Free Speech Victory: Judges Rule Social Media Users Have Right to Offend

Breitbart ^ | 12/18/2020 | Jack Montgomery

[xomething]

England’s High Court has struck a rare victory for free speech, overturning the conviction of a Twitter user who called a transgender person a man and ruling that people have a right to offend others online.

Mother of two Kate Scottow had been convicted under a section of the Communications Act which makes “persistently making use of a public electronic communications network to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another” a crime following an argument with lawyer and trans activist Stephanie Hayden, who is legally a woman according to a gender certificate obtained in 2017.

District judge Margaret Dodds decided that Mrs Scottow had broken the “rule’” to “be kind to each other and not call each other names”, but Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Warby at the Divisional Court of the High Court overturned her judgement as “deficient” and “flawed” on appeal.

“The Judge appears to have considered that a criminal conviction was merited for acts of unkindness and calling others names,” said Mr Justice Warby, but “A prosecution under section 127(2)c [of the Communications Act] for online speech is plainly an interference by the state with the defendant’s Convention right to freedom of expression.”

The senior judges said that if the case had “been approached by the [original] Judge in a legally correct manner, it should have been dismissed”.

“This has been the hardest battle I have fought that has had a profound impact on every aspect of my life, from my career to my health and my marriage,” said Scottow in comments to the Telegraph, hailing the verdict in her favour as “a victory for freedom of speech that confirms no one has the right not to be offended.”

...

[Leaning Right]

Some wise person once said that the First Amendment was written specifically to protect unpopular speech. Today’s liberals just don’t want to accept that.

Anyway, it’s good to see that the UK courts are finally standing up for free speech.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

England’s High Court has struck a rare victory for free speech, overturning the conviction of a Twitter user who called a transgender person a man and ruling that people have a right to offend others online.

Do we have the right to do the same on Twitter in the US, without being banned or flagged by Twitter? I don't use Twitter and never will, but I strongly suspect not.

[cuban leaf]

What’s kinda funny is that here in the US you have a constitutional right to offend, and yet there is no “constitutional right” to not be offended.

The writers of the constitution were grown ups.

[DugwayDuke]

AnotherUnixGeek wrote: “Do we have the right to do the same on Twitter in the US, without being banned or flagged by Twitter? I don’t use Twitter and never will, but I strongly suspect not.”

I suspect not as well. You will notice that this woman was actually convicted of an offense.
I had my posting privileges suspended on a social media cite for: “Posting numerous times on many forums with the intention to promote anything, or bring attention to an issue (whether positive or negative) is not allowed.”

I know several others were offended by my commentary on COVID protocols. There had been some background commentary about placing me on ignore. I suspect they asked the moderators to apply the restriction.

[SgtHooper]

England. What a joke!

[Leaning Right]

> Do we have the right to do the same on Twitter in the US, without being banned or flagged by Twitter? <

I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t play one in TV. But it think the answer is no. The lady in the UK case was persecuted by the government, not by Twitter itself. The court told the government to back off, not Twitter.

By the way, if Biden gets in, we WILL see this kind of government persecution here. Say something bad about Biden, and you’ll be inciting violence. Say something bad about Harris, and that’s illegal hate speech.

Will our courts then protect us? I wouldn’t bet on it.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

I suspect not as well. You will notice that this woman was actually convicted of an offense.

Yes - of course we cannot be convicted by the legal system for any such thing in the US. Yet.

But social media sites which are given the same rights as common carriers should be subject to the same standards as common carriers - they should have zero ability to censor or flag anything that is not illegal.

[daniel1212]

But social media sites which are given the same rights as common carriers should be subject to the same standards as common carriers - they should have zero ability to censor or flag anything that is not illegal.

But once you start forbidding social media sites from censoring what prevents the same rule from being applied to the likes of FR?

[DugwayDuke]

daniel1212 wrote: “But once you start forbidding social media sites from censoring what prevents the same rule from being applied to the likes of FR?”

The issue is why should social media sites be allowed to censor content that some find offensive? Yes, they should be allowed to censor illegal content, ie, treasonous, libelous, etc., but if you allow content to be censored because some think it’s offensive or ‘hate speech’ there is no limit on what could be censored. I’m sure many progressives would think 90% of the content on Freerepublic should be considered forbidden hate speech.

[daniel1212]

The issue is why should social media sites be allowed to censor content that some find offensive? Yes, they should be allowed to censor illegal content, ie, treasonous, libelous, etc., but if you allow content to be censored because some think it’s offensive or ‘hate speech’ there is no limit on what could be censored. I’m sure many progressives would think 90% of the content on Freerepublic should be considered forbidden hate speech

But FR itself does not allow liberal prop. here, and this can be considered a form of social media. If you prevent them from regulating content based upon ideology, then you can be sure liberals will come after the likes of FR.