Is hate speech free speech? You fail to mention that the intention of Linehan’s incitements and threats are an attempt to bully transwomen out of public restrooms. On social media and elsewhere, Glinner has repeatedly made threats to trans people, and incited others to commit violence on them. Shame on you for taking the side of this rich, entitled bully, against a tiny minority group, with little or no power to defend themselves. Stochastic violence is a real thing, Garry. I had thought better of you.
There are men with mental illnesses that think they are women. Some of them mutilate themselves with hormones and surgeries, in violation of the hypocratic oath for anyone that facilitates those treatments.
It is dangerous to allow these mentally ill men into women’s spaces, which were created pricely for the protection of women.
People said the same about gay people and women when they wanted the vote. They were as wrong then are you are now.
Why are you so interested in what some people like to do with their bodies? Is that level of intolerance also a mental illness? I personally think very religious people must be mental unstable to believe such fairy tales, but I'll still defend their right to believe them, as long as their beliefs aren't imposed on me.
By the same token, any adult who wants to change their body - makeup, nice clothes, a gym membership, better diet - should be free to do so, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.
"Reform is obviously contemptible." More contemptible than two-tier Keir's Labour arresting comedians speech? Or covering up grooming gang rapes for decades?
Sorry Gary, but until you get more facts about the cases, I would hold back. Linehan had form, and this is why he was arrested on a public order basis. It was heavy-handed, but by treating it as an issue of free speech, you sound a bit like J D Vance. If I am arrested for telling someone to shoot my neighbour this is not an issue of free speech. I think we have had enough of Americans making tone-deaf pronouncements about British culture.
He is saying that Britain still has principles, why US has sold out itself to corpos and their lapdog politicians. US is no longer for people, it's for oligarchs.
Well I don't like to talk about Britain or the US in this way. Some people in both of them have principles and some people don't. Generalisations of the kind you use are not very helpful.
How can he be sure that what he is saying is not a call to violence? Just because it's theoretically humor based on free speech? You’d have to live in a cave not to see the growing violence trans people are suffering every day, precisely due to the political and cultural environment that feeds off these kinds of statements. Comedians are social and cultural agents with great power, but also bear the responsibility to wield humor thoughtfully, recognizing that jokes can heal or harm, unite or divide, illuminate truth or perpetuate falsehood. Free speech absolutism is as dangerous as this basic and stupid joke.
He is referring to a trans woman, but chooses to say trans-identified male. That’s a blatant confession in my view.
Using the phrase "trans-identified male" makes the meaning clear. "Trans woman" is ambiguous, since people can't seem to agree on the definition of the word "woman".
I agree that for many people this reality is confusing and they need words that feel more “their own” to help them understand it. However, those words can reflect discrimination, denial, alienation, and a lack of empathy. Keeping the word “male” to refer to a human being with gender dysphoria, whose existential struggle is precisely about removing the “male” part from their being, says everything to me. It would be much easier if those people made the mental effort to understand a reality different from their own. A trans woman is not the same as a woman, but neither of them is “male.”
What do you mean by "this reality"? Is there not just one reality? Don't you really mean "point of view"?
What do you mean by "their own"? Words belong to all of us. If two people discuss something, but have differing definitions of the words they are using, the conversation will lead nowhere useful.
I have put considerable effort into understanding the topic of "trans". Unfortunately, none of that effort has resulted in my being able to conclude decisively whether someone with "gender dysphoria" is going to benefit more from staying in their own "reality" versus being forced to face actual reality. I suppose it depends on which “psychological interventions” you subscribe to as effective. Personally, I believe direct problem-oriented interventions, like CBT and exposure therapy, tend to benefit patients more than things like supportive counseling and art therapy.
From your claim that 'A trans woman is not the same as a woman, but neither of them is “male.”', I can deduce that, in your definition of "trans woman", the use of the word "trans" is a modifier-induced redefinition of the word "woman". By that, I mean that woman in the phrase "trans woman" doesn't mean exactly the same as what it means when not preceded by the "trans" modifier. This is a perfect example of how people discussing something, while having differing definitions of the words they are using, has the possibility (nae, likelihood) of the conversation leading nowhere useful.
You may be right. My response might be completely ambiguous, and I’m definitely not the best person to lay out the arguments that expose the violence against trans people. But if what we’re doing now is picking apart the ambiguity of my answer, then we’re shifting the focus of the conversation, and that becomes an ad hominem move.
So what are we really talking about here? The wellbeing, dignity, and safety of a whole segment of humanity or the “speech rights” of those who mock them?
You’re also right about perspective. Nobody escapes their own subjectivity. But that doesn’t mean the facts we point to aren’t objective. For example, in 2024 there were 4,780(*) hate crimes against trans people, a 58% increase compared to 2020. And that’s despite the fact that 88%(*) of trans people never report the hate crimes they suffer to the police.
Even the darkest forces in political history had their own “point of view.” But the millions of victims they left behind aren’t an opinion, they’re the real outcome of intolerance and hatred toward difference.
Subjectivity and free speech don’t erase the fact that words and actions have real consequences, and they’re also subject to the law. What I’m saying is: there is no “right” to commit crimes just because you frame it as a point of view.
This moment in time forces us to decide: do we want to be a society that defends free speech above all moral considerations (free speech absolutism) or one that defends free speech while keeping it in balance with other rights? Striking that balance is a monumental task that requires open conversation. What we’re trying to do here, I value.
When I talk about “reality,” I’m not claiming some ultimate truth. I mean reality as I’ve experienced it, by meeting trans people and hearing firsthand how terrifying it is to live under constant threat. Sadly, those who argue against trans rights and safety are often people who have never even spoken to a trans person in their lives.
To address your point about striking a balance, at both of your links I found this definition:
"A Hate Crime is any criminal offence that is motivated by hostility and prejudice towards a person’s identity or perceived identity."
I think this is the crux of the issue. In order for something to be a hate crime, it needs to first be a criminal offence. Most people seem to misinterpret this as being the other way around. They think "it's hate that's motivated by a hostility or prejudice, therefore it's a crime." No, it needs to first satisfy the requirement of being a crime. The "hate" modifier is just there to separate it into it's own category of crime, so that we can treat it differently.
The issue then becomes whether we, as a society, wish to criminalize "mocking". Even if that mocking includes a reference to violence, that doesn't automatically make it a crime. Artistic, satirical, or abstract references usually aren’t enough. Unfortunately, a large segment of the population, including the police, seems to be trying to expand this to include everything they find offensive. Linehan tweeting "punch him in the balls" is, in context, obviously a joke. That doesn't make his entire tweet a joke, but anyone who doesn't understand why this portion of it is a joke isn't very insightful. I'm not saying they need to find it funny, they just need to recognize that it is, indeed, a joke. Without this portion of the tweet, would he have been arrested? What if, instead, he had tweeted "If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, *go home*." Yes, some people would have still been up in arms just because he was espousing views about the nature of trans-genderism that they disagreed with. Possibly, given our current climate, someone still may have been able to convince the cops that this was enough of an offense to arrest him, but I doubt it.
I realize this doesn't address the issue of actual violence against trans people. Violence against anyone is horrible. Yet one has to ask the question of what might be causing an increase in violence towards transgender people. I could include a list here, but it would undoubtedly be incomplete and would appear biased to at least some portion of the people who may happen to stumble upon this thread. Anyone with a clear head on their shoulders and the ability to do unbiased Internet research can come up with their own list. The only one I do wish to suggest, and which would undoubtedly have the greatest effect on the statistics, is that the definition of what constitutes a hate crime has been substantially broadened in the last decade or so. This goes right back to my first point about how so many people now seem to believe that if it's hate motivated by prejudice, it must be a crime.
All of this may be true. But disagreeing that trans women are women is free speech. If the joke offends you, you can publish, podcast, or go on TV to denounce it. But in a truly free country you can’t make it illegal to make a joke, pronouncement, whatever. Mr. Kasparov’s point here is about democracy, not one’s feelings about trans women.
Hermann Goring of 1930’s Nazi fame was clear about Nazi deportation policy when he publicly announced “Whoever in the future raises a hand against a representative of the National Socialist movement or of the State must know that he will lose his life in a very short while." (2494-PS) It became clear in Nazi Germany that once the judiciary lost its authority that the police state had the final say as to a citizen’s fate Wake up American citizens, the current police is coming for you!!!
It’s clear that the Nazis in the WH are not concerned about the criminals that are here in the country illegally What mass deportation is all about is to set up the concentration camps to house anyone who is identified as a “enemy of the state” The 21st century Nazis are not unique or creative They take their mission from a previous authoritarian point in time
Those who smugly ignore or deny that these concentration camps being set up in this country are not for you and me protesting on the streets right now has their head in the sand We are living in a growingly powerful police state where the current Gestapo ie ICE agency has a budget that is larger than the FBI and currently the Nazi regime is setting up the ability to interfere with the 2026 election and beyond Word to the wise
Britain really doesn't have a free speech problem. In the UK, the default position is that you're free to say anything except those things proscribed by the law, which specifically are incitement to violence, defamation, liable, hate-speech and promotion of terrorism and criminal acts such as paedophila.
These boundaries are set by a democratic parliament and decided by independent juries and judges.
There are of course questions around consistency or enforcement, but they exist around all criminal justice functions.
The recent high profile case of Lucy Connelly, who now calls herself a "political prisoner" is a joke as *she pleaded guilty* to inciting violence.
Unlike in the US, our judiciary isn't politically appointed, and I trust them to examine the facts in detail far more than I do US shock jocks, gung-ho politicians, professional propagandists or Substack scribblers.
Also unlike the US, we don't check you phone for anti-government tweets when you enter the country, or snatch people off the streets for publishing articles contrary to the President's ever-changing worldview.
I would accept, and have said here, that is imperfect. I felt the proscription of Palestine Action was unnecessary, heavy-handed and ill judged, but it can be reversed and it's currently being challenged legally, and every individual charged can make their case to a jury who has the right to acquit if they think the law has been egregiously applied
But 30 per day? Sounds like a make-work project for law enforcement, lawyers, and the judiciary. Where I live, the police complain of being overworked and courts are often backed up. Guess that's not the case in Britain.
They totally are, and I'm not claiming they're aren't issues with law enforcement or the law itself, but it's not specifically a "free-speech" issue.
Many people, police leaders included, have called some of the recent proscriptions ill thought out, difficult to enforce and potentially an unreasonable limitation on protest or free-speech, but that is a consequence of living in a democracy with an independent judiciary, and I'd prefer the latter so that the rules can be changed by a popular vote, or ignored by a jury.
I find the whole "free-speech" argument sterile. The key freedom is to be able to criticise the government, policy and law. Because the state has a legal monopoly on violence, restrictions on criticising the government are what mark out dictatorships or fascist states. I might cite as examples North Korea, Child, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Maybe even the US as anti-Trump tweet might get you banned from US soil, and falling to sufficiently support US foreign policy might get you thrown in immigration detention.
But in the UK restrictions on free speech are for the protection of the public (you can't promote terrorism), vulnerable groups (you can't advocate for paedophila, the burning of immigrants or the gassing or minorities) or individuals against a powerful media (defamation). There is no restriction on criticising the government. Even senior police officers do it. Complaints about the current law and it's enforcement are regularly reported in the mass media. There is no censorship over discussion of the policy or it's merits or failings.
The vast majority of the cases that, for example, upset Elon Musk are restrictions on hate speech. There is a discussion to be had about where that line is drawn, but it's not as clear cut as the simpletons in the US might like. The statement "all [insert minority here] are stupid" is an opinion and not problematic, but "burn the hotels/punch them in the bollocks/kill them" obviously are, especially if it leads to such actions being carried out.
There is a discussion that "incitement" is too broad and it should be qualified with either intent or Indeed have actually incited action in others. I'd probably support such modifications to the law.
As one of the UK’s own judges said, a freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. The expression cannot be viewed in isolation. Prosecution has a chilling effect.
Freedom of expression is legally protected in the UK, primarily through Article 10 of the ECHR (via the Human Rights Act 1998), supported by common law principles. It’s not just a “custom,” or “norm.” But unlike the U.S. First Amendment, it is not absolute—the law explicitly allows for wide-ranging restrictions in the public interest.
Wrong move, grandmaster. Not the top of your game.
"Comedian" is a nasty person doing instigation. He should be charged. Probably will get away, since harassing minorities always goes well with public at large, they don't care unless you slap them on the nose constantly that it is wrong to harass minorities.
Thanks for this. Pointing out that Farage is no friend of freedom is really helpful. Labor could probably win a lot of people over by insisting on free speech laws. I doubt the U.K. will ever forge a constitution. They’d insist that they have survived fine for centuries without one.
Is hate speech free speech? You fail to mention that the intention of Linehan’s incitements and threats are an attempt to bully transwomen out of public restrooms. On social media and elsewhere, Glinner has repeatedly made threats to trans people, and incited others to commit violence on them. Shame on you for taking the side of this rich, entitled bully, against a tiny minority group, with little or no power to defend themselves. Stochastic violence is a real thing, Garry. I had thought better of you.
There is no such thing as a “trans woman”.
There are men with mental illnesses that think they are women. Some of them mutilate themselves with hormones and surgeries, in violation of the hypocratic oath for anyone that facilitates those treatments.
It is dangerous to allow these mentally ill men into women’s spaces, which were created pricely for the protection of women.
It is a well established legal principle we don't punish people for who they are, but what they do.
Deciding a whole cohort or group is "dangerous" is literally the definition of prejudice - judging in advance.
All people are considered innocent until proven guilty, irrespective of how they choose to live their lives
People said the same about gay people and women when they wanted the vote. They were as wrong then are you are now.
Why are you so interested in what some people like to do with their bodies? Is that level of intolerance also a mental illness? I personally think very religious people must be mental unstable to believe such fairy tales, but I'll still defend their right to believe them, as long as their beliefs aren't imposed on me.
By the same token, any adult who wants to change their body - makeup, nice clothes, a gym membership, better diet - should be free to do so, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.
So you are able to divine intent?
"Reform is obviously contemptible." More contemptible than two-tier Keir's Labour arresting comedians speech? Or covering up grooming gang rapes for decades?
Time to decolonize Pakistan: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/decolonize-pakistan
Sorry Gary, but until you get more facts about the cases, I would hold back. Linehan had form, and this is why he was arrested on a public order basis. It was heavy-handed, but by treating it as an issue of free speech, you sound a bit like J D Vance. If I am arrested for telling someone to shoot my neighbour this is not an issue of free speech. I think we have had enough of Americans making tone-deaf pronouncements about British culture.
Eh??
He is saying that Britain still has principles, why US has sold out itself to corpos and their lapdog politicians. US is no longer for people, it's for oligarchs.
Well I don't like to talk about Britain or the US in this way. Some people in both of them have principles and some people don't. Generalisations of the kind you use are not very helpful.
Hello Garry, I'll have to disagree on this one.
How can he be sure that what he is saying is not a call to violence? Just because it's theoretically humor based on free speech? You’d have to live in a cave not to see the growing violence trans people are suffering every day, precisely due to the political and cultural environment that feeds off these kinds of statements. Comedians are social and cultural agents with great power, but also bear the responsibility to wield humor thoughtfully, recognizing that jokes can heal or harm, unite or divide, illuminate truth or perpetuate falsehood. Free speech absolutism is as dangerous as this basic and stupid joke.
He is referring to a trans woman, but chooses to say trans-identified male. That’s a blatant confession in my view.
Using the phrase "trans-identified male" makes the meaning clear. "Trans woman" is ambiguous, since people can't seem to agree on the definition of the word "woman".
Hi Robert,
I agree that for many people this reality is confusing and they need words that feel more “their own” to help them understand it. However, those words can reflect discrimination, denial, alienation, and a lack of empathy. Keeping the word “male” to refer to a human being with gender dysphoria, whose existential struggle is precisely about removing the “male” part from their being, says everything to me. It would be much easier if those people made the mental effort to understand a reality different from their own. A trans woman is not the same as a woman, but neither of them is “male.”
Your response is rife with ambiguity.
What do you mean by "this reality"? Is there not just one reality? Don't you really mean "point of view"?
What do you mean by "their own"? Words belong to all of us. If two people discuss something, but have differing definitions of the words they are using, the conversation will lead nowhere useful.
I have put considerable effort into understanding the topic of "trans". Unfortunately, none of that effort has resulted in my being able to conclude decisively whether someone with "gender dysphoria" is going to benefit more from staying in their own "reality" versus being forced to face actual reality. I suppose it depends on which “psychological interventions” you subscribe to as effective. Personally, I believe direct problem-oriented interventions, like CBT and exposure therapy, tend to benefit patients more than things like supportive counseling and art therapy.
From your claim that 'A trans woman is not the same as a woman, but neither of them is “male.”', I can deduce that, in your definition of "trans woman", the use of the word "trans" is a modifier-induced redefinition of the word "woman". By that, I mean that woman in the phrase "trans woman" doesn't mean exactly the same as what it means when not preceded by the "trans" modifier. This is a perfect example of how people discussing something, while having differing definitions of the words they are using, has the possibility (nae, likelihood) of the conversation leading nowhere useful.
You may be right. My response might be completely ambiguous, and I’m definitely not the best person to lay out the arguments that expose the violence against trans people. But if what we’re doing now is picking apart the ambiguity of my answer, then we’re shifting the focus of the conversation, and that becomes an ad hominem move.
So what are we really talking about here? The wellbeing, dignity, and safety of a whole segment of humanity or the “speech rights” of those who mock them?
You’re also right about perspective. Nobody escapes their own subjectivity. But that doesn’t mean the facts we point to aren’t objective. For example, in 2024 there were 4,780(*) hate crimes against trans people, a 58% increase compared to 2020. And that’s despite the fact that 88%(*) of trans people never report the hate crimes they suffer to the police.
Even the darkest forces in political history had their own “point of view.” But the millions of victims they left behind aren’t an opinion, they’re the real outcome of intolerance and hatred toward difference.
Subjectivity and free speech don’t erase the fact that words and actions have real consequences, and they’re also subject to the law. What I’m saying is: there is no “right” to commit crimes just because you frame it as a point of view.
This moment in time forces us to decide: do we want to be a society that defends free speech above all moral considerations (free speech absolutism) or one that defends free speech while keeping it in balance with other rights? Striking that balance is a monumental task that requires open conversation. What we’re trying to do here, I value.
When I talk about “reality,” I’m not claiming some ultimate truth. I mean reality as I’ve experienced it, by meeting trans people and hearing firsthand how terrifying it is to live under constant threat. Sadly, those who argue against trans rights and safety are often people who have never even spoken to a trans person in their lives.
Thanks for the exchange. Wishing you a good week.
(*) https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-year-ending-march-2024
(*) https://www.stophateuk.org/about-hate-crime/transgender-hate/
To address your point about striking a balance, at both of your links I found this definition:
"A Hate Crime is any criminal offence that is motivated by hostility and prejudice towards a person’s identity or perceived identity."
I think this is the crux of the issue. In order for something to be a hate crime, it needs to first be a criminal offence. Most people seem to misinterpret this as being the other way around. They think "it's hate that's motivated by a hostility or prejudice, therefore it's a crime." No, it needs to first satisfy the requirement of being a crime. The "hate" modifier is just there to separate it into it's own category of crime, so that we can treat it differently.
The issue then becomes whether we, as a society, wish to criminalize "mocking". Even if that mocking includes a reference to violence, that doesn't automatically make it a crime. Artistic, satirical, or abstract references usually aren’t enough. Unfortunately, a large segment of the population, including the police, seems to be trying to expand this to include everything they find offensive. Linehan tweeting "punch him in the balls" is, in context, obviously a joke. That doesn't make his entire tweet a joke, but anyone who doesn't understand why this portion of it is a joke isn't very insightful. I'm not saying they need to find it funny, they just need to recognize that it is, indeed, a joke. Without this portion of the tweet, would he have been arrested? What if, instead, he had tweeted "If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, *go home*." Yes, some people would have still been up in arms just because he was espousing views about the nature of trans-genderism that they disagreed with. Possibly, given our current climate, someone still may have been able to convince the cops that this was enough of an offense to arrest him, but I doubt it.
I realize this doesn't address the issue of actual violence against trans people. Violence against anyone is horrible. Yet one has to ask the question of what might be causing an increase in violence towards transgender people. I could include a list here, but it would undoubtedly be incomplete and would appear biased to at least some portion of the people who may happen to stumble upon this thread. Anyone with a clear head on their shoulders and the ability to do unbiased Internet research can come up with their own list. The only one I do wish to suggest, and which would undoubtedly have the greatest effect on the statistics, is that the definition of what constitutes a hate crime has been substantially broadened in the last decade or so. This goes right back to my first point about how so many people now seem to believe that if it's hate motivated by prejudice, it must be a crime.
And now there's this: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-scrap-non-crime-hate-incidents-sl7n0j0bk
All of this may be true. But disagreeing that trans women are women is free speech. If the joke offends you, you can publish, podcast, or go on TV to denounce it. But in a truly free country you can’t make it illegal to make a joke, pronouncement, whatever. Mr. Kasparov’s point here is about democracy, not one’s feelings about trans women.
Cheeto And His Nazi Allies About Mass Deportation
Hermann Goring of 1930’s Nazi fame was clear about Nazi deportation policy when he publicly announced “Whoever in the future raises a hand against a representative of the National Socialist movement or of the State must know that he will lose his life in a very short while." (2494-PS) It became clear in Nazi Germany that once the judiciary lost its authority that the police state had the final say as to a citizen’s fate Wake up American citizens, the current police is coming for you!!!
It’s clear that the Nazis in the WH are not concerned about the criminals that are here in the country illegally What mass deportation is all about is to set up the concentration camps to house anyone who is identified as a “enemy of the state” The 21st century Nazis are not unique or creative They take their mission from a previous authoritarian point in time
Those who smugly ignore or deny that these concentration camps being set up in this country are not for you and me protesting on the streets right now has their head in the sand We are living in a growingly powerful police state where the current Gestapo ie ICE agency has a budget that is larger than the FBI and currently the Nazi regime is setting up the ability to interfere with the 2026 election and beyond Word to the wise
Britain really doesn't have a free speech problem. In the UK, the default position is that you're free to say anything except those things proscribed by the law, which specifically are incitement to violence, defamation, liable, hate-speech and promotion of terrorism and criminal acts such as paedophila.
These boundaries are set by a democratic parliament and decided by independent juries and judges.
There are of course questions around consistency or enforcement, but they exist around all criminal justice functions.
The recent high profile case of Lucy Connelly, who now calls herself a "political prisoner" is a joke as *she pleaded guilty* to inciting violence.
Unlike in the US, our judiciary isn't politically appointed, and I trust them to examine the facts in detail far more than I do US shock jocks, gung-ho politicians, professional propagandists or Substack scribblers.
Also unlike the US, we don't check you phone for anti-government tweets when you enter the country, or snatch people off the streets for publishing articles contrary to the President's ever-changing worldview.
I would accept, and have said here, that is imperfect. I felt the proscription of Palestine Action was unnecessary, heavy-handed and ill judged, but it can be reversed and it's currently being challenged legally, and every individual charged can make their case to a jury who has the right to acquit if they think the law has been egregiously applied
But 30 per day? Sounds like a make-work project for law enforcement, lawyers, and the judiciary. Where I live, the police complain of being overworked and courts are often backed up. Guess that's not the case in Britain.
They totally are, and I'm not claiming they're aren't issues with law enforcement or the law itself, but it's not specifically a "free-speech" issue.
Many people, police leaders included, have called some of the recent proscriptions ill thought out, difficult to enforce and potentially an unreasonable limitation on protest or free-speech, but that is a consequence of living in a democracy with an independent judiciary, and I'd prefer the latter so that the rules can be changed by a popular vote, or ignored by a jury.
I find the whole "free-speech" argument sterile. The key freedom is to be able to criticise the government, policy and law. Because the state has a legal monopoly on violence, restrictions on criticising the government are what mark out dictatorships or fascist states. I might cite as examples North Korea, Child, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Maybe even the US as anti-Trump tweet might get you banned from US soil, and falling to sufficiently support US foreign policy might get you thrown in immigration detention.
But in the UK restrictions on free speech are for the protection of the public (you can't promote terrorism), vulnerable groups (you can't advocate for paedophila, the burning of immigrants or the gassing or minorities) or individuals against a powerful media (defamation). There is no restriction on criticising the government. Even senior police officers do it. Complaints about the current law and it's enforcement are regularly reported in the mass media. There is no censorship over discussion of the policy or it's merits or failings.
The vast majority of the cases that, for example, upset Elon Musk are restrictions on hate speech. There is a discussion to be had about where that line is drawn, but it's not as clear cut as the simpletons in the US might like. The statement "all [insert minority here] are stupid" is an opinion and not problematic, but "burn the hotels/punch them in the bollocks/kill them" obviously are, especially if it leads to such actions being carried out.
There is a discussion that "incitement" is too broad and it should be qualified with either intent or Indeed have actually incited action in others. I'd probably support such modifications to the law.
As one of the UK’s own judges said, a freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. The expression cannot be viewed in isolation. Prosecution has a chilling effect.
Freedom of expression is legally protected in the UK, primarily through Article 10 of the ECHR (via the Human Rights Act 1998), supported by common law principles. It’s not just a “custom,” or “norm.” But unlike the U.S. First Amendment, it is not absolute—the law explicitly allows for wide-ranging restrictions in the public interest.
The UK needs an organization like FIRE, Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression. Also, footnote 1 on Farage is spot on.
Wrong move, grandmaster. Not the top of your game.
"Comedian" is a nasty person doing instigation. He should be charged. Probably will get away, since harassing minorities always goes well with public at large, they don't care unless you slap them on the nose constantly that it is wrong to harass minorities.
Thanks for this. Pointing out that Farage is no friend of freedom is really helpful. Labor could probably win a lot of people over by insisting on free speech laws. I doubt the U.K. will ever forge a constitution. They’d insist that they have survived fine for centuries without one.
What do you mean by 'two tier'?
I’m not concerned a Trans-psychotic was arrested for inciting violence, I’m concerned that Bob Villain still aren’t