Tommy Robinson Wins Appeal

"Tommy Robinson has been released from prison after a court's finding the he committed
contempt in Leeds was quashed.

But the Court of Appeal ordered the far-right leader to attend a new hearing on the case that could see him jailed for a second time.

Robinson's lawyers had argued he should be freed because of “procedural deficiencies” in two court cases."

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/tommy-robinson-wins-appeal-live-094100594.html

Free speech is not entirely dead in the UK it looks like though Robinson could be returned to jail simply for live casting from a sidewalk outside of Leeds Crown Court.

The kangaroo court aspect of trying Robinson and sentencing him in an express, on the spot, trial without proper legal representation and then banning all public discussion of the shocking mockery of justice was too great for an appeals court to ignore.

England's shocking disregard for freedom of speech was on full display for all the world to see and it doesn't put her in a pretty light. They have another chance now to demonstrate that civil liberties mean something to the English. Here's hoping they don't screw up again.

 

I still have little hope for the UK but at least I have hope. I mean, the fact is that unless Tommy caught this on camera he might have simply disappeared without a trace - liberty is so fragile...

 

You mess with the bull,you get the horns!!!

 

I have nothing against Robinson per se. I love the way he straightened out that Africans nose in Italy. But his idea of "freedom of speech" went out of bounds when he supported Mecham's "Let's gas the Jews!" I have since withdrawn my support of him and perhaps a stiff sentence would help him to realize that freedom shouldn't mean anything goes.

 

Do you have a link to any of this?

Btw, in a free society anything spoken does go, even at its most viie as in the above quote. That's one of the prices we pay for our freedom.

 

We're still waiting for a link I see??

 

I'm not a supporter either, but I think the UKs method of ensuring a fair trial is grossly unjust, and he should not be in prison.

 

The scary thing is the large number of people demanding the government oppress them.

I'm sure they're thinking it won't happen to them, ironically.

 

No.

That's the definition of free speech.

Only things that make you recoil need protected.

Otherwise what is acceptable speech is subjective based on who is in power.

 

You bring in the snake to nurse back to health, you get the fangs.

 

You bring in the aardvark, you get ants in your pants

 

Or fleas.

 

"Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to para. 2 of Article 10, it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society".

Never supported Tommy but I do support free speech which is either absolute or non existent!

 

This may not be the most virtuous character in the world(in the same way Carter Page isn't), but the cases overlap in this crucial aspects: Human rights, and civil rights must be extended to all or they'll be extended to no one/taken away. That was the whole point of the Civil Rights Movement.

 

Perhaps you didn’t think it through before you made that statement. What does “freedom of speech” mean, anyway? If you are going to take the absolute notion of what freedom of speech might mean (as you’ve just done) then you have to accept the absolute meaning of “freedom of speech” as it is laid out in the term itself. I assume that you not a mute. Voilà! Your freedom of speech is guaranteed in every corner of the earth, in every nation, in every form of government. So this discussion is unnecessary. You do have the ability to open your mouth and make words (of your own choice) audible? There you are.

But I rather think your definition of “freedom of speech” includes lawful permission to say whatever you like without persecution. Is that about right?

1). Walk up to a Holocaust survivor whose whole family was murdered in front of his own eyes …. and tell him that his family deserved to die because Jews are filthy scum of the earth.

2). Walk up to me and tell me that as soon as I turn my back you are going to XXXX both my wife and my child.

3). Your ex-girlfriend’s sister follows you around town and tells everyone you meet that you have AIDS.

In your version of the law “freedom of speech” means that you can say anything you like - to anyone you like - on any subject - whether what you say is true or otherwise. But the law cannot guarantee that the Jew and I (in examples 1 & 2) won’t see to it that your ability to speak (on any subject) will be impaired from that day forward.

Your move …………….

 

That's not my version that's EU law, article 10

 

Could be. It wouldn't be the first time either.

Based upon the charges or based upon the things he's done?

 

That it is an awfully broad statement and I suspect that it is incorrect.

 

It's a downright and cynical abuse of state power against the individual, nothing less. It was also used against Julian Assange. They're the brave ones and the useful idiots and the establishment are the snivelling cowards. I'll bet none of them would stand up against IS, and how many on this site would? Not many is my guess.

 

https://swarb.co.uk/handyside-v-the-united-kingdom-echr-7-dec-1976/

Article 10 uses this as part of it's framework when it was created in 1998.

Simple google will confirm

 

Confirms what exactly? You are just speaking in the air.

 

What are you disputing my opinion that free speech is absolute? Or the case ruling I quoted which is the framework for free speech in the the EU which a simple google will confirm.

You're not making yourself clear what is it you're saying. All you have offered so far is opinion without any links to back that up and then a personal jab at the end.

 

No, he hasn't won his appeal as such. He's been released on strict bail terms and will face a re-hearing.

He has been warned he could be facing an even longer sentence.

 

They seem to believe the government will only oppress those who don't share their own enlightened attitudes.

The problem with this idea is that governments change and they may in turn oppress those political philosophies. That's why freedom of speech, etc. must remain constant no matter which government is in power and what politically fashionable ideas come along.

 

You're clearly confusing freedom of speech with the ability to speak.

Right.

Your second example would constitute a threat to commit murder and may well be illegall. The oothers are legal but words have consequences.

Yes, you are legally free to say any of those things but there are also social consequences and the real threat of physical harm.