Section 5 FREE SPEECH.

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7086
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Section 5 FREE SPEECH.

Post by Sculptor1 »

I thought this was very interesting.
What have we come to when the protection of the basic rights of free speech have to be promoted by comedians?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqDZlAZygU

selection from the website.
http://reformsection5.org.uk

The Government Minister told the Committee in the House of Commons at the time: “Those who have campaigned for this change in the law feel that the word ‘insulting’ in Section 5 could discourage people from exercising their right to freedom of speech.”

He said he strongly agreed with the view that “people should be able to, for example, express their religious views in the normal course of activities without feeling they are likely to be arrested for that”.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.

Post by Steve3007 »

So, as I understand it, this is the section in question:

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986
A section 5 offence comprises two elements:

A person must:
(a) use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting; and

The words or behaviour, or writing, sign of other visible representation must be within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.



I strongly agree with the campaign to reform section 5 with respect to the word "insulting" and with respect to the phrase "likely to be caused alarm or distress". I can't see how anybody who believes in the general principle of free speech could disagree on that. But I think some believers in free speech would extend the objection to the whole section. I think some would say that absolutely all speech, even direct threats, should not be illegal. I wouldn't agree with them. But then, of course, there are sometimes problems defining a precise, reasonably objective difference between "threat", "abuse" and "insult".

Another point: There are some privately owned/administered but publicly accessible forums, like this one, that have their own rules as to what constitutes acceptable speech. If a person or group who is not the government sets up a place like this, should they be legally allowed to apply any rules that they wish? This relates to the "cancel culture" debate.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.

Post by Steve3007 »

If the right to exercise free speech by insulting people is going to be defended by a any particular group, then it seems reasonable that it would be comedians. Frankie Boyle, for one, would be out of a job if section 5 was fully enforced in that form.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7086
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.

Post by Sculptor1 »

Steve3007 wrote: September 25th, 2020, 6:44 am If the right to exercise free speech by insulting people is going to be defended by a any particular group, then it seems reasonable that it would be comedians. Frankie Boyle, for one, would be out of a job if section 5 was fully enforced in that form.
Yet he thrives, though with some restrictions.
Whilst Roy Chubby Brown and the likes of Bernard Manning are anathematised.

I saw Frankie Boyle and the Brighton Dome about 10 years ago. I'd always loved his contribution on Have I Got News for You, but we left the theatre disappointed. We ended up with swear-word fatigue.
Since almost every sentence seemed to have at least one F9ck in it, or some other swear word, he just ended up sounding juvenile.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.

Post by Steve3007 »

Sculptor1 wrote:Yet he thrives, though with some restrictions.
Whilst Roy Chubby Brown and the likes of Bernard Manning are anathematised.
I guess it's about fashion and packaging. The likes of Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr are un-PC in a relatively modern seeming way. The likes of Roy Chubby Brown and Bernard Manning are un-PC in the old 1970's, fat northern bloke leaning on his mic-stand, smoking a fag and talking about the mother-in-law way. For me, the comedian who has best bridged the gap between that kind of old fashioned stand-up and modern stand-up is Peter Kay.
I saw Frankie Boyle and the Brighton Dome about 10 years ago. I'd always loved his contribution on Have I Got News for You, but we left the theatre disappointed. We ended up with swear-word fatigue.
Since almost every sentence seemed to have at least one F9ck in it, or some other swear word, he just ended up sounding juvenile.
I haven't actually seen Frankie Boyle live, but I've seen 2 or 3 of his live shows on video. I've generally found him very funny, but I wouldn't want to sit in the front row! That thin line between being funny and being juvenile or gratuitously offensive is an interesting one. I think where Frankie Boyle is funniest is when his insults use imaginative imagery. The only one that springs immediately to mind is when he said that Uluru/Ayers Rock is a huge sheet with a big pile of dead aborigines under it. But there are better ones.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.

Post by Terrapin Station »

Steve3007 wrote: September 25th, 2020, 6:23 am But I think some believers in free speech would extend the objection to the whole section. I think some would say that absolutely all speech, even direct threats, should not be illegal.
Yes, I'm one of them.

I would have a category of criminal threatening if I were king, but that's not at all defined solely or even necessarily by speech. It has to be a scenario where someone is under a direct "physical" threat of bodily harm, where they can't reasonably escape that physical threat, and where they believe that compliance with the threatening speech might alleviate the physical threat.

So, for example where someone is holding a gun on you and demanding your wallet and you'd not reasonably be able to evade or eliminate the threat of being shot.
Tecolote
Posts: 31
Joined: August 30th, 2020, 8:21 am

Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.

Post by Tecolote »

Terrapin Station wrote: September 25th, 2020, 10:25 am Yes, I'm one of them.

I would have a category of criminal threatening if I were king, but that's not at all defined solely or even necessarily by speech. It has to be a scenario where someone is under a direct "physical" threat of bodily harm, where they can't reasonably escape that physical threat, and where they believe that compliance with the threatening speech might alleviate the physical threat.

So, for example where someone is holding a gun on you and demanding your wallet and you'd not reasonably be able to evade or eliminate the threat of being shot.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what about something more subtle? Like a gangster who says something along the line of, "I hear you're going to testify in a trial... Wow? Is this your family? They sure are a beautiful bunch. Nice house, too. Anyway, it's the strangest thing, but I forgot what I came here for. Isn't that crazy? You have a nice day."
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7086
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.

Post by Sculptor1 »

Terrapin Station wrote: September 25th, 2020, 10:25 am
Steve3007 wrote: September 25th, 2020, 6:23 am But I think some believers in free speech would extend the objection to the whole section. I think some would say that absolutely all speech, even direct threats, should not be illegal.
Yes, I'm one of them.

I would have a category of criminal threatening if I were king, but that's not at all defined solely or even necessarily by speech. It has to be a scenario where someone is under a direct "physical" threat of bodily harm, where they can't reasonably escape that physical threat, and where they believe that compliance with the threatening speech might alleviate the physical threat.

So, for example where someone is holding a gun on you and demanding your wallet and you'd not reasonably be able to evade or eliminate the threat of being shot.
Physical injury can be easier to deal with than mental injury. So I have to disagree with Steve's comments on threats.
If you'd ever been in a position where a person had made threat to put petrol in your letter box, you might feel differently.
Such a threat can do far more harm than a punch in the face which would attract GBH. Making threats can cause genuine worry and mental anguish far beyond simple violence.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.

Post by Terrapin Station »

Tecolote wrote: September 25th, 2020, 10:41 am
Terrapin Station wrote: September 25th, 2020, 10:25 am Yes, I'm one of them.

I would have a category of criminal threatening if I were king, but that's not at all defined solely or even necessarily by speech. It has to be a scenario where someone is under a direct "physical" threat of bodily harm, where they can't reasonably escape that physical threat, and where they believe that compliance with the threatening speech might alleviate the physical threat.

So, for example where someone is holding a gun on you and demanding your wallet and you'd not reasonably be able to evade or eliminate the threat of being shot.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what about something more subtle? Like a gangster who says something along the line of, "I hear you're going to testify in a trial... Wow? Is this your family? They sure are a beautiful bunch. Nice house, too. Anyway, it's the strangest thing, but I forgot what I came here for. Isn't that crazy? You have a nice day."
I'd require there be a pretty direct physical threat for it to be criminal threatening.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 25th, 2020, 10:42 am
Terrapin Station wrote: September 25th, 2020, 10:25 am

Yes, I'm one of them.

I would have a category of criminal threatening if I were king, but that's not at all defined solely or even necessarily by speech. It has to be a scenario where someone is under a direct "physical" threat of bodily harm, where they can't reasonably escape that physical threat, and where they believe that compliance with the threatening speech might alleviate the physical threat.

So, for example where someone is holding a gun on you and demanding your wallet and you'd not reasonably be able to evade or eliminate the threat of being shot.
Physical injury can be easier to deal with than mental injury. So I have to disagree with Steve's comments on threats.
If you'd ever been in a position where a person had made threat to put petrol in your letter box, you might feel differently.
Such a threat can do far more harm than a punch in the face which would attract GBH. Making threats can cause genuine worry and mental anguish far beyond simple violence.
If it's not a direct physical threat I can just tell the person to go jump in a lake/threaten them back, etc. "You're going to put petrol in my letter box? I'll put honey, peanut butter and chocolate in every nook and cranny of your house. Enjoy the critters that brings!" Etc.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7086
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.

Post by Sculptor1 »

Terrapin Station wrote: September 25th, 2020, 11:03 am
Sculptor1 wrote: September 25th, 2020, 10:42 am

Physical injury can be easier to deal with than mental injury. So I have to disagree with Steve's comments on threats.
If you'd ever been in a position where a person had made threat to put petrol in your letter box, you might feel differently.
Such a threat can do far more harm than a punch in the face which would attract GBH. Making threats can cause genuine worry and mental anguish far beyond simple violence.
If it's not a direct physical threat I can just tell the person to go jump in a lake/threaten them back, etc. "You're going to put petrol in my letter box? I'll put honey, peanut butter and chocolate in every nook and cranny of your house. Enjoy the critters that brings!" Etc.
Use your imagination!
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor1 wrote: September 25th, 2020, 11:58 am
Terrapin Station wrote: September 25th, 2020, 11:03 am
If it's not a direct physical threat I can just tell the person to go jump in a lake/threaten them back, etc. "You're going to put petrol in my letter box? I'll put honey, peanut butter and chocolate in every nook and cranny of your house. Enjoy the critters that brings!" Etc.
Use your imagination!
Exactly . . . unless it's a direct physical threat, in which case I'll assess that and do what I can to get out of it or turn it around, I don't take any threat very seriously--I'd rather just give the same back to the person, but I'll one-up them. I can easily harass anyone more than they harass me (to a point where they'll choose to just not bother me any longer).
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.

Post by LuckyR »

Tecolote wrote: September 25th, 2020, 10:41 am
Terrapin Station wrote: September 25th, 2020, 10:25 am Yes, I'm one of them.

I would have a category of criminal threatening if I were king, but that's not at all defined solely or even necessarily by speech. It has to be a scenario where someone is under a direct "physical" threat of bodily harm, where they can't reasonably escape that physical threat, and where they believe that compliance with the threatening speech might alleviate the physical threat.

So, for example where someone is holding a gun on you and demanding your wallet and you'd not reasonably be able to evade or eliminate the threat of being shot.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what about something more subtle? Like a gangster who says something along the line of, "I hear you're going to testify in a trial... Wow? Is this your family? They sure are a beautiful bunch. Nice house, too. Anyway, it's the strangest thing, but I forgot what I came here for. Isn't that crazy? You have a nice day."
The crime isn't the comment. It is the fact that a gangster saying that, is different than a nameless, faceless online coward typing the exact thing from the comfort of his mom's basement. The crime is that the gangster, having access to hitmen and professional arsonists can make real bad things happen. In the perfect world the gangster would have been put away and his hirelings would also be behind bars.
"As usual... it depends."
Tecolote
Posts: 31
Joined: August 30th, 2020, 8:21 am

Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.

Post by Tecolote »

LuckyR wrote: September 25th, 2020, 1:02 pmThe crime isn't the comment. It is the fact that a gangster saying that, is different than a nameless, faceless online coward typing the exact thing from the comfort of his mom's basement. The crime is that the gangster, having access to hitmen and professional arsonists can make real bad things happen. In the perfect world the gangster would have been put away and his hirelings would also be behind bars.
Yes, I understand this, which is why I painted the scenario. I was interested in what Terrapin would reply.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.

Post by h_k_s »

Steve3007 wrote: September 25th, 2020, 6:23 am So, as I understand it, this is the section in question:

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986
A section 5 offence comprises two elements:

A person must:
(a) use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting; and

The words or behaviour, or writing, sign of other visible representation must be within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.



I strongly agree with the campaign to reform section 5 with respect to the word "insulting" and with respect to the phrase "likely to be caused alarm or distress". I can't see how anybody who believes in the general principle of free speech could disagree on that. But I think some believers in free speech would extend the objection to the whole section. I think some would say that absolutely all speech, even direct threats, should not be illegal. I wouldn't agree with them. But then, of course, there are sometimes problems defining a precise, reasonably objective difference between "threat", "abuse" and "insult".

Another point: There are some privately owned/administered but publicly accessible forums, like this one, that have their own rules as to what constitutes acceptable speech. If a person or group who is not the government sets up a place like this, should they be legally allowed to apply any rules that they wish? This relates to the "cancel culture" debate.
Steve3007 is this a U.S. Federal statute? I can't tell.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021