| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Free Intel i965 graphics drivers releasedFree Intel i965 graphics drivers releasedPosted Aug 9, 2006 22:48 UTC (Wed) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216)In reply to: Free Intel i965 graphics drivers released by arcticwolf Parent article: Free Intel i965 graphics drivers released
I think the poster said that this was a British special branch officer--if the person was in Britain then they're not covered by the U.S. Constitution, of course. Does Britain have the same sort of free speech guarantees in legislation/constitution? Also, even in the U.S., the right to free speech doesn't guarantee you won't experience consequences because of your speech.
(Log in to post comments)
Free as in speech Posted Aug 9, 2006 23:11 UTC (Wed) by sanjoy (subscriber, #5026) [Link] The sign incident at Heathrow seems to have set the cat among the pigeons, so here's the full story for those interested. The Special Branch officer did bring up the issue of the US Constitution and claimed that there's no right of free speech in the UK, unlike in the US. That's partly true. There's no constitutional guarantee in the UK, except sort of via the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes the right to free speech. But that's incorporated into UK law only via an act of Parliament, and can be undone in the same way. Plus the right can be restricted for a ton of reasons (see the long list in article 10(2) of the ECHR). About the right to free speech not guaranteeing freedom from adverse consequences, that's true. But if the consequences become too severe, the right turns into a fiction. For example, if it means you lose your job (as during the McCarthy era), it's not much of a right.
Free as in speech Posted Aug 15, 2006 10:43 UTC (Tue) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] His record is clean and he hasnt committed any offence, except lacking good sense.
Absolutely true.
Free Intel i965 graphics drivers released Posted Aug 10, 2006 1:29 UTC (Thu) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] So what consequences are allowed?
Free as in speech Posted Aug 10, 2006 1:57 UTC (Thu) by sanjoy (subscriber, #5026) [Link] So what consequences are allowed? It's a continuum. More consequences for speaking means less freedom of speech. So it has been a centuries-long battle between those who want to extend the sphere of freedom, by reducing official and private consequences, and those who want to restrict it. Even in the land of the free, a few laws protect one even from privately generated consequences. For example, the Civil Rights Act 1964 forbids employers from retaliating against employees who protest race-based discrimination in hiring. This issue arose when the American Institute of Physics fired an employee who protested their all-white hiring policy at the editorial level. As a result of a many-year public campaign, with a bit of added force from the Civil Rights Act, the organization settled monetarily and agreed to mend their ways. It's one example of how freedom of speech is extended: slowly and with lots of effort.
|
|
||||||||||||