[benmmurphy]

the wild thing is in the UK private citizens can bring about criminal prosecutions. section 179 is a hornets nest waiting to be poked. in the UK prosecutors are not a bulwark against bad law. the courts would need to thread the needle to protect freedom of speech for elites but allow suppression for plebs.

> at the time of sending it, the person intended the message, or the information in it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience, and

even announcing future legitimate policy direction by the government could be construed as causing non-trivial psychological harm.

[ethbr1]

As an American, watching the UK government wrestle with "free speech, except when we disagree with it" is a fun pastime.

It's definitely not a right if it disappears when it's inconvenient.

[krapp]

Speech is regulated in the US as well. Publicly call for the assassination of a President and see what happens.

[blackeyeblitzar]

The restrictions on speech in the US a much narrower and more clearly defined than in the UK or Europe, where there is an ever changing and unprincipled perspective on what speech is allowed. In the US you cannot directly call for violence but you can do a lot of other things and you can see the case law around this in Brandenburg v Ohio and other such cases. Vague restrictions like “hate speech” are meaningless in US law (since obviously such labels can be weaponized arbitrarily) and journalism is protected without restriction. Whereas in the UK, sharing a video of the riot is apparently enough to get yourself arrested by gestapo at the doorstep.

To offer more detail on how far the Brandenburg case went in protecting free speech rights: it ruled that seditious speech – including speech that constitutes an incitement to violence – is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as long as it does not reach a level "where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”.

[ethbr1]

The exceptions are far more narrow than in the UK. Try and bring a libel charge in each country.

PS: And technically, afaik, it isn't a crime to call for the assassination of the president of the US. It's illegal to attempt it, and to take actions that support those attempting it. But if you just post on Facebook about it... you'll get a call from the Secret Service and a recommendation that you don't do that, but no charge.

[fragmede]

Post a copy of Pixar's latest movie online and see if that speech is protected. Or CSAM. It would be better to acknowledge that there very much are limits on the freedom of speech, just like everywhere else, instead of pretending we're better than everyone else and that we don't have any censors.

[ethbr1]

> that we don't have any censors.

That's not the argument I'm making.

I'm noting that the US started from a right to free speech, and then carved out exclusions to that.

Whereas the UK came at it the other way and added to a list of types of speech that are free.

[krapp]

Nevertheless, mocking the UK for having "free speech, except when we disagree with it" is kind of specious when that exactly describes free speech in the US as well. It's simply a matter of where different countries choose to draw the lines.

[ethbr1]

If you're making the absolutist argument, then yes, you are correct.

If you're making a practical argument, then we can trade exclusions 1-for-1 in the US vs UK, and the UK list will go on far after you've exhausted the US ones.

[pyuser583]

This mechanism exists theoretically in the US.

I live in a state that had a pre-Roe abortion ban on the books. After Roe was repealed. local prosecutors tried to use their prosecutorial veto to prevent enforcement.

It was pointed out that if they straight up said “we won’t enforce the law” Private citizens could enforce it.

Usually, a judge would throw the case out, but if a DA had publicly refused to do their job, judges would find it hard to simply defer to DA.

I suspect private criminal prosecutions are so rare because public prosecutors guard their monopoly.

[ethbr1]

Didn't Texas go a step beyond that and literally empower private citizens to bring cases?

[pyuser583]

That was a civil thing.

[m11a]

Theoretically yeah. Maybe not for this particular act (the Online Safety Act 2023), see eg section 179(7) and 179(9) which sort of imply only a prosecutor can bring proceedings. Though I think that's largely by oversight rather than design.

It's a really poorly written act though. Compared to acts written by previous governments, this one has a pretty bad structure.