Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Free Speech and Social Media (esp. in the U.K.)
Options
-
20-09-2012 6:04pm#1This morning I was reading about Daniel Thomas' tweet regarding the British diver Tom Daley, in which Thomas posted a (to some) distasteful comment, in jest, about Daley's sexual preferences; a furore erupted over the tweet, with the whole story being big news after the Olympics, and with Thomas facing the possibility of a criminal prosecution — he was not prosecuted, but the case still raises some interesting questions. Thomas' tweet referenced Daley and Waterfield's (the British Olympic diving pair) fourth place finish, and read as (don't read it if you're particularly offended by jokes about homosexuality):"if there is any consolation for finishing fourth atleast daley and waterfield can go and bum each other #teamHIV"
I've been noticing a trend in the U.K. over the past few years where those posting distasteful comments — racist, sexist or homophobic remarks, or distasteful comments about an individual's death, for example — have faced prosecution, or at least faced the possibility of prosecution, under particular U.K. laws. It seems that more and more legislation is being introduced in an attempt to deter individuals from making such comments, and to hold those who do make such comments criminally responsible.
I'm not saying that people should be free to incite hatred; individuals who post comments that have a clear and unquestionable intention of inciting hatred or assault or violence ought to be dealt with. Likewise, libel should not be tolerated. Having said that, I don't believe those posting comments that are for the most part innocuous should be dealt with in a similar way to those who commit libel or incite hatred — in fact, I don't believe they should be "dealt" with at all. A person should be free to offend others: to make jokes about an individual's sexual orientation, or to joke over the death of an individual, for example; I wouldn't do this — and I'm sure most others wouldn't either — but I still believe individuals should be free to do so if they wish.
I don't believe the state should have any part to play in protecting the feelings of individuals; it should not set out to prevent offence — after all, isn't offence received, not given? — nor hold those who cause another to be offended as criminally responsible. The path that the U.K. seems to be travelling down worries me. Yes, I understand that some comments might be libellous, or that others might risk inciting hatred; what should cause worry is that, at the moment, comments less harmful than libellous remarks or attempts to incite hatred seem to be being targeted, comments that are merely offensive.
What do you think? Should the state play a part in preventing an individual from being offended? Is this a case of the state exercising power that it should not have? Is it a right that follows from free speech to at least have the possibility of offending another, especially without facing prosecution?3
Comments
-
There are various issues here when you look at the two different jurisdictions of Ireland and the UK. The UK is not bound by a detailed written constitution like Ireland. Although I admit that te way the balance is struck between freedom of expression, outraging public morality and the right to ones good name is very similar.
In theory the reason the legislature is separate from the judiciary is so that people may take part, though elected officials, to enact laws the majority wish to live by. Therefore I suppose I arrive at my default position that is, subject to certain conditions, the state should interfere where the people wish it to interfere.
I suppose my only concern is how complicated the situation gets in the UK especially. It's not a direct issue of outraging public morality when it comes to Social Media, it's some section of the Communications Act. In Ireland such an Act would be held to the standards of the Constitution. A document that everyone in the state should be familiar or at least has no excuse for not being familiar with. In the UK it's much more complicated which undermines the one of the key elements of having a separate legislature; which is that though participation in Law making the people should be aware of the law.0 -
My company are supposedly drawing up new policies with regard to comments made on social media etc, the rumors are if I'm anyway critical of my company, i can be sacked i.e. "the crowd I work for are a bunch of chancers " even if it their not directly named.....0
-
My company are supposedly drawing up new policies with regard to comments made on social media etc, the rumors are if I'm anyway critical of my company, i can be sacked i.e. "the crowd I work for are a bunch of chancers " even if it their not directly named.....
It depends on what you mean by "not directly named".
I think these things cut both ways. If your company were critical of "that incompetent, innumerate nerdy bloke in accounts with the glasses and the halitosis" you mightn't be best pleased with that description, if you thought you could be easily identified by such. Sauce for the goose etc.0 -
The Ironic thing is that if that idiot tweet in the original post was ignored as it should be, along with the millions of other stupid comments on the internet, then only a tiny amount of people would have seen it.
By making a big deal out of it, it's been brought to the attention of millions of people.0 -
100% correct!0
-
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post had been deleted.
Should people be allowed to have sex, in public, full view of children? In Denmark there is nothing the authorities can do in that situation - it would be up to the parents to move the children on. Frankly I agree with what you are saying but you have to bear in mind a fully liberal attitude would result in the described scenario.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post had been deleted.
Granted it is - but if the majority of people want censorship in social media then the rest of us that don't have to fall in line unfortunately. Its a right that simply isn't clear cut enough to give a blanket okay to everything. I'm simply illustrating that a line has to be drawn some where. (For most - frankly rock on I know where the off button is)0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Advertisement
-
This post had been deleted.
Where would you draw the line then and by what measure? Additionally I would not agree that Ireland is a liberal democracy it's a constitutional one. A constitutional democracy where the people are sovereign and operate, at the most fundamental level, by majority (referundum).0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
I think we agree to a point. My personal belief if that once something crosses a certain line it should attract censure. That line, however, needs to be at a point that the vast majority agree is outrages public morality. Examples in my opinion would be - Child Pornography, Blatant incitement of hatred and setting up of a Facebook accounts to do nothing more than try and upset people such as the one that was prosecuted in the UK after the two police officers where shot in Manchester.
I have to disagree that changing the constitution is a painfully slow process. Changing public perceptions and attitudes is what takes time. I fall back to my default position here that is the majority don't want something its the job of liberal elements to persuade and educate rather than attempt to force their will in the name of 'the greater good'.
To keep this pertinent to the topic at hand Social Media has to impose its own rules. An example is Boards.ie. Allowing complete freedom of speech here would result in chaos. Freedom of speech is curtailed in an effort to promote the common good. Facebook etc makes it easier than ever before for people to reach a massive audience. This power has to be more strictly controlled by some body as the traditional bars (mostly effort) are not present. Admittedly that body does not have to be the state - but at certain point the state must have the power to intervene.
EDIT: Sorry I did not answer the question you posed
Yes it was justified by those exact reasons.Was that justified because we had a population that most mostly Catholic and conservative at that time?0 -
Procrastastudy wrote: »I think we agree to a point. My personal belief if that once something crosses a certain line it should attract censure. That line, however, needs to be at a point that the vast majority agree is outrages public morality. Examples in my opinion would be - Child Pornography, Blatant incitement of hatred and setting up of a Facebook accounts to do nothing more than try and upset people such as the one that was prosecuted in the UK after the two police officers where shot in Manchester.
I disagree with you on two counts. Firstly, the majority, on a whim or via democratic referendum, for example, should not be capable of over-ruling or removing the inherent rights of the individual — and I believe freedom of speech and of expression are intrinsic, inherent rights. Secondly, upsetting an individual or a great number of people should not be a criminal offence. I cannot see why a state should be in the business of not only preventing offence, but of incriminating and imprisoning those who cause offence. It's ridiculous. If an individual, such as the person who set up that Facebook page, causes great offence, then criticism is what he should receive, not imprisonment. It's very Orwellian to believe otherwise.0 -
I disagree with you on two counts. Firstly, the majority, on a whim or via democratic referendum, for example, should not be capable of over-ruling or removing the inherent rights of the individual — and I believe freedom of speech and of expression are intrinsic, inherent rights.
That is of course your right to believe that. However you have to bear in mind that this country had two constitutions within the last 100 years. One in 1922 where one could argue there were influences of a sovereign Crown and another within 3 generations of the current populous. The 1937 constitution chose to make very few rights absolute - not even the right to life is an absolute one. It's not as if the current state of affairs was imposed a long time a go in a galaxy far far away...
I think its very dangerous to impose ones will because one believes it is in the common good. To do so treats the population as children. I'm sure many dictators feel they are taking a paternal role in protecting the uneducated masses. Freedom of expression is legislated for, provided for in the Constitution and under the ECHR - none of these sources of law give an absolute right to freedom of speech. This would suggest that an absolute inalienable and indefeasible right in that regard is the minority view.Secondly, upsetting an individual or a great number of people should not be a criminal offence. I cannot see why a state should be in the business of not only preventing offence, but of incriminating and imprisoning those who cause offence. It's ridiculous. If an individual, such as the person who set up that Facebook page, causes great offence, then criticism is what he should receive, not imprisonment.
Many counties in Europe have criminal laws associated with freedom of speech. Even more specifically regarding defamation. Given the scope of social media I don't think its unreasonable to legislate against certain actions. This can be seen from two points of view. Firstly a freedom of speech issue and secondly from regulation of channels of freedom of speech. Looking at the latter most of us accept that violent and sexual content is on the telly later at night and in some cases not allowed to to broadcast of all.It's very Orwellian to believe otherwise.
Lets not forget Orwell's two seminal works involved a minority imposing their view on the populous at large.0 -
Procrastastudy wrote: »I think its very dangerous to impose ones will because one believes it is in the common good. To do so treats the population as children. I'm sure many dictators feel they are taking a paternal role in protecting the uneducated masses. Freedom of expression is legislated for, provided for in the Constitution and under the ECHR - none of these sources of law give an absolute right to freedom of speech. This would suggest that an absolute inalienable and indefeasible right in that regard is the minority view.
It's not imposing one's will — it is, in fact, the absolute opposite — it's acknowledging that the individual has certain inalienable rights, rights that cannot be altered or taken on a whim, be it by dictator or the decision of the majority. To deny this is to deny the sovereignty of the individual, and to grant power over the individual to the majority or to a dictator. If such rights are inalienable then the majority (or a dictator) has no rule over certain aspects of the individual; if such rights are not inalienable then the majority (or a dictator) has absolute rule over the individual. A world without inalienable rights is a much scarier world than one with inalienable rights, even if you believe granting such rights to the individual is "imposing one's will."
But this is all a little off-topic ...Many counties in Europe have criminal laws associated with freedom of speech. Even more specifically regarding defamation. Given the scope of social media I don't think its unreasonable to legislate against certain actions. This can be seen from two points of view. Firstly a freedom of speech issue and secondly from regulation of channels of freedom of speech. Looking at the latter most of us accept that violent and sexual content is on the telly later at night and in some cases not allowed to to broadcast of all.
If you read my opening post you'll see that I acknowledge both libel and incitement of hatred as actions that are justifiably acted upon by the state. Neither libel nor incitement of hatred have anything to do with simply causing offence or upsetting an individual or a group, though. None of this answers why it should be illegal to cause offence, nor why the state should attempt to protect people's feelings.0 -
It's not imposing one's will — it is, in fact, the absolute opposite — it's acknowledging that the individual has certain inalienable rights, rights that cannot be altered or taken on a whim, be it by dictator or the decision of the majority. To deny this is to deny the sovereignty of the individual, and to grant power over the individual to the majority or to a dictator. If such rights are inalienable then the majority (or a dictator) has no rule over certain aspects of the individual; if such rights are not inalienable then the majority (or a dictator) has absolute rule over the individual. A world without inalienable rights is a much scarier world than one with inalienable rights, even if you believe granting such rights to the individual is "imposing one's will."
But this is all a little off-topic ...
Granted I will simply reiterate that the individuals rights are protected by the Constitution that can be changed by the will of the people. Personal rights are also protected (since 2003) by the ECHR. I don't think the current position is an issue personally.If you read my opening post you'll see that I acknowledge both libel and incitement of hatred as actions that are justifiably acted upon by the state. Neither libel nor incitement of hatred have anything to do with simply causing offence or upsetting an individual or a group, though. None of this answers why it should be illegal to cause offence, nor why the state should attempt to protect people's feelings.
I will clarify my position. If something causes moral outrage it has gone too far and the state should act on it regardless of the media on which it is presented. In regard to social media and indeed other forms of mass media and defamation there is no reason, in my view, why these can not be further regulated by legislation such as the Communications Act in the UK. There is a further protection in Ireland that such legislation would have to be Constitutional.
Furthermore I believe that social media sites should be free to impose their own rules as to what is acceptable and what is not.0 -
Procrastastudy wrote: »I will clarify my position. If something causes moral outrage it has gone too far and the state should act on it regardless of the media on which it is presented. In regard to social media and indeed other forms of mass media and defamation there is no reason, in my view, why these can not be further regulated by legislation such as the Communications Act in the UK. There is a further protection in Ireland that such legislation would have to be Constitutional.
That raises far, far more questions than it answers. You're now suggesting that the state should legislate on issues of morality — indeed, states already do, but I do not agree with it. On what basis does a state determine what's moral and what's immoral? Common consensus? Religion? The topic of morality is a can of worms. It could also be argued that legislating on issues of morality is a step backwards when it comes to secularisation.
I don't agree that the state should play any part in deciding what's moral or immoral, or punishing with imprisonment those who have caused moral outrage — whatever "moral outrage" is defined to be. I've still not heard a good argument for a state exercising power in order to protect people's feelings ... the very thought of which I find absurd.
I suppose that we both fundamentally disagree on this matter.Furthermore I believe that social media sites should be free to impose their own rules as to what is acceptable and what is not.
I agree.0 -
That raises far, far more questions than it answers. You're now suggesting that the state should legislate on issues of morality — indeed, states already do, but I do not agree with it. On what basis does a state determine what's moral and what's immoral? Common consensus? Religion? The topic of morality is a can of worms. It could also be argued that legislating on issues of morality is a step backwards when it comes to secularisation.
I'm not now suggesting it I've been supporting that position all along. I don't agree it has anything to do with secularisation, although, the Irish State chooses to retain blasphemy laws, their days a numbered. An example of the system we have working.
Moral outrage is ultimately decided upon by a jury if not specifically legislated for - an imperfect system to be sure but I'm at a loss to see a better one. The state has to play some part in deciding otherwise we would allow the publication of a massive billboard on Jenna Jameson engaging in her particular line of work outside a school.[/quote]I don't agree that the state should play any part in deciding what's moral or immoral, or punishing with imprisonment those who have caused moral outrage — whatever "moral outrage" is defined to be. I've still not heard a good argument for a state exercising power in order to protect people's feelings ... the very thought of which I find absurd.
I suppose that we both fundamentally disagree on this matter.
'Feelings' is perhaps too weak a word. I think once the vast majority of people want it restricted it then should be. Unfortunately that will result in some people's rights being infringed - many decisions of this nature are a balancing act. I will say that I do believe you are overstating the punishment aspect of these offences - I think fines are more likely - I stand to be corrected there of course.0 -
This morning I was reading about Daniel Thomas' tweet regarding the British diver Tom Daley, in which Thomas posted a (to some) distasteful comment, in jest, about Daley's sexual preferences; a furore erupted over the tweet, with the whole story being big news after the Olympics, and with Thomas facing the possibility of a criminal prosecution — he was not prosecuted, but the case still raises some interesting questions. Thomas' tweet referenced Daley and Waterfield's (the British Olympic diving pair) fourth place finish, and read as (don't read it if you're particularly offended by jokes about homosexuality):
An important thing to remember about Twitter is that in some cases abusive messages are being directed towards an account-holder, by including @so_and_so in the tweet. In such cases, you can be straying into areas of criminal law that aim to protect people from harassment. You may be free to express your opinion that some prominent individual is a jerk, but that doesn't mean you're free to call them on the phone and tell them that, or send them a letter to that effect, or an email, or to call to their door and shout "Jerk!" through the letterbox. Arguably, when you tweet "@so_and_so is a jerk!" you're doing something along those lines.
Looking at the quotes from that judge in the link you posted, he seems conscious of this issue, as he notes that in this case the poster did not intend the comments to actually reach Daley.0 -
Advertisement
-
Procrastastudy wrote: »Moral outrage is ultimately decided upon by a jury if not specifically legislated for - an imperfect system to be sure but I'm at a loss to see a better one.
I'd argue that a system which doesn't interfere at all would be superior to one that does. Morality by consensus of a jury ... I cannot agree with that.
It wouldn't be illegal, but what makes you believe it would happen? Government regulation isn't required to stop the above from occurring. If something like that happened then both the company providing the billboard and the company advertising Jameson's services would likely face negative public feedback and, indeed, uproar, which in turn would negatively affect their businesses. I don't believe regulation is required to prevent such occurrences — I may be wrong, but that's my current opinion.The state has to play some part in deciding otherwise we would allow the publication of a massive billboard on Jenna Jameson engaging in her particular line of work outside a school.
Any punishment is wrong, I believe. And, as I've said previously, the majority should not be able to overrule what I believe to be intrinsic and fundamental rights of the individual. This is where our fundamental disagreement lies.'Feelings' is perhaps too weak a word. I think once the vast majority of people want it restricted it then should be. Unfortunately that will result in some people's rights being infringed - many decisions of this nature are a balancing act. I will say that I do believe you are overstating the punishment aspect of these offences - I think fines are more likely - I stand to be corrected there of course.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post had been deleted.
You seem to be saying that an intellectual elite should dictate to the masses what is in their best interests. We have a Constitution - its not perfect - but I prefer it to a oligarchy dictating right from wrong. When the majority want to see it changed it will be. Regulation of Social Media is one step removed from the freedom of speech anyway.
May I also say this obsession with religion seems to be bordering on a propaganda exercise. We are moving beyond religious views dictating policy at this stage. I'm us nonintellectuals will find something else that offends the more enlightened at some stage.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
An important thing to remember about Twitter is that in some cases abusive messages are being directed towards an account-holder, by including @so_and_so in the tweet. In such cases, you can be straying into areas of criminal law that aim to protect people from harassment. You may be free to express your opinion that some prominent individual is a jerk, but that doesn't mean you're free to call them on the phone and tell them that, or send them a letter to that effect, or an email, or to call to their door and shout "Jerk!" through the letterbox. Arguably, when you tweet "@so_and_so is a jerk!" you're doing something along those lines.
Looking at the quotes from that judge in the link you posted, he seems conscious of this issue, as he notes that in this case the poster did not intend the comments to actually reach Daley.
That's a good point — a distinction has to be drawn between blatant harassment and causing "moral outrage," for example. There are cases where individuals have been arrested for making offensive or derogatory comments, and not for what might be called harassment, such as the individual who created a Facebook page with offensive comments about the death of two British police officers.0 -
This post had been deleted.
Either the majority rule or?This post had been deleted.
Moral outrage is the current position - we've had the Supreme Court rule that information on abortion is perfectly legal. I don't think the crisis you seem to say will happen is going to happen. I think perhaps you have misunderstood where I'm suggesting that bar should be placed. I think the vast majority of society would be fine with 50 shades of grey but a book on the prepubescent female form would rightly be banned or at least restricted.
A facebook page advocating or congratulating the killing of members of the AGS should receive the same treatment. A page highlighting corruption or incompetence in the AGS should not.This post had been deleted.
You seem articulate, persuasive and opinionated. If there is a group of people that feel the same way you do get organised and propose the amendments. By the time they come to vote hopefully I will be able to support them.This post had been deleted.
We - the Irish and British. Worldwide is a very different proposition.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post had been deleted.
This is a different point - although I would say that these cases where the majority of society do not believe in displays of religious symbols it's fair to confine it to a place of worship or the privacy of ones own home.This post had been deleted.
There is a difference between simple indecency and moral outrage. Although I can't fault your interpretation of the Constitution as it stands.This post had been deleted.
We're splitting hairs here (as unfortunate turn of phrase as that is). Substitute a book on grooming young children - in certain circles such as academic setting it could be allowed but it should not be freely available to the public.This post had been deleted.
The only majority I am concerned with is the majority of people within a given state. In these scenarios the UK and Ireland.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Advertisement
-
The story continues ...
Matthew Woods has been jailed (read here and here) for 12 weeks for posting distasteful jokes about the missing April Jones and Madeleine McCann. The jokes were adaptations of generic jokes which he found online. There's no doubt that such jokes are highly disrespectful and distasteful, but, having said that, should making such jokes, and making them available online on his Facebook page, be a criminal offence punishable with 12 weeks in jail?
I don't think so. If I'm being honest, such imprisonments scare me.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement