It says the complaint was submitted by the army, but maybe that's who usually submits the complaints? It is certainly lacking detail about what the actual content of the post was, which I guess shouldn't be surprising coming from Yahoo news.
The fact that you think there needs to be a criminal conviction in court makes me think you haven't the slightest idea what free speech means ideologically.
If police question you based on your speech alone, that itself is a violation. You should not have to answer to the state for voicing disagreement or for having an unpopular opinion.
This was a partially deaf person asking the person they were talking to to please speak clearly (no mention of language was made, not that it should matter). The only appropriate response to a police officer coming up to you to discuss the interaction is profanity.
These are ones I found with a Google search in under ten minutes. I'm sure there are dozens, hundreds more - one link I didn't open said there have been approximately 3,000 arrests based on social media posts. I'm sure some of those are justified, I'm sure a lot of them aren't.
A conviction does not need to happen for damage to be done or for speech to be chilled.
Is your argument really that as long as the conviction is eventually overturned, no harm no foul it's just a "trivial case" so everyone should just pretend it never happened? Really?
It's trivial with respect to the question of whether political free expression in the UK is somehow under threat, yes. A handful of weird cases of extremely mild police overreach, corrected by a court -- hardly add up to anything. Every legal system in the world has such cases, in almost every other, they are much more extreme. In the UK, no one is paying for legal cases they win, unlike in the US where "free speech" is obtainable only if you can pay for your defence.
I mean in the UK we aren't used to using the court system to obtain our rights, but this is basically the american system. It's extraordinary to hear americans express concern that a handful of people in the UK had to use the standard court procedure to have their rights enforced, which they did.
Would the UK be better if these cases did not happen? Sure. But there's no legal system, almost by definition, that isnt going to have these cases. That's what courts exist to do -- to prevent executive overreach.
The question is why are a handful of people, whose rights were enforced by the courts, being used as political agitprop against the UK? The answer is pretty obvious. It's a deliberate project of the far right to create popular resentement towards democractic governments in the west, at the time these governemnts are arresting rioters for attempting to murder immigrants.
This isnt hard to see. These stories are spread by a very narrow range of extremely famous propagandists with a very obvious agenda.
None of them mention that these cases were all thrown out on appeal. Nor that there's a tiny number of them. Nor that all the ones that result in conviction are basically domestic terrorism
Can you see how even the fact that police will knock on your door for a social media post will by definition have a chilling effect on free expression? Will low wage hourly workers in the UK feel secure in voicing their dissatisfaction with their child's school knowing that, while they might be convicted of a crime for doing so, it will probably get overturned on appeal even though they'll lose their job in the interim; or, will they just shut up and go along with whatever they're unhappy about?
Do you think it would be better to have people sue those who insult them on social media, in order to bankrupt them -- as in so-called Free Speech america? Where on earth do you imagine free speech is so protected that your worry is a (2 or 3) in 70 million-short that you'd have to talk to a police officier?
The idea that we have police investigating social media posts (and the like) is largely just made up. Its a handful of cases.
Do you understand that you cannot have 100% perfect decision making (of police, or anyone else) in a society -- and that the people who want you to demand this 100% are the ones organsising murders on these platforms? The ones kidnapping people and enslaving them in foreign prisons?
You're just playing a useful idiot. The idea that people in the UK are, at large, even aware of these cases is nonesense, let alone are worried about a police visit for a social media post. Just open twitter: are any of the millions of UK profiles in any sense "reserved" or chilled by these police visits?
The people who are spouting this nonesense are worried because they use these platforms to incite race riots whose aim is to kill people. Have a little perspective.
Apart from the fact that you have private prosecution in the UK, there's definitely a difference between private action for compensation and state action that might come with a criminal record.
The UK is the home of Cautions and ASBO's where you find out you have a criminal record just like that.
A place where you'd rather call the police than intervene to stop an ongoing crime because you might end up with a criminal record.
Free speech is not an American thing, it's a human thing. The fact that some governments do not recognize it does not make it any less of a right.
Rights are not given to you by your government, your rights are your rights by virtue of you being a human being.
Thinking freedom of speech is even remotely ethnocentric just proves that something is broken in that person's head that they don't even understand the basic concept.
You’re just trying to launder your cultural beliefs through fancy language. Westerners developed the concept of “rights” as God-given guarantees that were beyond the power of governments to strip away. But of course Thais don’t share your God. And now most westerners don’t believe in the God that was originally invoked as the premise for those rights.
So where do these universal “rights” come from? Do they reflect some fact of human biology? Of course they do not.
I'm not trying to launder anything, I think it's pretty obvious that Western culture in general is superior to others. Case in point: the linked article here. No laundering necessary. But even if you disagree with that, there's nothing preventing anyone from acknowledging my actual point, as well as the fact that belief in inalienable human rights does not by definition require any particular religion or belief in any particular God or gods. It simply requires acknowledgement that all humans are worthy of those rights.
You have inherent worth by virtue of being a human being. Do you feel that's up for debate? Are cultures that decide you have no worth as a human being based on your skin color, or religion, or caste, or last name, equal to those that don't?
> You have inherent worth by virtue of being a human being. Do you feel that's up for debate?
Of course it's up for debate. Debate is what gave the notion of "inherent worth"[1] intellectual and popular credence in the first place. You forget that human beings were historically categorized according to a chain of being with the clergy and royalty (rather conveniently) at the top. One's worth to $DEITY and the world was determined by the height of the seat one sat on. This arrangement of affairs was treated as an unquestionable given for thousands of years in civilizations across the world. To suggest otherwise would have been treated as insanity or denounced as heresy.
The existence of Inherent worth thrives upon the fact that those who debate it depend on it. To suggest it's beyond questioning turns the idea into an article of faith.
> Are cultures that decide you have no worth as a human being based on your skin color, or religion, or caste, or last name, equal to those that don't?
Until midway through the 20th century in certain parts of the world, this was accepted as fact. In other parts of the world, such as sub-Saharan Africa of all places, it's still the case today.
[1] A more rigorous term for what you're referring to is self-sovereignty. Strictly speaking, the term "inherent worth" is a contradiction in terms.
You're right, I wasn't as articulate as I could have been, when I say "not up for debate" I mean that in an ontological sense (not in the religious meaning), human beings have worth because they are human. It's not based on religion, or race, and it's not granted by any government or organization.
It of course can be debated and @rayiner is doing a good job debating it, but IMO the worth of any individual human being is as factual and certain as 1+1=2. I'm happy to debate it but you have a hill to climb if you want to change my mind.
I think one issue is that a person can affirm people have “inherent worth” and yet disagree with the conclusions you draw from it; others may question the notion of “inherent worth” yet agree with what you view as its consequences on other grounds.
e.g. many conservative religious people might agree that everyone has “inherent worth” given by God, yet disagree that implies a right to free speech, if one understands that right as including speech they view as immoral (e.g. blasphemy, pornography). Some religious people might even argue that (from their viewpoint) immoral speech inherently harms the human dignity of those who produce and consume it, and hence prohibiting that production and consumption respects their inherent worth rather than violating it
Whereas, conversely, other people might question the meaningfulness of “inherent worth” on philosophical grounds (e.g. from a positivist perspective it is rather dubious-it isn’t something you can empirically measure and it is unclear how to define it in the language of natural science), yet simultaneously favour the policies (e.g. expansive free speech rights) you seek to ground on it for other reasons-e.g. a person might support expansive free speech rights, even while rejecting the idea of “inherent worth”, simply because they find personal enjoyment in that right’s exercise
> You're right, I wasn't as articulate as I could have been, when I say "not up for debate" I mean that in an ontological sense (not in the religious meaning), human beings have worth because they are human. It's not based on religion, or race, and it's not granted by any government or organization.
I think your argument is circular. Just a couple of decades ago, the Chinese government was euthanizing babies born in violation of the one-child policy. I think Americans look back on that policy with a degree of horror that outstrips how the Chinese view that history—a difference I think is traceable to the influence of evangelical Christianity in the U.S. versus more collectivist cultures in China. Individual human life, and individual freedoms, have always just been worth less in Asia than in the west.
It’s circular because the reasoning goes like this: “rights are universal” because I’m right and asians are wrong; I’m right and asians are wrong because rights are universal.
Over 2000 years of philosophy would say hell yeah it's debatable.
Without some belief in a "higher power", there is nothing inherent about anything to do with humans. Sure, we can CHOOSE to ascribe every human as having value and a sanctity to human life that means we should harshly react to those who take human life for granted or cause suffering, and I absolutely and emphatically take that view, that human life is important and humans have a right to things like dignity.
But pretending that it is "inherent" is a lie. It's a thought terminating language game. Pretending that such dignity or rights are inherent only plays into those who wish to remove them. They must be CONSTANTLY and AGGRESSIVELY defended and fought for BECAUSE they are not inherent.
If we do not enforce human rights, they do not exist.
Human rights are an outcome of a regulated society. Rights can only exist when a "higher power" DOES exist, so without a god to enforce things, we must make our own higher power to enforce rights. The State.
The only inherent rights in nature are physics, chemistry, and biology. They aren't very conducive to society in general, and certainly not one that wants to build smartphones or farms.
worthy = Not stagnant aka not a recipe for disaster. surface stable systems ("conserved ones") are prone to violent sudden & complete collapse by a changing environment or suddenly appearing other non stagnat societies .
In the case of the Netherlands we place humans above god. Ultimately Dutch philosophers came to the conclusion that the individual and their happiness are at the very epicenter of the universe. It broke the chains of mental slavery inherent to Christianity.
But as you say these things are cultural. Such ideas never found an audience in Asia.
I grew up and chose to remain in the US, and I have never seriously questioned the American norm around speech, but if I lived in a society that never had such a norm, I imagine I would regard the advocates for introducing such a norm into my society to have the burden of proof that doing so would be worth it.
I respect the advocates who make a consequentialist argument for the norm, but not the advocates that say that free speech is a natural right or a God-given right and believe that that settles the question.
> if I lived in a society that never had such a norm, I imagine I would regard the advocates for introducing such a norm into my society to have the burden of proof that doing so would be worth it.
Thank you for being open-minded and for having empathy.
Free speech as you understand it is an american thing. More specifically, it's a popularized and idealized version of free speech that has no basis in reality or law. All free speech rights around the world are defined by governments, culture, law and history. Germany's free speech is markedly different from american free speech for obvious reasons.
Also, you are mistaken when you link free speech to human beings. Corporations have free speech rights. Corporations aren't human beings.
In the idealized abstract, it feels like free speech is a universal and agreed upon ideal. It isn't. Not between nations. Not even within nations. Even in the US, we have no set definition of free speech. Free speech spans from absolutists who believe all speech is legal to those who want to limit free speech to the absolute minimum as they define it.
> Germany's free speech is markedly different from american free speech for obvious reasons.
Germany does not have free speech so yes it is markedly different.
> Corporations have free speech rights. Corporations aren't human beings.
I'm not talking about any legal framework around free speech. If I was, I'd be talking about the First Amendment or about a specific law or court case.
> Free speech is not an American thing, it's a human thing
Why? To what extent? There are multiple correct answers to these problems. The best universal one is allowing folks to migrate to a cultural configuration they like instead of dictating what values others should hold.
It sounds perfect which is part of it, but if you've ever looked at the Pro tabs, especially the vocal transcriptions, the fretboard positions are all over the place, seem to be wrong about half the time, and in the worst cases I've seen nearly physically impossible to play.
Also for unknown reasons (licensing?) it's impossible to have the vocal track play when you're using a backing track.
It's extremely likely that our demise will come before too long.
The problem is that "before too long" is on a universal timescale, not a human timescale.
Humanity could exist for a million times longer than it already has, expand to other planets in our solar system and even to another solar system or two, be wiped out completely, and on the appropriate timescale we were absolutely "short lived."
reply