Freedom of speech, should there be limits?

[InsaneApache]

Freedom and democracy in Britain are “gone”, Tommy Robinson, leader of Pegida UK, has told Breitbart London’s Editor in Chief Raheem Kassam.

Speaking to Kassam on the radio this morning, Mr. Robinson said that his continued persecution by the state for speaking out against Sharia and Islamism proves that we now live “in a post-free-speech era now in the UK, and the state has huge arms.”







Since founding the English Defence League (EDL) seven years ago, with the aim of upholding English culture against a rising tide of Islamist influences, Mr. Robinson has been repeatedly targeted by Muslims who have attacked him so many times that he’s “lost count”. But nothing that had happened prepared him for the state stepping in to persecute him directly.

“Anyone can go on YouTube and see ‘Tommy Robinson attacked’ – you’ll see picture after picture, video after video of me being violently beaten up. I’ve had my face rearranged, I’ve lost my teeth, I’ve been hospitalised,” he told Kassam.

“I’ve had everything you can think of and there’s not been one single Muslim prosecuted. Not one person prosecuted. They’ve been given free rein to attack me and my family. A complete free rein.

“I was ready for that side; what I wasn’t ready for was the state level persecution.

“I can’t even begin to give a level to people … to understand the lengths they will go to, and what they will do to absolutely financially destroy you, and slander you, and destroy your entire life.

“Anything I love or anything I do, the police turn up and ruin.”

This weekend Mr. Robinson was again harassed by police who expelled him and his three young children, all aged under ten, from a pub in Cambridge – and the city itself – while they were watching football with friends.

Cambridgeshire Police has come in for a barrage of criticism on social media after Breitbart London posted footage of the incident, filmed by Mr. Robinson on his mobile phone.

Four officers can be seen in the video following the party down the road leading away from the pub while Mr. Robinson’s daughters sob hysterically in fear. The family were followed all the way to Cambridge train station, over a mile away, to ensure they left the city immediately.

Commenting on the incident, a police spokesperson said: “A group of 18 Luton Town football supporters at the Grain Store Pub in Cambridge were asked to leave the area at about 6.30pm on Saturday in order to prevent disorder.

“The group left peacefully, without the need for a dispersal order to be invoked.”

However, the video footage recorded by Mr. Robinson only shows police officers talking to him, and following his small party of three adults and seven children to the train station. At no point during his video can officers be seen asking other Luton supporters to leave.

When asked by Breitbart London whether Cambridgeshire Police had any proof that 18 football supporters in total were asked to leave the area, either in the form of names of those asked to leave, or video footage filmed by officers of others being asked to leave, or any other form of evidence they could release, a spokesman said: “Sorry, we don’t.”

Referring to an incident in 2013 in which Mr. Robinson and his friend and fellow EDL founder Kevin Carroll were arrested after being assaulted by two leftists while trying to complete a charity walk, Mr. Robinson told Kassam:

“What I’ve been so shocked at is that they [the police] don’t care that the world is watching this. They don’t care that everyone can see what’s happening. Those sorts of incidents that I’m videoing and everyone can see what’s going on; they’re not bothered by that.

“What they’re bothered [about] is silencing me, shutting people up, so they can continue with an agenda – which is to Islamify our country.”

TPTB keep labeling this guy a racist, I'm not so sure anymore.

Anyway, should we really want to shut people up because of their political beliefs?

If so, then who decides what is and what is not acceptable?

[Rhyfelwyr]

People should be free to express political beliefs.

But there should be limits to free speech - eg swearing, crude talk etc.

I expect the vast majority of people in the past that campaigned for freedom of expression would probably think that many TV shows, adverts and other things today should be banned. They never imagined a good cause would be hijacked to justify the most gross and indecent outrages that happen nowadays.

I agree with them.

[Brenus]

Touchy subject.
Freedom of speech within the frame of the law, when laws are in contradiction?
I disagree with Rhyfelwyr limitations for example. What its swearing or crude talk. Use of vocabulary and language is depending on each individual and regions. What will be crude, offensive and others won't for others.

[Fragony]

Calling for violence is where I draw the line

[Greyblades]

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”

[Gilrandir]

Calling for violence is where I draw the line

What about secrert information publishing of which may harm national security?

[Husar]

I said long ago that Britain is turning into a creepy Orwellian surveillance nightmare and noone wanted to believe me.
Now the police follow people to pubs to harass them...
I'm just glad that abomination is leaving the EU.
You gave up your freedoms for fear of terrorism and now they use that against you.

To think that the "special friend" of the US, that bombed and invaded all the muslim countries, then wanted to liberate Libya and now fears all the bad people who come from there is actively working on islamizing itself on a government level....

Oh yeah, what was the topic? Yeah, it's probably illegal here for me to talk about that...

[Greyblades]

Gr8 b8 m8. 8/8

[Hooahguy]

Interestingly enough, this comes just in time for Youtube changing their TOS and now apparently videos cant be monetized if they have swearing or talking about controversial material and other silly stuff like that.

[Fragony]

What about secrert information publishing of which may harm national security?

That's a hard one, but when it comes to free speech that belongs is a different sphere I'd say. Feedom of speech goes no further than not being bullied or prosecuted for having an opinion on something. Blatant racism or rediculisation don't cross me line, at a certain point that can become a crime of course

[Legs]

So an ex con who is a football hooligan and has a history of violence at football matches gets asked to leave the area after a football match
What has that got to do with freedom of speech?
Perhaps they should have given the idiot a lifetime ban from attending matches instead of the 3 year ban.

[InsaneApache]

So an ex con who is a football hooligan and has a history of violence at football matches gets asked to leave the area after a football match
What has that got to do with freedom of speech?
Perhaps they should have given the idiot a lifetime ban from attending matches instead of the 3 year ban.

Oh deary me.

[Legs]

Oh deary me.

Can you explain how his freedom of speech is being stopped then , he expresses his views publicly at every chance he gets. Lots of organisations give him a platform for him to express his views.
I think the only time his freedom of speech has been denied is firstly when they suspended his twitter account because prisoners are not supposed to be using social media, and secondly when they suspended his twitter account because in his crusade against immigrants and muslims he linked to a neo nazi website where they claimed immigrants and muslims in Britain are part of a global jewish conspiracy being facilitated by some Jewish politicians in Britain.

[InsaneApache]

I'm no fan but once you accept the premise that some views are so unacceptable that they lead to a prison sentence, then we're not on a slippery slope but half way down it.

[Legs]

I'm no fan but once you accept the premise that some views are so unacceptable that they lead to a prison sentence, then we're not on a slippery slope but half way down it.

Can you think of a time when there wasn't a view that was so unnaceptable that it led to a prison sentence?

[AE Bravo]

The nativist has (supposedly) freedom/tolerance without the respect down while the radicals have respect down without the tolerance. Freedom of speech without the respect that makes it an intrinsic good is the thing that makes this "should there be limits" question worth asking, and it shouldn't be worth asking.

They take the world too seriously and they take themselves too seriously. No sympathy for fascists of all stripes.

[Montmorency]

Anyway, freedom of speech is such a queer little figment, a shibboleth now in the same way as "racism" or "political correctness". Let's come down to principles here: either go Hugo Black, or don't come back.

[Husar]

So what about islamic hate preachers?
Is their freedom of speech also so important that they shouldn't get deported?
I could swear I saw people who thought that if they want to say these things, they should be thrown out of Britain.
I suppose they should be allowed to say whatever they want then and everyone here would fight for their right to do so in Britain.

[Kralizec]

I'm no fan but once you accept the premise that some views are so unacceptable that they lead to a prison sentence, then we're not on a slippery slope but half way down it.

I think Legs' point is that he's being targeted for a lot more than just saying racist stuff and his explanation seems plausible to me. In my view most people who complain that "free speech is dead" are neanderthals and loudmouths. If someone would express the same views but in boring, non-intimidating prose and not in a football stadium or some other place where there could be disturbances then we would be talking about the mere expression of an opinion.

In the case of Germany and Austria, the ban on holocaust denial and Nazi symbols make perfect sense in the post-WW2 context. Nazis may seem like an insignificant fringe nowadays but it took decades before that poison started dying out. More generally, as in for any random country, I'm not so sure that I can support a US style 1st amendment. I did once when I was younger, and I still think that my country sometimes has been too restrictive on this point. But I no longer believe that if you let go completely the "market of ideas" will sort it out or anything of that sort. Racism is poison to society, as are a string of other forms of hate, and I understand why governments would want to curtail at least the crudest expressions to ensure that everyone can live in peace and safety. That means going after drunken idiots who shout racial slurs in football stadiums, for one thing.

[Montmorency]

It's not about a "marketplace of ideas" - it's an arena of individuals with Caesar as Caesar.

[a completely inoffensive name]

For all the anti-hate speech laws in Europe, you are all still drinking the right-wing nationalist cool-aid more and more.

[Greyblades]

That's because in europe it is increasingly the nationalist right who are the only political entity that doesnt have a moratorium on the glaring problems of european society.

[Fragony]

So what about islamic hate preachers?
Is their freedom of speech also so important that they shouldn't get deported?
I could swear I saw people who thought that if they want to say these things, they should be thrown out of Britain.
I suppose they should be allowed to say whatever they want then and everyone here would fight for their right to do so in Britain.

Islamic hate-preaches call for violence

[Legs]

Islamic hate-preaches call for violence

And football hooligans do violence.

[Legs]

That's because in europe it is increasingly the nationalist right who are the only political entity that doesnt have a moratorium on the glaring problems of european society.

The nationalist right are a glaring problem of european society.
Look at the individualin question , he is so consumed with his crusade against muslims and immigrants that he says he didn't notice that the material he posted on twitter was blaming it all on the jews.

[Fragony]

And football hooligans do violence.

What does that have to do with free speech? Free speech is not getting prosecuted for your views.

[Husar]

For all the anti-hate speech laws in Europe, you are all still drinking the right-wing nationalist cool-aid more and more.

Begs the question how bad it would be without the laws, doesn't it?
After WW1, a certain Adolf Hitler got released early from prison after getting arrested for his views, we all know how well that worked out.

What does that have to do with free speech? Free speech is not getting prosecuted for your views.

So the hate preacher should not get prosecuted for his view that others should die.

[Fragony]

So the hate preacher should not get prosecuted for his view that others should die.

No that they should kill. If someone holds a sign sayin that 'all gays should die' is not the same as walking with a sign saying 'Kill all gays'

[Legs]

What does that have to do with free speech?.

It has nothing to do with free speech, that's the point

Free speech is not getting prosecuted for your views

And what does that have to do with the individual in question?
What views has he been prosecuted for?
violence fraud and using a false passport? are those matters that have anything to do with free speech?

[Brenus]

"After WW1, a certain Adolf Hitler got released early from prison after getting arrested for his views, we all know how well that worked out" Hmmm, counter-example: in 1933, Fascist leagues were banned in France. Fascism was imposed in France following the German invasion...