Free speech

[secretsqirrel]

I really don't care for 'legacy.' I'm enjoying life and doing my best with the 6-8yo kids I teach. That does me nicely.

If you teach 6-8 year olds then I would say your legacy is assured.

 

[CXRAndy]

As I've mentioned a few times before, it's attention seeking because he must have a rather sad and lonely existence so posting these X links seems to be the only way he can feel worthy and he gets a reaction every time.

 

[Bazzer]

Personally I couldn't care less about being remembered after I am gone. Although beyond the records of births, marriages and deaths, I know my name will survive in at least one set of reference books, having been involved in three tax cases. Two of which established case law, with one of them, to my surprise, having to learned by future inspectors of taxes.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Hamit Coskun has won his appeal in the Qur'an burning case:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9v7wlj3pr2o.amp

Judges ruling:

""There is no offence of blasphemy in our law. Burning a Koran may be an act that many Muslims find desperately upsetting and offensive. The criminal law, however, is not a mechanism that seeks to avoid people being upset, even grievously upset. The right to freedom of expression, if it is a right worth having, must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb. "We live in a liberal democracy. One of the precious rights that affords us is to express our own views and read, hear and consider ideas without the state intervening to stop us doing so. The price we pay for that is having to allow others to exercise the same rights, even if that upsets, offends or shocks us."

 

[C R]

Hamit Coskun has won his appeal in the Qur'an burning case:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9v7wlj3pr2o.amp

Judges ruling:

""There is no offence of blasphemy in our law. Burning a Koran may be an act that many Muslims find desperately upsetting and offensive. The criminal law, however, is not a mechanism that seeks to avoid people being upset, even grievously upset. The right to freedom of expression, if it is a right worth having, must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb. "We live in a liberal democracy. One of the precious rights that affords us is to express our own views and read, hear and consider ideas without the state intervening to stop us doing so. The price we pay for that is having to allow others to exercise the same rights, even if that upsets, offends or shocks us."

What religious people in general seem to miss is that what allows them to say that heretics, unbelievers, gays and other undesirables are wicked also allows those heretics, unbelievers, gays and other undesirables to make fun of and offend religious people.

 

[Beebo]

John and Eileen and John and Mary.

You should have 8.
So you’re half way there.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Hamit Coskun has won his appeal in the Qur'an burning case:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9v7wlj3pr2o.amp

Judgement in full:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Rex-v-Hamit-Coskun.pdf

 

[monkers]

We don't have freedom of speech, often confused but only America has that. We have freedom of opinion and expression as you quoted above.
We trust our courts to be able to determine the ultimate call in what is allowed and what not as freedom of opinion or expression.
This has been one so deliberately because dynamics, changing tones and attitudes and a more restrictive description would potentially kill any debate before it's started.

Fancy having a crack at the question I posed?

Anyone care to interpret Article 19 so that it remains coherent with Article 1?

 

[classic33]

You should have 8. So you’re half way there.

Patrick and Mary, James and Roisin.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Fancy having a crack at the question I posed?

They are not coherent, but the added context needed is that law in Europe is not written in a way it would always be absolute the courts/prosecutors and police should always wager the law for it's intended purpose societal changes etc. etc.

The man who was arrested for burning a Koran is a perfect example, police in the end charged him with an ''public offence'' he was convicted but somewhere last week in the appeal he his conviction was withdrawn, as the courts ruled burning an Koran can cause offensive to muslims but (and thus can be read as falling under article 19) However as part of an society where people have freedom of expression the freedom to share his personal opinion and showing that by burning a Koran he bought and thus owns is ruled not to be an offence.

 

[Bromptonaut]

They are not coherent,

My irony meter's beggared again.....

 

[monkers]

They are not coherent, but the added context needed is that law in Europe is not written in a way it would always be absolute the courts/prosecutors and police should always wager the law for it's intended purpose societal changes etc. etc.

The man who was arrested for burning a Koran is a perfect example, police in the end charged him with an ''public offence'' he was convicted but somewhere last week in the appeal he his conviction was withdrawn, as the courts ruled burning an Koran can cause offensive to muslims but (and thus can be read as falling under article 19) However as part of an society where people have freedom of expression the freedom to share his personal opinion and showing that by burning a Koran he bought and thus owns is ruled not to be an offence.

Actually citing an example of where you think the articles are not read as to be coherent ought have the effect of you realising that it just might be some judgments that are wrongly made.

I'm at risk of sounding condescending, but please allow my explanation as this is my own area of some expertise in the way that Human Rights law is read at the ECtHR.

Article 1 sets out that we should live in a spirit of brotherly love.

Article 19 sets out the freedom of expression should be ''without frontiers''.

Herein lies the problem. What does ''without frontiers'' mean?

Firstly, it could mean frontiers as geographical boundaries - but it doesn't because it couldn't. You see, freedom of expression is a qualified right. Each UN member state is at liberty to vary it according to need using domestic law. Therefore Article 19 can not be uniform across geographical boundaries - different member states have varied it the application within primary legislation.

Secondly, it could mean frontiers as discussion between ordinary citizens - but it doesn't, because people would spend more time squabbling about their rights as their differences of opinion. This specific reading places Articles 1 and 19 in conflict. Note: this is what is now being promoted and as a result is what we see happening.

Thirdly, it could mean, that there shall be no frontier between the ordinary citizen and the state and its recognised authorities - the right of the citizen to speak truth to power without consequence. This is the only version that is congruent with Article 1, and is therefore the correct version.

Summary. The right to freedom of expression and the right to protest are the pair of articles that grant the rights of ordinary citizens to stand up for themselves against abuses of the state. The separation of powers of the legislature and the judiciary is intended to prevent abuses, while article 19 is intended to be the means of individual and collective action to protect human rights. The ECtHR exists essentially to ensure that the Supreme Court can exercise diligence and good judgment without interference of the state. Yet, political parties have objected to judgments of the court, and stated in manifesto to challenge the power of the courts.

A political figure or party that promotes that the state can act contrary to human rights using the legislature is enacting an abuse of the state on the people. And yes, in the UK this is happening. Their device is promote the idea that inciting hatred is a permission under freedom of expression - the purpose of Article 1 is show that it is not.

Question. If this interpretation is not correct, how can it be that parliamentarians with their extra permissions to speak without constraint in parliament precludes the use of abuse against each other? You've no doubt heard the term ''unparliamentary language''. You'll note the dual standard without further explanation I hope.

Further question. When the UK signed the articles of the UNDHR, who was recognised as sovereign, the monarch, parliament, or the people?