Free Speech in the UK

[gaggedLouise]

Or well, desert island - rather: they live on a distant volcanic island that's rarely ever visited by whites. The strange fact of a bunch of full-blooded black Africans having settled an island several hundred miles out in the ocean is never explained: Hergé describes the island as if it was somewhere in the Pacific rather than next to Africa. But he wasn't really putting his heart into the effort with that one; he liked Tintin and his friends much more. :)

[Orval Wintermute]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43864133
So an £800 fine.

The most relevant comments from the Sheriff seem to be:
"The centrepiece of your video consists of you repeating the phrase 'Gas the Jews' over and over again as a command to a dog which then reacts. You use the command Sieg Heil, having trained the dog to raise its paw in response and the video shows a clip of a Nuremberg rally and a flashing image of Hitler with strident music. You say the video was only intended as a joke to upset your girlfriend, whose dog you used, and nothing more."

"The fact that you claim in the video, and elsewhere, that the video was intended only to annoy your girlfriend and as a joke and that you did not intend to be racist is of little assistance to you. A joke can be grossly offensive. A racist joke or a grossly offensive video does not lose its racist or grossly offensive quality merely because the maker asserts he only wanted to get a laugh."

[gaggedLouise]

Many of the early Tintin adventures were drawn for a Roman Catholic-directed youth and children's magazine, and this placed some constraints on his work. Captain Haddock wasn't allowed to swear outright, but of course a weathered sea-captain has to be seen swearing, so Hergé hit on the brillaint solution of making Haddock use involved, old-fashioned and old-style words that were not actually current swearing words, or never had been, but through the tone and the drawings it was made obvious that these were the captain's private oaths. These oaths, in turn, have been reworked and reinvented by translators into dozens of languages, enriching the vocabulary of generations of children. :D

Also, there was a long-standing rule in France and Belgium that in comics for children, no one should be seen to be violently killed. That's the reason no one actually dies in the adventures of Tintin, Asterix or Lucky Luke. People are placed in dangerous and powerless situations at the hands of villains and gangsters, but never actually killed - the lethal danger always retreats or at least is downgraded to getting locked up, given a sleeping drug, getting beaten up, being almost killed in an accident or the like. I think Disney observed the same rule for stories involving Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, Uncle Scrooge and everybody else in the wider "Duckburg universe".

[Oniya]

There was this singer who asked for Agatha Christie's title Dix Petits Nègres to be changed when the series came out (she probably didn't know of the book?) but it was met with laughing and bashing.

The book has been variously titled 'And Then There Were None', 'Ten Little Indians', and 'Ten Little Soldiers' in English.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Then_There_Were_None

[Roleplay Frog]

Next up, teen arrested for posting school report on Huckleberry Finn online. *chuckles*

[gaggedLouise]

The book has been variously titled 'And Then There Were None', 'Ten Little Indians', and 'Ten Little Soldiers' in English.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Then_There_Were_None

Strangely, Murder on the Orient Express (which you mentioned to me the other day) was also retitled for a while. In an English paperback from around 1970 of another Agatha mystery, there's a list of other books by her issued by the same paperback publisher, and here we find Murder in the Calais Coach. :D That must have been a few years before the Oscar-winning movie, which kept the old title. :)

[Regina Minx]

Strangely, Murder on the Orient Express (which you mentioned to me the other day) was also retitled for a while. In an English paperback from around 1970 of another Agatha mystery, there's a list of other books by her issued by the same paperback publisher, and here we find Murder in the Calais Coach. :D That must have been a few years before the Oscar-winning movie, which kept the old title. :)

There was mention of MotOE????? I missed it? No joke, guys. Christie is one of my top 5 favorite authors.

[gaggedLouise]

There was mention of MotOE????? I missed it? No joke, guys. Christie is one of my top 5 favorite authors.

It was in the Non-Board Quotes thread at the Adult Socials, last week, after I posted an authentic funny quote of my mum and me. :D

[Oniya]

It was in the Non-Board Quotes thread at the Adult Socials, last week, after I posted an authentic funny quote of my mum and me. :D

Short version, GL's mother was traveling by train and wanted to read something that would keep her awake.  Apparently crime/mystery novels are her thing, so I suggested MotOE. ;D

[RedRose]

My family is French/Belgian. You can bet that we read all this.
Yeah, Tintin has some racist stuff. Maybe not racist but ripe with stereotyping, there's Astérix. Some others simply don't ever show one non white person and have terrible gender roles, like Quicke and Flupke... Famous Five has things, too... Gone with the Wind is trickiest because the "perfect" character, Mélanie is married to a KKK man and supports this, as well as using really offensive speech, not wanting to move somewhere better for her family because her son would befriend blacks... My mother would just explain these things were a product of their times.

In many religious Jewish and Muslim families, those cartoons are the only allowed for the children, because it's clean. I suppose they explain off the stereotypes against their religion as dumb old beliefs. Possible also that as a whole Europeans look less deeply into those things.

[TheGlyphstone]

Not that American cartoons are innocent of this either. Bugs Bunny, in particular, is infamous for having some horrifically racist episodes in his early history.

[gaggedLouise]

Odd fact: if you type in www.tintin.fr in the address bar (or follow the link), you'll get to an almost empty page with the single daunting word "Forbidden" in bold black type, and a brief explanation. I'm sure that page must once have been the front of the main official French Tintin site. ^_^

[Oniya]

Actually, the official French version of the Tintin site is http://fr.tintin.com/ 

What you're looking at there is just the top directory of some registered domain, probably only accessible to the owner/sysadmin.  Looks like it's owned by the same folks that own tintin.com though.

[gaggedLouise]

Actually, the official French version of the Tintin site is http://fr.tintin.com/ 

What you're looking at there is just the top directory of some registered domain, probably only accessible to the owner/sysadmin.  Looks like it's owned by the same folks that own tintin.com though.

I know, but it seems likely that they once used tintin.fr as their portal page, doesn't it? :)

Anyway, I'm off to bed for now.

[Saria]

By the way, freedom of speech is not internationally agreed up. The closest that comes to that is the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights (http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/) when it takes about freedom of opinion and expression - and I would not take expression to mean speech.

The UDHR may not technically be legally binding (though it actually might be), but the ICCPR is. As party to the treaty, the UK must agree to Article 19:

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.

The question is whether the UK's laws satisfy the limits in (3) or not. I don't think they do. I don't believe there is any sensible argument to be made that either the "Dankula" case or the n-word lyrics case actually threatened the rights of anyone, or national security, public order, or heath. I don't believe that a sensible argument could be made that they threatened "public morals" either, given the context. And I don't even think they're trying to make that argument - they're only talking about "gross offence". I think those charges constitute a violation of the ICCPR.

Freedom of speech is a bit more complicated than that, and more importantly, varied. Germany notable outlaws holocaust denial and the nazi salute.

That law could hold up under (3), because they did and do have very serious problems with Nazis there. (Obv.) And there is a pretty plainly clear good argument for why Nazis are a threat to national security, public order, and the rights of individuals.

[LisztesFerenc]

I don't believe that a sensible argument could be made that they threatened "public morals" either, given the context. And I don't even think they're trying to make that argument - they're only talking about "gross offence". I think those charges constitute a violation of the ICCPR.

  Why doesn't it threaten public morals? What would threaten public morals? Why do you feel "grossly offensive" isn't an argument of public morals? It seems public morals are vague enough that a lot could be justified under them, unless another part of the treaty defines them more rigorously.

[Vergil Tanner]

So, Meechum has been fined £800, which he is refusing to pay; he's attempting to raise money for a competent lawyer on GoFundMe in order to appeal the decision, which is the right move since if he accepts this, then this sets Precedent and that...would be bad, in this case.

[Deamonbane]

The precedent has already been set, I believe. I may be wrong, but I think others have faced fines for similar behaviour.

[Vergil Tanner]

Not that I'm aware of, but I could be wrong. In any case, him winning an appeal would also set precedent.

In any case, it isn't just that law that's wrong in the UK. There are some parts of the country that actually fine you for swearing in public. Not at anybody specifically or in an anti social way, just in general. Jonathan Pie did a good job ripping it apart.


https://youtu.be/AOc7ezwcJjI

[Blythe]

Hey, all, a brief reminder:

Elliquiy does not use a language filter to prevent the use of particular words.  However, keep in mind that we are a diverse community, and there are people here who have been subjected to certain words in an abusive fashion.  Please be extra considerate if discussing matters involving the use of discriminatory slurs.

Thank you.

[Tolvo]

I'd like to apologize for that, I should have used a content warning.

In regards to the Pug situation I feel very similar to it as how I felt about the Instagram one. Likely a ban from the platform would be the proper punishment instead of a government fine.

[gaggedLouise]

Yes, I would never use the C-word or N-word here at PROC except specifically in discussions about language.

As an aside, the Hergé album I was talking about a bit earlier, the one with the kids and the mad scientist, is called The Secret Ray in English. It wasn't translated into English until the mid-nineties, perhaps due to the racist depiction of the black cannibal tribe. In Sweden it had been printed much earlier.

[RedEve]

You have to understand Hergé's background a bit to make sense of the sometimes shameless racism on display in the early albums.
The man who launched his career in comics was a conservative priest with (far-)right sympathies who among other things had a genuine admiration for Benito Mussolini.
Hergé was very young when he started working on Tintin (he was 22 years old when he started the Tintin series with "Tintin in the Land of the Soviets"). He himself later testified how long it took him to get away from his former mentor's world view.
This extended into the personal sphere, since his first marriage to Germaine Kieckens was also arranged by said priest. She had been the priest's personal secretary prior to becoming Hergé's wife.

[Saria]

Why doesn't it threaten public morals?

Because neither case involves promoting behaviours or encouraging behaviours in others, good or bad. You can't be threatening to damage anyone's morals if you're not urging them to do anything, right?

In the "Dankula" case, making a dog react to Nazi quotes is disgusting, but nothing "Dankula" did or said is encouraging anyone else to do anything. So there's no case to be made that what he did was a threat to public morals.

What would threaten public morals?

Anything that promotes or encourages behaviour that the society considers immoral. Obviously precise examples will vary from society to society, and even over time. But examples might be advocating binge drinking, or encouraging young people to have sex.

Why do you feel "grossly offensive" isn't an argument of public morals? It seems public morals are vague enough that a lot could be justified under them, unless another part of the treaty defines them more rigorously.

Why do I "feel"? It simply isn't, by the definitions of those words. Something could be both grossly offensive and a threat to public morals, but that's not always necessarily going to be true. For example, urinating on someone's holy book is grossly offensive, but it doesn't - in and of itself - threaten to change the behaviour of the general public (so it doesn't threaten public morals). On the other hand, you could make a very artful and tasteful work that encourages minors to go out and have unprotected sex - that would be something that is not "grossly offensive", but does threaten public morals. You can have things that are both, but the two terms are not interchangeable.

Put simply: Not everything offensive is immoral, and not everything immoral is offensive.

More importantly - and this also has nothing to do with what I "feel" - "grossly offensive" isn't a public morals argument... simply because it isn't; that's just not how it's written in the law. It's not a matter of opinion.

The ICCPR doesn't define public morals for the obvious reason that it's an international treaty - different nations are going to have different standards. What you should be looking for is how the UK defines "public morals" and "grossly offensive".

But I think you'd be wasting your time there, because I would imagine the legal understanding of "public morals" comes from common law, not statutory law. In other words, you're not going to find a plain definition of "public morals" written in whatever the UK version of the Criminal Code is. Instead "public morals" will be understood by judges by studying case law, and taking contemporary social standards into account.

As for "grossly offensive", that has already been legally challenged, and the definition is exactly what you think it is.

One thing that I find confuses a lot of people is that because it's not clear whether any specific thing violates a legal standard like "threatens public morals", they think that means the standard itself is unclear. That's a category error. Just because you can't say with absolute certainty whether someone in a particular case was driving recklessly (for example), that doesn't mean "driving recklessly" is hopelessly vague or ill-defined. The whole point of courts is to have reasonable people thoughtfully consider whether something meets a legal definition (and how to deal with it, if so), taking into account all relevant factors - if all laws were defined to mathematical precision, we wouldn't need them.

[LisztesFerenc]

Because neither case involves promoting behaviours or encouraging behaviours in others, good or bad. You can't be threatening to damage anyone's morals if you're not urging them to do anything, right?

  Not that I can find. You seem to understand legal stuff better than I do, but I can't find what you say above expressed in laws reguarding public morality. In practical terms, I know doing something generallty promotes it, even if you don't explicitly tell others to do it too. Raps songs never told me to swear, but when I listened to them at school I would repeat the swear words they used.