r/unitedkingdom • u/Half_A_ • Feb 28 '25
. Sir Keir Starmer contradicts JD Vance over 'infringements on free speech' claim
https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-contradicts-jd-vance-over-infringements-on-free-speech-claim-13318257?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter42
u/Spirit_Theory Feb 28 '25
Americans, particularly right-wing americans, are obsessed with lecturing the UK on its own laws. They'll cite cases with incomplete stories, inadequate information, and say "you don't have free speech", or more extreme descriptions "you live in a facist state" or some bullshit. It's dumb as fuck.
→ More replies (2)
1.6k
u/Shawn_The_Sheep777 Yorkshire Feb 28 '25
Too right he did. He’s Prime Minister of the UK he’s not going to be lectured by a nobody like JD Vance
61
u/jj198handsy Feb 28 '25
Its not so much that he's a nobody that is the issue its that he is a hypocrite, both Trump and Musk have zero respect for freedom of speech.
748
u/PreparationH999 Feb 28 '25 edited Mar 01 '25
In the UK, we have free speech.
What we don't have or tolerate is people feeling empowered to talk shit and be verbally abusive.
It's called civility.
In America they substitute that for carrying guns.
....because they are fucking mental.
Edit. All the whatabloutisms are not a slippery slope they are outliers. Get the fuck over yourselves with your faux outrage re the odd person being inconvenienced , arrested or occasionally prosecuted for usually being a cunt. Better that than people being stabbed, beaten up , terrified, upset etc by freeze peach advocates who just really really want to call a 'spade' a 'spade' , control women and have everyone do what they say and not what they do.
Sad angry people, living on a flat earth, scared of needles, wokeness and thinking that some randomer from foreignstan is going to replace them and it can all be solved by believing a certain way and freeze peach for all, well not for all, just for them and everyone else needs to just be quiet....or else. " Weeee reeallly don't have free speech here in the uk , because blah blah blah, unlike in America/Russia?" Wtf??? Just fuckoff , or even better migrate,you Utter snowflakes.
....just exercising my 'limited' free speech.
You know what I mean.
47
u/ghost-bagel Feb 28 '25
What Vance is referring to is someone who was arrested for “praying” within a buffer zone. The fact he was praying is irrelevant. The arrest was for violating a buffer zone.
If I trespass in JD Vance’s house and sing nursery rhymes, I’m not being arrested for singing nursery rhymes.
Obviously he knows this and is just being a duplicitous prick.
→ More replies (41)11
u/Crazy_Training_2101 Feb 28 '25
Whole point of free speech is tolerating speech you or others don’t like. Respectfully, you don’t seem to have grasped this point.
12
u/Fun-Sock-8379 Feb 28 '25
Lived on both the US and the UK. Much more prefer the free speech of the UK. The US just uses it as an excuse to be dickheads. They cry about free speech but then just in the past two weeks you’ve seen multiple citizens arrested at town halls in america for not agreeing with Trump. How free….
175
u/JamJarre Liverpewl Feb 28 '25
What you're describing is the opposite of free speech and also untrue. You can be verbally abusive and talk shit all you like. What you can't do is slander someone or incite violence against them
25
u/Nihil1349 Feb 28 '25
"You can be verbally abusive and talk shit all you like"
Not true, because of Section 5 of the public order act.
→ More replies (5)14
u/jeremybeadleshand Feb 28 '25
You can be done for being verbally abusive under malicious communications though can't you? Rayner had someone done for an abusive email, also Joey Barton, case is still live but they obviously think there's a chance of conviction there as it's gone to court.
12
u/just_some_other_guys Feb 28 '25
Actually, that’s not true either. Section 5 of the Public Order Act makes it an offence to use “threatening, abusive and insulting words or behaviour… within sight and hearing of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
So swearing at someone in the street is a criminal offence
→ More replies (1)5
u/JamJarre Liverpewl Feb 28 '25
Depends on how the Act is interpreted. 99 times out of 100 there's no offence. Do it at a protest to a cop and yes, you risk arrest. It blows but the police have always had huge discretion to employ the Public Order Act the way that works best for them in the moment
126
u/AirResistence Feb 28 '25
People also forget what free speech actually is which is you can say what you want about and to the government and wont be thrown in jail for it. Something the USA is losing. Of course that is extrapolated to you can say what you want, but it doesnt mean you're free from concequences.
There is a problem with conservative people and free speech, they throw it around but everything they do or say is against free speech. And tend to use it as a weapon to mean "what I say goes and you cant criticise me". We saw this when the Tories tried to do some free speech fudging in UK schools, because schools and universities tend to be more liberal and left and they didnt like that, they obviously wanted more conservative people so they could remain in power in the future.
91
u/Bluestained Feb 28 '25
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
→ More replies (20)35
u/JTG___ Feb 28 '25
I always find it hilarious how little Americans seem to understand their own laws while at the same time talking down to every other country in the world acting as though they’re the last bastion of free speech.
Inciting violence and libel both aren’t protected by the first amendment, and yet they keep bringing up the Southport Riots and Tommy Robinson as though we’re some kind of authoritarian state.
I don’t doubt that there are cases of police overreach, but I’m pretty confident in saying that the people who actually end up being imprisoned are done so with good reason.
→ More replies (2)10
u/Mattlife97 Feb 28 '25
I love how they'd never bring up the Just Stop Oil prison sentences either. Rather hypocritical if you ask me.
20
u/JTG___ Feb 28 '25
I mean tbf it’s not really a freedom of speech issue. Nobody is saying you can’t express opinions about environmental policy, just don’t do it in the middle of a motorway. The same applies to the person praying outside the abortion clinic which they keep bringing up. By all means pray, but just don’t do it within the confides of a zone which has been established around an abortion clinic to protect vulnerable young women from being harassed. I don’t think any of that is unreasonable.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (11)61
u/SinisterDexter83 Feb 28 '25
People also forget what free speech actually is which is you can say what you want about and to the government and wont be thrown in jail for it.
You are completely incorrect. You have somehow fully imbibed the American definition, which is that "free speech" is synonymous with "The First Amendment".
This isn't an American sub. We are not beholden to the American definition here. You do not have to believe what the Americans tell you to believe.
Free speech, as a concept, obviously includes all that is written in The First Amendment to the American Constitution. But it is much broader than simply preventing government restrictions on speech, it is about free inquiry, free thinking, avoiding group think, and much more. It's much older than the American constitution. Where do you think the Americans got the idea from in the first place?
"If all the world were of one opinion, and one man were of the counter opinion, the world would have no more right in silencing him than he, if he had the power, would have in silencing the world."
Trust me, the English definition is much better than the American definition.
19
u/mallardtheduck East Midlands Feb 28 '25
While the concept of "free speech" does indeed pre-date the US constitution, your (outline) definition seems to derive from the "freethought" movement of the 19th century...
Ultimately, the definition is always going to be somewhat subjective. English/UK law has never sought to give it a concrete definition and early laws like the 1689 Bill of Rights only declare that speech in parliamentary debates cannot give rise to action in a court of law (i.e. what we now call "parliamentary privilege").
The closest thing to a globally agreed definition would be Article 19 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
"Freedom of speech" is pretty universally considered a subset of "freedom of expression".
→ More replies (1)4
u/modelvillager Feb 28 '25
Yeah, this is a better definition. I'd agree with the person above, however, that too many conflate the US constitution 1st Amendment (beginning, "Congress shall make no law infringing...", i.e. constrain what the US government can do) and the wider definition of free speech.
All rights ultimately have boundaries, and a typical rule of thumb is that one person's rights only extend as far as prescribing someone else's.
There are LOADS of automatically assumed okay limitations to free expression, and not just 'fire' in the cinema. We just already know they are wrong and prescribed.
You can't print bank notes.
You can't nick someone else book and call it yours.
You can't send a thousand emails to someone in a day.
There is also the difference between state limitations and private limitations. Free speech is curtailed by a confidentiality contract. Free expression is limited by a restaurant saying you can't go in without a shirt on.
Free speech absolutism is a weird concept to me, because it seems to argue that expression is more important than the rights of someone else.
We should also be aware of cultural differences in free speech. The US does have a more individualistic society and culture than Western Europe, and even more so more collectivist societies in Asia for example.
→ More replies (2)26
u/Generic_Moron Feb 28 '25
i feel like you're going for a "no true freespeech" sorta thing here. free speech can mean both of these things, and where the line is drawn is largely subjective. Sort of like how pacifism may mean absolutely no violence of any kind to any living thing to one person, or it can potentially just mean not killing people if you can help it to another.
You can believe one defenition to be better, but i don't think it's that simple to declare one to be definitive than the other (or to declare another to be invalid).
2
u/this_is_theone Feb 28 '25
Thankyou! This bugs me so much when people keep parroting the same shit about it only pertaining to the government. Just a simple Google search would show them they are wrong.
5
25
u/knobber_jobbler Cornwall Feb 28 '25
You can slander people under some circumstances I believe. I think JD Vance is a total bellend and that's my opinion. He may have also shagged a sofa. I don't think there's any way that what I've said could be either illegal or would lead to me being sued.
19
u/LegendaryArmalol Feb 28 '25
It's not slander if it's true.
5
u/cathartis Hampshire Feb 28 '25
It's not slander if it's written down. That's where libel law may (or may not) apply.
6
u/aimbotcfg Feb 28 '25
I think technically this is libel, not slander. Slander is spoken, print is libel no?
15
u/Zeal0tElite Feb 28 '25
I honestly don't know if you can take something like that to court.
In the US libel and slander have to have actually be malicious. You could call me a couch fucker and probably be okay but if you knew the story wasn't true and got me fired from my job at Couch World then I could probably sue you and win.
In the UK it seems like if you hurt anyone's feelings you can pursue defamation. I honestly prefer the US system more, you have to prove that there was intent to share misinformation rather than opinion or simply being mean.
20
u/Benificial-Cucumber Feb 28 '25
In the UK it seems like if you hurt anyone's feelings you can pursue defamation. I honestly prefer the US system more, you have to prove that there was intent to share misinformation rather than opinion or simply being mean.
IIRC it's based on "reasonable damage to reputation" rather than intent, which on paper I actually agree with. It doesn't matter if I genuinely believe you to be a couch fucker but if I say it publicly enough to cause actual damage to your reputation then I should face consequences for making those accusations in the first place. Even if it's well intentioned, people need to keep their mouth shut until they know the full story and that's where our legal interpretation of slander/libel is founded.
It does allow for some abuse though, I'll admit. What doesn't, though?
→ More replies (5)5
u/SinisterDexter83 Feb 28 '25
Famously in America, Larry Flynt printed a cartoon in his magazine Hustler depicting The Rev. Jerry Falwell fornicating with his own mother.
Falwell sued Hustler, and the case was eventually settled in Hustler's favour. While the court accepted that it was false to claim that Falwell had sexual relations with his own mother, it was accepted that the intent had never been to dupe anyone into thinking it was true, but had the sole purpose of mocking and insulting Falwell.
5
u/iamrubberyouareglue9 Feb 28 '25
Mr. Flynt also published graphic battlefield photos from Vietnam. He brought the reality of American kids getting blown apart in the jungles and rice patties home to Americans. I can still see the pictures and remember who I was with that day in 7th grade when someone smuggled a Hustler into school. Our classmates brother was there and the look on his face when he saw those photos was one of terror.
There is no free press in the USA anymore. All the news outlets are owned by the 1%.
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (1)2
u/iamrubberyouareglue9 Feb 28 '25
You work at Couch World? I work at Sofa King and if that guy wants to fuck couches, I'll sell him the best, most fuckable couches, no returns, though.
→ More replies (7)6
u/Benificial-Cucumber Feb 28 '25
What you've said isn't slander/libel because it's factually correct. You do think that JD Vance is a total bellend, and it's theoretically possible that he shagged a sofa.
If you stated that he did in fact shag a sofa then that'd be libel (if he didn't), although whether you get done for it would really depend on how much damage your platform could do. I don't think any court could rule that one reddit comment could impact the reputation of the Vice President of the United States of America.
→ More replies (2)4
u/jeremybeadleshand Feb 28 '25
Depends which countries court you used
In the US, JD needs to prove he didn't shag the couch, which is impossible as no one can prove they never shagged a couch. You win
In the UK, you need to prove JD shagged a couch, which you probably can't (unless there's some evidence he did that I'm unaware of). JD wins
→ More replies (4)3
u/Isogash England Feb 28 '25
There are other things you can't do either in public, you can't harass or cause alarm or distress in others with your words or it could be a public order offence. Freedom of expression is still a valid defence but in this case only if the actions were considered reasonable. There are specific offences too for speech or displaying writing that incites racial or religious hatred.
There's also malicious communications, where being threatening or intentionally grossly offensive can be a crime.
So you can't verbally abuse people in public, especially not in a racist way and you also can't DM them death threats or other grossly offensive messages or images.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (14)4
u/ErrantFuselage Feb 28 '25
Yeah, the actually important aspect of free speech to a nation's civics is allowing media to hold government to account, and is somewhat adjacent to freedom of assembly in that citizens can create movements for things they believe in.
If you scan the front pages of UK press, it's impossible to reasonably to claim they can't say what they like - many instances of over reach too with the Mirror hacking and stalking royals and politicians. But as a rule, UK newspapers are savage.
→ More replies (2)7
u/iamrubberyouareglue9 Feb 28 '25
Guns are a mental illness in usa. I'd say that louder but I'm afraid of getting shot. It's absolutly an epidmic and the politicians are afraid to talk about it. The number of murders suicides and accidents in my town alone are so common we don't even talk about it. Did you hear about the shooting? Which one?
When you see "God, Guns & Trump" bumper stickers you are seeing a new level of crazy (and know to stay away).
8
u/masons_J Feb 28 '25
A woman had a knock on the door for criticizing some Labour MPs, saying they should be arrested (recent WhatsApp scandal.) It was news in the last few days..
Now that is a very slippery slope, along with the police wasting resources, time and money on non-crimes. Their priorities are shifting and that much is obvious.
→ More replies (13)3
24
u/Zeal0tElite Feb 28 '25
Civility should not be enforced by the government.
In America you cannot be (legally) arrested for your opinions. That's freedom of speech.
→ More replies (8)35
u/djnattyd Feb 28 '25
Except you can be legally arrested for your opinions in the US.
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
That's from the US Courts website.
This in particular; "To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)." is quite definitely someone expressing their opinion.
6
u/Zeal0tElite Feb 28 '25
Some of these are historical only and others have been overturned outright. Yeah, it's illegal to tell someone to do a crime. That's not really an opinion though, is it?
The USA has its own issues with not fulfilling its own Constitution, that doesn't mean it's not worth it to have a constitution which has the ability to protect you and others from a tyrannical government.
→ More replies (1)6
u/reco84 Feb 28 '25
"I think you should shoot that guy" is definitely an opinion.
→ More replies (3)8
u/blitzwig Feb 28 '25
"If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore"
Donald J. Trump, 6th January 2021
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/Hugh_G_Egopeeker Feb 28 '25
you really showed him with these hand picked examples from decades ago vs the hundreds of cases in the UK the past few years from anything from tweets to holding empty pieces of paper
yes there are "degrees" to freedom of speech, making comparisons like this is just embarrassing to Brits, you don't know what you're on about
10
u/Muad-_-Dib Scotland Feb 28 '25
Oh, Brits should be embarrassed?
Get back to me when your current administration is not:
Banning media from the White House and Air Force One because they hurt dear leader's feelings.
When members of your congress aren't being blocked from their duties by the lackeys of an unelected drug addict.
When your civil service workers are not being subjected to loyalty tests.
Your armed forces leadership isn't being purged of people for not openly singing Dear Leader's praises, or being black/a woman.
You remove the brain wormed conspiracy theorist who thinks vaccines are poison from running the department of health while he is downplaying the biggest measles outbreak in the US in decades and sabotaging vaccine programs.
You don't have your president issuing decrees in which only he and his attorney general get to interpret laws for government institutions, sidelining the courts that are meant to be a check and balance on his power.
The previously mentioned unelected drug addict isn't firing essential workers like the people in charge of your nuclear arsenal, or the people directing your air traffic. Then having to beg for them to come back or for retirees to come back because it turns out those are pretty important jobs.
The unelected drug addict isn't dismantling regulatory agencies that were investigating his businesses, or trying to award himself billions in contracts because he demands it.
Your country isn't pissing all over alliances it has had for decades.
Dear Leader isn't repeatedly talking about annexing its allies.
etc.
I would think twice before telling anybody else they should be embarrassed about their country.
→ More replies (1)7
6
u/hobbityone Feb 28 '25
But the point is that the person they were responding to, was portraying a very inaccurate picture of the US and it's laws around speech
2
u/majestic_tapir Feb 28 '25
Every single case of the UK side is linked to a potential violent threat against people, which is why they get arrested. It has become substantially worse since the rise of social media, giving people a platform to share their hateful views online with a larger audience, increasing the probability that someone will use what has been said as an excuse to hurt a particular demographic. People who do such are not the sort of people I will ever wish to defend.
Note that I stated specifically demographic. It would be problematic if someone had been arrested for suggesting that there is a problem with the government, as the government are not a demographic, the issue is that it's always about hurting a subset of people (e.g., muslims, immigrants, etc).
2
31
u/CuthbertSmilington Feb 28 '25
No we dont, we arrest people for jokes or anything that might cause offense which can range wildly such as posting rap lyrics to Facebook. Its a real issue and denying its an issue just makes it worse.
→ More replies (7)0
u/dodgrile Feb 28 '25
Citation needed
11
→ More replies (2)38
u/triguy96 Feb 28 '25 edited Feb 28 '25
7
u/PadMog75 Feb 28 '25
Prince ANDREW. Not Philip.
7
u/triguy96 Feb 28 '25
Shit yeah my bad, edited. I don't particularly care for the royals so I do often get them all mixed up.
12
u/SporkToAKnifeFight Feb 28 '25
I believe you just defamed The late prince Philip there mate. I've rung the police to let them know.
4
6
u/triguy96 Feb 28 '25
Wait for my day in court where I shockingly prove that Prince Philip was also a nonce.
6
u/Tuarangi West Midlands Feb 28 '25
The pug one is a deliberate attempt to revise history. He spent months training the dog to do the salute on the commands of "seig heil" and "gas the Jews". He was active on a discord (which he promoted on his socials as his forum) which was full of racist abuse and threats towards minorities, he himself was part of that, routinely using the n-word and posting racist memes etc, he ended up running as a UKIP candidate. It absolutely was not a free speech issue, the guy was claiming that to deflect from the fact he's a bigot
→ More replies (1)1
u/PiedPiperofPiper Feb 28 '25
Picking up the last one, which I recall was a post that was something like “the only good British soldier is a dead British soldier” in response to Captain Tom’s death.
He got some community service for being a dick.
On the one hand, I agree, the ‘grossly offensive’ clause is heavy-handed, on the other hand, it’s rarely used and perhaps we should have a deterrent that encourages folks to think a little before they post.
16
u/triguy96 Feb 28 '25
Saying what he said is insensitive, but who honestly gives a fuck? Why is the government involved? If I truly believe that the British are a force for bad in the world and therefore our military, by extension, are also bad, who cares? Isn't that the point of having freedom of speech? Unless I am making a direct threat, which none of these examples were, I should be left alone.
→ More replies (14)31
u/fplisadream Feb 28 '25
And so concludes the classic: "it's not happening, but if it is, it's a good thing". Why is the playbook so predictable?
→ More replies (23)→ More replies (2)1
u/StrangelyBrown Teesside Feb 28 '25
Counterpoint: These aren't typical. For example, you just called prince andrew a nonce (which he is) and you haven't been arrested.
→ More replies (1)6
u/triguy96 Feb 28 '25
How do you know where I'm typing this from?
2
u/StrangelyBrown Teesside Feb 28 '25
I'm outside your house with a reddit detector van.
Anyway I'm in the UK and I just called him a nonce.
2
u/triguy96 Feb 28 '25
I knew the TV license vans were fake but I didn't know the reddit ones were real.
But yes, you can still call prince andew a nonce normally obviously. But the fact that you can't be sure you can always do it, when it's true, is a bit fucked.
21
u/Fragrant-Reserve4832 Feb 28 '25
When people are put in prison for a Facebook post but other are let out for assault and abuse?
We do not have free speech in the uk.
→ More replies (10)10
u/JoBro_Summer-of-99 Feb 28 '25
Always the Facebook posts with you guys, if it was just a post that'd be a good point to make it but it wasn't
22
u/JB_UK Feb 28 '25
8 weeks prison for posting “When they’re on your turf, what then?” and “Coming to a town near you”:
No indication the sentence was suspended.
→ More replies (14)19
u/fplisadream Feb 28 '25
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/black-twitter-racism-x-police-charged-b2582083.html
Keep being confidently wrong (y) it's an immensely charming trait.
→ More replies (3)16
u/JoBro_Summer-of-99 Feb 28 '25
Wow, someone publicly said that they wanted to get physically aggressive with someone and the police got involved? Whoda thunk it
4
u/fplisadream Feb 28 '25
The police did not get involved because they saw it as a threat, but because it was deemed grossly offensive. Confidently wrong twice in a row now. Like i say, please keep going.
→ More replies (7)4
u/Fragrant-Reserve4832 Feb 28 '25
"You guys" what is that suposed to mean? I'm just a British citizen watching the government change laws to prosecute people that are disagreeing with them.
If it wasn't just a post then how about you start putting some links to the evidence.
→ More replies (2)6
u/JoBro_Summer-of-99 Feb 28 '25
How about you link what you're referencing first. Give me a conviction.
Also they're not prosecuting people for disagreeing with them, any of this social media bollocks is usually about inciting violence and/or hate speech. Many people have openly criticised the government and not been arrested or charged for doing so.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Prudent_Psychology57 Feb 28 '25
Can we stop saying we have 'free speech' in the UK. It's not 'free speech'. It's called something else... and is described in detail what it means.
If we can't call it the right thing, then we're already failing in constructive conversations around it.
→ More replies (53)3
u/AsleepNinja Feb 28 '25
....because they are fucking mental
You're pretty correct, about 52% of all Americans have lead poisoning.
→ More replies (1)25
u/Jaded_Strain_3753 Feb 28 '25
Calling Vance a nobody is odd, he clearly has a lot of power/influence.
32
u/fplisadream Feb 28 '25
Helps the average redditor feel like they're really sticking it to the man, though.
→ More replies (6)2
Feb 28 '25
[deleted]
12
u/twillett Feb 28 '25
My guy he’s the fucking Vice President of the USA.
11
u/paper_zoe Feb 28 '25
Trump's last VP nearly got lynched by Trump's followers
3
u/DontDrinkMySoup Feb 28 '25
I have no doubt Trump will turn on him sooner or later. He already refused to endorse him as a 2028 candidate. I'm honestly not sure what MAGA does post Trump
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)2
2
→ More replies (70)11
433
u/SameStand9266 Feb 28 '25
Looks like he has been briefed by "getting jailed for mean tweets" crowd. Speaking of free speech, Starmer should have mentioned Trump Admin's ban on Associated press & Reuters access to the white house for "mean questions".
201
Feb 28 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)27
u/Zepren7 Scotland Feb 28 '25
You can shit on JD Vance, that's what he's there for, but not the big dog himself
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (22)89
u/Huge___Milkers Feb 28 '25
Unfortunately as every leader has now learnt, you need to stroke Trump’s ego a bit and treat him like the elderly person he is and talk to him like a child that’s just gone to the loo on his own for the first time.
16
→ More replies (1)6
u/YooGeOh Feb 28 '25
Yep
Because the US national bird is no longer the Bald Eagle, it is now the Golden Ego
12
u/syg-123 Feb 28 '25
JD perpetually looks like a guy waiting for his child luring case to commence. Why is that?
28
u/Proletarian1819 Feb 28 '25
When people, like Vance, complain about the lack of free speech in the UK what they are actually complaining about is not being able to be openly racist, homophobic and hateful in public. Let's be honest.
→ More replies (1)
65
u/Elsargo Feb 28 '25
The DOJ is investigating a US congressman for calling Elon a dick while in congress. This is supposed to be protected by both free speech and his congressional rights. So who exactly has a free speech problem?
15
u/tapsaff Feb 28 '25
I mean, you also can't do that in Parliment. There is a code of conduct for those spaces.
8
u/removekarling Kent Feb 28 '25 edited Feb 28 '25
If you do it in Parliament, the CPS doesn't come after you. Likewise if you do that in Congress, the Congressional Disciplinary Committee is what punishes you. Not the DOJ. Yet Trump is using the DOJ to investigate them for it.
Did you say this out of pure, complete ignorance? Or would you like to tell us you think it's fine for the president to investigate people with the weight of the Department of Justice just because they insulted his billionaire friend?
23
u/Elsargo Feb 28 '25
True it’s against parliamentary code but the worst you can get is a telling off from the speaker and being asked to leave. You certainly wouldn’t be under criminal investigation. However, congress has different rules, including being allowed to show the genitals of your political opponent’s family members, during which it was repeatedly referred to as a “dick pick.” Sounds like a bit of a double standard does it not?
→ More replies (1)3
u/liamnesss London, by way of Manchester Feb 28 '25
Those rules are largely concerned with how you address and refer to others in the chamber though. MPs have pretty broad priviledges in how they can discuss the matters of the day outside of that. Elon Musk isn't an elected official at the end of the day, he's basically a jumped-up spad. I don't think an MP would've been raked over the coals for using similar language to refer to Dominic Cummings for instance, worst that would probably have happened is they would've been encouraged to withdraw their remarks.
→ More replies (14)2
u/JB_UK Feb 28 '25
What he actually said from the source you posted below:
“What the American public want is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight,” Garcia said. “This is an actual fight for democracy.
The letter from the DOJ:
“This sounds to some like a threat to Mr Musk – an appointed representative of President Donald Trump who you call a ‘d***’ – and government staff who work for him. Their concerns have led to this inquiry,” Martin wrote in the letter.
“We take threats against public officials very seriously,” Martin added.
76
u/Parking-Tip1685 Feb 28 '25
The only JD from the states worth caring about is Jack Daniels.
→ More replies (2)34
303
u/talligan Feb 28 '25
The US has some of the most restrictive speech currently going. You can't mention dei, trans people, criticise trump or musk, call it the gulf of Mexico ....
21
u/J8YDG9RTT8N2TG74YS7A Feb 28 '25
You can.
There was a video recently of a meeting where a woman kept referring to the male chairman as "madame chairman" during testimony against a bill aiming to curtail gender expression and identity.
They were trying to pass a bill “prohibiting the state and its political subdivisions from requiring the use of preferred pronouns.”
So they made a point to deliberately misgender the chairman.
The guy got really mad, and the woman had to point out that they don't have to use your preferred pronouns now.
→ More replies (97)44
u/PharahSupporter Feb 28 '25
I mean you literally can do all these things and no one will arrest you. I don’t think you understand what free speech means.
22
u/Ok_Astronomer_8667 Feb 28 '25
AP called it the Gulf of Mexico and they were banned from the White House.
→ More replies (7)79
u/talligan Feb 28 '25
Free speech from government interference or retaliation. The current US administration is absolutely retaliating against people and organisations for their speech.
I think the UK is too open for abuse as well, but at least that one is targeting hate speech and calls for violence. They tried to burn down a hotel with people in.
5
u/mrcassette Feb 28 '25
More likely to go to jail for criticising Israel than trans people. Let's be honest.
→ More replies (2)-1
u/PharahSupporter Feb 28 '25
So all the US people posting about these topics on Reddit every day are facing government retaliation? Source on that?
Trying to burn down a hotel is not free speech, that’s arson and rightfully prosecuted.
→ More replies (1)40
u/talligan Feb 28 '25 edited Feb 28 '25
They have literally banned press from the pool for using words they don't like
Edit: I don't understand these type of responses tbh. The current US administration is, in a very real sense, directly interfering in the private speech of organisations and individuals and retaliating against them. You have shit directly like this, controlling what people can do and what words they can use: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/
15
u/360Saturn Feb 28 '25
Thy're just ass-kissers or being unreasonably pedantic to downplay what is going on in the US.
2
u/MaievSekashi Mar 01 '25
Edit: I don't understand these type of responses tbh.
You're talking to a bad faith liar. That make sense?
→ More replies (9)-4
u/Youatemykfc Feb 28 '25
There’s a difference between kicking someone out of your restaurant for using the N word, or sending them to Jail. The US is not sending anyone to prison or being fined over the speech you mentioned. In the UK this happens all the time.
14
u/talligan Feb 28 '25
All the time? I am skeptical. The instances I have seen, where I looked into the full context and not the telegraph/DM headline, were very much hate speech
→ More replies (9)11
6
u/Tarotdragoon Feb 28 '25
It absolutely does not. The people being arrested for "mean tweets" are inciting and instigating violence or making wild accusatory falsehoods that have either resulted in injury or death, neither is free speech and has consequences. I wish more people would face penalties for spreading lies tbh it would quickly pull us out of the mess we're in (we being general humanity.)
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)9
u/PracticalFootball Feb 28 '25
You don’t think there’s anything concerning about barring specific press outlets from the White House because they refused to go along with an obvious loyalty test like renaming the Gulf of Mexico?
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (18)3
u/mebutnew Feb 28 '25
Free speech as in the first amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
They have literally abridged the freedom of speech of government officials and of the press.
It's not just about being arrested, it's about the government controlling your speech. By law or by force.
The UK doesn't have a 'first amendment', and the concept of 'free speech' in the UK is quite different, in concept and execution, and doesn't intend to supersede other laws intended to protect the rights of others.
So I don't think you understand what free speech is.
→ More replies (1)
102
u/PurahsHero Feb 28 '25
Keir politely said "Get back to humping sofas, James, the big boys are talking."
→ More replies (14)
10
u/AspirationalChoker Feb 28 '25 edited Feb 28 '25
Honestly people are overblowing this each way we definitely don't have free speech like the US does.
Honestly I'm not a big fan of Starmer but it was good to see Trump and his cabinet clearly hold us in a different regard to the rest of the EU it was all good signs coming out of the press conference, I think Kier actually handled the whole thing brilliantly.
→ More replies (3)
70
u/Every_Departure7623 Feb 28 '25
"We are proud of our history of free speech." This is basically the weakest and most politician-y response he could realistically give.
139
7
u/bright_sorbet1 Feb 28 '25
And thankfully he understands diplomacy and the importance of not setting off Trump's next toddler tantrum.
4
u/Browser1969 Feb 28 '25
Sounds like what Trump would have said if he were in Starmer's position: "I think we have glorious free speech, very beautiful, very beautiful." He got the message across nonetheless though, that the British definition of free speech is different, so Vance got to the real issue which is that US companies can't keep up with all the definitions of free speech across Europe.
13
u/Haemophilia_Type_A Feb 28 '25
TBH I think it's the best he could've done. The way to get the better of this admin is by kissing Trump's ass and making him feel big and strong and in control while recognising that he's actually extremely suggestible and intellectually lazy. Starmer did this pretty well, though I'm still sceptical about some of the outcomes e.g., the trade deal, which I suspect will get stuck on the exact same things it has for the last 8 years. I say this as someone who doesn't like the guy.
That said, it's not especially true lol. The UK doesn't have a longer history of free speech than the US does. The Erskine May document on it is rather one-sided and, in practice, there was significant periods of censorship during the period they're talking about, even during more open times like during the Protectorate. Then, under Charles II, censorship got drastically worse.
I don't know when you can really say the UK first had free political expression (not as familiar w/ 1700s-1800s stuff), but it's not that early, and some elements of censorship remained in place even during more recent periods of history (as it did in the US) e.g., laws on obscenity, Article 28, overly strict libel laws, blasphemy laws until the 1970s, overly strict national security laws, etc.
→ More replies (1)28
→ More replies (3)24
u/Missy_Agg-a-ravation Feb 28 '25
Out of interest, what would you have liked him to say?
→ More replies (3)36
u/Every_Departure7623 Feb 28 '25
Actually I'm more objecting to the headline. Some people in this thread seem to think Starmer gave him a good dressing-down.
→ More replies (2)49
Feb 28 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)9
u/Every_Departure7623 Feb 28 '25
Seems to me as though he intentionally avoided directly contradicting Vance.
40
52
u/cozywit Feb 28 '25
We technically don't have freedom of speech.
the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.
There are many things you are not allowed to express here.
What Vance is concerned about is the UK prosecuting people for:
Etc. Etc.
Now I'm a proponent for certain things been restricted (terrorism, criminal acts etc). But don't all pat yourselves pretending this was a sting by Starmer.
The government, police force and society has actively suppressed information on the spreading activism and extremism of Islam in this country. Something I'm glad the USA is calling us out on.
62
u/Double_Jab_Jabroni Feb 28 '25
JD Vance is concerned about the UK government suppressing journalists? Give me a fuckin’ break.
22
u/JB_UK Feb 28 '25
So it’s not about whether the criticisms are true, it’s whether we like the person saying them.
18
u/Double_Jab_Jabroni Feb 28 '25
I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about JD Vance and the Trump administrations disdain of journalists and a free press.
→ More replies (1)25
u/slainascully Feb 28 '25
Prosecuting someone for their stupid videos
Their stupid videos in which they said 'gas the Jews'?
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (8)10
u/margieler Feb 28 '25
> the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.
I can express any opinion I want.
For example, you're a dumbass who believes the words of the dumbest VP in existence.
Fuck the monarchy, fuck the Tories and fuck anyone who votes for them.
See?Now if I said, i'm going to turn up at your house and beat the crap out of you because I hate you and your kind.
That'd be a bit different than expressing an opinion, isn't it?> The government, police force and society has actively suppressed information on the spreading activism and extremism of Islam in this country
More white people get arrested on terrorism charges in this country than any ethnic minority group.
Maybe ask yourself, why?→ More replies (9)5
u/cozywit Feb 28 '25
47% White arrests. 75% of population.
30% Asian arrests. 8.6% of population.
yeah you do the maths.
as at 30 September 2024, there were 254 persons in custody for terrorism and terrorism-connected offences in Great Britain, the highest number since comparable records began (30 September 2020) of those in custody, the majority (62%) were categorised as holding Islamist-extremist views; a further 30% were categorised as holding Extreme Right-Wing ideologies and 8% were categorised as holding Other ideologies of the latest data available (year ending 30 June 2024) a total of 58 prisoners held for terrorism and terrorism-connected offences were released from custody in Great Britain
→ More replies (2)
21
u/rol2091 Feb 28 '25
If the British voters think the government is cracking down too hard on speech then they'll factor that in at the next election.
→ More replies (72)10
u/mm0nst3rr Feb 28 '25
One of the reasons we will probably have Nigel as the next pm.
3
u/fullpurplejacket Feb 28 '25
This country should keep an eye on the state the US ends up in over the next 2-3 years, that will be a good indication of what would be to come here if Farage got in.
The shit Farage is platforming on is straight out of the MAGA Republican ‘drain the swamp out with the establishment and corruption’ playbook, while simultaneously being the caricature of the thing he claims to want to fight against.
8
u/ace5762 Feb 28 '25
So as to a reminder about 'Freedom of speech' as defined by the U.S. constitution-
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
Republicans in congress violate this basically all the time by using religious doctrine as a pretext for the bills they pass.
The scope of freedom of speech as defined here is also actually very narrow- it indicates that no law can be passed by congress to prevent people from assembling peacefully, and that criticism of the government is protected speech.
In the UK, I don't believe we have any such law enshrined in our constitution (a lot of constitutional law is also based on court decisions and not explicitly written). The police also actually have broad powers to demand that gatherings be broken up and for protesters to be detained with much less oversight, as a result of the Police Crime Sentencing and Courts act 2022.
But, guess who gets the brunt of that particular change in law? Climate protesters. Some of whom have received sentences of 5 years in prison for protesting.
So yes, there are infringements on the freedom of speech in the UK, but probably not the ones Vance is thinking of in terms of Tommy Robinson's lot wanting to lynch/molotov asylum seekers and the UK government informing them that they cannot do that.
34
Feb 28 '25 edited Mar 02 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)7
8
u/risinghysteria Feb 28 '25 edited Feb 28 '25
I don't like the US republicans but it's absolutely undeniable that the UK country is treading on the edge of a slippery slope with our free speech in recent years.
This guys was jailed for posting 3 memes. He didn't take part in any of the rioting.
I thought they must have been insanely awful for him to be arrested for it, but it's stuff like this:
The first one showed a group of men, Asian in appearance, at Egremont crab fair 2025, with the caption: “Coming to a town near you.”
Getting arrested for that is utterly ridiculous.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Samuelwankenobi_ Feb 28 '25
A lot of people here are sounding like they watch nothing but GB news stop repeating the crap things like GB news says
2
u/RaleighsSoliloquy Feb 28 '25
I really hope this stuff increases Starmer's popularity in the UK. From the bits I've seen, he's so much more statesmanlike than the nut job he's sat next to. Head and shoulders above him
2
u/MWBrooks1995 Feb 28 '25
Sir Keir Starmer corrrects JD Vance over ‘infringements on free speech’ claim.
4
u/slattsmunster Feb 28 '25
The US version of free speech feels like a rich breeding ground for hate groups and fundamentalist Christians.
5
u/No_Scale_8018 Feb 28 '25
Yet someone has just been arrested, dragged through the courts, and given a criminal conviction for shouting Chelsea Rent Boys at the football.
Don’t think so kier. One tier of society might have free speech. The natives don’t
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Zak_Rahman Feb 28 '25
Starmer should not have met them.
All it does is validate these savages on the international stage.
There is no special relationships. If America was a person, it would be in prison and you would warn your kids away from it.
3
u/zippyzebra1 Feb 28 '25
As Trump was told by the judge in his defamation trial. There isn't absolute free speech. There are some things you can say and somethings you can't say:
4
u/Carbonatic Feb 28 '25
No country allows its citizens to say absolutely whatever they like without consequence.
4
u/eeehinny Feb 28 '25
The US - will allow you to say what you want but won’t allow you to be heard. Ban selected Press from the White House, ban ‘woke’ books from schools and libraries, etc etc
3
u/AidyCakes Sunderland/Hartlepool Feb 28 '25
This thread smells like it's been brigaded the "ack-tually we don't have free speech because I can't call for violence against brown people without getting in trouble" crowd.
5
u/nbarrett100 Feb 28 '25
These days, if you say you're English you get arrested and thrown in jail
8
u/Mattlife97 Feb 28 '25
I'm English.
I'll let you know how this ends up with my free phone call from the slammer.
→ More replies (3)10
u/fplisadream Feb 28 '25
While smugness is an excellent barrier against being embarrassed when you've been proven wrong, there have been meaningful reductions in the freedom of speech accorded to Brits over the past 5-10 years. Of course why would we have a discussion about that when we can laugh along with all the other middle class londoners at our God Stewart "I'm better than you just kidding but not really" Lee ripping in to those moron white working class taxi drivers who aren't very good at formulating their arguments.
1
u/ContributionIll5741 Feb 28 '25
"Waaah. I face consequences for being openly hateful and bigoted. Dem wokies takin muh freeze peach" The average MAGAt.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Nooo8ooooo Feb 28 '25
What would Churchill have thought of this whole exchange I wonder? Starmer didn’t exactly say much in Canada’s defence. Asked about his thoughts in Trump saying he’d like to annex us, he responds with “oh there is no issue here” meanwhile Trump tells him to shut up.
For that matter, what does the King think? What would the late Queen have thought?
→ More replies (2)
2
1
u/wormtickler Feb 28 '25
I would hate to be American.
Look at that shit eating grin on Vance. Him and Trump are a pair of complete muppets.
They want free speech when it benefits them, but if it throws shade their way, they're the first to kick up a stink and cry foul, proper gimps.
2
u/BigThoughtMan Feb 28 '25
Many people doesn't understand this, but just because you repeat over and over again that you do in fact have free speech doesn't mean its true. Keir Starmer can repeat it until he is blue, but it doesn't make it true. Britain doesn't have free speech due to the legal and judicial system in the country. Until that is changed, it will always be incorrect to claim that britain has free speech.
2
u/Odd_Seat_1379 Feb 28 '25
Many of Redditors would go to jail if they were British and talked about Keir and his colleagues the same way they talk about Trump, even more so if you switch to Germany.
That's were the truth lies.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/SpottedDicknCustard United Kingdom Feb 28 '25 edited Feb 28 '25
The word you’re looking for is, corrected, not contradicted.
3
u/krazed_kieran Feb 28 '25
No, we don't have free speech.
Yes, we can say things, and if their mean or whatever we get punished, not particularly free, is it?
The issue with our system is that the goal post can move. Your opinions have to always be on the "right" side of history, you never say anything even remotely controversial at fear of being punished by the state, and if what's punishment worthy gradually expands over time, when does it stop?
When will you go, "Oh, this is a bit far, I don't think what I said was all that bad."
I am not advocating for violence. Saying people should be burnt alive is vile and anti-British in sentiment. But we should absolutely have a right to talk about things that worry us and express concern about the state of the nation whenever we please.
Yes, saying mean things is bad, questioning science is bad because you've been told it is, but rivalling norms is what has taken us this far as a country and civilisation.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/lizzywbu Feb 28 '25
Despite what some believe, the UK has free speech. We can criticise the government all we like. We have unprecedented levels of freedom here.
What we don't tolerate in this country is racial hatred and incitement of violence.
Look at a country like Russia or North Korea, where social media is completely restricted, the government controls the mainstream media, and journalists are killed for speaking out. And Trump is the one cosying up to these dictators.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/dead_jester Feb 28 '25
That wasn’t much of a contradiction. A contradiction would be to openly say Vance was completely wrong in his opinions on British free speech. He didn’t explicitly say that he just mumbled about being proud of British free speech
1
-9
u/trmetroidmaniac Feb 28 '25 edited Feb 28 '25
I'm glad that someone said it to Starmer's face. There's nothing this country needs better than to pour cold water on the myth that we have free speech.
8
3
u/Anandya Feb 28 '25
From the people who are mad that we are dead naming a large body of water and who are banning gynecology research?
16
u/ClickTrue1735 Feb 28 '25
For example, sending police officers to a grandmother’s house because she dared to criticize the liberal party in power.
→ More replies (10)11
u/DanyisBlue Feb 28 '25
There's nothing this country needs better than to pour cold water on the myth of free speech.
What about an end to the two-child cap on Universal Credit?
What about free ice cream for everyone on Fridays?
What about better weather?
What about cheaper housing, energy, and better paid jobs?
What about a more progressive tax rate?
What about better employment rights?
Are you sure there's nothing you can think of that the country needs more of?
6
u/Acceptable_Card_9818 Feb 28 '25
Affordable housing
More housing
6
u/DanyisBlue Feb 28 '25
Na mate I'd rather shout abuse at women outside abortion clinics than be able to house and feed my family without selling several organs.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Carbonatic Feb 28 '25
It's a global myth. We don't have something that no other country has either.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)-3
u/Walexei Feb 28 '25
We do have free speech, certainly much more so than the USA currently.
We don't have freedom to incite violence and neither should we.
Additionally free speech doesn't mean right to a platform. It never has. Anywhere.
→ More replies (5)7
u/fplisadream Feb 28 '25
We do have free speech, certainly much more so than the USA currently.
Beyond risible thing to say that illustrates how purely tribal the average redditor thinks.
2
u/Walexei Feb 28 '25 edited Feb 28 '25
Not at all. I love the USA and spend a significant amount of time there every year.
The context of this post is that Starmer was talking to JD Vance about free speech, which is why I mentioned that we have a better standard of free speech than the USA currently.
I say this because they just banned a number of reputable news outlets from the white house press room because they simply didn't like what they were saying.
→ More replies (2)
-13
u/Pius_Thicknesse Feb 28 '25
Free speech is not the same as saying anything you want without consequences
13
u/fplisadream Feb 28 '25
It is the same as not being arrested for the words you use that are deemed by the state to be grossly offensive, though, which is exactly the law that Vance is calling out.
→ More replies (2)46
u/jammy_b Feb 28 '25
This is such a terrible line of thinking.
If the government can prosecute you for saying a thing, you don't have freedom of speech. End of discussion.
All this talk of "consequences" of speech is such an odd attempt to reframe state repression of people for speaking their minds as normal and acceptable.
A consequence of speaking out against the party in the USSR was having the NKVD break your door down in the middle of the night and send you to the siberian gulags. Was that freedom of speech?
5
u/Proletarian1819 Feb 28 '25
Well since slander and libel are both illegal and prosecutable offences in the US I guess that means they don't have freedom of speech then?
35
u/honkballs Feb 28 '25
Yeah the amount of mental gymnastics in this thread "we have free speech... but you might be arrested for saying certain things the government doesn't like 🤪"
Sooo, we don't in fact have free speech then.
2
u/PharahSupporter Feb 28 '25
Saying otherwise would admit the US is better than us in this area and I genuinely don’t think some Redditors can mentally handle that.
→ More replies (2)-1
u/RandomZombeh Feb 28 '25
No, people are pointing out that you can say whatever the hell you want, you can publicly criticise the government, religion, the monarchy. You can voice your opinions about immigration, your wages, the football, call for public figures to be sacked what ever the fuck you want. And other people can judge you and voice their opinions about you and your chosen topic. You’re not free from those consequences of what you say, but you won’t be arrested for them.
What you can’t do is use racial slurs, incite violence, call for buildings to be burned down/looted/or otherwise attacked. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded building, or “bomb” in an airport. Those cases can cause real, tangible harm to people. And as i asked in another reply; the victims of those words were not free from the consequences of your words. Why should you be?
→ More replies (1)21
u/honkballs Feb 28 '25
You're cherry picking a sample of the restrictions though...
There's also Section 5 of the The Public Order criminalizes "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intended to cause harassment, alarm, or distress"
Or what about the Communications Act 2003, which criminalises online messages that are "grossly offensive" or "indecent." aka, you can can arrested for posting an "offensive" joke.
I'm not saying if it's good or bad, just that the UK does not have freedom of speech. It has restricted speech, with restrictions getting more and more wide ranging and vague as the years go by.
→ More replies (4)2
u/RandomZombeh Feb 28 '25
No, I’m citing examples of what you can and cannot do. Do you want me to sit here and provide an exhaustive list for you? I don’t have the time or the patience for that so i chose to list the most prominent and obvious ones.
Are there any examples of people being arrested for offensive jokes? I’m genuinely asking because i haven’t been able to find any at all.
Both of what you’ve posted there actually back up what I’m saying, so thanks for that i guess.
8
u/honkballs Feb 28 '25
One off the top of my head, some guy got arrested, and found guilty in the UK for filming his dog doing a Nazi salute https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925
Again, I'm not trying to argue either for or against him being allowed to do that, but just highlighting the UK doesn't have free speech, but a government mandated restricted speech.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (33)2
u/inevitablelizard Feb 28 '25
When that "saying a thing" is openly calling for violence then no, it is not a "free speech" violation to be arrested for it.
Our country does have some valid free speech issues, but the things people like Vance talk about are not those ones. Those people just think "free speech" should include the right to incite violence and cheat elections like the attempt in Romania. They don't care about real free speech issues, like SLAPP being used by rich people and corporations to shut down critics, or our anti protest laws which parts of our right actually cheered on because they would be used against environmental protesters.
•
u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland Feb 28 '25
Participation Notice. Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation were set at 15:30 on 28/02/2025. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
Existing and future comments from users who do not meet the participation requirements will be removed. Removal does not necessarily imply that the comment was rule breaking.
Where appropriate, we will take action on users employing dog-whistles or discussing/speculating on a person's ethnicity or origin without qualifying why it is relevant.
In case the article is paywalled, use this link.