A man who admitted posting online footage of himself dressed in a Ku Klux Klan costume to stir 
The widening divide between the United States and England over free speech was captured vividly in the case this case of Christopher Philips who was sent to jail for conduct that would have been viewed as hateful but protected in the United States. Philips was charged with appearing in three YouTube videos dressed as a klansman and posing with a life-sized golliwog doll (a type of rag doll depicting a black person). He is the latest person convicted for “giving offense” in England. Indeed, he pleaded guilty because, as Judge John Warner noted, “It does not require advanced education or knowledge of history to know what you were seeking to convey might cause offense.”
Formerly known as Darren Clifft, Philips has Asperger’s and diagnosed emotional illness that is directly related to act that can be deemed socially unacceptable. Yet, he was still sentenced under a law that criminalized offense and inflammatory speech.
We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws. The contrast in this case is remarkable. While the Court did rule that states could criminally prosecute some cross burnings that threaten others in Black v. Virginia, it is entirely protected to wear KKK outfits or have open rallies and engage in other expressive conduct.
What is particularly interested is that the videos were part of political rallies, though Philips was reportedly tossed out of the National Front for extremist views (an unsettling fact for many who view the Front as extremist). Warner went on to support the case against Philips by noting that he admired “notorious figures” in the Klan. Yet, without indicating any sense of self-contradiction, Warner denounced Philips for views that are inimical to freedom and support for “measures of the most extreme nature which I will give no further publicity.” For civil libertarians, the jailing of a person (let alone a mentally ill person) for holding extreme views and favoring “notorious figures” is pretty extreme and scary.
Despite the sentence, Warner insisted that “In our democracy people are allowed to hold extreme, bizarre and offensive views.” Yet, he then proved that such views are a crime when expressed. The distinction that Warner draws is so transparent as to be rather dishonest:
“Parliament has passed laws like this one, under which you have offended, not to prevent or inhibit dissemination of those views but to prevent the dissemination of material which is threatening or offensive and likely to stir up racial hatred.” He does not indicate how Philips could have disseminated his view on racial hate without people being “offended” or “storing up racial hatred.” Just wearing a Klan outfit appears sufficient to satisfy the case. It would be more honest for Warner and others to simply state the obvious: they do not tolerate free speech that the majority finds offensive.
Philips was sentenced to 12 months for acts that, in my view, should have been protected from arrest — let alone conviction.
What do you think?
Source: Daily Mail
I have to say I don’t buy the “Speakers Corner” myth. There are few privileged public places in UK law. Parliament is one such place; nowhere in Hyde Park is.
One thing we should all be disturbed about, I think, is that people have been arrested in the UK for preaching (albeit offensive) ancient scriptures which no sensible person would endorse in their entirety. Even then we may feel queasy. To what extent should we permit hateful people to hide behind ancient, long-discredited nonsense, to support their attempts to harm other law abiding, peaceful human beings?
Tony Sidaway writes:
“I have to say I don’t buy the “Speakers Corner” myth. There are few privileged public places in UK law. Parliament is one such place; nowhere in Hyde Park is”
Speakers Corner is not a myth but a fact and it is located at the end of Hyde Park and Marble Arch where anyone can babble any nonsense.
I disagree with Prof. Turley and others on the free speech matter in the UK. One can not extend one own’s country’s laws to another country nor can one impose one’s values in this manner. If we take this discussion further, the PM in the UK has to answer to the both party members once a week. Then we should talk about the same in the US where the President should do the same. Isn’t this part of the free speech.
People like David and others do not seem to have heard about the “Hyde Park Corner” which is the beacon of free speech in a real sense in London where any one from any faith, hue, creed, party affiliation etc. etc can stand on a chair and say whatever he/she wants to surrounded by common citizens. It has been happening on every Sunday for many many years. It is important to know the facts/destination before we jump on the wrong wagon(Tube).
Not too much freedom of speech in Hyde Park with the cops standing by to arrest you. Also, last time I read English history, I never came across the KKK as part of it. As I said earlier, I could see the good reason for France and Germany to have such laws, but not the UK. So there is no historical, or even moral reason to ban the KKK.
I also pointed out that freedom of speech has always been conditional, especially in wartime or its immediate aftermath. So I would have been all in favor of simply killing KKKers on sight after the Civil War as they actually did. That is not repealing the 1st Amendment any more than denying a person the right to falsely cry FIRE in a theater. The UK has gone way overboard with scant reason for this banning, and the banning on such flimsy grounds is a greater threat to freedom, than the opinions expressed.
As for banning the KKK in the US, I don’t think that is needed either since the Civil War is long past and the KKK terrorism has dwindled to miniscule proportions. I am opposed to giving the KKK police protection if they wish to march through Harlem or Skokie. I would let the people there have their freedom to protest in the way they wish to do. That will solve the problem quite nicely with no overtime for the police needed. I doubt that the Nazis or KKK would try that. They are not that stupid.
Teji Malik wrote: “People like David and others do not seem to have heard about the “Hyde Park Corner” which is the beacon of free speech in a real sense in London where any one from any faith, hue, creed, party affiliation etc. etc can stand on a chair and say whatever he/she wants to surrounded by common citizens. It has been happening on every Sunday for many many years. It is important to know the facts/destination before we jump on the wrong wagon(Tube).”
Why must you assume ignorance for a difference of opinion? I not only know about Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park, I have been there.
Speakers can only speak if their speech is considered lawful by police. This is not a hallmark of freedom and liberty. Government specifies where you are allowed to speak, government tells you the day on which you are allowed to speak, and they still regulate your speech as to whether it is lawful or not. You speak about it as if the police don’t arrest people speaking in Hyde Park but they have. One has to be careful about the content of his speech. There is little room to criticize certain government policies.
David: Honesty has not been your best policy. Other posts in this very blog prove that. And as a matter of fact I gave you the benefit of the doubt about your knowing or not knowing about the Speakers Corner. What does the world seem mean?
Did you condemn any of the murders taking place in the US by your fellow Christians especially the ones in Oak Creek where a KKKristian killed 6 Sikhs and injured for life the chief of police and yet u r trying to defend them in this post of yours for wearing a pillow cover. I am sure you know their history and agenda. How about the freedom of living for those who were killed? Oh sorry, that is NOT in the first amendment
Teji Malik wrote: “Honesty has not been your best policy.”
Wrong again, Teji. I am always honest.
Teji Malik wrote: “Other posts in this very blog prove that.”
No they don’t. Prove it. Bron told you there is a difference between a mistake and being honest. You rebuffed him as if bewildered why he would even bring it up. I have made mistakes. I have not been dishonest.
Teji Malik wrote: “What does the world seem mean?”
Using the word “seem” means that you have the impression that I am ignorant of Speaker’s Corner. What does the word “assume” mean to you? You wrote: “People like David and others do not seem to have heard about the “Hyde Park Corner” which is the beacon of free speech in a real sense in London.” I responded: “Why must you assume ignorance for a difference of opinion? I not only know about Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park, I have been there.” Assume means that you suppose it to be the case, or that you seem to think that I am ignorant of it. That seems to me like an appropriate characterization of your view based upon your use of the word “seem.”
Teji Malik wrote: “Did you condemn any of the murders taking place in the US by your fellow Christians especially the ones in Oak Creek where a KKKristian killed 6 Sikhs and injured for life the chief of police and yet u r trying to defend them in this post of yours for wearing a pillow cover.”
Yes I condemn those murders, but why do you allege “my fellow Christians”? I am not a Christian.
I defend the right of anyone to wear whatever costume he wants and to say whatever he wants to say. And I also will condemn his speech if it is bad, and what this KKK guy apparently did was a bad speech. Hanging a black doll in effigy is despicable if that is what he did. I never saw the video. However, when it comes to the powers of government, I believe like Thomas Jefferson, that “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions.” This thesis is based upon natural rights of all men to form opinions in their minds and to express those opinions without fear of government censorship and oppression. Therefore, while I condemn the KKK man for his speech, I also condemn the British government for violating his fundamental right to form an opinion and express that opinion. What the British government did was worse than what the KKK guy did.
David: Now you want to transport your country’s laws to some other country only the ones that suit you not the other ones. Right? Racial segregation and other horrible things were fine in the US. It is easy to talk about others when we do not like their laws rather than respecting them. There are different kinds of liberties in the UK. The deaths and accidents with guns is almost non existent in the UK as compared to the US. Do you praise that in the UK or condemn that too?
As far as dishonesty is concerned, you were not mistaken but just plain dishonest. The post proves that,You even apologised for that and thanked me for ” setting you straight”. Bron claimed you had another chart which is not true. Let’s be honest here. Why this change of heart all of a sudden, one wonders! If you are dishonest again,you will be called for as you were.
I never saw you condemning anyone about the murders. The question was asked to you in the other post and you kept mum then. Is this a “mistake” on your part?
I apologise for accusing you of being a Christian. What is your religion? Do you belong to the same Abrahamical tree? if you do then one can link many things to you too.
While I don’t doubt the strong commitment to the US first amendment in America, and don’t think the facts of this case are likely to change opinions on that matter in the United States, I don’t mind taking the trouble to present the facts, for the record.
The defendant admitted to making a video in which, clothed in an intimidating garment associated with extrajudicial murder, a white man hanged a racist parody of a black man in effigy. He pleaded guilty to the charge, but did so only at high court which suggests that he decided to skip the opportunity of a lower, magistrates court which would not have had the same sentencing powers.
Some commenters have remarked on the length of the sentence, while at the same time they remark that other European sentences seem unduly lenient. Well, a sentence for a crime of this kind is intended mostly to deter further acts of the same kind. Just think it possible that a foreign democracy with a similar if not better record of racial harmony to those in America may have achieved those results through a different set of principles and a different history, just as we ended slavery in Britain, and then the Empire, without recourse to civil war.
The defendant will be eligible for parole before summer, and meanwhile our parole system should be well on the way to rehabilitating him. It seems that, in anticipation of such rehabilitation, he has already started to try to change. Paradoxically, often UK courts favour a longer (one year) sentence here rehabilitation is a serious aim, because a shorter sentence isn’t enough for the task of rehabilitation.
An alternative view, consistent with the US constitution as currently interpreted, is that anyone is entitled to a broad range of expression, even if that expression is blatantly intended to intimidate others identified by their race. Not all countries take that view. No, while many of us admire the United States, we respectfully do not choose to follow the US on matters related to, for instance, civil rights.
Here are the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines.’My reading is that, had the defendant not opted for a crown court trial, the maximum custodial sentence would have been six months. At crown court, the maximum sentence seems to be seven years.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/
Almost all democracies, except the US, regulate hate speech, and they haven’t stopped being democracies with vigorous public debate.
I wonder how selectively enforced these laws are in UK.
Springtime for Hitler in Germany. Autumn for Poland and France.
Send me a Klansman to teach Hitler Youth.
I’ll send back a Nazi to tell you the truth.
Spring time for politically-correct authoritarianism in the UK.
What type of person who interacts with other persons on a frequent basis hasn’t been offended by another human’s boorish behavior?
If all the offensive people in the world were tried and convicted for their boorishness there wouldn’t be any folks left outside of prison to offend, except of course those poor timid atrophied souls who are too fearful to ever act and thus have no fear of ever offending anyone.
If you aren’t/haven’t been offended you aren’t living.
12 months?! Seems like I’ve read many stories of heinous crimes in Britain where the perp gets what would be incredibly light sentences compared to the USA. Complete opposite here.
The Klan is a terrorist organization. The article fails to mention this.
Papers, please. And please unpack your suitcase and try on all your clothes to make sure you aren’t wearing anything… objectionable…
Will Britain soon require proper and inoffensive uniforms for, say, the purchase of groceries?
It’s a pretty obvious attempt to cause distress. The same sentiments are inherently distressing, whether expressed in words or otherwise. There is no first amendment protection or equivalent in UK law, which means the breadth of expression is narrower (indeed much narrower than this casw alone would suggest, and often disturbingly so).
While I might shed genuine tears over criminal convictions for statements that inadvertently cause offence or are uttered in the heat of the moment, calculated attempts to cause actual harm (and that’s what this overtly racist conduct is) don’t seem to be defensible. I think this is the edge case in which, for once, I would choose to fall down on the side of the British approach. British people shuld not be required to weather extreme provocation without any recourse to law.
Being tossed out of the British NF for extremism is no small accomplishment!
I agree with Prof Turley on this one. The KKK has had NO history of mass murder, or terrorism in the UK, nor is there any danger of them doing so or taking power. Thus this is simply unnecessary and the statute is overbroad and simple offense is not sufficient reason to ban such speech. This is significantly different from the case in France where the Nazis DO have a long history of mass murder, and having power. Many of those criminals and their accomplices are still living and active. In too many cases, those criminals were not prosecuted for those crimes and feel free to act to take power, and commit further crimes. So I am all in favor of the French courts banning Nazis as is the case in Germany as well.
After the Civil War in the US, we had similar laws, enforced by the US Army, and their solution to folks wearing the KKK outfit was to shoot them on sight. There was no court or ACLU maintaining that they had the rights of free speech. Do those who are absolutists on free speech think that was right or wrong? My position is that they needed to kill more than they did.
Having Aspergers myself, yes, sometimes we can do things that are socially unacceptable and offensive. This definitely goes beyond that.
However, it still shouldn’t get anybody in trouble with the law. The UK is out of control with this stuff.
Well, there may be a wide divide between the US and UK, but I bet we catch up w/ them!
This is clearly a free speech issue. Speech that is offensive is exactly the kind of speech that should be protected. The remedy for bad speech is not to throw the person in jail; it is not to flog them; it is to speak rightly and to use reason to point out the fallacy of the bad speech.
Judge Warner is wrong. Let the offended parties shame Phillips, not the courts. Unfortunately, I fear our country is heading in this direction if we do not strongly stick to the principles of our Constitution.
Quote “might cause offense”
Really?!?! Jail for what MIGHT cause offense??
Then just about every black person posting uses the “N” word…so if it’s SUPPOSED to be offensive to them, why wouldn’t it be to whites??
Our family is white, but I have a great grandmother that was a slave. Her parents died in a fly epidemic on Ellis Island, her brother was sent to relation in NY, and she was sent to an Aunt…who then sold her into bondage to a farmer.
Jailing people for what MIGHT be offensive, WOW, your gonna have nothing but prisons!!
We are in the UK…. It’s citizens have no right….. Oh… Where have we seen this…..
A Klan outfit makes for a difficult target when one wants to get a headshot. The actual head is pointed but not as much as the head dressing. Shoot em on sight. That is the American way. If Klansmen were real mean they would show their faces. They invented the hoodie.
It saddens me when this style of jurisprudence is stll superior to our own.
To find out what I mean, read Judge Pauley’s recent opinion in ACLU v Clapper.