Is It Just Me Who Gets Really Cross With... (5 Viewers)

[DuxDeluxe]

I wish there was one of those around here - I think somesort of flying school has started up locally... plagued with light aircraft doing circuits for hours on end - sounds like a mega amplified pesky mosquito .
No I'm not [yet] annoyed enough to do something .

Oh yes, they have already prevented a local farmer from using his helicopter for more than (I think) 30 days a year and another has had to close his light airstrip. The former now keeps his heli somewhere else and the latter simply gave up. Both within half a mile and neither of them were causing any nuisance, except to bitter old pensioners it seems

 

[pyro]

That is the point. Access to Facebook is blocked in China. The only way they can get around this is to operate from within China and obey their laws on internet access.
They have experimented a couple of times with various technology. They have not implemented any of it due to concerns about human rights etc.

As for freedom of speech. There is no such thing in this country or as far as I know any European country. Only the U.S. actually have real freedom of speech laws as far as I know.

Do they?

Who really has "freedom" of speech?
There are plenty of things that if we said here in Britain would get us into trouble.

See below. See below, China is one of the few countries that refuse to sign up to the UN Declaration of Human Rights

Article 10 Human Rights Act (the one Cameron was trying to change and a UN requirement that China refuse to enact and FB are conspiring to circumvent)

Article 10: Freedom of Expression

(1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference 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.

As for what is said in this forum, Jim is the arbiter, it's his property

 

[Gromett]

@pyro I am not sure what you are saying there?

The UK most definitely does not have freedom of speech. There are distinct limits to what I can say. In UK law there is no specific freedom of speech laws, and there are many many restrictions on what I can say under various other laws.

In America they have the 1st Amendment which prevents the Government from abridging the freedom of speech. They also have a totally free press. They hold this amendment in very high almost quasi religious status. They do have very tiny exceptions under incitement exceptions but these are always hard fought in court and incredibly hard to prove. There has been absolutely no legislative creep on this unlike in the UK.

The freedom of expression rules in the Human rights act is weak beyond belief because of all the exemptions listed in section 2 that you gave. The U.S. has no such list.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[yodeli]

It wasn't implied by me Mr Zigisla.

I will try to explain myself more clearly...

I don't give a monkey's flying wind break how bloody helpful his blog is...

Logging onto a forum and, with your first post, trying to get folk to leave that forum and go to your blog is just WRONG.

It is RUDE.

It is NOT how one should behave.

It is LEECHING off the hard work of the Forum's owner.

I am sorry if people don't understand this... they haven't been brought up with, or learnt, good internet manners.

Now I've got all hot and bothered again

Bugger... My third boiled egg went cold while I was having my rant...


JJ

Funny only about egg going cold.... Before that bit...it s all serious of course.

 

[pyro]

Gromett, I think you'll find that freedom of speech under the first amendment is far less all embracing than you appear to believe. For example, much the same exceptions have been applied in various judgments that have significantly eroded these rights, in particular the doctrine of reciprocity.

For example in the USA, a journalist can virtually say whatever he wants of an individual and claim protection under the first amendment. In the UK, our defamation laws prevent such an occurrence.

The situation in the US is actually all the worse for not having a defined list, instead relying on common law principles. As a point of interest, Universal Declaration of Human Rights Drafting Committee was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt and driven by the USA. However, I really don't relish the prospect of having to deliver a lecture on law in a forum, and I don't think there would be much interest in it either so I won't bite. As I have said before, I suggest you don't necessarily believe the first thing that Google turns up, especially concerning the US in isolation to the rest of the world

You might find this interesting: http://qz.com/644588/the-only-way-facebook-enters-china-is-as-a-tool-of-the-government/ The commentary concludes rather succinctly:

Zuckerberg will put his thesis that the benefits of “connecting everybody” outweigh the costs of complying with oppressive regimes to the ultimate test.

None of this addresses the situation that FB are engaging with a state that has no recognition at all of human rights, and on terms set by that state

 

[JJ]

Oi!

You freedom of speech lot... get off my grumpy about folk diverting folk away from Fun thread.

JJ

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

@pyro I am not going to get into a debate on this subject. If you do your own research you will see there is a massive difference between our free speech rules and Americas 1st Amendment. The last case I followed on this was the Fred Phelps one and he is pretty extreme but still won.

Defamation is a whole different kettle of fish, that is civil law not criminal law.

Finally, facebook are not engaging with the Chinese state on this, that would be misleading. They are simply examining technological options. Sensible move for any company to look at the options even if it means binning it at the end for moral reasons.

 

[pyro]

Fair enough mate, I'm trying to avoid another didactic debate, I didn't invite the lecture on law

Spent enough years studying it, and a lot more practicing it, and the subject takes a lot more than a study of a single case in isolation from others, or is covered within Google

Off you go, then, fill yer boots./ The floor's all yours

 

[Gromett]

Oi!

You freedom of speech lot... get off my grumpy about folk diverting folk away from Fun thread.

JJ

Consider my last post my last post on the subject

Can't believe you as an American would be against a free speech debate

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[pyro]

Can't believe you as an American would be against a free speech debate

Now that is funny

 

[Gromett]

Spent enough years studying it, and a lot more practicing it, and the subject takes a lot more than a study of a single case in isolation from others, or is covered within Google

Damnit. Reeled me in with that one. I didn't just study one case, I have read more than a couple, even more so since a case was threatened a few years ago with respect to Net Neutrality and the 1st amendment. My interest in U.S. law dates back to before Google even existed. My source of info is not just googling, it is from taking part in news groups/news sites and discussion forums on which many U.S. lawyers take part. Many a great debate is had on the difference between U.S. and other countries laws.

Sorry @JJ

 

[yodeli]

Oi!

You freedom of speech lot... get off my grumpy about folk diverting folk away from Fun thread.

JJ

Oh come on, i m sure you're enjoying all this, rubbing your hands with joy! Lol
While i m trying to get dad laughing a bit!!!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[pyro]

Damnit. Reeled me in with that one. I didn't just study one case, I have read more than a couple, even more so since a case was threatened a few years ago with respect to Net Neutrality and the 1st amendment. My interest in U.S. law dates back to before Google even existed. My source of info is not just googling, it is from taking part in news groups/news sites and discussion forums on which many U.S. lawyers take part. Many a great debate is had on the difference between U.S. and other countries laws.

Sorry @JJ

Well, I have spent 8 years learning, approaching 30 years in total in practice (3 of which in the USA), I've been admitted to the Bar in three US states (Washington, New York and LA) , I've personally participated in 27 cases under US jurisdiction (not just read up on them) and I still don't profess to know everything. Seems like I've wasted my life then, at least I know where to send my trainees for further education

Not really much point in engaging with you on this, then, either

 

[JJ]

Bloody lawyers...


JJ

 

[pyro]

Bloody lawyers...


JJ

Sorry, JJ, just gets a bit patronising being told my profession. It's not as if I am even particularly proud of it, either

The floor really is all yours mate

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

Well, I have spent 8 years learning, approaching 30 years in total in practice (3 of which in the USA), I've been admitted to the Bar in three US states (Washington, New York and LA) , I've personally participated in 27 cases under US jurisdiction (not just read up on them) and I still don't profess to know everything. Seems like I've wasted my life then, at least I know where to send my trainees for further education

Not really much point in engaging with you on this, then, either

I wasn't denigrating your experience or knowledge. I was simply disagreeing with you. It was you denigrating me by saying I just did a quick google or based my opinion on one case. At no point have I said I am an expert. I didn't know you were a lawyer nor that you had studied in the US. Does this mean i have to check everyones background before engaging them in debate just in case I offend them by disagreeing with their 'expert' opinion?

I am simply saying that there is a vast difference between the UK and the US when it comes to freedom of speech. The U.S. has it codified in law and we don't. This to me constitutes a massive difference. I can give loads of examples of things I could say in the U.S. that would be illegal to say in the UK .

If you think I am not allowed to have an opinion please just say so and I will shut up. If because a person is an 'expert' they are not able to engage in friendly debate with non 'experts' that is as bad as a lack of freedom of speech. If I am wrong, tell me how. Give me examples of where a freedom of speech case in the US supreme court has found in favour of curtailing that freedom. I am always more than happy to be educated and admit when I am wrong. I will however not stop debating stuff just because someone reels off a CV and says I am right look just look at my experience for proof. I stopped doing that when I stopped going to church. Evidence is everything to me.

 

[hilldweller]

Not put off just thought we were helping people we will still do our blog it lets the kids know where we are , also its handy because we forget where we have been sometimes

Web Log - sorry to be the pedant...

I stand corrected, twice.

Though I think my version is far better.

 

[JJ]

I think I better update my blog fairly soon now...

I have to post all about the French Summer Adventure with my Princess and my vegatable growing and all the improvements to Quinta Majay and all the VIP Funster visitors and my super spool and... and... and...

And of course I can use whatever bad language I want and slag off people who really annoy me and call them names and no one can tell me off!

If folk post comments I don't like, I just delete them...

JJ

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[iandsm]

Why does it annoy me so very much when people come onto Fun and, without contributing to any threads or even sometimes without subscribing, just post a link to their blog.

Just using the huge Fun membership, built up over years of work by Jim, to advertise their own blog.

Am I the only one who gets so cross?

JJ

In that circumstance JJ I find it amusing that they think I or anyone else give give a shit about their blog.

 

[pyro]

I have thought long and hard as to whether to bother answering this one, and apologise to all if this distracts from the original topic.

I wasn't denigrating your experience or knowledge. I was simply disagreeing with you. It was you denigrating me by saying I just did a quick google or based my opinion on one case. At no point have I said I am an expert. I didn't know you were a lawyer nor that you had studied in the US. Does this mean i have to check everyones background before engaging them in debate just in case I offend them by disagreeing with their 'expert' opinion?

I am simply saying that there is a vast difference between the UK and the US when it comes to freedom of speech. The U.S. has it codified in law and we don't. This to me constitutes a massive difference. I can give loads of examples of things I could say in the U.S. that would be illegal to say in the UK .

If you think I am not allowed to have an opinion please just say so and I will shut up. If because a person is an 'expert' they are not able to engage in friendly debate with non 'experts' that is as bad as a lack of freedom of speech. If I am wrong, tell me how. Give me examples of where a freedom of speech case in the US supreme court has found in favour of curtailing that freedom. I am always more than happy to be educated and admit when I am wrong. I will however not stop debating stuff just because someone reels off a CV and says I am right look just look at my experience for proof. I stopped doing that when I stopped going to church. Evidence is everything to me.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion Gromett, just as long as you accept criticism of others as readily as you expect them to treat what you say at face value.

I was trying to make a simple point that the right to freedom of expression is enshrined in English law, without wasting loads of my own time and boring everyone else to tears into the bargain, and you responded with a scathing and inaccurate generalisation that UK rights are weaker than those of the UK

@pyro The UK most definitely does not have freedom of speech
/snip
The U.S. has no such list.

The first amendment is a constitutional right, derived largely from the seeds of an unrefined "bill of rights" that were originally sown in the Magna Carta some 400 years previously, and as a consequence the rigidity of its drafting significantly and constantly invites challenge. That is one of the problems with a fixed constitution, they risk constant reinterpretation - that's why it's called an "amendment" after all, to appease opponents

For example, John Adams and the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, which prohibited all reporting that was critical of government, Senator Joseph McCarthy used similar tactics to supress first amendment protection in the Alien Registration Act of 1940 (Smith Act),and thus support his wholesale pogrom against accused Communists back in the 1950s, racial incitement in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) rightly denied the exercise of first amendment freedom of speech in a hateful context by a KKK member, the cases of James Perry and that of Rice v, Paladin Enterprises (1997) (the "Hit Man" case) threw yet another spanner in the works, along with the Patriot Act 2001 which effectively resurrected the hated era of McCarthyism. I can quote many many more examples.

Thus the first amendment applies only if you are not inciting civil disorder, criticising the government, inciting violence, advocating racially aggravating offences, supporting communism, discussing anarchy, disparaging government departments, etc, etc. The list of exceptions to the first amendment is very very extensive, and frustratingly it is not enshrined in statute , in contrast with the Human Rights Act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

The terms of Article 10 (S2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 quite rightly give exceptions to where the freedom of speech end and where the best interests of the nation, the protection of others and the preservation of justice begin.

For example, a person cannot defame another and then attempt to hide behind his constitutional right to say whatever he pleases without facing the consequences, as in the USA. That is why so many American defamation cases end up in the British courts, to prevent people from hiding behind archaic rights conferred under the first amendment that (arguably) protect the perpetrator of a wrong more than they protect the actual victim.

And I say “quite rightly”, because exceptions need to be listed when conferring an absolute right. People deserve the right to know where their conduct crosses a line, which is far more than can be said of the simplistic first amendment, which instead relies on the interpretation of the courts and established precedent in so many cases.

And if my reaction at being told how to do my job is offensive to you, then it is doubly so to me to be constantly challenged, perhaps it is more the fact that you can’t cherry pick a case or selectively quote what someone says in a forum and then paste it out of context elsewhere, at least not when you are dealing with complex legal issues. And if you do, then you must expect to be challenged, not indulged

You are labouring under the wrong impression if you believe that the first amendment confers any greater freedom of speech over and above that conferred under UN charter, which itself came about because of the work of Eleanor Roosevelt, and which is enshrined in the statute books of almost all civilised countries. By which I exclude China

Which brings me back to the point in question, people in China do not have the luxury of such rights, and Facebook appear to be fully prepared to perpetuate that wrong simply to exploit that market. Hard though it may be to believe, but money is the only motive here, there isn't a glint of altruism in the eye of Mr Zuckerberg - he doesn't give a toss about the denial of human rights

I suspect we both like having the last word, Gromett (doesn’t everyone?) but this isn’t ad hominem, I really don’t want to spend my time giving boring lectures on law any more than I want to be the recipient of your opinions on the matter. You have pressed me for an explanation, I have done you the courtesy of responding, please let’s leave it at that and get back on topic

Thank you

 

[Gromett]

@pyro, thanks for an informative post which contained some interesting information and history. But you missed my point, put words in my mouth again and accused me of things I didn't do. I am fully open to being proven wrong, and have on many occasions on this forum admitted when I am wrong. I have never gone out of my way to offend and anyone who knows me will tell you that I am possibly the least offensive person around.

My original post was this.

In America they have the 1st Amendment which prevents the Government from abridging the freedom of speech. They also have a totally free press. They hold this amendment in very high almost quasi religious status. They do have very tiny exceptions under incitement exceptions but these are always hard fought in court and incredibly hard to prove. There has been absolutely no legislative creep on this unlike in the UK.

You will see I do say they have very tiny exceptions for incitement. These are very narrowly worded. That does not in itself cancel out the fact that they have very very strong protections for free speech. The Human rights act on the other hand is very weakly worded in my opinion and our government does restrict free speech (not as badly as China) in a way that couldn't happen in the U.S.

One example of my point is, that the Government in the UK is free to add restrictions to freedom of speech (admittedly with some limits) and has done. In the U.S. the government cannot add restrictions because the first amendment prevents it.

You are of course correct on the Patriot Act. That was a terrible bit of law making and from memory I do have a slight recollection of a case....

I have just deleted the rest of my response because I can't face refuting your accusations point by point.

I do actually agree with you on your zuckerberg/Altruism comment, I doubt the two even belong in the same sentence.

PS: I will let you have the last word. It really isn't that important to me.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[pyro]

I think we agree on many points save that I would rather an elected government were the only people who could alter a statute would make the decision, not leave it to some crusty district judge to interpret a precedent as he alone sees fit. There are reams of case law that can be applied, and I would argue that this dilutes the value of the FA, but I will not pursue the distinctions between opinion and knowledge

Thank you for responding