In the UK, a Few Tweets Restore Freedom of Speech 216
Several readers wrote to us about the situation in the UK that saw the Guardian newspaper forbidden by a judge from reporting a question in UK parliament. The press's freedom to do so has been fought for since at least 1688 and fully acknowledged since the 19th century. At issue was a matter of public record — but the country's libel laws meant that the newspaper could not inform the public of what parliament was up to. The question concerned the oil trading company Trafigura, the toxic waste scandal they are involved in, and their generous use of libel lawyers to silence those who would report on the whole thing. After tweeters and bloggers shouted about Trafigura all over the Internet, the company's lawyers agreed to drop the gag request.
Stephen Fry (Score:5, Interesting)
I loved Stephen Fry's quote on this [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I loved Stephen Fry's quote on this [bbc.co.uk]
And so the Brittish people went on living their zombie lives behind their iron curtain, with the feeling that this meaningless victory had changed their lives. In reality they were still being blindfolded, still monitored, still used as mere batteries to the machinery of the Brittish government and financial hierachy.
Re:Stephen Fry (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. Please let me rephrase: twitting and blogging are work-arounds, because the problem is still there. It wasn't fixed by the lawyers dropping the gag request; it will only be fixed as soon as the judge admits that the judgement was a mistake and explains why it was a mistake.
Re:Stephen Fry (Score:5, Interesting)
That depends on what you regard as 'the problem'.
The 'super-injunction', as the press are calling it, was the injunction placed on the Guardian's publication of the Minton Report [wikileaks.org], and the associated gag order that prevented the paper from revealing the existence of the injunction.
The judge didn't directly apply the gag order to the parliamentary question [parliament.uk] tabled by Paul Farrelly (which didn't exist at the time), and by all accounts the gag order did not cover parliamentary proceedings in any case because of qualified privilege. The only reason it became an issue was because the Guardian received a specific legal threat from law firm Carter-Ruck:
As we all know, statements made by lawyers are often merely the legal opinions of said lawyers.
The gag order is the sinister part of the whole thing (not the injunction, which is perfectly reasonable given judicial oversight), but I'd like to point out that these are not uniquely British as the GP seems to be alluding. I'm put in mind of the National Security Letters sent out by arms of the US Government, which placed similar gag orders, but unlike this situation did not have any judicial oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
Had it been my newspaper, I would have published the news about the court case anyway. Government belongs to the People and all events that happen within that government, especially the Parliament, should be shared with them not hidden.
If the judge doesn't like it, he can just eat a bullet, and we the People will replace him with our own Judge.
Re:Stephen Fry (Score:4, Funny)
Government belongs to the People
That's what I said, until those funny men in the black uniforms removed me from the White House lawn for trespassing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You’re saying that you’d publish anyway, and then shoot any judge who disagrees?!
Well, that’s one way of ensuring a speedy judicial process.
Re:Stephen Fry (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>Spoken like a true 13 year old.
Spoken like a man who never paid attention in history class. The UK wouldn't have the freedoms it enjoys today, if it wasn't for the bloodshed of the 1600s which eventually led to the Bill of Rights. And of course there are other examples - Eastern Europe is now free thanks to uprisings. France executed its monarch to form the first french republic. Rome overthrew the ancient tyrannical kings and founded the "res publica" circa 500 B.C. adopting the slogan SPQR - "The Senate and the People of Rome"
History shows that freedom is not given. It is taken by force and power restored where it belongs (with the people).
If a judge TRIES to take-away your right of free speech, his verdict has no meaning, and can be ignored. He has overstepped his authority because no one take away your rights. So I say - ignore the verdict and publish your story. If the judge continues down this path and still tries to take-away your inalienable right to use your own mouth to speak, then he needs to be imepached. And if he refuses to step down, then the People need to exercise their just authority, and remove him by force, and replace him with a new judge that understand he is a *servant* of the People, not a master. "From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural fertilizer." - Thomas Jefferson.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try the Human Rights Act 1998, specifically section 1 (1a):-
(1) In this Act “the Convention rights” means the rights and fundamental freedoms set out in—
(a) Articles 2 to 12 and 14 of the Convention,
Article 10 of the Convention is:-
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Minton Report [wikileaks.org]
It appears the URL has an unprintable character, so perhaps linking to the page [wikileaks.org] about the topic will work.
Re: (Score:2)
Right enough, this is the correct link [wikileaks.org]. I had made a note to fix it before posting but subsequently forgot.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears the URL has an unprintable character
You're saying that character was gagged?
Re: (Score:2)
No, it was actually obscene.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know, I think it will be fixed when British legislators change the repressive lible laws. My own country isn't that free either, despite protestations that the US is "the land of the free". As long as there are activities that are illegal but harm no one but the person doing it (an often harm no one at all), you're not really free. As long as the law allows someone else to harm you legally (like the British lible laws), you're not really free either.
I don't think there really is a free country in th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only difference between Britain and the rest of the Western World is that our government just suck at hiding their Orwellian monitoring of the general population. You think other governments aren't monitoring, spying and tracking their own citizens? They've just learned from our mistakes about how to keep it quiet...
And your point is what? That since all citizens of the western world live as such zombies it's not worth changing anywhere? My guess is that you're not the guy who offers solutions, you're the guy who tries to make problems look smaller by pointing at others. You may be right, but you're not helping anybody, rather the opposite -- providing people with the thought of that it's a pointless battle since everybody experiences the same situation. So my question is then, what are your motives? To have a good lif
Re:Stephen Fry (Score:4, Insightful)
That didn't look like his point to me at all...
"My guess is that you're not the guy who offers solutions"
*coughs* projecting!!!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that you're not the guy who offers solutions, you're the guy who tries to make problems look smaller by pointing at others.
The original AC post (which could be you, could not be), said that Britain had this problem, and while intentionally or not, implied that other countries (your country?) did not. That is pointing at others. And, denying the existence of your own problems. All he did was defend your attack against his country by saying that you were calling the kettle black. While the fact that most of the world has the same problem as him may in some way belittle the problem, I do not think that was the point of his pos
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. Except it's not so much the pot calling the kettle black, as the pot looking in the mirror and calling its own reflection black, and then insulting its reflection for calling itself black. I guess like an anorexia type thing but for pots. "I hate you, you're ugly and black!"
Thanks for weighing in :-)
Re:Stephen Fry (Score:4, Insightful)
You think other governments and corporations aren't monitoring, spying and tracking all citizens/serfs/customers?
there, fixed that for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
Meet the old boss, same as the new boss.
And if you think Government is the solution, then you're part of the problem.
Now take Health Care Reform, is it about health care or is it about control of the "citizens/serfs/customers" ???
You willing to give up freedom for security? I'm not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Dear Portuguese fellow countryman, our government in no better then others. In fact, I'd say it's probably one of the more corrupt govs in the so-called "Western World". I agree on the Streisand effect, but it simply has no consequences ... I'd go as far as to say it's a void effect ... you get all the shouting and media frenzy, but it's all quickly forgotten and swept under the rug (normally by said media).
And you'd have to agree ... it's a damn selective effect ... and the ones who select the causes norma
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Portuguese friend,
I live in the USA and have noticed that people get all outraged over the latest scandal and are all up in arms (sometimes literally) over it.
That is, until an even greater scandal arises in which the first scandal is dropped/forgotten and all outrage and disgust is focused on the NEW scandal of the week. This repeats itself over and over, until someone comes along and promises to make things better.
At that point, people are happy the scandals have stopped, that they have long forgotte
Re:Stephen Fry (Score:5, Informative)
The UK is actually starting to resemble late-communist Central Europe. You can have all the freedom you want, if you make sure you're surrounded with people who don't care about the rules. And most people are starting to not care.
I moved from Hungary, never the most oppressive state in the Eastern Bloc, to the UK in 1998. I don't have words for how delusional your suggestion is. The threat of legal action does have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, but not quite the chilling effect of being beaten senseless or a bullet to the back of the head.
Re:Stephen Fry (Score:4, Funny)
FGS what's wrong with you, this is slashdot, a place for wild comparisons by people who know no better, kindly check in your "real experience" at the door, you can collect it on your way out.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I moved there from Hungary too. Except I wasn't talking about the 60's.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The suggestion is not at all delusional. Limitations of personal freedom and liberty move on a scale between weak and small social dictates - you should not say x because it is inappropriate, you should not do y because it is not looked upon kindly -, more or less well founded legal threats - you must not say x because it is forbidden, you must not do y because you go to jail for it - and outright jeopardy of your own life and livelihood - you cannot say x because someone will send you to the hospital for d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The suggestion is not at all delusional. Limitations of personal freedom and liberty move on a scale between weak and small social dictates - you should not say x because it is inappropriate, you should not do y because it is not looked upon kindly -, more or less well founded legal threats - you must not say x because it is forbidden, you must not do y because you go to jail for it - and outright jeopardy of your own life and livelihood - you cannot say x because someone will send you to the hospital for doing this, you cannot do y because someone will shoot you for it.
.
This brings up something that people should pay attention to. It is part of what is contributing to the reduction in freedom in Western Civilization. It used to be that there was a strong, relatively common, understanding of norms that fell under the first category. Some of those norms were oppressive to one degree or another. Post World War II, a movement arose to overturn those norms. This movement pushed "tolerance" for the sake of tolerance. Society discovered that some behaviors could not be accepted,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The educational system's not great, either ( my careers advisor gave me the choice of manual work or skilled manual work ). Nor is the chance to vote between the similar flavours of the ruling class. There's a growing section of below working class society, our economy has been forcefully centred around the money markets of the capital and the majority of
Simon Singh (Score:4, Insightful)
(*) Counterexamples welcome...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it's not that it doesn't helped anyone in any context, there's plenty of situations where obscurity was much better than publicity (any military example comes to mind), the problem is that obscurity simply is not actually security at all.
Obscurity is obscurity, and while you sometimes want obscurity, it's very unhealthy to confuse obscurity with security in an overall sense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Security through obscurity is nearly universally useful (provided you don't mind the obscurity). It's not something to entirely rely on, no, but it's difficult to argue that it doesn't help.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A layer of obscurity over a secure system can seem good, but is unnecessary (because you have a secure system already).
That is false. No system is 100% secure, all that can be expected is to delay a successful attack. The more secure, the longer the delay.
Understood from that context, an additional layer of obscurity does increase security. The question really boils down to the cost-effectiveness of that layer - if maintaining that layer creates excessive overhead, then it may be a net loss in the cost/benefit trade-off column. But if cost is not part of the evaluation - and the prior poster never mentioned it - then it
Re: (Score:2)
No, obscurity does help, but for a different reason. It reduces the overall impact of the opportunistic hackers. It's long, but here's the reason why:
1. No security system is perfect.
2. All security systems work by delaying the success of the attack long enough so the attacker gives up.
3. The internet is very, very big, and full of both attackers and targets.
4. A statistically significant number of people do as little as possible to accomplish a task. This includes time and effort spent securing syst
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Security through obscurity is a warning, not a mantra.
Re:Simon Singh (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a counterexample.. two in fact.
20 years ago my motobike was not stolen, even after the thieves had laboriously sliced a chain and wired the ignition. Why? Because the engine would cut out within 10 seconds of starting, eventually they gave up and left. The engine cutting out was down to a obscure little security system I designed, built and fitted myself, killed the ignition for 2 seconds out of every 10 unless a magnet was held in the correct place as the ignition was turned on. The thieves probably never even suspected it was deliberate, they probably thought the bike was a lemon.. which is arguably true ;-)
My server, which has no open public SSH port.. Unless you know exactly where to look and when.
Both of these work because they are genuinely obscure single implementations. In order to break them the attacker would need to know that it exists, and then spend time analysing the unit to break it. Even if they know there is a hidden layer of defence, is the payout (a crummy motorcycle, control of my printer and access to my photos and porn collection) worth their time to break it?
The sort of Security through Obscurity you describe fails because it is identically implemented in millions of devices, ie. It is not really Obscure, it's just a secret. And if you break it in one place you break it in all places. The payout for finding and breaking it is much, much, greater.
Re:Simon Singh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They broke the chain and padlock.
They rammed a screwdriver in the ignition and turned on the electrics.
I had no kickstart so the only way to fire the engine was to bump it.
I had an FS1E and those in the know would know that the gearbox is upsidedown. The twats were trying to bump it in top (4th) gear and it wouldn't start. They didn't even set fire to it, which is still surprising to this day.
I miss that bike. 70mph down hill on
Re: (Score:2)
HeHe, I never had a Fizzy (really wanted one, coolest bike on the block, had to settle for a Honda Camino instead) but I did ride my mates one a few times and the gearbox, as they say, did my 'ed in. I can well imagine the twats not working that out. :-)
My bike (a Suzi 250 by then) was found in the hedge at the bottom of our garden, I also wondered why it was not torched.. The same immobiliser device is still in use on my 1200 to this day.
Re: (Score:2)
Security through obscurity does work until it is no longer obscure .... ....If you still had your bike, I could now steal it, If I could be bothered I could break into your machine .... now I know
--
The plural of box is boxen....
Re: (Score:2)
1) Thankyou, that was the whole point. I do still have a bike, a really expensive one, it still has the little box in it, it is still very effectively protected by obscurity.
Although obviously I'll be sitting by it all night now armed with a LART waiting for the hoards of Slashdot-reading, identity cracking, angle-grinder and van equipped slashdot criminals to arrive.
2) http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/box [wiktionary.org] : you are only allowed to use 'boxen' in a whimsical fashion!
Re: (Score:2)
That said, in the bigger picture, I think better decisions can usually be made with more information. That might include by terrorists, however, so whether or not those "better" decisions are in your interest is debatable, but the less restrictions on open speech the better, in general. IMHO!
Re: (Score:2)
Security through obscurity = Camouflage
If it wasn't security, then why dress up in cammo outfits and ghillie suits
The whole point of camouflage is to hide in plain sight, to be seen without being seen; to appear not as what you are, but as something else. It is the ultimate in "security through obscurity".
And that is why people never see Sasquatch, he isn't black fur, he is moss covered green, and you can look right at him and never see him. /humor
Worrying precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
To use an example. Imagine a celebrity's 13 year old daughter gets raped and there's a court order banning the publication of any information that can identify her. Will she have to deal with so many blogs reporting on it that the court order becomes pointless? Will she then have to live with horrific details of her attack being public knowledge?
With the Rihanna leaked pictures showing the results of her attack, it's become pretty clear to me that a good portion of the blogging community are devoid of tact and decency. It's only a matter of time before something of the nature of what I described happening.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about parliament here, not a court case. It's accepted that some court cases can be sealed by court order, but parliament?
Re: (Score:2)
in my opnion, privacy has become an empty word. It's the result of all-pervasive electronics/communication devices. It's rather pointless trying to turn back the clock methinks. the genie is out of the bottle, information wants to be free, that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
the genie is out of the bottle, information wants to be free, that sort of thing.
Do you got to rub it the right way
if you wanna be with it?
Re: (Score:2)
The distinction is easy to discern. One deals with a matter of public welfare. The other does not.
To be more precise, when any legal entity engages in activities or behaviors that are damaging or potentially damaging to members of the public, and such actions or the judgment demonstrated by them continue to pose a threat to the welfare of others, then there exists a right to inform and be informed. Those that may be harmed by the acts of another have a right to know of the danger. The revelation of sala
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed...I agree with that sentiment. I seem to recall a great deal of controversy over "vigilante justice" in the case of a young Korean woman who was photographed for failing to clean up after her dog on the subway, and subsequently humiliated.
Re: (Score:2)
The likelihood of the blogosphere subverting an individual court case (which can be closed to the general public) is much lower than the likelihood of subverting the machinations of parliament (which most certainly are NOT closed to the general public).
Re: (Score:2)
At least the paparazzi didn't get any money out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people would like to see pics of random hot people in the shower. Despite this demand, it would be an incredibly poor excuse if this was used to justify a photographer putting hidden cameras in people's showers.
The popularity of porn and the phenomenon of rubbernecking show that people generally have a pretty depraved curiosity. It's
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I see what you did there...
Re:Worrying precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
This case is (fortunately) nothing like the examples you give.
This was about a question in Parliament. i.e. Statements publicly made, by public representatives in a place where freedom of speech is protected to the highest extent in the UK. The statements were available to anyone who looked at the records.
The idiot lawyers then tried to prevent a newspaper from reprinting those statements, bringing into doubt the entire system of freedom of speech and press in the UK. (note to non-UK readers, there is no UK constitution to protect free speech).
The bloggers (and more importantly, pretty much every other part of the UK media) were entirely right to repeatedly report on the gross misuse of UK libel law.
Re: (Score:2)
In the process ignoring the well known that that trying to ban something is a very good way to ensure that lots of people know about it. As well as drawing attention to whoever wanted the information banned.
Right now probably the last thing Trafigura wants would be more negative publicity. They've not so much "shot themselves in the foot" as "
Note on right to freedom of speech (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not the injunction against the Guardian that prevented the Minton report from being published. The problem is that the injunction also prevented the newspaper from revealing that an injunction had been served at all.. This is why, according to the opinion of Trafigura's lawyers, the Guardian could not report on this particular parliamentary question - because it revealed the fact that an injunction was in place.
Injunctions are a necessary part of the legal system, as you've pointed out. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh.. like your post is any better than the average blog posting..
The schedule of questions is A PUBLIC RECORD, published in advance.
Ie; it is a matter of record that the question was submitted and scheduled, this was published in advance by the house as part of it's diary of business for the week.
That record is available for anyone to examine, even bloggers and journalists. This is a small but vital part of the democratic process; it allows people to make representations and comments about legislation and
Re: (Score:2)
but of course the OP was concerned with 'things that have been said' and not 'things that have been published'. It makes your reply to the OP more accurate, a classic nit-pick. You are still a twit for screaming 'It's all the fault of bloggers' in a very blog like manner. And twittier (or a twitterer) if you think blogs are limited to 140 characters.
One down, an unknown number to go. (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the last issue of Private Eye there are quite a few of these super-injunctions currently being enforced (i.e. injunctions that not only stop you from saying something, but stop you from telling anyone that you've been injuncted).
I'd like a few more of them to be twittered, at least so we know that something's being hidden, even if we don't know what it is.
(and I know injuncted isn't the right word, but I don't know what is)
Re:One down, an unknown number to go. (Score:4, Informative)
"enjoined"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One down, an unknown number to go. (Score:5, Informative)
The PQ about Trafigura everyone was twittering was Q61, Q62 was in fact the one mentioned in that Private Eye editorial:
Q62: Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will (a) collect and (b) publish statistics on the number of non-reportable injunctions issued by the High Court in each of the last five years.
With a bit of luck tomorrow we will hear how many of these things have been issued (or at least, get told when we will be told)
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of "The Truth" (Pratchett) which I paraphrase here because I don't have the book to hand:
de Worde: "Can I say that you asked me not to say anything about $SUBJECT?"
"No!"
de Worde: "OK, I'll say that when I asked you if I could say anything about about your banning me from discussing $SUBJECT you said No..."
Massive headline FAIL (Score:5, Informative)
British libel laws are a travesty. To the point where half a dozen US states, including California, have had to pass laws preventing UK libel judgements from inhibiting free speech. There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company, but in a British court - as the penalties handed down in British courts are so heavy, and litigation costs so high, that it's financial ruin for a defendant to attempt to defend themselves, even if they are successful.
So much for free speech in Britain.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
British =! English
Re:Massive headline FAIL (Score:4, Informative)
There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company, but in a British court...
Where were the comments posted? This isn't clear from your post.
If they were posted on an English website, hosted in England, how is this any different than the US wanting to charge Gary McKinnon in a US court? Seems like we're both as bad as each other...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Newsflash: (Score:3, Insightful)
This seems to be a hard concept for some people, but here's an attempt to explain: because he thinks the situation in the UK is bad does not necessarily mean he thinks the situation in the US is wonderful. In other words, they're both bad.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company, but in a British court...
Where were the comments posted? This isn't clear from your post. If they were posted on an English website, hosted in England, how is this any different than the US wanting to charge Gary McKinnon in a US court? Seems like we're both as bad as each other...
This is a case raised by a lawyer as an example on Newsnight, BB2. Video of this available here. [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, an injuction against one paper is as good as an injuction against all in the UK. From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8304908.stm:
"No injunction was served on the BBC, but ever since the Spycatcher case in the 1980s news organisations which knowingly breach an injunction served on others are in contempt of court, so the corporation too felt bound by the Guardian injunction."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Guardian newspaper actually tried to create the Streisand Effect here. They got a tame MP to table a question in Parliament to expose what was happening. They effectively challenged the libel lawyers to try and stop the reporting of it. And of course the lawyers fell for it. Pretty neat stitch up.
The Guardian then leaked it to the inte
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Guardian then leaked it to the international press and prominent bloggers -- such as Guido Fawkes. Sure people reported it on Twitter too, especially Stephen Fry who is a sock puppet for the Guardian and the left wing, but it wasn't the tweets that changed anything, it was the International press and the reaction in Parliament.
How's your tin foil hat looking? There was absolutely no need for them to leak anything. The list of questions was already published, the Guardian just asked Carter-Ruck if they c
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you rely on Guido's band of libertarian wonks and hope people stumble upon it on Google - or do you appeal directly to (say) Stephen Fry' 830,000 followers (plus practically every working hack and writer who usually use Twitter as a way to banter away the working day)?
It is about distribution, not just publication. The story went from standstill to game-set-match in about 4 hours and that was the Twitter effect. Nowhere near enough people read Guid
Re: (Score:2)
I like how a recent Sheldon comic [sheldoncomics.com] described British libel laws:
Sheldon: "British libel laws are the worst! A fat-head can sue you for callin' him a fat-head, even when it's demonstrable in court that he's a total and complete fat-head... even to OTHER fat-heads!"
Arthur: "What? No way. Then how do they call out fat-heads in Britain?"
Sheldon: "The nation suffers in silence."
Full Report (Score:5, Informative)
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton_report:_Trafigura_Toxic_dumping_along_the_Ivory_Coast_broke_EU_regulations%2C_14_Sep_2006 [wikileaks.org]
Another chance for twitter users to feel special (Score:3, Funny)
Britain - Libel capital of the work. (Score:5, Interesting)
Do we know which idiot judge granted this? (Score:2)
Errr...no (Score:5, Informative)
Cheers,
Ian
Restore? You can't restore what was never there (Score:4, Insightful)
The Slashdot headline "restore" is wrong. England and Wales [wikipedia.org] have never had freedom of speech. It cannot be "restored", it was never there.
We English and Welshmen value correctness above freedom. Now I'll readily admit that sometimes - often, perhaps - megacorporates and in particular the law firm Carter Fuck [wikipedia.org] try to abuse the system so that they also prevent inconvenient truths from slipping out.
But would I want to live in a country where people can spread lies about each other with no legal redress? No. The problems with freedom of speech go way beyond shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema. England and Wales have always regarded responsibilities above freedoms; in this case, the responsibility to get the facts right.
The US gets many things right, and a few things wrong. The USA's bonkers bible-belt religious fundamentalism, for instance, would never be tolerated in England and Wales, as most of it is demonstrably factually incorrect. England and Wales would never suffer from a Kansas-style education system which promoted creationism over science. So, whilst I respect your country's achievements, please don't try to sell me "freedom of speech" as a cure-all. It's no more a cure-all than the snake oil which I understand your forefathers were so keen on selling in the days of your Wild West.
Re:Restore? You can't restore what was never there (Score:5, Insightful)
We English and Welshmen value correctness above freedom.
Who's correctness? Who's values? Therein lies the rub.
A system that is fully open always will have issues with 'wrong' theories. But it protects the good ones too. I honestly feel what your saying and good peer review is key. But your idea that openness is a bad thing is flawed.
Re: (Score:2)
Whose correctness? That which can be deduced by repeatable scientific experiment, or subject to the rigours of proof beyond doubt in a court of law.
Openness isn't usually a bad thing, but the propagation of falsehoods and unproven nonsense is most definitely a bad thing.
Us Englishmen kicked out the Pope [wikipedia.org] more than four hundred years ago, partially I'll admit because our King fancied a new shag, but mostly because our scholars were fed up of the Catholic church insisting upon demonstrably false populist nonse [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
a) I second Yoshi_mon's comment
b) It amuses me that you left the Scots out of your idea of "we". I approve.
c) Our system (usually) allows a reasonable person to see that the emperor is not wearing any clothes, then treat the poor fool appropriately without being sued into oblivion.
d) As to the merits of free speech, we aren't going to stop someone from playing the fool (and deprive ourselves of a potential source of entertainment), like those bible-belters that you mention. I'd sooner boot the circus out
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably because Scottish law is separate from English law, something most Scots, in my experience, seem very aware of :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Slashdot headline "restore" is wrong. England and Wales [wikipedia.org] have never had freedom of speech. It cannot be "restored", it was never there.
Indeed. Any judge is still allowed to prevent the media from reporting on Parliament. (Trafigura's lawyers dropped the gag request). There is still no freedom.
Re:Restore? You can't restore what was never there (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with "freedom of correctness" is how many so-called "correct" things later turn out to be incredible lies. Correctness requires someone who can objectively judge whether something is correct, and pretty much the entire history of the world is a repeated, blatant demonstration that nobody really knows what is objectively "correct" or not until - at best - a few decades down the road.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite. The key word being "judge". I'd trust the judicial process to be more correct than whatever rises to the top of the popularity list of a social network.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Look, we had a dustup over this in the late 18th century. A few of us got together and decided, among other things, that were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We wanted to be CITIZENS, not SUBJECTS.
The British didn't believe in this. They believed in something else, some lesser form of liberty restricted by their aristocracy and parliament.
It's just refreshing to see a British subject admit to it.
Re: (Score:2)
I must admit to being a
Point of information for non Brit slashdotters... (Score:3, Informative)
Scottish Judges are renowned for making anyone guilty of contempt spend at least one night in the cells - famous editors and briefs included. Much to the amusement to the mainly retired and unemployed audience in the public gallery.
Trafigura threatening Norwegians as well (Score:2)