2016

They're being proven right now. Everything he's doing is straight out of the 1930s fascist guidebook.

But that's not whipping up hatred, that's stating facts.

Trump is dangerous and disingenuous.

 

[Xipe Totec]

Yeah just look at the democrats, been calling trump a fascist, Nazi since before 2016

Which, given his latest bellowing-point is to outlaw 'antifa' - which, even a gibbering dork such as yourself almost certainly understands is a portmanteau of ANTI-FASCIST - seems remarkably apt and on point.

 

[Shortfall]

I'm not a free speech absolutist and I think the law as it stands in the UK is about right. There is a caveat to that however in that I don't think Lucy Connolly should have been jailed for her Tweets about migrant hotels. Yes she pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred but there was clearly some collusion between Starmer and the Judiciary to hand down exemplary sentences to prevent an escalation of the rioting. I don't think some on "The Right" are well advised to try and turn her into their George Floyd. She said some disgusting things and she isn't a heroine. I wouldn't jail Bob Vylain either but I think he's an absolutely contemptible cünt and he must be sailing very close to the wind with his latest "If you chat sh1t you're gonna get banged" outburst. Similarly I don't think Jimmy Kimmel should've been sacked but that's between him and his employer who clearly care more about their bottom line than defending him (something that's been happening to plenty on the right for ages, welcome to our world Jimmy). It's also hard to feel too sorry for him when you see his unbridled glee when Tucker Carlson suffered the same fate (props to the poster who found that clip).

 

[matticus]

Similarly I don't think Jimmy Kimmel should've been sacked but that's between him and his employer who clearly care more about their bottom line than defending him

But is it purely commercial?

https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-1236522406/
FCC [Federal Communications Commision] chairman Brendan Carr has threatened to take action against ABC after Jimmy Kimmel said in a monologue that “the MAGA gang” was attempting to portray Charlie Kirk‘s assassin as “anything other than one of them.”

Appearing on Benny Johnson’s podcast on Wednesday, Carr suggested that the FCC has “remedies we can look at.”

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

 

[Shortfall]

But is it purely commercial?

https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-1236522406/
FCC [Federal Communications Commision] chairman Brendan Carr has threatened to take action against ABC after Jimmy Kimmel said in a monologue that “the MAGA gang” was attempting to portray Charlie Kirk‘s assassin as “anything other than one of them.”

Appearing on Benny Johnson’s podcast on Wednesday, Carr suggested that the FCC has “remedies we can look at.”

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

I don't know except to say that I wouldn't have sacked him.

 

[Psamathe]

There is a caveat to that however in that I don't think Lucy Connolly should have been jailed for her Tweets about migrant hotels. Yes she pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred but there was clearly some collusion between Starmer and the Judiciary to hand down exemplary sentences to prevent an escalation of the rioting.

At a time when there were mobs on the streets rioting in front of hotels she Tweeted "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care... if that makes me racist so be it.". So irrespective of the charge she was fairly directly encouraging those mobs to "set fire to all the f****** hotels" (incitement to violence?). I have no views on the sentence as I've no experience regarding sentencing.

As to collusion between Starmer and the Judiciary, I've not seen that "theory" before and personally, without any evidence to refute I'd think it highly unlikely as word always gets out, particularly with something so significant. So please do share your evidence.

 

[Pblakeney]

I think free speech is perfectly fine* right up to the point of inciting illegal behaviour, or downright illegal in itself.

*The other side of the coin is that people are perfectly entitled to ignore or deride those free speeches.

 

[Shortfall]

At a time when there were mobs on the streets rioting in front of hotels she Tweeted "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care... if that makes me racist so be it.". So irrespective of the charge she was fairly directly encouraging those mobs to "set fire to all the f****** hotels" (incitement to violence?). I have no views on the sentence as I've no experience regarding sentencing.

As to collusion between Starmer and the Judiciary, I've not seen that "theory" before and personally, without any evidence to refute I'd think it highly unlikely as word always gets out, particularly with something so significant. So please do share your evidence.

I don't have proof but the people involved in the riots and those punished for their social media posts went through the justice system from arrest, to to sentencing remarkably quickly at a time when others were (still are) waiting months and years before trial. She also deleted her Tweets fairly quickly and there were mitigating circumstances regarding the death of her 19 month child that may have affected her state of mind. It's moot now because she served her sentence but if there wasn't a nod and a wink between Starmer and the Judiciary then one wonders why justice was served so quickly? As an aside I think people shouldn't have to wait a long time before going to court and I'm all in favour of harsh sentences for mobs and rioters. I could say that the BLM mobs seemed to escape this a few years ago but I'd be accused of whataboutery.

 

[laurentian]

Free speech is a right and privilege denied to many but where it is bestowed, as with all rights, it comes with responsibilities.

It's pretty much always the case that these responsibilities being ignored or not considered are the root of all arguments around free speech

 

[Psamathe]

I don't have proof but the people involved in the riots and those punished for their social media posts went through the justice system from arrest, to to sentencing remarkably quickly at a time when others were (still are) waiting months and years before trial. She also deleted her Tweets fairly quickly and there were mitigating circumstances regarding the death of her 19 month child that may have affected her state of mind. It's moot now because she served her sentence.

Reasons for rapid appearance in courts and where applicable sentencing was likely driven by the Police and CPS as it seems widely recognised that fast arrest/court appearance/sentence is much more effective at stopping further rioting - makes those considering going on the streets think twice as they see people really do get caught and go to prison. So to me more likely the police/CPS wanting to discourage further rioting than Starmer going way outside where he as a politician should go.

How quickly a Tweet is deleted is less important than the number of views, particularly when there are ongoing riots on the streets.

Her state of mind is something I'd expect you need to be an experienced lawyer/barrister with loads of experience of such cases to assess. Again, likely influenced by what was said in court, what reports and arguments her defence submitted, etc. rather than Starmer trying to influence things he and everybody knows he shouldn't be interfering in and were he to do so would massive scandal.

 

[Psamathe]

Let's begin with this: where do you draw the line?

I don't think there is "a line" but probably many lines.

For non-legal people (like me) any all encompassing definition I could come up with would be easy to find flaws in.

But I do think people get confused about the subject and can often use it a bit like Israel uses "anti-semitism". eg. If I open a social media site and set constraints on what people can post tighter than the legal requirements I have not impacted anybodies freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean that any platform has to allow you to say what is legally permitted.

Similarly what Freedom of Speech allows can vary depending on detail.Whilst it is quite right that people can speak out against abortion it is also quite right that they should not be allowed to push their legal speech onto those attending abortion clinics ie I don't see zones where certain legal speech is not allowed as limiting individual freedom of speech.