Would the UK be better off with the 1st amendment instead of burdensome speech laws?

[alp227]

The UK Press Association reported: "Police investigate 'choc ice' tweet about Ashley Cole", in reference to what one footballer tweeted about another footballer. This followed the acquittal of Chelsea captain John Terry over racial abuse for calling another footballer a "f-----g black c--t", but "Pressure mounts on the FA to charge John Terry with racial abuse". And now: "BBC lawyers consider formal appeal over court ban on riots drama". The Guardian report quotes the order: "It is ordered that the BBC programme 'The Riots: In their Own Words' due for broadcast on BBC 2 tonight is not broadcast by any media by any means until further order." That's it. No citation of any law, just an empty court order.

Sheesh. About the footballers, if they played for American leagues they wouldn't get prosecuted for their words but rather punished within their jobs, from at least a public reprimand to suspension to even being fired. And why did the British court want to prevent the broadcast of the riots docudrama? In America, such censorship is usually due to public outcry rather than court orders.

[fedsron2us]

1. Whenever the British authorities feel they are under threat

they always resort to repressive legislation. You only need to have a cursory glance at the Combination and Sedition Acts from the early nineteenth century to realise that reality. Britain ruling classes also nurture a secret fear that the Jacobin revolution that they prevented at the dawn of the industrial age might yet be visited upon them. The sort of gagging orders you are seeing being imposed on the BBC are a reflection of that paranoia. The reality is that civil disorder could easily reoccur in the UK because of the current economic crisis no matter what laws are passed or what judges rule. You only have to look at the failure of such measures as internment in Northern Ireland to realise that this sort of legislation has a tendency to blowback in the face of those who impose it. In this instance I expect clips fom the BBC drama will soon start mysteriously popping up on servers all over the globe available for viewing by all and sundry. In addition the British government is not short of enemies in the world who would be only to happy to embarrass it. The fact is the writ of Britains rulers does not run very far these days and even their erstwhile allies such as the US government are starting to tire of them as is increasingly becoming apparent as the LIBOR banking scandal unravels.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. The programme ban sounds like it's part of an ongoing case

"For legal reasons, the Guardian cannot name the judge who made the ruling, the court in which he is sitting or the case he is presiding over. However, it is understood that lawyers for the BBC strongly object to his ruling, the nature of which is believed to be highly unusual."

So we know there is some court case involved; and if the judge or case can't be identified, then it seems that knowledge that it's linked to the riots would be enough to prejudice the case - though the BBC may be saying they don't think it is.

As far as the 1st amendment goes - yes, it'd be nice to have that as the basis of the law, in many ways, but remember also that it's responsible for political advertising on TV and the Citizens United ruling. It's not a universal good. I also suspect that if Britain has a first amendment equivalent, it would be a nastier place than the USA - I think there's an undercurrent of racism and bigotry here that might get too strong a hold on too large a section of the public. The USA's inbuilt optimism means that people don't spend as much time hating each other as I fear we British would.

[T_i_B]

3. I think it might be appropriate to post this for reference.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment/?utm_expid=9019691-0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D1st%2520amendment%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D6%26ved%3D0CIEBEBYwBQ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.law.cornell.edu%252Fconstitution%252Ffirst_amendment%252F%26ei%3DmpoGUPywHOWA4gTtlLnwCA%26usg%3DAFQjCNGEXeCOWA9fb0a8hHiOwC5ScJb-sQ

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[truebrit71]

4. Who got the court order in the first place...and yes, you'd be better off with a 1st amendment...

...whilst it doesn't prevent censorship of sorts in the US, it is nowhere near as bad as the UK...

The court order itself is bullshit and I hope the Beeb pursues an appeal...

As for John Terry/Ashley Cole it's ALL bullshit...it is a very slippery slope when you start to criminalize speech..

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. So, it became clear after a couple of days; this was because of an ongoing trial

which ended; and the BBC can now broadcast it (which it's not going to do until after the Olympics).

Justice Flaux initially released his injunction on Monday, without having seen either of the films of having any detailed knowledge of their content.

A defence barrister alerted the judge to the films, suggesting that although they may not contain any references to Birmingham, the judge may want to take action out of "an abundance of caution".
...
In a pointed exchange, counsel for the eight defendants said they would have made an application to discharge the jury if the BBC films had been broadcast as planned on Monday and Wednesday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/19/riot-murder-judge-bbc-broadcast-documentaries

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/03/bbc-broadcast-banned-riots-documentaries

I think it's worth pointing out this was done at the request of the defence, not the Crown Prosecution Service - and thus to ensure individuals got a fair hearing, not to help the state's case.

[mwooldri]

6. A first amendment. EU wide. Not the same as US 1st Amendment.

Reform the UK libel laws and all that too.

There needs to be more freedom of speech in the whole of the EU. I believe in a sunshine policy so those who have hateful speech are exposed. However I believe that *some* hate speech regulations are necessary, especially if it causes actual and grievous damage. Definitely a fine balancing act there I'm afraid. There's a whole world of difference in expressing your own personal bigotry and saying so-and-so is a blanketyblank and we should attack them physically right now.

[dipsydoodle]

7. In this instance please read reply #5

.

[LeftishBrit]

8. I think that the balance needs to be changed in favour of the ordinary citizen's rights

I think current laws are too restrictive on private citizens' speech rights, and on the other hand the big press outfits can get away with anything.

Thus I think John Terry should not have been criminally prosecuted (disciplinary action from the FA would be another matter), but the Daily Mail and Express and Sun, etc., should not have so much power to smear, in their NEWS HEADLINES, immigrants and benefit claimants as responsible for the country's evils.

The First Amendment dates from a time when the media was not controlled in the same way by wealthy moguls and powerful corporations, and did not fully anticipate such a development.

[dipsydoodle]

9. Rio Ferdinand fined for Ashley Cole 'choc ice' tweet

Manchester United's Rio Ferdinand has been found guilty of improper conduct and fined £45,000 by the Football Association for comments on Twitter.

An independent commission concluded Ferdinand's response to a tweet describing Chelsea's Ashley Cole as a "choc ice" did not make him a racist. Manchester United's Rio Ferdinand has been found guilty of improper conduct and fined £45,000 by the Football Association for comments on Twitter.

But it was ruled the centre-half had brought the game into disrepute.

"The commission found that the breach included a reference to ethnic origin, colour or race," read an FA statement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18847477