Freedom of Speech: U.S. vs U.K.?

[Euronymous]

Okay, so the U.S. has the 1st Amendment, the freedom of speech, but what kind of free speech does the U.K. have?

The United States has this:

Spoiler: The 1st Amendment

But, what does the U.K. have in comparison?

Any answers? I'm asking this question out of sheer curiosity (and boredom).

 

[Estro Felino]

Are you asking which one wins? USA of course

But according to the standards and the notion of freedom of speech present in Civil law systems (mainland Europe), both of them tend to unmotivated restrictions of this freedom

The UK doesn't have a constitution.

As such rights are drawn from a variety of sources: acts of parliament, legal rulings/legal precedent, tradition, common law etc.

America has a positive right to free speech due to the constitution
UK has a negative right to free speech. Negative rights mean you can do anything that is not prohibited, so free speech runs to the extent it doesn't run counter to any existing laws (incitement to violence, slander, etc.).

It's sort of like the difference between being explicitly allowed to do something, and simply being not prohibited from doing something.

America has far more robust protections on free speech due to this.

Interesting. In civil law systems there is a principle called guarantism , that protects the freedom of thought totally. Normally this right can be limited only when the hedonic damage (aka non-material damage ) is configurable by a third, holder of a specific right.
During Vatileaks the Vatican spent a fortune on lawsuits against whistle-blowers who wrote certain books . Of course the Vatican lost all cases.

 

[Euronymous]

Are you asking which one wins? USA of course

But according to the standards and the notion of freedom of speech present in Civil law systems (mainland Europe), both of them are quite below the threshold

Okay.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Okay, so the U.S. has the 1st Amendment, the freedom of speech, but what kind of free speech does the U.K. have?

The United States has this:

Spoiler: The 1st Amendment

But, what does the U.K. have in comparison?

Any answers? I'm asking this question out of sheer curiosity (and boredom).

The European Convention on Human Rights.

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

 

[Altfish]

IIRC The UK's laws on freedom of speech have a chequered history, grief we only got rid of blasphemy in about 1998.

But that nasty EU has rightly gone and usurped all that and under the European Convention we now have a Human Rights Act that covers freedom of speech.

Needless to say Brexiteers want to scrap this and bring back witch trials.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

IIRC The UK's laws on freedom of speech have a chequered history, grief we only got rid of blasphemy in about 1998.

But that nasty EU has rightly gone and usurped all that and under the European Convention we now have a Human Rights Act that covers freedom of speech.

Needless to say Brexiteers want to scrap this and bring back witch trials.

Oh, I'm sure we'll end up with a perfectly good constitution of our own (provided the people in charge of it know how to copy and paste, which I'm unsure of...).

 

[Altfish]

Oh, I'm sure we'll end up with a perfectly good constitution of our own (provided the people in charge of it know how to copy and paste, which I'm unsure of...).

I'm glad you are so confident; leading Brexiteers, the Mail and Express can't wait to scrap human rights, "Can't have Johnny Foreigner and prisoners having rights"

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm glad you are so confident; leading Brexiteers, the Mail and Express can't wait to scrap human rights, "Can't have Johnny Foreigner and prisoners having rights"

Pshaw and piffle, we will soldier on by being British and keeping calm and carrying on and stiff upper lift and sovereignty and Europe is Hitler and red tape and political correctness and boo and...

Sorry, trying to sustain a prolonged impression of a Leave voter is doing too much harm to my mental health.

 

[Augustus]

But, what does the U.K. have in comparison?

The UK doesn't have a constitution.

As such rights are drawn from a variety of sources: acts of parliament, legal rulings/legal precedent, tradition, common law etc.

America has a positive right to free speech due to the constitution
UK has a negative right to free speech. Negative rights mean you can do anything that is not prohibited, so free speech runs to the extent it doesn't run counter to any existing laws (incitement to violence, slander, etc.).

It's sort of like the difference between being explicitly allowed to do something, and simply being not prohibited from doing something.

America has far more robust protections on free speech due to this.

 

[Stevicus]

The European Convention on Human Rights.

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

I found it interesting that they put in freedom of expression in Article 10. In the US, free speech had to be added as an amendment, as it wasn't part of the original Constitution.

ARTICLE 10

Freedom of expression

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 requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Part 2 seems to include some potential exceptions and loopholes which could restrict free speech in Europe. In the US, restrictions might be justified if a form of expression creates a clear and present danger, but I suppose even that could be open to interpretation.

In practice, I find it interesting that violent movies like Night of the Living Dead were banned in Europe, although they were far more permissive when it came to sex in movies and even on TV. In the US, it seems just the opposite, where we seem to accept violence in movies, but movies of a sexual nature have been censored or even banned in some cases. That seems to be changing in recent years though.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

IIRC The UK's laws on freedom of speech have a chequered history, grief we only got rid of blasphemy in about 1998.

Just a quick addendum to point out that this only refers to English Common Law. There's still a blasphemy law up here in Scotland (in our distinct legal system) but the Scottish Government (SNP) has recently adopted abolition of it as a party policy.

 

[Altfish]

Just a quick addendum to point out that this only refers to English Common Law. There's still a blasphemy law up here in Scotland (in our distinct legal system) but the Scottish Government (SNP) has recently adopted abolition of it as a party policy.

Apologies, yes you are correct.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

IIRC The UK's laws on freedom of speech have a chequered history, grief we only got rid of blasphemy in about 1998.

Quacks tend to file their SLAPP lawsuits in the UK, since it's a lot easier to establish defamation in a British court than an American one.

Strategic lawsuit against public participation - Wikipedia

 

[Altfish]

Quacks tend to file their SLAPP lawsuits in the UK, since it's a lot easier to establish defamation in a British court than an American one.

Strategic lawsuit against public participation - Wikipedia

I presume a SLAPP is the equivalent to what we call a 'Gagging order" - i think the legal name is something like a Privacy Injunction.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Apologies, yes you are correct.

No worries, mate. I knew what you meant but figured most wouldn't. The fact we have a distinct & separate legal system up here isn't widely publicised.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I presume a SLAPP is the equivalent to what we call a 'Gagging order" - i think the legal name is something like a Privacy Injunction.

No - it stands for the term in the link: "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation." It describes the intent of a lawsuit (e.g. to silence legitimate criticism or to punish people for legal demonstrations). The term isn't specific to any country's legal system... though I've mainly heard it from Americans.