Censorship in Britain

[Johan]

Britain censors speech. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from-britain-named-and-shamed-1679127.html)

"I think it's important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country," Ms Smith told GMTV.

"Coming to this country is a privilege. If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what's more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded.

The government deciding which speech fits acceptable values, and which doesn't? SCREW THAT NOISE. Limits on speech should be very, very carefully implemented in rare circumstances ("fire" in a movie theater, and the like). I find some of the hateful things spewed by religious people in Britain, many of them living on the public dole with state assistance, to be reprehensible, but I wouldn't vote to shut them up or out (I would, however, stop giving them taxpayer money to fund their stupidity).

I'd be embarrassed and horrified if America ever decided to do something similar. I find it disgusting.

[Ancalagon]

I think its a bit of a misleading headline. I mean, its not like they are censoring speech, they are just denying people they dont like from entering the country. Is that a good thing? No, I dont agree with it, I think only terrorists and criminals should be barred from entry.

That being said, in some cases I would agree with those who preach hate to be denied entry. I mean, they really do no good. Free speech comes with responsibilities as well as rights.

Personally I think some of the people on the denied list are there more for the publicity than anything else. Why else would you release the list? By releasing the list, Jacqui Smith (my least favourite politician) shows how wonderfully progressive the UK is. Oh goody, we only let nice people in.

[Ox]

I mean, its not like they are censoring speech, they are just denying people they dont like from entering the country.
Depriving someone of a legal entitlement because of his political or religious views is pretty much the definition of censorship. As that definition makes clear, there's no necessary implication that censorship must always be bad or wrong, but it's still censorship. Entering Britain on a short-stay visa is a general privilege that has been revoked from these individuals expressly because of their views.

That being said, in some cases I would agree with those who preach hate to be denied entry. I mean, they really do no good.
An interesting view. Does that mean you reject the logic of John Stuart Mill and Oliver Wendell Holmes, that even bad and wrong opinions have value because they force us to understand why we believe in truth and goodness?

I mean, if there is a category of speech that does no good, then it's not clear why you only deny entry to foreigners who espouse such speech. Shouldn't it be criminalized for British nationals as well? As you've pointed out, there is no reason to permit such speech.

[National Kato]

A few of those people on the list are terrorists. Don't we also bar them entry into the US purely based on their beliefs and actions? A couple others are convicted murderers. So the list isn't purely comprised of Michael Savages and Fred Phelpses.

[Johan]

That being said, in some cases I would agree with those who preach hate to be denied entry.

I hope you're on the committee to restrict certain speech, then, because unless you are, once you open that can of worms, you're liable to be uncomfortable with some of the restrictions at some point.

Screw that noise. It's censorship, plain and simple, and I for one do not want my government involved in telling me what is acceptable to say or not, except in extremely limited circumstances ("fire" in a theater, and the like).

I'll take FREE speech over government-declared ACCEPTABLE speech, ANY day.

[Ancalagon]

I agree its a bit of a minefield. I mean, for one thing who gets to decide what is hate speech or not?

That being said, is it responsible to let these hate preachers run wild? Lets face it, people are impressionable, and harm can come from allowing people to spread hate. Violence against homosexuals, terrorism, etc etc, can all be cause or exacerbated by hate speech.

There's one other example of free speech that bothers me sometimes. In the Germany, and as far as I know also Austria, its illegal to deny the Holocaust. Now, there is so much evidence for the Holocaust that I think there is pretty much no doubt that it happened. And people who say it didnt are usually crackpot anti Semitics. But I still dont think thats a good reason to make it illegal to discuss the possibility altogether.

[Johan]

I mean, for one thing who gets to decide what is hate speech or not?

That being said, is it responsible to let these hate preachers run wild?

The answer to the second question resides within the first.

[LiquidRain]

You think that's bad? Be careful what you do in France. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1176874/Man-strip-searched-held-24-hours-friends-joke-text-sabotaging-train.html) Even worse? Read the comments on that article.

Only a matter of time before it comes to us.

[headhunter228]

And here I was thinking the Patriot Act here in the US was bad. Then I read some of the comments. I couldn't fucking belive people were supporting this. Time to curl up in the fetal position and contemplate the sorry state of humanity.

[Ox]

A few of those people on the list are terrorists. Don't we also bar them entry into the US purely based on their beliefs and actions? A couple others are convicted murderers. So the list isn't purely comprised of Michael Savages and Fred Phelpses.
That's true. And, indeed, the US does sometimes bar people from entering the country for their views: Gabriel Garcia Marquez, for example, was banned from the US in part for setting up the New York branch of the Cuban state press.

That being said, is it responsible to let these hate preachers run wild? Lets face it, people are impressionable, and harm can come from allowing people to spread hate. Violence against homosexuals, terrorism, etc etc, can all be cause or exacerbated by hate speech.
Let me tell you, I have a long list of irresponsible hatemongers who inspire violence and who are running wild, instilling impressionable young people with filth. The makers of The Corporation aren't on the top of the list, but we can use them as a nice warmup.

Once we're properly stretched and limber, we can tackle France.

[DangerousDaze]

I'd be embarrassed and horrified if America ever decided to do something similar. I find it disgusting.

Didn't you guys bar Amy Winehouse simply because she'd been arrested?

[roboninja]

You think that's bad? Be careful what you do in France. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1176874/Man-strip-searched-held-24-hours-friends-joke-text-sabotaging-train.html) Even worse? Read the comments on that article.

Only a matter of time before it comes to us.

Those comments.....wow.

People need to stop being afraid every second of their miserable lives.

[ShivaX]

I'm going to start texting people in France with stuff like:

"Whats the blast radius on a suitcase nuke?"

and

"Whats the estimated casualty count on VX gas in a subway?"

[Johan]

Didn't you guys bar Amy Winehouse simply because she'd been arrested?

Nope. She signed a confession to a criminal drug possession charge (for possession while in Norway).

Here. (http://www.news24.com/News24/Entertainment/Celebrities/0,,2-1225-2108_2212365,00.html)

He said: "Amy and Blake were told to sign a release form by Norwegian police - but it was actually a confession. She can't get into the US now because of that, even though it wasn't her cannabis anyway."

Interesting how you address government censorship in your nation with an accusation toward another, however. Very interesting...

[Goronmon]

I'm going to start texting people in France with stuff like:

"Whats the blast radius on a suitcase nuke?"

and

"Whats the estimated casualty count on VX gas in a subway?"Haha, that was my first thought after reading that story.

[Ancalagon]

Johan I wouldnt blame you guys though, I wouldnt let Amy Winehouse into my country either.

[DangerousDaze]

Interesting how you address government censorship in your nation with an accusation toward another, however. Very interesting...

To you, maybe. Perhaps she was a bad example, but I was just looking through the US entry regulations and all the following are barred:

Members of the communist party (or any totalitarian party)
Polygamists (why?)
any member of a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity (that's most of the people on our list right there)
anyone who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. This includes merely admitting to a drug addiction in the past. It also includes things like sodomy, "lewdness", adultery (in countries where they are an offence)...
anyone not of "good moral character". This includes having "an extramarital affair which tended to destroy an existing marriage", being or having been an "habitual drunkard". An interesting rider to this is "Section 101(f) also provides that an applicant may lack good moral character for reasons other than those described in 101(f)(1) – (f)(8). The courts have held that good moral character means character which measures up to the standards of average citizens of the community in which the applicant resides. Any conduct or acts which offend the accepted moral character standards of the community in which the applicant resides should be considered, without regard to whether the applicant has been arrested or convicted." which basically means it's a completely subjective test and can be used to turn anyone away for pretty much any reason.


What I'm saying here is that the UK is not the only country which is strict about who it will and will not let enter.

/edit - thinking about it, Amy Winehouse fits quite a few of those!

[biosc1]

Johan I wouldnt blame you guys though, I wouldnt let Amy Winehouse into my country either.

Unfortunately, the less places she's allowed, the harder it will be to get her out of your country ;)

OT: My main issue with sort of stuff is who decides what is hate speech and what isn't? Where does one draw the line? What if someones choice of religion is not your choice? If I'm not religious and someone is preaching religion to me and telling me I'm going to go to Hell, is that hate speech?

[Johan]

Still interesting to me that the response to censorship of speech in your nation is a comparison to America.

I thought we had lost our position as the moral authority for the world a long time ago, and that rationalizing a policy by comparing it to other nations' policies was a poor rhetorical foundation upon which to build legislation.

I learn something new every day.

[Ox]

An interesting rider to this is "Section 101(f) also provides that an applicant may lack good moral character for reasons other than those described in 101(f)(1) – (f)(8). The courts have held that good moral character means character which measures up to the standards of average citizens of the community in which the applicant resides. Any conduct or acts which offend the accepted moral character standards of the community in which the applicant resides should be considered, without regard to whether the applicant has been arrested or convicted." which basically means it's a completely subjective test and can be used to turn anyone away for pretty much any reason.
That may be a fuzzy test, and it may be a bad test, and it may be a test which is entirely too open to interpretation. But it's based on objective criteria: the accepted moral standards of the community in which the applicant resides.

It bugs me when people conflate "subjective" with "open to interpretation." My belief in God is subjective but not open to interpretation. Whether God exists is open to interpretation but definitely not subjective.

[DangerousDaze]

Still interesting to me that the response to censorship of speech in your nation is a comparison to America.
That's only because:

a) I'm a UK citizen so I'm going to use my experience entering another country, and I chose the US because...
b) The US is by far the most awkward I've had to deal with. I have to fill out a web-based application before I travel (even though we're part of the visa waiver programme) -this is something that I don't have to do anywhere else. On entry I have to have all my fingerprints and a retina scan taken. Again, not something I've had to do anywhere else.
c) Your airport security guards are mostly fucking dicks. (Note, I'm not talking about your immigration officials here who have never been anything less than polite and courteous to me).

So I chose the US because it's been the most problematical for me, and I've travelled widely.

/edit - That may be a fuzzy test, and it may be a bad test, and it may be a test which is entirely too open to interpretation. But it's based on objective criteria: the accepted moral standards of the community in which the applicant resides.

I chose that because most of the people on the UK list would clearly also be ineligible to enter the US due to their terrorism links. The remainder, such as Phelps, could easily be barred under the "good character" rule should an adjudicator choose to do so.

/edit 2 - It bugs me when people conflate "subjective" with "open to interpretation." My belief in God is subjective but not open to interpretation. Whether God exists is open to interpretation but definitely not subjective.
I would argue that a subjective test is one in which the impression or opinion of the assessor has a material impact on the result. One adjudicator's definition of an "average citizen" may be very different to another's.

[National Kato]

I chose that because most of the people on the UK list would clearly also be ineligible to enter the US due to their terrorism links.

That was the crux of my initial response. I can see being upset about denying Phelps or Savage into a country based on their political views/actions, but the other people on that list? The terrorists and convicted murderers? Why would someone be concerned about their denied entry?

[Ox]

I would argue that a subjective test is one in which the impression or opinion of the assessor determines the result. One adjudicator's definition of an "average citizen" may be very different to another's.
In that case, everything is subjective: you and I could disagree about what 2 + 3 equals, and we'd get different results. That's what disagreement means.

[DangerousDaze]

In that case, everything is subjective: you and I could disagree about what 2 + 3 equals, and we'd get different results. That's what disagreement means.

Now come on. There's nothing even hypothetically subjective about the result of 2 + 3.

My point is that whenever rules introduce concepts such as the "average citizen" or, more commonly, the notion of "reasonableness" (e.g. "If a reasonable man would...") then they can become something of a free for all.

/edit - incidentally, you'll see that I modified my definition of a subjective test slightly, prior to your post.

[Ox]

Now come on. There's nothing even hypothetically subjective about the result of 2 + 3.
By your revised definition: if my opinion is that arithmetic is a tool of Satan and we should simply pray for enlightenment on mathematical questions, that could quite easily have a material impact on the answer to 2 + 3.

My point is that whenever rules introduce concepts such as the "average citizen" or, more commonly, the notion of "reasonableness" (e.g. "If a reasonable man would...") then they can become something of a free for all.
Sure, I agree. However, there's no reason to taint the language by taking a well-understood word like "subjective" and expanding it into another definition. We can already quite adequately express this issue by saying that reasonableness is a standard or that it's open to differing interpretations.

The reasonable man test, after all, is usually described as "the objectively reasonable man." That's a fictitious construct, a person who never takes undue risks, never ignores or belittles the effects his actions have on others, who always acts prudently. It's contrasted with subjective standards, like malice or intent to harm -- standards that look, not to whether my behavior conforms to some external code of behavior, but rather to what my motivation and internal thought process was.

It's a very important distinction in law: a police officer is entitled to arrest you if an objectively reasonable officer would think you were committing a crime, for example. Let's say you drive at 45 in a 35 zone, but the cop pulls you over because he hates people of your ethnicity. Subjectively, the officer acted with a motive that wasn't permissible. But objectively, his action was permissible and reasonable. You could quite easily be prosecuted based on evidence collected during the stop (where the standard is objectively reasonable) but also win a civil suit for violation of your civil rights (where the standard is subjective intent).

[Narradisall]

Meh, I read this in the morning and just chalked it up to another stupid Labour scheme. Most of the list are barred for good reason (murderers, terrorists etc), of the few 'speech' people, I hardly feel bad they've been barred, but I understand the trickyness of the situation. Stupidly enough some domestic hate speech people can claim benefits whilst openly telling masses its a good thing to kill british people (you know, the ones paying for your food asshole), but lord forbid they come from other places to do it!

Its a nice facepalm moment, but the sad truth is this wouldn't even make my top 10 of things that need to be sorted here.

[Narradisall]

Oh, as a slightly added derailing note in the current socialist evil movement in the UK, today the ID scheme has gone into effect in Manchester. You can opt to have all your ID cards, seen as the first stage leading to countywide mandatory 'Citizen ID's'.

Good times.

[ShivaX]

Oh, as a slightly added derailing note in the current socialist evil movement in the UK, today the ID scheme has gone into effect in Manchester. You can opt to have all your ID cards, seen as the first stage leading to countywide mandatory 'Citizen ID's'.

Good times.

You should call them "papers" and the authorities should be required to ask for them in a fake German accent.

[BigJonno]

Oh, as a slightly added derailing note in the current socialist evil movement in the UK, today the ID scheme has gone into effect in Manchester. You can opt to have all your ID cards, seen as the first stage leading to countywide mandatory 'Citizen ID's'.

Good times.

Ugh. I was hoping that the "Hey, let's scrap the plan and save a few billion" thing was going to happen.

[DangerousDaze]

You should call them "papers" and the authorities should be required to ask for them in a fake German accent.

Then they can say "Your papers...............are not in order". Then you run away even though you taught everyone else not to, you fool! *ahem*.

[Tel Prydain]

Still interesting to me that the response to censorship of speech in your nation is a comparison to America.

I thought we had lost our position as the moral authority for the world a long time ago, and that rationalizing a policy by comparing it to other nations' policies was a poor rhetorical foundation upon which to build legislation.

I learn something new every day.

Johan: Censorship in Britain is horrible! Look at all those people they keep out!
DangerousDaze:You know you guys do that too, right?
Johan: Interesting how you address government censorship in your nation with an accusation toward another, however. Very interesting...

:D

Yes, Johan. Veeeery interesting. :D

[Johan]

Good to see you around, Tel. Thanks for the recap!

:censored content:

:D

[Narradisall]

Then they can say "Your papers...............are not in order". Then you run away even though you taught everyone else not to, you fool! *ahem*.

I never understand why they just don't go "Oh yes, hmm, I must have left that at home. I shall go get it and return!"

I wish we had papers too, those cards will get lost so much and cost another £30 to replace. IT PRINTS MONEY!

Me, I'll wait till they become mandatory, then I'll probably drag my heels and resist all the way. Hopefully the next government will see sense, scrap it and try not to piss the rest of the world off so that they won't want to come here to kill us.

[rifter]

That was the crux of my initial response. I can see being upset about denying Phelps or Savage into a country based on their political views/actions, but the other people on that list? The terrorists and convicted murderers? Why would someone be concerned about their denied entry?

I agree with you, on this. Comparing a political commentator like Savage with KKK leaders seems to be a little... off.

Honestly, though, I understand Phelps too, though, I am more for letting everyone be aware of who he is... and then when he shows up in town, deny lodging and food to make him feel VERY welcomed. I have always thought that for the US, too. It would be VERY difficult for him to make it to a protest several states away, if no one would sell him gas... lets say.