• the Daily hi thread just say hi :)
  • All contentious threads including politics, religion, crime, immigration, laws, elections etc are banned & will be removed. There is still a Gun Related Politics section for relevant topics.

Freedom of Speech

Stockscrew

Stockscrew

Super member
Joined
Jul 9, 2022
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
3,978
Location
Worcestershire
Quote - 'MPs can express their views in a democracy', said the Chancellor in a recent interview. Fine words from the Chancellor but what a shame views cannot be expressed by others ie Gary Lineaker. In Lineakers case the BBC reacted to his Tweet by taking him off air, because he had exercised his right to express an opinion, his constitutional right. Why do sportsmen and team managers get censured and fined by their respective associations when generally what they say is not defamatory but truthful? Everyone has a right to express an opinion and that right should not be suppressed, it's enshrined in Law and it is time those people sat in Government supported it as now they can express their own without fear of censure.
 
We don't have a constitution, and the law is a lot more complicated than guaranteeing that you can say what you like when you like. That's especially the case if you can be seen to be a spokesman of an organisation whose founding charter requires it to be impartial. And remember, not all truths are absolute. In Lineker's case you may believe he spoke the truth, but there's a lot of people who don't accept that the language used by the current UK government is the same as the language used by the fascist German government of the 1930s.
 
Stockscrew said:
Quote - 'MPs can express their views in a democracy', said the Chancellor in a recent interview. Fine words from the Chancellor but what a shame views cannot be expressed by others ie Gary Lineaker. In Lineakers case the BBC reacted to his Tweet by taking him off air, because he had exercised his right to express an opinion, his constitutional right. Why do sportsmen and team managers get censured and fined by their respective associations when generally what they say is not defamatory but truthful? Everyone has a right to express an opinion and that right should not be suppressed, it's enshrined in Law and it is time those people sat in Government supported it as now they can express their own without fear of censure.
Click to expand...
Where have you seen that Lineker can't have free speech? He has, and still does, say exactly what he chooses via twitter and nobody has stopped him.
But, as I have said before, free speech does not preclude anyone from the consequences of their opinions. So if Lineker wants to keep his job, he must be willing to abide by the contract he signed and accept the push-back that will follow from those who disagree with him. If he can say what he wants to, then the BBC can also say what they want to, which in this case was "you're suspended". Free speech isn't, and can never be, a one way street.
 
Free speech also comes with responsibilities.
Nobody can expect to say what they want without expecting a consequence.

Words are like bullets. . . . Once launched, you can't stop them and they can do damage when they hit their mark.

Engage brain before putting mouth into gear.
 
Neil123 said:
MP's have freedom of speech protection in the UK. Nobody else does.
There is no guarantee of free speech anywhere in British law
Click to expand...
Or freedom of thought oft as not.
Last week a woman was arrested for silent prayer on a pavement by SIX Birmingham cops (or what passes for cops these days) and that just after she'd had an earlier 'offence' dissmissed by the courts, no offence had been commited it seemed!
Linacre was told to keep his woke pronouncements to himself if he wanted to milk his millions from the BBC.He was contracted to keep his feet out of his gob.
And to conflate the language of 1930's Germany with any government statements here is puerile and hysterical.(not on your part obviously)
 
Last edited:
People are entitled to believe, say or write what they want but they should also remember that can have consequences. Free speech doesn't mean you can say, publish or print/write what you like/want with impunity. There are laws regarding libel and slander and the consequences of committing either can be very costly and it's no good afterwards just saying "well i didn't mean it like that or i didn't mean to offend it was a joke"
If you work for any organisation that has certain conditions/rules preventing or restricting you from commenting on certain subjects/topics then you have a choice you either agree to abide by those rules or if not you find alternative employment.
The trouble is some individuals think they can just say what they like with impunity without being held to account or answerable as Katy Hopkins found out to her cost.
 
Patrick said:
People are entitled to believe, say or write what they want but they should also remember that can have consequences. Free speech doesn't mean you can say, publish or print/write what you like/want with impunity. There are laws regarding libel and slander and the consequences of committing either can be very costly and it's no good afterwards just saying "well i didn't mean it like that or i didn't mean to offend it was a joke"
If you work for any organisation that has certain conditions/rules preventing or restricting you from commenting on certain subjects/topics then you have a choice you either agree to abide by those rules or if not you find alternative employment.
The trouble is some individuals think they can just say what they like with impunity without being held to account or answerable as Katy Hopkins found out to her cost.
Click to expand...
Hopkins copped it from a judge but her antagonist in that case has spouted worse 'tweets' and if others had sued for libel the tables would be reversed.
An odity of the libel situation and courts here just as Dep was found guilty here . The courts are another part of the problem.
 
Sidney said:
Where have you seen that Lineker can't have free speech? He has, and still does, say exactly what he chooses via twitter and nobody has stopped him.
But, as I have said before, free speech does not preclude anyone from the consequences of their opinions. So if Lineker wants to keep his job, he must be willing to abide by the contract he signed and accept the push-back that will follow from those who disagree with him. If he can say what he wants to, then the BBC can also say what they want to, which in this case was "you're suspended". Free speech isn't, and can never be, a one way street.
Click to expand...
 
MrBloggs said:
Or freedom of thought oft as not.
Last week a woman was arrested for silent prayer on a pavement by SIX Birmingham cops (or what passes for cops these days) and that just after she'd had an earlier 'offence' dissmissed by the courts, no offence had been commited it seemed!
Linacre was told to keep his woke pronouncements to himself if he wanted to milk his millions from the BBC.He was contracted to keep his feet out of his gob.
And to conflate the language of 1930's with any government statements here is puerile and hysterical.(not on your part obviouslI do
Click to expand...
i do not necessarily agree with what Lineaker tweeted but whole heartedly support his right to say what he did. Nothing gives the BBC or MP's any right to suppress any lawful opinion which is a Constitutional right supported by law and several Acts of Parliament.
 
It’s easy for linekar to sling mud from his ivory tower. He has no idea what it like at the other end of the financial spectrum. Bet he dosent have to struggle to get a doctors appointment with the already stretched local gp. He won’t ever struggle for housing for government help when your down on your luck. When you see immigrants being put up in hotels given handouts left and right. I’ve worked most of my god damn life worked the shittiest jobs just to make sure my kids had food on the table. To just see it handed over willy nilly is a bloody disgrace. Now they will be building a new Center for them just up the road from me, how about building some more council houses for British people and family’s. We should be putting our own people first then help out with the worlds problems.
 
Stockscrew said:
i do not necessarily agree with what Lineaker tweeted but whole heartedly support his right to say what he did. Nothing gives the BBC or MP's any right to suppress any lawful opinion which is a Constitutional right supported by law and several Acts of Parliament.
Click to expand...
I've no problem with him spouting off, I'm used to it but if his employer tells him to keep his gob shut to not embarrass the embarrassing Beeb or he gets the push then he's asked for the push.
An MP can spout off using Parlimentary privilage and not get sued but I'm yet to come across these Constitutional rights or laws which entitle me to speak freely.
There have been people recently arrested for having the temerity to state biological facts, like a woman does not have a penis say.
I think you have imaginary freedoms I'm afraid, you should be able to speak freely but you cannot. I'm willing to dust off a pitchfork and join you in kicking the overlords arses to demand such if you get the urge though.
 
Last edited:
Stockscrew said:
i do not necessarily agree with what Lineaker tweeted but whole heartedly support his right to say what he did. Nothing gives the BBC or MP's any right to suppress any lawful opinion which is a Constitutional right supported by law and several Acts of Parliament.
Click to expand...
What constitutional right?
We don't have a constitution. This isn't the USA. Unlike the USA, we don't generally have laws saying what you CAN do. Only laws saying what you CAN'T do, the inference being that anything which isn't listed as unlawful is, by default, lawful.
And the contract signed by Lineker himself is what gives the BBC every right to shut him up.
 
Freedom of speech is a myth. The world seems to be full of people who will take exception to just about anything and everything, and to make matters worse there are a million and one lawyers who will prosecute you for saying something perfectly harmless .... and they're winning. :mad::mad:
 
In the UK it's enshrined in law as "freedom of expression", which is a bit wider than freedom of speech, though is inclusive of it. Freedom of speech is a term that's often bandied about without understanding what it is, or how it applies.

Our right to freedom of expression goes back to the Universal Delcaration of Human Rights drafted by the UN in 1948, which is a pledge by the state, to it's people to protect it's them against it's own tyranny and oppression. Most recently it's enacted in the 1998 Human Rights Act as Article 10, and this law prevents government interference with our freedom of expression.

However, it is not an absolute right, and may be limited. So freedom of expression does exist, but it is curtailed by other laws. We can see the precedent for this in defamation, libel, use of threats, incitement to violence etc. So not all expression is protected, particularly if it violates the rights of another.

I think that's quite important to understand, as a private individual can not violate your freedom of expression, nor can a private company. The former may fall foul of other laws in doing so, and the latter is largely governed by contract law. Only the state can limit your freedom of expression, and whither or not we've got the correct balance is always, and should always be up for debate.

Lineker's case is intersesting, as I think an argument could be made that the BBC is the state, and therefore may well be falling foul of Article 10 of the HRA by seeking to limit the expression of it's employees, when it's on their own time. Though I don't know enough about corporations to say if that's an argument that holds any weight. But if state run schools and institutions can fall foul of the HRA, I don't really see why that would be different for a state broadcaster.

And the UK does have a constitution, though it's spread across many documents, and is not all written down. I don't really want to dive into constitutional law, as it's very complicated and pretty dry, but the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Union, the HRA, etc along with various parts of common law, and convention form our constitution.

Anyway, that's just some of my random musings on the matter.
 
Stockscrew said:
Quote - 'MPs can express their views in a democracy', said the Chancellor in a recent interview. Fine words from the Chancellor but what a shame views cannot be expressed by others ie Gary Lineaker. In Lineakers case the BBC reacted to his Tweet by taking him off air, because he had exercised his right to express an opinion, his constitutional right. Why do sportsmen and team managers get censured and fined by their respective associations when generally what they say is not defamatory but truthful? Everyone has a right to express an opinion and that right should not be suppressed, it's enshrined in Law and it is time those people sat in Government supported it as now they can express their own without fear of censure.
Click to expand...
It’ll be to do with the fact of not who he is, rather what he is!
He is a front man for a national broadcaster (state owned) who should be politically neutral and unbiased in all arenas, he wasn’t and bought the BBC into disrepute simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top