England has seen the rise of calls for speech prosecutions, including calls from powerful politicians for crackdowns on insulting or offensive comments. 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). The rapid decline of free speech in England has been both chilling and frightening for civil libertarians as the country appears to have abandoned this once defining right of Western Civilization. Now, a Manchester man reportedly has been arrested and sentenced for making “grossly offensive” comments about Muslims on Facebook. Stephen Bennett, 39, (who has a Muslim mother-in-law and sister-in-law) has been sentenced to 180 hours of unpaid work and a 12-month community order for expressing his views.
Bennett reportedly went on to the Greater Manchester Police’s Facebook page and posted comments like “Don’t come over to this country and treat it like your own. Britain first.” The next thing the father of seven knew, there were police at his door. He was accused of violating a law pushed through by former Prime Minister Tony Blair that makes it a crime to “send by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character” or “cause any such message or matter to be so sent.” It is a ridiculously ambiguous and vague law that seems calculated to chill speech. One has avoid speech that others might find offensive or menacing.
There is no shortage of people who want to shutdown the speech of others and claim such offense. Various people complained to the police about Bennett’s comments and one Muslim witness at his trial warned that his comments could be a “potential tool for radicalization.” (It was an ironic point since this law is itself a form of extremism in the denial of a core civil liberty). Another witness claimed that a remark about Asian women was “offensive to all women.”
Recorder Andrew Long at sentencing readily adopted the tone and authority of the public censor. He noted that it is “impossible to believe” that such comments did not reflect his personal views or that he was “at least a sympathizer” with those who expressed such views. He denounced Bennett for risking the “stirring up racial hatred in the present climate” and “playing into the hands of the enemies of this country.” Really? Criminalizing speech plays in the hands of our enemies. ISIS and extreme Islamic countries like Iran seek the denial of free speech, particularly in criticizing religion. I am not afraid of ISIS, which remains on the wrong side of history in resisting liberty. I am far more afraid of those in the West who are rolling back on civil liberties in the name of defending them. Long was “fighting” extremism by yielding to it. The risk of “stirring up” people sounds like another example yielding to the “heckler’s veto” in silencing those with whom we disagree. Long condemned Bennett for expressing his views and said “Your remarks damaged the community in which you live, and it’s the community that you must repay.”
I am not particularly interested in Bennett’s views. While I find many views to be offensive, I believe that the cost to criminalizing speech is a far greater danger for free countries. England is a tragic example of how speech regulation can become insatiable with ever widening areas of prohibited speech. What is incredible is that people exercised their right to denounce Bennett’s views on Facebook, but that was not enough. Some of these people wanted him arrested for uttering views with which they disagreed. It appears that you are allowed to hold unpopular views but you are not allowed to utter them in Great Britain.
Autumn,
You’ve clearly self-identified as a progressive in other posts. Imagine my surprise to discover I’m considered rude for agreeing with you. If you dispute the reason I agree with you then make the case.
@Squeek
Funny you should mention Milo. A friend of mine – avid Trumpster – just called me earlier and told me about him. Currently watching his show (when not commenting)
@JR
Thanks for enlightening me. I never watch MSM so was unaware. Ha! The Clinton Newz Network – I’m sure they spun it as a positive thing like Obama slow jammin the TPP on Jimmy Fallon
@Olly
Thanks for your response. However you don’t have to be so rude “That is truly a progressive’s response” because I asked for more details.
This is a f*&cking war and it is impossible for any one person (or group) to keep up on all fronts.
That’s why I read this blog to better understand legal and other issues I am ignorant about.
I am focused on the TPP front which covers so many other issues including health, the environment, corporate control undermining state’s rights and a myriad of other issues.
@ Autumn
According to CNN: “Hillary Clinton will pledge on Saturday to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision within the first 30 days of her administration, an aide said Saturday.”
You may recall that Citizens United was a non-profit group that made a movie critical of Hillary Clinton. The opinion in their SCOTUS case overturned the portion of McCain Feingold that made production of such movies a violation of law.
Gee, with all the stuff I say, I bet my a$$ would be gra$$ in England! Heck, I would be English Public Enemy Number One!
JR above is right about the new Victorianism. I have also called PC the New Puritanism. But it is also like the new Inquisition-ism. This is because human nature sort of stays the same, and any mindset that you could find 2,000 years ago, you can probably find today.
The smug, smarmy goody-two shoes Christian that 150 years ago would be shipping blouses and Bibles to the Ubangis, is today a smug, smarmy good-two shoes PC Liberal who is preaching to us about our speech, and all the things we shouldn’t say, and the thoughts we shouldn’t think.
If you think about it, the Old Temperance Union people who smashed up saloons, and led the fight against booze, are the same people as the SJWs who shout down people like Milo and Ann Coulter.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“What materials?”
That is truly a progressive’s response. That got your attention? The whole “constitutional amendment to restrict” the 1st amendment is what that means. If the answer was materials you found offensive, is that okay with you?
@JR
re: “Clinton has proposed a constitutional amendment to restrict producing materials about candidates for office.”
What does this mean? What materials?
@ Gary,
Unfortunately,both major party candidates have stated they would like to make the 1st amendment more restrictive. Trump would like to expand liable laws and Clinton has proposed a constitutional amendment to restrict producing materials about candidates for office.
Any such criminal law in America would be prima facie infirm, as in violation of 1st Amendment of Constitution.
I have had friends in Britain tell me how lucky we are to have such rights enshrined in our core governing system, and commented that without it any law can be made pretty much willy-nilly as they feel like it.
We both observed that even if and when such criminal or other laws are enacted, they aren’t respected and are expected to be struck down by the courts.
So I just thought of an action that the Brits can do: 1 million people post on their FB, Twitter, email Bennet’s words: ““Don’t come over to this country and treat it like your own. Britain first.” Then they go en masse to the courts and demand to be locked up.
Wow. Our “Cousins” are losing it. At least they got Brexit through and have stopped the TTIP. Maybe they will be able to regain their civil liberties.
There was a time in the 1940s/50s that “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never harm me” was thrown back at a verbal attack. At least among boys. Girls were truly hurt by words even then.
And now we have a blasphemy law in Great Britain and Australia. Specifically blasphemy against the Koran.
Call me Islamophobic since I _do_ fear the rise of fundamental Islam today. That’s not prejudice (as the term ‘homophobic’ has come to mean) nor racism of any kind but simply recognizing that a religious fundamentalism — drawing its inspiration from the Koran — is fearsome. Not all Muslims are fundamentalist, but enough of them are to fear.
Where Sharia rules a woman unaccompanied by a protector male is asking to be raped. Where Sharia rules non-Muslim girl children may be taken as sex slaves. Yes, I do hate and fear their culture.
Glad you pointed out the irony in many of the statements by those offended, JT. It blows my mind that pretty much everybody who claims to be offended by someone else’s speech can’t see the inherent irony/hypocrisy of their freely-offered criticism. What happens if their criticism offends someone?!. I’m concerned by the trend toward rolling back free speech, and wonder how it is that supposedly thinking adults can engage in this type of behavior without a hint of self-reflection.
I do not see this as criminal. I know immigration is a hotbed issue in all of the EU and was a major factor in Brexit.
Most government agencies, of any nation, almost always function better with LESS money. If government agencies have too much money the result is “mission-creep” – inventing suspects and inventing threats beyond their original mission.
When there is too much money, these agencies are forced to justify and expand their primary mission – finding new people to investigate and punish.
Those who complain fail to see the freedom used in expressing their complaint: the same damn freedom that must be afforded to those who allegedly offend.
PC is the new Victorianism. We are trending toward Orwell’s dystopian world.
“I am not afraid of ISIS, which remains on the wrong side of history in resisting liberty.”
Is having history on one’s side similar to having God one’s side?
“Don’t come over to this country and treat it like your own. Britain first.” How is this offensive to Muslims? Even if it is, making this statement criminal is insane.