And if you want to compare then, how it was in our own lifetime and now. From say before the salmon rushdie affair right through to the massacre at the Charlie hebdo offices

Factor that in when you are talking about free speech, and you listen to the lies of those who say there has never been any such thing as free speech anywhere or anytime

Jomo I think in my last post I have just broadened the definition so I thought that might be something that is part of what you are asking

that is now, and that was then
do not confuse one with the other
then we had free speech, now we dont

@JOMO I asked lfc for definition and he didn't provide it which is why I got out of it as soon as i could. You are banging your head against a wall when arguing with him. I only do it when I find it amusing. Don't take him seriously.

Thomas Paine

"Paine lived in France for most of the 1790s, becoming deeply involved in the French Revolution. He wrote Rights of Man (1791), in part a defense of the French Revolution against its critics. His attacks on Irish conservative writer Edmund Burke led to a trial and conviction in absentia in England in 1792 for the crime of seditious libel. The British government of William Pitt the Younger, worried by the possibility that the French Revolution might spread to England, had begun suppressing works that espoused radical philosophies. Paine's work, which advocated the right of the people to overthrow their government, was duly targeted, with a writ for his arrest issued in early 1792."

In ye olden days what do you think happened to people who publicly spoke out against the Church,King/Queen or say spoke out in favour of Hom0sexuality? What if you were to say that you thought witchcraft was a good thing?

anything outside of 'accepted wisdom'(?), current narrative, and agenda will be pilloried. If not, it will be  made illegal.

the clamp down has already happened


just trying to help you all

lfc... indeed - you've already said that. I didn't "insist" anyone has to be bothered by what happened 200 years ago, I merely suggested it would be common sense to be so.

You've now asked your question four or five times, so it clearly means a great deal to you. As I've already said, Dr C and I hate to see a question being ignored and I have also said that I'm ready and willing to try and have a stab. I have also said that I'd appreciate some clarity to the question in order for my answer to be satisfactory.

With this in mind, could I please ask you again: how do you define "not permissible"? Do you mean a criminal conviction must have taken place?

you can't even have old fashioned symbols on the side of jam jars these days

let alone even talk about it

and the false misleading language that the bbc uses to describe the grooming gangs must annoy a large number of Sikhs hindus chinese malay  etc etc

it is not just free speech it is freedom to debate it at all  - simply you are not allowed and it gets shut down

EVERYWHERE

I got out of this thread yesterday... It's like a parallel universe on here!

There's lfc & crippen saying, I think, there is free speech.
Then saying there used to be free speech, then saying you have to be careful what you say, then agreeing with each other that you have to be careful what you say, then wanting the answer to some sort of question which hasn't been asked.

All of which is interspersed by sensible replies, or moisok going on about "the cult", "the clan" or "certain people"

I'm well out of it and I'm confused.
In fact I insist on being confused.

It's more mezzanine than higher or lower.

er.... yes....

ok.

The progressives and the young do not seem to have much humour.  If they listened to Fawlty Towers they would have a flying fit

wot wiv the major taking the lady to see India,  and the lady with the little dog -

MANUEL - 'he bit me'!!!   

WOMAN - 'you frightened him, don't you have dogs in Calcutta'?

I think humour, or lack of, is the crux of the matter.

free to make jokes - free - speaking  - free to say -

If we didn't have free speech in Britain, in the past and in our own lifetimes, what was it not permissible to say in Britain in the past?

Whitehouse v Lemon

James Kirkup's poem The Love that Dares to Speak its Name was published in the 3 June 1976 issue of Gay News. The poem, written from the viewpoint of a Roman centurion, graphically describes him having se2x with Jesus after his crucifixion, and also claims that Jesus had had se2x with numerous disciples, guards, and even Pontius Pilate.

In early November 1976, Mary Whitehouse obtained a copy of the poem and announced her intention to bring a private prosecution against the magazine. Leave to bring this prosecution was granted on 9 December 1976. The charges named Gay News Ltd and Denis Lemon as the publishers. A charge against Moore Harness Ltd for distributing was subsequently dropped. The indictment described the offending publication as "a blasphemous libel concerning the Christian religion, namely an obscene poem and illustration vilifying Christ in his life and in his crucifixion".

The Gay News Fighting Fund was set up in December 1976. Judge Alan King-Hamilton QC heard the trial at the Old Bailey on 4 July 1977, with John Mortimer QC and Geoffrey Robertson QC representing the accused and John Smyth representing Mary Whitehouse. On Monday 11 July, the jury found both defendants guilty. Gay News Ltd was fined £1,000. Denis Lemon was fined £500 and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment suspended. It had been "touch and go", said the judge, whether he would actually send Denis Lemon to jail.

Mary Whitehouse's costs of £7,763 were ordered to be paid four-fifths by Gay News Ltd and one-fifth by Lemon. Gay News Ltd and Denis Lemon appealed against conviction and sentence. On 17 March 1978, the Court of Appeal quashed Denis Lemon's suspended prison sentence but upheld the convictions on the basis that the law of blasphemy had been developed before mens rea, literally, a "guilty mind", became an essential element of a crime. Gay News readers voted by a majority of 20 to 1 in favour of appealing to the House of Lords. The Law Lords heard the appeal against conviction and delivered their judgement on 21 February 1979.

At issue was whether or not the offence of blasphemous libel required specific intent of committing such a blasphemy. By a majority of 3 to 2, the Lords concluded that intention was not required. Lord Scarman was of the opinion that blasphemy laws should cover all religions and not just Christianity and sought strict liability for those who "cause grave offence to the religious feelings of some of their fellow citizens or are such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to read them".[1] The appeal was lost.

complete nonsense studyform you really do speak some twaddle

this poem is permissible in Britain, it is permissible now and in the past and in our lifetime
It was permissible for the poet to write, it was permissible for you or anyone to read and to be spoken
So much so that it was spoken on the steps of St Martins in the Field no less
And if you read the poem (its ok its perfectly legal to do so) you will see by the very nature of this poem and its reading on the steps of a church the very great nature of the freedoms of speech that we enjoy,
(try that with some other religions)

Now you claim that there is no such thing as free speech anywhere, that there are so many things
Well lets hear what they are, what are these many things that you are talking about
lets have your first ten or so lets see

Go ahead....

these are the best and I think only attempts so far to show that we don't enjoy free speech in this country
1. the holocaust
2. the life of Brian
3. the poem the love that dares to speak its name

all of which are perfectly permissible and legal to view to write to read and to speak in Britain

no I don't believe that, i don't believe we have free speech any longer and i have explained why it is much more dangerous now than ever before, or at least for a very long time
That is because the restrictions today centre on speech, something we all do every day of our lives
And the penalties are very severe today, ranging from the possibility of being fined, to being jailed to losing your job, to having your life ruined , to being murdered

That is what i have been trying to explain, that is what i think has changed and that is the difference between then and now and that is why i believe we enjoyed free speech then
And no longer do now