Jailed in the UK for....

[Secret Chief]

"...a judge imposed restrictions on defendants in a series of climate trials that prevented them from mentioning climate change...or their motivations for taking action during their trials.

The civil rights group Liberty labelled the restrictions “deeply concerning."

Several people who ignored the judge’s restrictions have been jailed for contempt of court.

Tim Crosland, a lawyer and one of those being investigated by the Met, said: “It’s surreal. On the one hand it’s terrifying because that is the situation in this country at the moment, and on the other hand I feel like we are revealing something truthful about the situation, the extreme repression that is happening in this country at the moment in relation to people holding the government to account … and the repression that is happening in courts around trials for people exposing the government’s lies and how desperate the state is to prevent a jury reaching not guilty verdicts..."

So..... you're on trial for ABC but in your defence you are not allowed to speak about ABC....

- Protester who held sign outside London climate trial prosecuted


What the actual is happening?

 

[ChristineM]

"...a judge imposed restrictions on defendants in a series of climate trials that prevented them from mentioning climate change...or their motivations for taking action during their trials.

The civil rights group Liberty labelled the restrictions “deeply concerning."

Several people who ignored the judge’s restrictions have been jailed for contempt of court.

Tim Crosland, a lawyer and one of those being investigated by the Met, said: “It’s surreal. On the one hand it’s terrifying because that is the situation in this country at the moment, and on the other hand I feel like we are revealing something truthful about the situation, the extreme repression that is happening in this country at the moment in relation to people holding the government to account … and the repression that is happening in courts around trials for people exposing the government’s lies and how desperate the state is to prevent a jury reaching not guilty verdicts..."

So..... you're on trial for ABC but in your defence you are not allowed to speak about ABC....

- Protester who held sign outside London climate trial prosecuted


What the actual is happening?

There goes freedom of speach in the UK

 

[HonestJoe]

So..... you're on trial for ABC but in your defence you are not allowed to speak about ABC....

They're not on trail for climate change though, they're on trial for the manner in which they chose to protest. It doesn't matter whether they were protesting about climate change, Brexit, immigration or the government covering up alien visitors, any crime would be a function of their actions, not their underlying reasons (and note, that is distinct from immediate motives, which was blocking traffic to get in the media).

The people with the placards outside the court are clearly within the scope of potentially intimidating jurors. It might be on the minor and subtle end of the scale but I certainly don't think that is something we should be casual about.

 

[Estro Felino]

...is there freedom of speech in Britain?

 

[Revoltingest]

The people with the placards outside the court are clearly within the scope of potentially intimidating jurors. It might be on the minor and subtle end of the scale but I certainly don't think that is something we should be casual about.

I saw the sign. There was nothing intimidating about it.
If government can call such a message thus, then virtually
any protest, information, & advice can be silenced with
threat of prosecution & prison.
Government bristles at anyone mentioning jury nullification
because it's a threat to the state's power. **** the state.

 

[Estro Felino]

The people with the placards outside the court are clearly within the scope of potentially intimidating jurors. It might be on the minor and subtle end of the scale but I certainly don't think that is something we should be casual about.

That's a personal interpretation, a very partial interpretation of the events done by the judge.

The right to demonstrate and to protest is not an intimidation.

That's light years away from what Montesquieu said. The judge applies the law and doesn't interpret it.

 

[Estro Felino]

I saw the sign. There was nothing intimidating about it.
If government can call such a message thus, then virtually
any protest, information, & advice can be silenced with
threat of prosecution & prison.
Government bristles at anyone mentioning jury nullification
because it's a threat to the state's power. **** the state.

Exactly. Well said.

 

[Secret Chief]

They're not on trail for climate change though, they're on trial for the manner in which they chose to protest. It doesn't matter whether they were protesting about climate change, Brexit, immigration or the government covering up alien visitors, any crime would be a function of their actions, not their underlying reasons (and note, that is distinct from immediate motives, which was blocking traffic to get in the media).

The people with the placards outside the court are clearly within the scope of potentially intimidating jurors. It might be on the minor and subtle end of the scale but I certainly don't think that is something we should be casual about.

Regarding the latter I entirely agree. Regarding the former, I think in one's defence one should be able to say whatever one feels is appropriate. Otherwise, to be a bit melodramatic, it's something of a show trial. The government have decided you will be found guilty. Don't really need a jury if the jury is not given the option to assess the relevance or not of the accused's words.

 

[HonestJoe]

Regarding the former, I think in one's defence one should be able to say whatever one feels is appropriate. Otherwise, to be a bit melodramatic, it's something of a show trial.

I disagree. I'd suggest that the protestors desire to bring debate about environmentalism in to the court was the effort to be melodramatic. That's the whole point of their actions in the first place after all; to get their opinions unchallenged coverage.

The legal facts are simple; Whether they committed a crime by blocking the highway is determined entirely by their actions, not their underlying aims. Imagine these were protestors arguing for something you fundamentally disagree with; say legalising paedophilia or imposing an Islamic state. Would you support their freedom to promote their positions, unconditionally and unchallenged, in court?

 

[PureX]

Mitigation is a fundamental aspect of any modern justice system. anyone that has been accused of a crime must have the right and ability to explain why they did so, if they admit that they did so. If someone blocked a street illegally as part of a protest, they must have the right to explain why they did so, and that explanation should be a factor in the court considering their degree of criminal culpability.

My deliberately blocking a public roadway to stop a toddler from being run over is a very different degree of criminality from my deliberately blocking a public roadway so I can hold up a Brink's truck. Yes, I deliberately blocked the public roadway, which is against the law. But it's the mitigating circumstances that determine the actual degree of criminality. Not the act, itself.

 

[Secret Chief]

I disagree. I'd suggest that the protestors desire to bring debate about environmentalism in to the court was the effort to be melodramatic. That's the whole point of their actions in the first place after all; to get their opinions unchallenged coverage.

The legal facts are simple; Whether they committed a crime by blocking the highway is determined entirely by their actions, not their underlying aims. Imagine these were protestors arguing for something you fundamentally disagree with; say legalising paedophilia or imposing an Islamic state. Would you support their freedom to promote their positions, unconditionally and unchallenged, in court?

Not unchallenged no, but I do believe in the principle of defendents having a right to speak as they see fit. I don't buy the idea of "the legal facts are simple." Mitigation is a fundamental aspect of a fair justice system. If paedophilia was legal, then that would be a legally simple fact, and so the end of the matter, yes?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"...a judge imposed restrictions on defendants in a series of climate trials that prevented them from mentioning climate change...or their motivations for taking action during their trials.

The civil rights group Liberty labelled the restrictions “deeply concerning."

Several people who ignored the judge’s restrictions have been jailed for contempt of court.

Tim Crosland, a lawyer and one of those being investigated by the Met, said: “It’s surreal. On the one hand it’s terrifying because that is the situation in this country at the moment, and on the other hand I feel like we are revealing something truthful about the situation, the extreme repression that is happening in this country at the moment in relation to people holding the government to account … and the repression that is happening in courts around trials for people exposing the government’s lies and how desperate the state is to prevent a jury reaching not guilty verdicts..."

So..... you're on trial for ABC but in your defence you are not allowed to speak about ABC....

- Protester who held sign outside London climate trial prosecuted


What the actual is happening?

That is worrisome. I do not know the free speech rights in England. I do not think that sort of restriction would be allowed here. Now if a jury talks to other jurors about jury nullification that might me limited. But for people to advocate outside of a courthouse would be allowed. Inside the courthouse different rules apply.

 

[Secret Chief]

That is worrisome. I do not know the free speech rights in England. I do not think that sort of restriction would be allowed here. Now if a jury talks to other jurors about jury nullification that might me limited. But for people to advocate outside of a courthouse would be allowed. Inside the courthouse different rules apply.

In the UK, until recently, "hate speech" was simply proscribed (eg Public Order Act 1986). Now the government is promoting free speech* to counter universities "cancelling" speakers. Make of that what you will.

*Unless the speech criticises the government...

 

[HonestJoe]

Not unchallenged no, but I do believe in the principle of defendents having a right to speak as they see fit.

The problem is that there wouldn't really be any scope for anyone to challenge them. The prosecution lawyers are the only ones who could question the defendants on the facts and they're not there to debate the rights and wrongs of climate change or government policy.

I don't buy the idea of "the legal facts are simple." Mitigation is a fundamental aspect of a fair justice system.

Sure (at least in sentencing), but this was never about presenting mitigation, it is about using the criminal justice system as a tool for promoting their political arguments. The defendants had essentially declared their intentions to do exactly that, which is why the judge made that specific ruling and why they decided to breach it anyway.

They've always had free speech and have been using it profusely. What they want is the ability to force people to listen, and nobody has that right. Loads of socio-political campaigns don't get anything like as much attention or consideration that they'd like (and often, deserve). If they all behaved like this though, the country would grind to a halt.

 

[Secret Chief]

The problem is that there wouldn't really be any scope for anyone to challenge them. The prosecution lawyers are the only ones who could question the defendants on the facts and they're not there to debate the rights and wrongs of climate change or government policy.

Sure (at least in sentencing), but this was never about presenting mitigation, it is about using the criminal justice system as a tool for promoting their political arguments. The defendants had essentially declared their intentions to do exactly that, which is why the judge made that specific ruling and why they decided to breach it anyway.

They've always had free speech and have been using it profusely. What they want is the ability to force people to listen, and nobody has that right. Loads of socio-political campaigns don't get anything like as much attention or consideration that they'd like (and often, deserve). If they all behaved like this though, the country would grind to a halt.

I can see what you're saying, though I feel the government is setting a worrying precedent in doing this.

 

[Little Dragon]

...is there freedom of speech in Britain?

Certainly. You can say what you like about anyone or their mum, so long, as it does not incite hatred and the potential for violence, against particular classes of people, such as race, ability, sexuality, religion etc. Which I find acceptable.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the UK, until recently, "hate speech" was simply proscribed (eg Public Order Act 1986). Now the government is promoting free speech* to counter universities "cancelling" speakers. Make of that what you will.

*Unless the speech criticises the government...

They need a 1st Amendment.

 

[Secret Chief]

They need a 1st Amendment.

The one that guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press, beloved by all Americans?

 

[Revoltingest]

The one that guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press, beloved by all Americans?

That's the one.
You can see how we need & use it.
Lawmakers regularly to thwart speech, eg, making it illegal to insult a cop.
Cops regularly abuse people for recording them doing bad things.
Without the 1st, the authoritarians would run everything.

 

[Revoltingest]

I used to watch movies, but not that I am an old codger I no longer get the same enjoyment out of them.

Too bad.
Some movies are great.
But I'm finding that TV series are better.