Trafigura to freedom of speech: "fuck you"

Green Spanner · 12-15-2009, 05:37 PM

This is just...wow...

Seriously, what the fuck?

Fifthfiend · 12-15-2009, 06:08 PM

Britain hasn't ever recognized freedom of speech IIRC.

Professor Smarmiarty · 12-15-2009, 06:29 PM

In theory Britain has freedom of speech through the European Human Rights thingy they signed in the 1990s but in practice still got lots of laws against it.
Got lots of defamation laws, terrorism laws, hate laws and "this thing you said/written is inappropriate for the public to hear".
I think the only place you have full freedom of speech is in Parliament- it's in the bill of rights. And that's if the King isn't like- hey dudes, get off my land.
But you see while the whole "freedom of speech" thing was coming up in the Enlightenment it was being argued by the French and holy fuck, did England not want to be like the French.

bluestarultor · 12-15-2009, 07:04 PM

A country lacking basic human rights? INVADE!

Nah, but seriously, it's really sad, given the BBC is one of the foremost non-American news sources and is generally pretty reliable.

Magus · 12-15-2009, 07:52 PM

This is actually due to Britain's extremely generous libel laws in the courts, which as opposed to in American law where the defendant is considered guilty until proven innocent, in Britain the defendant instead has to put forth evidential proof to back up their claims to prove their innocence of libel; the plaintiff doesn't have to supply any evidence. Also, you can sue anyone anywhere in the world for libel committed anywhere in Britain's courts, though I have absolutely no idea how they enforce their verdicts on people who are in other countries whose justice systems consider the libel claims process in Britain to be severely flawed. But if you happened to be under Britain's jurisdiction they could follow through.

Keep in mind you don't have to be a British citizen to bring up libel claims against a person, nor does the person you are suing, from what I understand from the NY Times article I read the other day

But anyway, my main point is that the British government isn't necessarily censoring free speech purposefully, but rather the hideously malformed libel system creates de facto censoring due to fear of being easily sued and easily losing the case.

Professor Smarmiarty · 12-16-2009, 03:27 AM

Yeah the libel laws are the centre of it, but there is really no proviso for free speech except for some handwavey European bills- just in case the government wants to crack down/US invade.

Also the government passed a set of terror laws in 2000 which are similar to the US ones- ie they can fuck you up pretty much by saying "He's a terrorist". Books have been censored/pulled from markets for no discernible reason.

TheDarkChocobo · 12-16-2009, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

Got lots of defamation laws, terrorism laws, hate laws and "this thing you said/written is inappropriate for the public to hear".

America has conditional free speech as well. Freedom of speech should be anything you want to say so long as it doesn't incite violence. In america you have the evil monster political correctness (and i understand this is something that is rampant in other countries too) hate crimes and speech, censorship (FCC). the terrorism laws is the only thing i understand because like i said earlier, so long as speech doesn't incite violence, i'm down.

Everybody is so afraid to hurt someone elses feelings, and the government wants to make sure no one's feelings are hurt by passing laws... say what you want to say, if an individual has something agains what you said, it's that individual's problem to deal with it. It was like when that lobby group (can't remember the name off the top of my head) that tried to get the "N" word outlawed... it's not the governments place to outlaw it. If you say the "N" word infront of a black person and they want to kick your ass, they should, but that's as far as it should go. in no way to i condone the use of the "N" word nor do i use it myself, i find it demeaning, just like when a black person calls a white person a cracker. same thing. just becasue i talk with a southern accent, i get labled a redneck and a hillbilly. I'm not from the hills and i'm not racist, and i have everyright to get offended, but i'm not going to whine to the government.

people just need to learn to take things into their own hands is all.

Archbio · 12-16-2009, 06:02 AM

One of these things just doesn't belong.

Quote:

In america you have the evil monster political correctness (and i understand this is something that is rampant in other countries too) hate crimes and speech, censorship (FCC). the terrorism laws is the only thing i understand because like i said earlier, so long as speech doesn't incite violence, i'm down.

Sticks and stones will break my bones. A hate crime is first and foremost an actual crime... like hitting someone with sticks and stones. Often a hate crime is going to be something worse than inciting violence; as in commiting violence. That is, even if you don't regard the principle of calling the crime itself a hate crime and giving it additional consideration because of the motive.

Also a crime: Kicking someone's ass, "N word" or no. No, really, you'll find that the courts deal with that.

Professor Smarmiarty · 12-16-2009, 06:09 AM

The problem with racial insults is that they can actually lead to dehumanising the opposing race which can lead to actual physical crimes. And if you are in the minority there is not much you can do about it.

TheDarkChocobo · 12-16-2009, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archbio

One of these things just doesn't belong.

Sticks and stones will break my bones. A hate crime is first and foremost an actual crime... like hitting someone with sticks and stones. Often a hate crime is going to be something worse than inciting violence; as in commiting violence. That is, even if you don't regard the principle of calling the crime itself a hate crime and giving it additional consideration because of the motive.

Also a crime: Kicking someone's ass, "N word" or no. No, really, you'll find that the courts deal with that.

look, if it gets to a point that i want to beat up somebody, i am pretty close to hating them, i don't care what their skin color is. the only reason "hate" was thrown into those special circumstances was, again, because of political corectness. If i get into a fight with a black, asian, or hispanic guy and i happen to end with the upper hand, there's a possibility i could get charged with a hate crime, it doesn't matter what my motives are because no judge wants to be the one to disbelieve the minority because then he'll have NAACP breathing down his neck drawing all kinds of unwanted attention.

I'm not saying white people are superior, nor am i saying black asian hispanics or middle easterners are superior... level playing ground is all i'm saying. Don't get me wrong, i saw that TV-Movie special about that gay guy that got beaten to death and i did think it was sad, but murder is murder, battery is battery. end of story.

12-15-2009, 05:37 PM	#1
Green Spanner Lawful Sarcastic Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Yes Posts: 496	Trafigura to freedom of speech: "fuck you" This is just...wow... Seriously, what the fuck? __________________ ╔═╦══╦═╦═╦═╦╗ ╔═╦═╦══╦═╦╦═╦╦═╦══╗ ║╔╣╠═║═╣═╣║║║ ║═╣║║══║║║║║║║═╣╠═║ ║║║╔╗╣═╣═╣║║║ ╠═║╔╣╔╗║║║║║║║═╣╔╗╣ ╚═╩╝╚╩═╩═╩╩═╝ ╚═╩╝╚╝╚╩╩═╩╩═╩═╩╝╚╝ I'm a riter! Please feed my back. (For serious you guys) This text is hidden. Can you find it?

12-15-2009, 06:08 PM	#2
Fifthfiend for all seasons Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 19,409	Britain hasn't ever recognized freedom of speech IIRC. __________________ check out my buttspresso

12-15-2009, 07:52 PM	#5
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	This is actually due to Britain's extremely generous libel laws in the courts, which as opposed to in American law where the defendant is considered guilty until proven innocent, in Britain the defendant instead has to put forth evidential proof to back up their claims to prove their innocence of libel; the plaintiff doesn't have to supply any evidence. Also, you can sue anyone anywhere in the world for libel committed anywhere in Britain's courts, though I have absolutely no idea how they enforce their verdicts on people who are in other countries whose justice systems consider the libel claims process in Britain to be severely flawed. But if you happened to be under Britain's jurisdiction they could follow through. Keep in mind you don't have to be a British citizen to bring up libel claims against a person, nor does the person you are suing, from what I understand from the NY Times article I read the other day But anyway, my main point is that the British government isn't necessarily censoring free speech purposefully, but rather the hideously malformed libel system creates de facto censoring due to fear of being easily sued and easily losing the case. __________________ The Valiant Review

12-15-2009, 06:29 PM	#3
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	In theory Britain has freedom of speech through the European Human Rights thingy they signed in the 1990s but in practice still got lots of laws against it. Got lots of defamation laws, terrorism laws, hate laws and "this thing you said/written is inappropriate for the public to hear". I think the only place you have full freedom of speech is in Parliament- it's in the bill of rights. And that's if the King isn't like- hey dudes, get off my land. But you see while the whole "freedom of speech" thing was coming up in the Enlightenment it was being argued by the French and holy fuck, did England not want to be like the French.

12-16-2009, 03:27 AM	#6
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	Yeah the libel laws are the centre of it, but there is really no proviso for free speech except for some handwavey European bills- just in case the government wants to crack down/US invade. Also the government passed a set of terror laws in 2000 which are similar to the US ones- ie they can fuck you up pretty much by saying "He's a terrorist". Books have been censored/pulled from markets for no discernible reason.

12-16-2009, 06:09 AM	#9
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	The problem with racial insults is that they can actually lead to dehumanising the opposing race which can lead to actual physical crimes. And if you are in the minority there is not much you can do about it.