Does Great Britain Have Restrictions on Free Speech?

Does Great Britain have restrictions on free speech?

Yes. And ever so slightly more so than the United States of America.As already highlighted in other answers we have some of the same legal restrictions, slander and libel.We also understand those that have an extreme right wing bent in the USA are fearful of losing their rights to verbally abuse people with a different skin colour, religion, sexual preference, physical ability, gender, nationality, or ethnic origin. This is the only difference in freedom of speech between these two nations.Which group above do you think it is appropriate to allow verbal abuse of that needs to be enshrined in law?

— — — — — —

Who benefits the most from free speech?

The question more easily answered is who would suffer most from government censorship.In factual history, censorship does not have only one target: censorship is a weapon of social oppression that eventually wounds everyone. One decade, the socialists are censored. The next, the socialists are censoring the free marketeers. The heterosexuals censor the homosexuals until the wind changes, and then the homosexuals censor the heterosexuals. The Catholics censor the iconoclasts, then the iconoclasts censor Christianity. The Nazis censor the Jews until the Jews begin burning books and imprisoning Nazis. The lesson is Liberty. Always. For everyone. The Bill of Rights enables diversity to function. The existence of the Antifa movement is a warning that the Bill of Rights has been forgotten by our schools, our journalists, and our government.Those who advocate censorship are either knowing or unknowing enemies of liberty. They are dangerous fools.

— — — — — —

Why does Canada limit free speech?

We do not limit free speech.We do restrict hate speech, which bigots, racists and rather stupid people confuse with free speech.You see, we realize that when people lie and spread degrading conspiracies and stereotypes about other people, it interferes with the quality of life and safety of those being slandered and denigrated, because some people are gullible and ignorant enough to believe those lies and act on them. And the wellbeing of those put in that ugly position is more important than the presumed entitlement of the blustering asshat to put them in harm's way. It's not too much to ask people to use their free speech responsibly, is it?

— — — — — —

Why did liberals protest at a free speech rally?

Here is a fun fact: Supporting the Constitutional concept of citizens not being arrested for voicing their opinions does NOT mean that everyone's opinions should be respected.Freedom of speech means that you are free from being arrested for telling everyone "how awesome the country could be if it was legal to kick pregnant women". Does NOT mean those sorts of vile opinions are free from criticism and protest.

— — — — — —

Free speech and the responsibility of civilised discourse...?

Because the freedom to speech is not just the allowance of saying whatever you want. When your freedoms impede society and civilization, or inhibit the freedoms of others, then you become an enemy of the state in which you are speaking. Is that what people want? The ability to become everyone's enemy by their freedoms dragging the rest of the culture down? Now, I am not advocating the restriction of speech, but, I am advocating responsibility on the part of the speaker, when they engage in conversation. Words can be both unimportant, and a death warrant, by contrast. People die over words. This is real

— — — — — —

What is freedom of speech and what are the limits of free speech?

Freedom of speech is one of the supporting beams of democracy. How states treat their dissidents and gadflies (which include poets, playwrights, historians, journalists - and now bloggers) is a litmus test of their political system. Definitions of what constitutes protected speech differ even in democratic regimes. Generally, there are restrictions connected to questions of harm: hate speech and slander, national security and right to privacy. Superimposed on that are the behavior codes of specific communities, from organizations to religious groups within a sovereign nation. Some of these shade into de facto censorship if there is no separation of secular and religious governance or if the government is insecure: blasphemy laws in nations plagued by fundamentalist resurgence, terrorist definitions in totalitarian governments (and the US, post-9/11).

— — — — — —

What would happen to China if it had free speech?

There would be more accountability, more need for independent thought, personal responsibility, innovation, grass roots, bottom up governance, a better grasp on the scientific methodu2014or at least the epistemology thereofu2026More people having to learn how to exercise personal responsibility, especially when it comes to civil discourse, dialectic, more intellectual curiosity, etcu2026. Especially if or when, all this and more, helps make China truly great again in every wayu2014only better (than even the height of the Dynastic periods of Medieval/ancient China).What would happen to China if it had free speech?.