Why doesn't Britain have free speech?

[AL]

I read on a new-site that a boy may be prosecuted because he burned a memorial poppy on Facebook. I don't agree with it, but how is it a crime? I know you have a malicious communications act but that should apply to things like stalking and death threats, not opinions. Things like this interest me because I can see where this is all going. Government control over the internet. My country, yours and everyone else's. I looked for a petition to sign, but there is nothing. Since I follow these things I've noticed the majority of Twitter/Facebook "trolling" cases are from the UK. Why do you do nothing about it? It really angers me. You may not agree with what these people are saying but why let your government try to control it? They'll be banning certain sites next. They've already tried with your p0rn. It's the principle rather than the great, great p0rn. Are you nanny-state lovers or are you going to do something?

[Dane]

People here like the nanny state. Read the Daily Mail comments on internet censorship. The Tom Daley troll for example. They wanted him locked up because he called somebody a name and said something about his dead father. These people vote!

They don't realise it's a slippery slope. We have more CCTV cameras than any other country in the world. It's 1984.

[Guru Hank]

No, the law on facebook posts has recently been clarified, you can't be prosecuted for things like that.

Do it on the streets and you might be done for behaviour liable to cause a breach of the peace though. People might be tempted to act violently against you and it would be a direct result of your own deliberately provocative behaviour. The police and general public would not be amused.

[Elwin]

I could answer your question but then they would prosecute me,

[guiri]

The police and the CPS are in control of the country. Everyone is afraid to say or do anything anymore.

In fact I wrote a tirade but chickened out.

[Georgia]

Britain does have free speech. We are however at the moment undecided about where the bounderies lie with things like internet posting etc. Some people post or do things on the internet either with total disregard for the consequences or with a belief as it's on the internet, its not real life. That has to change. People also need to be more responsible with their actions. The "nanny state" that we need to get rid of is allowing a total disregard for you actions and thinking just because its on the internet it doesn't count.

If it is an opinion, a belief even, you can voice it, the law doesn't stop that, but what this person did wasn't either of those things. He did something down right offensive to a lot of people. Just because he was white it was considered somehow different to if he wasn't. Some things are sacrid, and a Poppy on Remembrance Sunday is.

We have been adapting the rules regarding facebook and twitter postings, mainly due to the previous legal issue of super injunctions and what the press are allowed to print. People were posting things that the courts said they weren't allowed too. That then led into other things. The general public I think is confused about what should be allowed and what shouldn't. I think everyone was behind the "un-masking" of certain super-injunction people, but then Lord MacAlpine's situation shows how something can snow ball, and be totally wrong.

I think the "nanny-state" is IF we allow things like that to be said without repurcusions. You wouldn't do that in the street without something being done. Why are you allowed to post it on the internet? Why are people allowed to post vile things about say your father or husband, just because its on the internet? Lord MacAlpine's life could have been ruined due to what was said about him. It's only that he has the money to fight it that the record has been set straight.

And actually no, the govenment isn't banning any sites, even though lots of people have suggested/asked that porn sites be banned unless you request them. So we're hardly being censored.

[peanut 2]

We do have free speech, free speech does not however give you the right to be grossly offensive and disrespectful to those who fought for your right to free speech.

[David S]

Because Britain is a police state run for the benefit of the elite 1% wealthiest section of the population. In the idiotic fiction peddled to the ignorant uneducated majority, war and weapons are somehow saintly, and being a member of the armed forces and being killed or fataly injured in unnecessary wars, is elevated to being almost desirable or some sort of justifiable end.

[snafu]

The law, free speech and the internet are in a new world. The law is
trying to catch up and deal with new problems the internet poses.
Inciting to riot, murder, hate speech, deformation, libel, slander etc
are crimes that can be conducted behind the veil of a computer.
This isn't about free speech. A crime is a crime virtual or not. If you
were on the receiving end of it I expect you would want someone to
defend you or for you to be able to defend yourself. Given how quickly
a false accusation can go viral globally, what defence is there without law?
It seems the internet is a vehicle moving ever more quickly without the
necessary controls to keep it on the road. You're probably a decent person
and would only use the WWW for positive purposes. But know this, there are
an awful lot of people out there who want to use it for darker reasons, who care
nothing for free speech.