Hear, hear: Mr. Bean calls for the restoration of the freedom of speech in Britain, and the repeal of the law banning "insulting words," which is just a tool for tyranny in the hands of the one who gets to decide what are "insulting words."
"Rowan Atkinson: we must be allowed to insult each other," from the Telegraph, October 18 (thanks to Anne Crockett):
The Blackadder and Mr Bean star attacked the "creeping culture of censoriousness" which has resulted in the arrest of a Christian preacher, a critic of Scientology and even a student making a joke, it was reported.He criticised the "new intolerance" as he called for part of it the Public Order Act to be repealed, saying it was having a "chilling effect on free expression and free protest".
Mr Atkinson said: "The clear problem of the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such. Criticism, ridicule, sarcasm, merely stating an alternative point of view to the orthodoxy, can be interpreted as insult."...
What constitutes "insulting" is not clear. It has resulted in a string of controversial arrests.
They include a 16-year-old boy being held for peacefully holding a placard reading "Scientology is a dangerous cult", and gay rights campaigners from the group Outrage! detained when they protested against Islamic fundamentalist group Hizb ut-Tahrir over its stance on gays, Jews and women....
He was joined by Lord Dear, former chief constable of West Midlands Police, and former shadow home secretary David Davis.
Mr Davis said: "The simple truth is that in a free society, there is no right not to be offended. For centuries, freedom of speech has been a vital part of British life, and repealing this law will reinstate that right."
The campaign has united an unlikely coalition of support including The Christian Institute and The National Secular Society as well as Big Brother Watch, The Freedom Association and The Peter Tatchell Foundation.
RSS Feed
The body of Wm. Shakespeare, having been recently exhumed, is being made ready to stand trial for having offended diverse and sundry personalities. The Guardian reports "that 'e deserves all that's coming to 'im."
An ominous marker of any totalitarian regime is a set of laws under which a citizen, more accurately a subject, can be charged criminally at any time and/or on no basis. Such laws are intended to keep subjects wary and on guard at all times such that no mischief against the state can be generated.
In other words, “peace.” Stated differently, peace to the leftist means no opposition to the state. This explains why defending First Amendment guarantees is an essential in preserving liberty.
In any totalitarian regime the state is first and foremost, with individuals allowed to exist only to perpetuate the state.
Obedience-through-fright is the objective of these deliberately vague laws. JW readers may recall Section 301 of Turkey's penal code which criminalizes behavior which "offends Turkishness." Similarly with Pakistan's infamous Section 295 which criminalizes various forms of "blasphemy." [Section 295-A forbids outraging religious feelings; Section 295-B forbids defiling the Quran; Section 295-C forbids defaming Muhammad.]
The “basis” used to this UK Public Order Act is cut from the same cloth.
In American jurisprudence such laws would be stuck unconstitutional under the due process clauses of either the 5th Am. (for federal behavior) or the 14th Am. (for state behavior) on the basis that these laws are void for vagueness.
The void-for-vagueness doctrine supports accepted American social policies. {ASIDE: Bear in mind that in the American tradition federal and state constitutions are designed so that the people control their governments. That governments are increasingly and deliberately misreading constitutions (as in “war is peace” or “we’re going to strip search you before traveling for your own protection”) in order to assert more and more power over the people is a clear perversion of the original design.}
First, the void-for-vagueness doctrine encourages the government to clearly distinguish conduct that is lawful from that which is unlawful. Under the due process clauses, individuals must be given adequate notice of their legal obligations so they can govern their behavior accordingly. When individuals are left uncertain by the wording of an imprecise statute, criminal law can become a standard-less trap for the unwary.
Second, the void-for-vagueness doctrine discourages judges from attempting to apply sloppily-worded laws. Like anyone else, judges often labor without success when interpreting poorly worded legislation.
Finally, the void-for-vagueness doctrine seeks to avoid encroachment on 1st Amendment protections, such as freedom of speech, expression, petitioning of grievances. Because vague laws cause uncertainty in the minds of average citizens, some citizens will inevitably decline to take risky behavior that might land them in jail. When the vague provisions of a state or federal statute deter citizens from engaging in certain political or religious discourse, chilling is the operative word, courts will apply heightened scrutiny to ensure that protected expression is not suppressed. For example, a law that prohibits "sacrilegious" or “blasphemous” speech would simultaneously chill the freedoms of expression and religion in violation of the void for vagueness doctrine.