Pelleas - "Whether or not you agree with everything that's posted on Mumsnet, people are entitled to freedom of speech - you'd have thought a Trade Union would recognise that."
Iwalkinmyclothing - "No, we aren't entitled to that at all. We are entitled to freedom of expression, said freedom subject to certain limitations."
The contrast between "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression" without any further explanation always reads like you are permitted to mime something that you are not to say out loud.
"Human Rights Act 1998 Article 10"
Freedom of expression
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9
"Limits on Freedom of Expression: United Kingdom"
"The UK provides for freedom of expression as a qualified right that may be restricted in certain circumstances as prescribed by law. For any law restricting an individual’s freedom of expression, various criteria must be met. The UK has laws in place that operate to prevent people from heckling speakers, but these are not frequently implemented. The main laws that appear to be used against hecklers are those aimed to preserve public order.
Foreign broadcasters operating in the UK and broadcasting to UK audiences must be licensed by the UK’s communication regulator, Ofcom. In order to obtain a license, the broadcaster must agree to license conditions and to comply with the Broadcasting Code. If a broadcaster fails to abide by these conditions or the Code and laws, Ofcom may take action, including issuing its findings publicly, imposing a financial penalty, or suspending or revoking the broadcaster’s license in the UK. "
Continued at:
www.loc.gov/law/help/freedom-expression/uk.php
"Defamation laws take effect"
Libel laws in England and Wales are being significantly reformed from tomorrow to provide clearer, better protection for people publicly expressing opinions.
Published 31 December 2013
From: Ministry of Justice and Shailesh Vara MP
The Defamation Act 2013 reverses the chilling effect on freedom of expression current libel law has allowed, and the prevention of legitimate debate we have seen in the past. For example, some journalists, scientists or academics have faced unfair legal threats for fairly criticising a company, person or product.
For the first time a new serious harm threshold has been set to help people understand when claims should be brought and discourage trivial claims that harm freedom of speech and unnecessarily take up court time.
Justice Minister Shailesh Vara said:
The introduction of these new measures will make it harder for wealthy people or companies to bully or silence those who may have fairly criticised them or their products.
As a result of these new laws, anyone expressing views and engaging in public debate can do so in the knowledge that the law offers them stronger protection against unjust and unfair threats of legal action.
These laws coming into force represent the end of a long and hard-fought battle to ensure a fair balance is struck between the right to freedom of expression and people’s ability to protect their reputation.
The Defamation Act contains a series of measures that include:
- Protection for scientists and academics publishing peer reviewed material in scientific and academic journals
- Protection for those who are publishing material on a matter of public interest where they reasonably believe that publication is in the public interest
- Introducing a new process which should help a person who feels an online statement is defamatory to resolve the dispute directly with the person who has posted the statement. This offers better protection for the operators of websites hosting user-generated content, provided they follow the new process. New regulations have been introduced to ensure that this process operates effectively
- A single publication rule to prevent repeated claims against a publisher about the same material
- Action to address libel tourism by tightening the test for claims involving those with little connection to England and Wales being brought before our courts
- Greater protection for secondary publishers including booksellers and newsagents by removing the possibility of an action for defamation being brought against them if it is reasonably practicable for an action to be brought against the primary publisher.
The old laws on libel had been criticised for being outdated, costly and unfair - the new law seeks to ensure effective protection for freedom of expression and encourages open and honest public debate, whilst still protecting those whose reputation has been unjustly attacked.
www.gov.uk/government/news/defamation-laws-take-effect
"Hate speech vs. free speech: the UK laws"
What is the law on hate speech?
"A number of different UK laws outlaw hate speech. Among them is Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA), which makes it an offence for a person to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress”. This law has been revised over the years to include language that is deemed to incite “racial and religious hatred”, as well as “hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation” and language that “encourages terrorism”.
The Terrorism Act 2006 criminalises “encouragement of terrorism” which includes making statements that glorify terrorist acts.
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it illegal to send a message via a public electronic communications network that is considered grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.
“This offence is incredibly broad and has been used to address jovial, albeit misjudged communications – it carries huge implications for freedom of expression,” says justice and freedom campaign group Liberty."
Why is the debate so controversial?
"Criminalising the incitement of violence or threats “can be seen to be a justifiable limit on freedom of expression”, says Liberty. What is controversial “is the criminalisation of language (or behaviour) which may be unpleasant, may cause offence but which is not inciting violence, criminality etc”, the organisation adds.
Writing for Prospect magazine, Hugh Tomlinson QC argues that the problem lies with the lack of a UK constitution. “Free speech does not, historically, have the same primacy under English law [as the US],” he explains.
“A proper ‘written’ constitution sets limits on the powers of the institutions of government, but the loose and flexible set of rules that is described as Britain’s unwritten constitution sets no such limits.”
Writing in The Spectator, Lionel Shriver says the UK should follow the US playbook.
“Because the alternative is what the UK has now, and it will only get worse: government systematically legislating not just what we say but what we may believe.”
From:
www.theweek.co.uk/97552/hate-speech-vs-free-speech-the-uk-laws