Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Yes or no
Show More
come to think of it they did censor fawlty towers when it was on tv recently
the major was censored
when first realised it was not
the major was censored
when first realised it was not
lfc... I'm not quite sure I can do a catch-all of your comments, so please shout if there's something specific I'm missing with this, but...
lfc1971 • April 12, 2018 3:38 PM BST
It has been seen everywhere in Britain and in every home, so it hasn't been banned
I said it was banned in a number cities/counties. You say later that "non of them remained banned , that's the point." But you're question said that you're looking for things that weren't permissible to say in Britain "in the past". So isn't it irrelevant whether they remain banned today or not?
lfc1971 • April 12, 2018 3:43 PM BST
non of those things were banned because of freedom of speech
lfc1971 • April 12, 2018 3:44 PM BST
what was said in any of these films or broadcasts or plays the could not be said,
that is the question (obscenity and violence etc is a different thing)
Life of Brian was not banned in certain places because of its violent content or obscenities, but because of its (perceived) blasphemous/heretical content: local authorities banned the film (under duress from Christian groups in some cases) as a result. Why? Because the film was perceived to be challenging the Christian ideology/dogma. Sanction in this case = ban.
lfc1971 • April 12, 2018 3:48 PM BST
the original question was quite explicit in that it referred to freedom of speech
Yes, aware of that. My hunch is that you're making a point on how you define freedom of speech here. If so, could I ask how you would define it, please?
lfc1971 • April 12, 2018 4:05 PM BST
come to think of it they did censor fawlty towers when it was on tv recently
the major was censored
when first realised it was not
Funnily enough, I watched a couple of eps of FT last weekend. Can't remember what channel - Dave, possibly - and nothing was censored. (One was with Major and his "I took her to see... INDIA!" monologue, which I'm guessing is the one you're referring too
) I wouldn't be surprised if there's a few things in there that are censored today, just like there were things that were censored "back in the day" that we wouldn't think twice about today.
lfc1971 • April 12, 2018 3:38 PM BST
It has been seen everywhere in Britain and in every home, so it hasn't been banned
I said it was banned in a number cities/counties. You say later that "non of them remained banned , that's the point." But you're question said that you're looking for things that weren't permissible to say in Britain "in the past". So isn't it irrelevant whether they remain banned today or not?
lfc1971 • April 12, 2018 3:43 PM BST
non of those things were banned because of freedom of speech
lfc1971 • April 12, 2018 3:44 PM BST
what was said in any of these films or broadcasts or plays the could not be said,
that is the question (obscenity and violence etc is a different thing)
Life of Brian was not banned in certain places because of its violent content or obscenities, but because of its (perceived) blasphemous/heretical content: local authorities banned the film (under duress from Christian groups in some cases) as a result. Why? Because the film was perceived to be challenging the Christian ideology/dogma. Sanction in this case = ban.
lfc1971 • April 12, 2018 3:48 PM BST
the original question was quite explicit in that it referred to freedom of speech
Yes, aware of that. My hunch is that you're making a point on how you define freedom of speech here. If so, could I ask how you would define it, please?
lfc1971 • April 12, 2018 4:05 PM BST
come to think of it they did censor fawlty towers when it was on tv recently
the major was censored
when first realised it was not
Funnily enough, I watched a couple of eps of FT last weekend. Can't remember what channel - Dave, possibly - and nothing was censored. (One was with Major and his "I took her to see... INDIA!" monologue, which I'm guessing is the one you're referring too
) I wouldn't be surprised if there's a few things in there that are censored today, just like there were things that were censored "back in the day" that we wouldn't think twice about today.
JOMO
I am not saying that films and plays` have not been banned in the past including life of brian
but it was not banned in Britain, it was not deemed to be blasphemous in a court of law, and no one was prosecuted for anything within it , or prosecuted fror anything said in that film
This film was never banned in Britain and nobody could be prosecuted for watching it either in their home or at the cinema, it was not illegal in anyway in Britain and you could quote any line or part of that film to your hearts content at any time and anywhere safe in the knowledge that you would not be breaking any law, and those who made the film were safe in that knowledge also
now try that today with some other religions
by the way I think the Major in fawlty towers was censored for something he called Italians and something else he called the germans, although he may still have been able to call them K rauts I cant remember
I am not saying that films and plays` have not been banned in the past including life of brian
but it was not banned in Britain, it was not deemed to be blasphemous in a court of law, and no one was prosecuted for anything within it , or prosecuted fror anything said in that film
This film was never banned in Britain and nobody could be prosecuted for watching it either in their home or at the cinema, it was not illegal in anyway in Britain and you could quote any line or part of that film to your hearts content at any time and anywhere safe in the knowledge that you would not be breaking any law, and those who made the film were safe in that knowledge also
now try that today with some other religions
by the way I think the Major in fawlty towers was censored for something he called Italians and something else he called the germans, although he may still have been able to call them K rauts I cant remember
now the question remains, here it is again :
If we didn't have free speech in Britain,in the past and in our lifetimes, what was it not permissible to say in Britain in the past?
What was said, an example of something that couldn't be said
If we didn't have free speech in Britain,in the past and in our lifetimes, what was it not permissible to say in Britain in the past?
What was said, an example of something that couldn't be said
now you may think that in Britain we were not able to be blasphemous, that's wrong
it happened in all forms of art and theatre and was a routine part of everyones life
ok, in 1921 someone was jailed for blasphemy...I think that's ok that's a long time ago
it happened in all forms of art and theatre and was a routine part of everyones life
ok, in 1921 someone was jailed for blasphemy...I think that's ok that's a long time ago
so to use the film the life of brian as an example of were we are not allowed free speech seems to me to be particularly perverse
I think on the contrary it is quite the opposite, just my opinion
I think on the contrary it is quite the opposite, just my opinion
the word gay would have been used very differently
other references of loyalty to king and country 200 years ago
I am thinking generally of sedition here.
freedom of assembly and association - there is another word for it that prevented gatherings for the purpose of
workers uniting for representation - unlawful at one time and one would not be allowed to speak out at these times or face arrest
but we are going back a long long time
but as for general expression one struggles to counter what lfc is implying
many commonly held colloquial sayings/words would now be banned as we very well now
reading naval history the word 'frogs' springs up many a time as it does in the Hornblower series
as with the major's expressions - Just me thinking out loud here
other references of loyalty to king and country 200 years ago
I am thinking generally of sedition here.
freedom of assembly and association - there is another word for it that prevented gatherings for the purpose of
workers uniting for representation - unlawful at one time and one would not be allowed to speak out at these times or face arrest
but we are going back a long long time
but as for general expression one struggles to counter what lfc is implying
many commonly held colloquial sayings/words would now be banned as we very well now
reading naval history the word 'frogs' springs up many a time as it does in the Hornblower series
as with the major's expressions - Just me thinking out loud here
lfc... this is why I asked my question re definition, because you (and Dr C) appear to believe that, if someone isn't convicted of something *related to* freedom of speech in a court of law in the UK, then no infringement of freedom of speech whatsoever has taken place.
Could I possibly confirm if this is what you believe?
Could I possibly confirm if this is what you believe?
prepared83 12 Apr 18 18:57
Now packaged and known as gingerbread people Sad
ffs where does this madness end?
Now packaged and known as gingerbread people Sad
ffs where does this madness end?
I know of someone who lost their council job because he was overheard referring to another worker by a racist name.
His union wouldn't entertain any appeal.
The name he used was common place not many decades ago, to lose your job simply over using it was unthinkable. Yet now it's automatic as a result of The Equality Act 2010
A classic example to illustrate loss of free speech.
To deny that our speech is as free as it was is clearly wrong and there's the evidence.
His union wouldn't entertain any appeal.
The name he used was common place not many decades ago, to lose your job simply over using it was unthinkable. Yet now it's automatic as a result of The Equality Act 2010
A classic example to illustrate loss of free speech.
To deny that our speech is as free as it was is clearly wrong and there's the evidence.
just consider the amount of self censorship their is around about equal pay, women/feminism, culture, immigration -etc etc
you could lose your job over it by not only expressing an opinion but also speaking the truth
people have lost positions over it
a small minority have us by the throat
you could lose your job over it by not only expressing an opinion but also speaking the truth
people have lost positions over it
a small minority have us by the throat
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
Another act which limits what you are allowed to say.
Another act which limits what you are allowed to say.
you need to be very very careful what you say in todays brtiain studyform
I have just been to the black country
Imagine the row !!! amazing scenes on the guardian
Imagine the row !!! amazing scenes on the guardian
as dr crippen points out,
say the wrong thing, and the wrong person overhears and it could ruin your life
say the wrong thing, and the wrong person overhears and it could ruin your life
I will be quite plain, don't trust anyone, not in the workplace
or anywhere else
or anywhere else
you see the sort of censorship we have now is more dangerous, much more dangerous than the banning of films
say what you like about the church or crack jokes but do a critique of the east and you are in trouble. ho ho
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
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
lfc1971 • April 12, 2018 8:00 PM BST
I have asked the question jomo
What do you mean by "the" question, lfc? Do you mean you've asked your question - "if we didn't have free speech in Britain , in the past and in our lifetimes, what was it not permissible to say in Britain in the past?" - or do you mean you've already asked what I've asked you: how do you define freedom of speech?
If it's the former, I'd kindly ask that you establish further parameters so that I might try to answer ie. by "not permissible", do you mean it would result in a custodial sentence?
I have asked the question jomo
What do you mean by "the" question, lfc? Do you mean you've asked your question - "if we didn't have free speech in Britain , in the past and in our lifetimes, what was it not permissible to say in Britain in the past?" - or do you mean you've already asked what I've asked you: how do you define freedom of speech?
If it's the former, I'd kindly ask that you establish further parameters so that I might try to answer ie. by "not permissible", do you mean it would result in a custodial sentence?
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
you see it didn't result in a custodial sentence for the poor people at Charlie hebdo
that is now, and that was then
do not confuse one with the other
then we had free speech, now we dont
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.
fc1971 • April 12, 2018 9:41 PM BST
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
It isn't, tbh. I asked how you're defining "not permissible", because you seemed to be saying (at 7.31pm) that no one connected to Life of Brian was prosecuted therefore freedom of speech, as expressed through the film, was not affected. You've mentioned Charlie Hebdo a couple of time now... was freedom of speech affected there at all?
detraveller • April 13, 2018 8:40 AM BST
@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.
Thank you for the advice detraveller but if there's one thing Dr C and I can't abide it's important questions being ignored. I am confident we shall have the parameters and intent of the question thrashed out over the weekend and be in a place to start answering the question by Monday.
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
It isn't, tbh. I asked how you're defining "not permissible", because you seemed to be saying (at 7.31pm) that no one connected to Life of Brian was prosecuted therefore freedom of speech, as expressed through the film, was not affected. You've mentioned Charlie Hebdo a couple of time now... was freedom of speech affected there at all?
detraveller • April 13, 2018 8:40 AM BST
@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.
Thank you for the advice detraveller but if there's one thing Dr C and I can't abide it's important questions being ignored. I am confident we shall have the parameters and intent of the question thrashed out over the weekend and be in a place to start answering the question by Monday.
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?
"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?
In a debate such as this a little common sense is always desirable.
So to go back 200 years for examples to compare with modern times seems to stretch common sense to its limits.
So to go back 200 years for examples to compare with modern times seems to stretch common sense to its limits.
anything outside of 'accepted wisdom'(?), current narrative, and agenda will be pilloried. If not, it will be made illegal.
ps the main closing down of free discussion is related to the so called religion which cannot be questioned, challenged or critiqued.
It is really that straightforward.
It is really that straightforward.
Apr 13, 2018 -- 6:14AM, Dr Crippen wrote:
In a debate such as this a little common sense is always desirable.So to go back 200 years for examples to compare with modern times seems to stretch common sense to its limits.
Common sense indeed. Lfc refuses to define free speech or limit his question to a time period. His question included 'in the past and in our lifetimes'. The 'in the past' part does not include 200 years back?
Dr Crippen • April 13, 2018 12:14 PM BST
In a debate such as this a little common sense is always desirable.
So to go back 200 years for examples to compare with modern times seems to stretch common sense to its limits.
It does not seem like common sense to have a debate like this without considering how free speech in Britain developed through history. To do so is to shut down discussion on how and why those developments occurred and therefore what we can might still learn from them today.
In a debate such as this a little common sense is always desirable.
So to go back 200 years for examples to compare with modern times seems to stretch common sense to its limits.
It does not seem like common sense to have a debate like this without considering how free speech in Britain developed through history. To do so is to shut down discussion on how and why those developments occurred and therefore what we can might still learn from them today.
the clamp down has already happened
just trying to help you all
just trying to help you all
What happened 200 years ago doesn't bother me, I insist on being unbothered by that
Now here is the question again, its refers to us, you and me and our lives in Britain, not anywhere else or any other time and place
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?
that is the question, so far no one has answered it
Now here is the question again, its refers to us, you and me and our lives in Britain, not anywhere else or any other time and place
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?
that is the question, so far no one has answered it
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'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?
jomo the question is very clear, if you want to try and answer that is fine.
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
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
lfc... your question isn't clear, because you haven't defined what "not permissible" means.
TSEG reserves the right to delete or refuse any posting and/or recommend to Betfair that it suspend or terminate any Betfair account for any reason at any time without notice.
Apr 13, 2018 -- 11:44AM, JOMO wrote:
lfc... your question isn't clear, because you haven't defined what "not permissible" means.
I told you that you are banging your hand against an lfc wall
The guy refuses to define the main term he uses in his question, and conveniently isn't bothered aboutwhat happens 200 years ago but still keeps the time period as part of his question.
Am I making sense? I don't know.
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.
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.
I was out but I'm back in. I just want to understand lfc's mind. He operates at a different level and that could well be a higher level than mine, which is why I often don't understand him.
I'm well out of it and I'm confused.
Off your rocker more likely.
Off your rocker more likely.
free speech
the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.
In the UK, we arguably have more freedom of speech than any country in the world, in recent times. But there's always been an element of censorship or restraint. Centuries ago you'd have had your head restrained from your shoulders for saying anything blasphemous or anti regalia.
Historically, free speech was advocated by the liberal minority, for the rights of the oppressed, to defend things like democracy.
The flip side applies now in countries like the UK. Free speech (as defined above) is restricted to defend the rights of the majority to live in peace - to be protected from bigotry, racism, terrorism etc - and generally any legal injustice.
All of the above should not be confused with political correctness, which is essentially a subjective over reaction to perceived injustice, and an entirely different matter.
the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.
In the UK, we arguably have more freedom of speech than any country in the world, in recent times. But there's always been an element of censorship or restraint. Centuries ago you'd have had your head restrained from your shoulders for saying anything blasphemous or anti regalia.
Historically, free speech was advocated by the liberal minority, for the rights of the oppressed, to defend things like democracy.
The flip side applies now in countries like the UK. Free speech (as defined above) is restricted to defend the rights of the majority to live in peace - to be protected from bigotry, racism, terrorism etc - and generally any legal injustice.
All of the above should not be confused with political correctness, which is essentially a subjective over reaction to perceived injustice, and an entirely different matter.
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.
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.
You're talking about political correctness I think Moisok.
I played my seven year old the dragon fly scene and the fire scene with Manuel for the first time last weekend. She's got a proper sense of humour and laughed her head off. Which just goes to show that done well, it transcends generations.
I played my seven year old the dragon fly scene and the fire scene with Manuel for the first time last weekend. She's got a proper sense of humour and laughed her head off. Which just goes to show that done well, it transcends generations.
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.
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.
There are so many things - U.A.
Every case of slander and libel and on non-official levels, people saying the wrong thing and: getting fired, banned from places, ostracised.
All of these things happen and always have.
All censorship and the needing of permission to say certain things is curtailment of free speech.
Even the deleting of posts which is so prevalent on this forum.
Most people understand it, you've just pulled up a classic example (which doubtlessly won't be acknowledged). It has been thus for ever.
There are just a couple of berks on here who like to be argumentative and object to it because they have nothing better to do.
No amount of reasoning or proof will stop them.
Every case of slander and libel and on non-official levels, people saying the wrong thing and: getting fired, banned from places, ostracised.
All of these things happen and always have.
All censorship and the needing of permission to say certain things is curtailment of free speech.
Even the deleting of posts which is so prevalent on this forum.
Most people understand it, you've just pulled up a classic example (which doubtlessly won't be acknowledged). It has been thus for ever.
There are just a couple of berks on here who like to be argumentative and object to it because they have nothing better to do.
No amount of reasoning or proof will stop them.
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....
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....
now so far the best attempts at proving we don't enjoy free speech in this country and haven't enjoyed it in the past and in our lifetimes has been the life of brian
and this poem,
both of which can be read and viewed and spoken by everyone in this country and both of which show the very great freedoms of speech we have in a free and Christian and democratic country
now you will have to do better than use these two examples of our free speech to show that we don't enjoy free speech,
go ahead lets see...
and this poem,
both of which can be read and viewed and spoken by everyone in this country and both of which show the very great freedoms of speech we have in a free and Christian and democratic country
now you will have to do better than use these two examples of our free speech to show that we don't enjoy free speech,
go ahead lets see...
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
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
lfc... you are back to believing that we *do* have free speech in Britain today?
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
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
I take it you mean you believe we have less free speech today than we did?
yes i believe we have less today, much less and the dangers are greater, much greater
for example it was perfectly permissible, in the past and in our lifetimes , to read the poem the love that dares to speak its name,it could be read on the steps to st martins in the field
there were stage plays in the 80s based on that poem depicting the description of things in that poem
could that be done now, especially with some other religions ?
i doubt it
there were stage plays in the 80s based on that poem depicting the description of things in that poem
could that be done now, especially with some other religions ?
i doubt it
for example it was perfectly permissible, in the past and in our lifetimes , to read the poem the love that dares to speak its name,it could be read on the steps to st martins in the field
there were stage plays in the 80s based on that poem depicting the description of things in that poem
could that be done now, especially with some other religions ?
i doubt it
there were stage plays in the 80s based on that poem depicting the description of things in that poem
could that be done now, especially with some other religions ?
i doubt it
^ this is what i struggle with. how on earth can so called "progressives" consistently align themselves with
the most outdated uber conservative organisations, people & religions. it bewilders me
the most outdated uber conservative organisations, people & religions. it bewilders me
lets put it this way Mary Whitehouse for all her faults was not likely to murder or behead or machine gun some poor people for writing a book, or a poem, or a stage play, ....or for something that said
that is the difference between then and now
that is the difference between then and now
lets put it this way Mary Whitehouse for all her faults was not likely to murder or behead or machine gun some poor people for writing a book, or a poem, or a stage play, ....or for something that said
that is the difference between then and now
that is the difference between then and now
lets put it this way Mary Whitehouse for all her faults was not likely to murder or behead or machine gun some poor people for writing a book, or a poem, or a stage play, ....or for something that said
that is the difference between then and now
that is the difference between then and now
as northanlite says the so called progressives` are determined to equate a prosecution brought by mary whitehouse 44 years` ago when two men were fined with the problems we face today
There is simply no comparison to the dangers faced today
There is simply no comparison to the dangers faced today
so often people try to be politically "progressive" yet are socially very conservative.
it gets confusing
it gets confusing
has anyone seen salmon rushdie? that got the "progressives" into a terrible muddle
lfc... thank you. You have better-articulated what you believe re freedom of speech more in those last few posts than in the rest of the fred!
But do you see why things are clearer? Because you've been sensible about it. You've gone from saying " i don't believe we have free speech any longer" to "i believe we have less today, much less and the dangers are greater, much greater".
This is why I was trying to establish definitions - because your question is really poor. It does not ask for levels of danger to be attributed to saying something in the past and in our lifetimes, nor does it ask for consideration to be given to how free or otherwise someone in Britain today is to express the same thing.
But do you see why things are clearer? Because you've been sensible about it. You've gone from saying " i don't believe we have free speech any longer" to "i believe we have less today, much less and the dangers are greater, much greater".
This is why I was trying to establish definitions - because your question is really poor. It does not ask for levels of danger to be attributed to saying something in the past and in our lifetimes, nor does it ask for consideration to be given to how free or otherwise someone in Britain today is to express the same thing.
it says something when people can claim we didn't have free speech and site as an instance one of the greatest examples of free speech monty python, or the poem the love that dared to speak its name
it shows the dishonesty of the "progressives"
it shows the dishonesty of the "progressives"
that is why I said even before the question, that is dangerous and unthankful to say that there is no such thing as free speech and that people who say there is no such thing as free speech anywhere are part of the campaign to try and limit our free speech
e have seen that very clearly with the salmon rushdie case when so called liberals and progressives were not willing to condemn the threats of murder and the burning of books
They are the ones who are prepared to condemn the likes of mary whitehouse
well yes that's easy, that's safe, that's the type of people they are
They are the ones who are prepared to condemn the likes of mary whitehouse
well yes that's easy, that's safe, that's the type of people they are
"now you will have to do better than use these two examples of our free speech to show that we don't enjoy free speech"
So really it comes down to the definition of free speech. For example one definition i saw says “the power to express one’s opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.”
Blasphemous libel was was a criminal offence up until 2008. The definition of Blasphemous libel in England is "the publication of material which exposes the Christian religion to scurrility, vilification, ridicule, and contempt, and the material must have the tendency to shock and outrage the feelings of Christians."
So if you express and publish an opinion which exposes the Christian religion to scurrility, vilification, ridicule, and contempt etc. then you will face a legal penalty and so is not free speech as per the above definition.
So LFC, and apologies if you have stated this earlier in the thread, but what is your exact definition of Free Speech? It seems like this is an important thing to clarify for the sake of this discussion.
For what it's worth my stance on free speech is more concerned with non-verbal retaliation than censorship. If you have a party and someone starts giving opinions that you feel that you and your guests will find derogatory you will get rid of that person. I don't feel that you are denying that person freedom of speech you are just saying "I don't want anything to do with him/her. You are not stopping them from going anywhere else and saying what he wants to say. It's exactly the same principle for a newspaper. That's just my opinion and i'm sure many will disagree.
So really it comes down to the definition of free speech. For example one definition i saw says “the power to express one’s opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.”
Blasphemous libel was was a criminal offence up until 2008. The definition of Blasphemous libel in England is "the publication of material which exposes the Christian religion to scurrility, vilification, ridicule, and contempt, and the material must have the tendency to shock and outrage the feelings of Christians."
So if you express and publish an opinion which exposes the Christian religion to scurrility, vilification, ridicule, and contempt etc. then you will face a legal penalty and so is not free speech as per the above definition.
So LFC, and apologies if you have stated this earlier in the thread, but what is your exact definition of Free Speech? It seems like this is an important thing to clarify for the sake of this discussion.
For what it's worth my stance on free speech is more concerned with non-verbal retaliation than censorship. If you have a party and someone starts giving opinions that you feel that you and your guests will find derogatory you will get rid of that person. I don't feel that you are denying that person freedom of speech you are just saying "I don't want anything to do with him/her. You are not stopping them from going anywhere else and saying what he wants to say. It's exactly the same principle for a newspaper. That's just my opinion and i'm sure many will disagree.
U.A. my idea of free speech would be pretty much as it has been in Britain for 50 years or even longer, ok the blasphemy libel laws were still in place but that was well within bounds and the cases that we have faced over that time period are as close to perfect as we are likely to get
That's my opinion
That's my opinion
of course i also think that things have changed, roundtree trust found large numbers of our universities increasingly restricting free speech etc, and of course other aspects of life,
that is the point i am trying to make
that is the point i am trying to make
every society must have its little rules and regulations and of course politenesss is a delight
but it must not be unlawful not to be polite, that would be ridiculous
but it must not be unlawful not to be polite, that would be ridiculous
every society must have its little rules and regulations and of course politenesss is a delight
but it must not be unlawful not to be polite, that would be ridiculous
but it must not be unlawful not to be polite, that would be ridiculous
every society must have its little rules and regulations and of course politenesss is a delight
but it must not be unlawful not to be polite, that would be ridiculous
but it must not be unlawful not to be polite, that would be ridiculous
every society must have its little rules and regulations and of course politenesss is a delight
but it must not be unlawful not to be polite, that would be ridiculous
but it must not be unlawful not to be polite, that would be ridiculous
every society must have its little rules and regulations and of course politenesss is a delight
but it must not be unlawful not to be polite, that would be ridiculous
but it must not be unlawful not to be polite, that would be ridiculous
every society must have its little rules and regulations and of course politenesss is a delight
but it must not be unlawful not to be polite, that would be ridiculous
but it must not be unlawful not to be polite, that would be ridiculous
Do you find anything to disagree with there U.A ?
and Why
and Why
As far as I know there has never been a law in Britain against being disagreeable at parties so what that has to do with anything I don't know
”I was shocked to discover that my local university, London South Bank, bans speakers who are likely to commit blasphemy - even though it is not a criminal offence. This seems to be an excessive accommodation to religious pressure.“
https://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/nine-10-uk-universities-free-speech-restrict-rankings-joseph-rowntree-cardiff-ediburgh-newcastle-a7577381.html
Can this be described as infringement of freedom of speech, given the University could not be concerned with a criminal law being broken?
https://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/nine-10-uk-universities-free-speech-restrict-rankings-joseph-rowntree-cardiff-ediburgh-newcastle-a7577381.html
Can this be described as infringement of freedom of speech, given the University could not be concerned with a criminal law being broken?
All censorship is curtailment of free speech.
Whether it's by newspapers, publishers, broadcasters, the state, prison officers, forums.
Not just now or in the last 50 years... It has been ever since we could talk.
Life of Brian has been seen by almost everyone and is not actually an example of anything much.
Whether it's by newspapers, publishers, broadcasters, the state, prison officers, forums.
Not just now or in the last 50 years... It has been ever since we could talk.
Life of Brian has been seen by almost everyone and is not actually an example of anything much.
Hi there LFC.
Unfortunately your explanation of how you interpret the term free speech was not as an exact precise definition that I had hoped for. Still never mind it seems from what I have interpreted that you definition of free speech is heavily influenced by censorship.
As I suspected I think we are operating under different definitions which if fine. But if you believe that censorship can affect free speech, then what is your definition of censorship and what circumstances is censorship affecting free speech and do you believe there are cases when it is not?
And since it seems an issue that you find important, i agree that it must not be unlawful not to be polite.
Unfortunately your explanation of how you interpret the term free speech was not as an exact precise definition that I had hoped for. Still never mind it seems from what I have interpreted that you definition of free speech is heavily influenced by censorship.
As I suspected I think we are operating under different definitions which if fine. But if you believe that censorship can affect free speech, then what is your definition of censorship and what circumstances is censorship affecting free speech and do you believe there are cases when it is not?
And since it seems an issue that you find important, i agree that it must not be unlawful not to be polite.
Go down the pub right now and say anything you like about any subject and nobody will give a damn
Depends on the pub. Try slagging off a local football team in a pub full of that team's supporters.
Your freedom of speech would be curtailed then.
Your freedom of speech would be curtailed then.
U.A I don't have a precise definition of tree speech, I have never in all my years found it necessary to have one
You seem to think it is important, what is yours ? and if I like it I will certainly use it...
Have to go to the dentist will look in later
You seem to think it is important, what is yours ? and if I like it I will certainly use it...
Have to go to the dentist will look in later
I see that the thread is still going. And Lfc still refuses to define the term free speech. If only I was as clever as lfc that I could argue endlessly over something that I refuse to define.
Not only that, there have been more examples and ways of how it doesn't exist than have ever been seen anywhere else!
"it says something when people can claim we didn't have free speech and site as an instance one of the greatest examples of free speech monty python, or the poem the love that dared to speak its name it shows the dishonesty of the "progressives"
As I believe that we didn’t have free speech in the past and I cited the relevant poem it appears that you have labelled me a “progressive” and questioned my honesty. I was simply trying to answer your question based on my belief that we didn’t have free speech in the past (based on my definition of the term free speech) rather than making any kind of comment or reflection on society. I have not even made a comment on whether I perceive free speech to be a “good” or “bad” thing. I feel that if someone wants to cast aspersions for someone having different beliefs concerning a particular term then it is probably wise to clarify the term when it is open to numerous interpretations.
As I believe that we didn’t have free speech in the past and I cited the relevant poem it appears that you have labelled me a “progressive” and questioned my honesty. I was simply trying to answer your question based on my belief that we didn’t have free speech in the past (based on my definition of the term free speech) rather than making any kind of comment or reflection on society. I have not even made a comment on whether I perceive free speech to be a “good” or “bad” thing. I feel that if someone wants to cast aspersions for someone having different beliefs concerning a particular term then it is probably wise to clarify the term when it is open to numerous interpretations.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539