British Prime Minister David Cameron has long been a target of civil libertarians criticizing his dismissive attitude toward basic rights and particularly speech and privacy rights in that country. As if to prove his critics right, Cameron has publicly made comments that can be best described as Orwellian and some have gone as far as describing as fascistic. In calling for new extensive powers, Cameron said “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.” It seemed like a scene out of V for Vendetta as Cameron called on citizens to give up their rights to fight the threat of terror.
This chilling statement was made in support of new counter-terrorism powers that include new police powers to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”. That ill-defined standard would allow a wide array of speech to be effectively criminalized by the government. It is hard to see how much unpopular speech would not pose a “risk of harassment, alarm, or distress.” I am not even sure what “creating a threat to the function of democracy” means. More importantly, speakers will not know what the government will view as violating such ill-defined terms.
England has seen the rise of calls for speech prosecutions, including this month. We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here).
Cameron has become the face of the trend toward the criminalization of speech. Despite our great debt to England and shared values, the two countries differ dramatically in their approaches to free speech. The English have long given the Crown sweeping powers under the expectation that these powers will be used judiciously. For much of its history, the Crown has shown restraint but it has also a history of threatening media and unpopular speakers. There is a risk that the current fears over Islamic extremism will convince people to embrace a type of benign authoritarianism. When you have a Prime Minister who feels comfortable in criticizing a history of being a “tolerant passive society,” it is clear that we are entering a dangerous period where citizens may indeed voluntarily give up the rights secured at such a great cost by prior generations.
I do like the Donald. He set up toll free numbers for vets, not getting the care they deserve, he wants to fight and destroy ISAss, he visited the border and doesn’t welcome illegal immigrants. Trump had almost 3,000,000,000 million Facebook followers and Rick Perry has the 2nd highest followers.
Trump reminds me of that show about how a principal was put in an intercity high school to straighten it out because the school is out of control. Obama should be arrested for crimes against the Constitution and America and its citizens. Everyone I know, young and old, like Trump!
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 Go Donald Trump 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Well, some old timey sci fi writer named Ray Bradbury wrote a short story called Pillar of Fire.It got turned into a play, and here is the link. It is about that anti-septic little future world. . .It is well worth the 56 minutes! Take a break from whatever is on TV, and give this a look!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Ninianpeckitt:
Rights and freedoms are won primarily through the court system [judicial branch] and not the voting booth in the United States.
The U.S. Supreme Court draws the extreme boundaries in interpreting the U.S. Constitution and any citizen can initiate a constitutional lawsuit against any government official or law they feel violated the high court’s final interpretation. For example: On marriage equality, any citizen of any state or any locality can overturn any state or local law that goes against the high court’s extreme boundaries and overturn unconstitutional laws.
Most citizens think oath-sworn politicians or oath-sworn Department of Justice officials will protect their constitutional rights – only the courts resolve those issues driven by citizen-plaintiffs.
To Ross: But the point is that these things are not really won neither in the courts nor at an election. In the courts the winners are the lawyers and their legal argument. Justice is noticeable by its absence. Whosoever has the better lawyer wins….
And in a democratic election the winner is the government, except in the U.S. where real power lies with an unelected “elite”. There is a great difference between democratic freedom and politics and we all pretend that this is not the case.
Politics has demonstrated that it is an enemy of democratic freedom and liberty. It has bitten the hand that has fed it.
A huge chasm breaches the concepts of Belief and Actuality. My point is that this needs to be understood because only then can we have a system that approaches fairness and justice. Currently the system protects itself rather than serves the People and this applies to all countries.
To focus on issues which cannot exist in the real world cannot deliver a free and successful society.
It is the inshakeable belief of success of an imperfect system based on the rights of individuals, rather than collective rights, that worries me most of all.
And this will be the cause of ultimate system failure.
ninianpeckitt – get American Government for Dummies. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Paul C Shulte:
You need to try and understand the contradictions of what you believe and how none of this exists in the real world. I really don’t believe you are able to take a step backwards and really listen to what you are saying. You passionately believe in a concept divorced from reality. If you are representative of what America thinks there is no hope. You will have to find this out the hard way.
If any of you saw the photo of the Queen when she was a child in the 1930s and she gave the Heil Hitler signal with the arm then you might agree that Cameroon is a Queeny Weeny and needs to go out of office quickly. The Brits have long had a right wing side to them.
To Barking Dog:
Lip reading experts advise that they were asked to wave but if it was a salutr, it was surely the Bellamy Salute that was only discontinued by Act of Congress in 1942.
140m Americans used this salute on a regular basis and I don’t think they were all Nazis.
@ ninianpeckitt
I find it amazing that you all still really do believe this stuff….. Just look around you and see what is happening. All these concepts are selectively ignored.
How can a Nation be so duped?
Selective education or the lack thereof, take your pick.
Declaration of Independence:
…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government….
In common law, which is claimed to justify the statutes/codes/regulations legal system; under common law you have the right to do whatever you want so long as you don’t inflict an injury upon another. When you do, you must make it right and make them whole again. All law should be as simple as that.
Let’s burn the books too.
Here’s the definitive universal statement on free speech issued by brilliant men. People have to adapt to and live with the consequences of freedom. People have to accept and live with the characteristics God gave them. Government exists to facilitate freedom, not to manage every aspect of every individual’s life.
1st Amendment
“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.”
The British Empire was corrected on free speech centuries ago.
The British Empire needs to be admonished once again on the subject of freedom.
The new King, the new Sovereign, is the population, the People.
The Subject of the new King, the new Sovereign is the government.
The Founders would have agreed with the substitution of many words into this paragraph such as, in the event the government has been subsumed by tyrannical and oppressive forces:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of revolution, 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.”
Didn’t the Founders state that citizens had an obligation to oppose tyrannical and oppressive government?
To: forgotwhoiam:
I find it amazing that you all still really do believe this stuff….. Just look around you and see what is happening. All these concepts are selectively ignored.
How can a Nation be so duped?
Well, how about actually defining the particular speech that you seek to ban? For example, if you are trying to stop Muslim terrorists, come right on out and say it, instead of all the wiggle words like:
The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”.
Why not just say, “All speech in support of, or furtherance of, any Muslim terrorist activity is verboten!”
My goodness, but “speech that causes alarm or distress” is big enough to drive a bus through. That could be anything. Singing Dixie could fit in.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Citizens of a sovereign nation have to ultimately decide what form of government they desire, but Americans may be justified in criticizing a foreign nation’s sovereignty if that foreign nation is participating in domestic spying in the United States.
In other words if the UK is a partner in spying on Americans and then sharing that information with U.S. agencies in order to subvert the American Bill of Rights – it absolutely is our business!
To Ross: I’m afraid you have lost me on that comment…. what I am saying is that you have never had freedom and liberty. Only a trend towards it. The public have always been manipulated by government. The freedom you think you have is an illusion and has always been an illusion. That does not mean you should not strive for it but like infinity you will never get there.
From ‘The Road to Serfdom’ by Hayek – To – ‘The Trial’ by Kafka
Welcome to the new society.
-Just Some Guy-
Just Some Guy: you are just beginning to realise that the Freedom and Liberty you were brought up to believe in never really existed. It is a concept that has always been qualified – and has been used to control the general population. Americans are only now beginning to understand this….
Dr.Peckitt, I will be absolutely honest and say I have no good solutions. I don’t know that such a thing is possible. I think that what we’ve ( the U.S.) been doing to an extent has helped, but the over the top intrusive data mining rightfully bothers Americans. I think we Western nations are doing a delicate balancing act of protecting the population, while not treading on personal freedoms. That’s why there probably will never be a “solution”. I would hope Jill would be equally honest when dealing with the safety of the populace.
I.Annie : So you are not prepared to do anything. That is an option that just will not happen. I an suggesting that you have to move from a theoretical to a practical world.
I doubt Jill has any suggestions to combat terrorism Dr.Peckitt. She doesn’t think we should even have a standing Army. Having said that, I want to make it clear that I think Cameron’s methods are overboard and if we don’t wake up we will be heading down that road too, but maybe not from those you may think.
To: I.Annie: So what is your solution.
Because True Free Speech has never existed at any time – anywhere. There are tendencies towards it. It is a theoretical concept that cannot be put into practice within a society.
True Freedom of Speech = Anarchy
I believe that Freedom of Speech with Responsibility and Accountability is the answer with enforcement of these values.
So if someone is makes a statement that he/she is going to blow you up and half of New York and raises an Army of Revolution 5000 freedom fighters – this is stopped.
If they want to change your system they must do it through the ballot box. But some people have no intention of playing by any rules. They make their own rules up and for example behead people in the streets, just to show they can.
What do you do about this? I cant believe you are advocating the freedom to do this ?
So how do you handle this situation and what is the evidence that your proposal work?
It is so easy to debate the theory of these issues but coming up with a solution is a different matter.
You have the level of freedom that you have at the moment because this element of society is not allowed to prevail. If they do prevail, you lose what you already have.
W. Hefner: As the proposal include such things as the ability to require pre-approval of any publication in print or on the internet (including social media), it raises pretty significant issues if one values free speech at all.
“I don’t want to argue about where these rights come from. We all know what they are. We all know what is happening.”
Jill,
You had better be able to articulate a position that we have rights that do not come from government because you have a wide swath of our electorate that believe your right to life, liberty, property (Bill of Rights) comes from government. They know what these rights are and are okay with “what is happening” as long as they elect the right people that ensures it doesn’t happen to them.
That is a problem.
Jill, I’m not defending Obama, I have said I felt he was too chummy with Wall Street. I’ve said he was wrong in not prosecuting Wall Street crooks and those in the Bush administration who set up a torture program. I’ve said he was wrong in continuing to keep GTMO open, I’m very clear on expressing my dissatisfaction with the Obama administration. Every single time I criticize Republicans and conservatives you take it as a tacit approval by myself of the wrongs Democrats have done, especially the Obama administration. Trump is an ELITE, I’m sure this fact must not be lost on you, yet you continually hone in on Obama, giving Bush and other conservatives little attention. Jill you sound as if you are pandering to the right because you have mutual enemies. There is absolutely NO REASON why you should be doing this, it muddies your message, especially among fellow liberals.
Inga – you keep thinking that Bush is a conservative, he is not. Yes, The Donald is an Elite, so is Hillary.
Jill: What solution would you propose to tackle suburban terrorism?
While all the liberal posters here are jumping on the free speech bit which is an assumption of Turley’s liberal mind. England has serious immigration problems which Obama is fostering in our country and free speech is the least of those invaders concerns.
Continue your passive tolerance and watch the gunfire outside your window as your city burns.
To William H Hefner: You are absolutely right. England does have serious immigration problems and the interest in politics is now insignificant. We have seen how democratic freedom can be and is abused by those wanting to topple the system by undemocratic means. There comes a time when democratic freedom has to be defended. for the benefit of the majority.
So Obama doesn’t have a huge following? Annie, you really seem unwilling or unable to grapple with the fact that our rights are being stripped out by a ruling elite.
Do you condemn this no matter who is doing it or do you only condemn people like Trump? I’ll condemn Trump and Obama and anyone else doing these actions. I hope you will too!
Jill,
“Propaganda”, precisely. Trump and his huge following come to mind. He’s spouting the propaganda they want to hear. They don’t care what party he belongs to.
Sure Annie,
You can include Independents and I’m glad you did! As I said, this isn’t a matter of party. It’s a policy of the elites. Only propagandists or people who are fooled by propaganda believe otherwise.
Olly, We can be united against any entity, private or public, of any kind who abrogates our rights. I don’t want to argue about where these rights come from. We all know what they are. We all know what is happening.
As long as we stand up for the rights of others, we can unite in working for the common good.