In freedom of expression, Britain can learn from America

Digest opened free editor

Rola Khaleda, FT editor, chooses her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

I grew up with some simple principles. One was some version of love your neighbor. The other is often attributed to Voltaire: “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say.” My strong belief in this statement is partly why I became a journalist. This is also why I read the publications that I do not agree with: it helps me to determine what I think.

Until recently, I thought I lived in a country where Voltaire’s statement was essential. In England, John Locke formulated him Two government theses The loud cafes formed enlightening. In Scotland, John Stewart Mail was published On freedom. The unique brand in Britain has mocked the comedy and paradoxes in everything and everyone, for centuries. But now, 38 percent of us say freedom to express opinions without interference being threatened.

When reading the Drip-Drip of outrageous individual cases, we could have hoped to be just rare examples in the excessive term. The couple was arrested at their home to criticize their child’s primary school in the WhatsApp group. The employee launched the bank to ask an innocent question in a diversity training session. One of the retirees was a former private and packed luspel that was handcuffed and had been seized on his electronic devices, after tweets that the demonstrators supporting the Palestinians were “one step away from Haitro storming, looking for the Jewish expatriates.”

Unfortunately, the number of cases and arrests grows where the hate speech becomes an increasingly cryptic concept. What started as a good -intentioned attempt to protect people from distress as an arbitrary expansion of the authority of the state, was imposed on us by Both the two main parties. Conservative Minister of Interior Sajid Jafid said in 2018: “The crime of hatred is directly inconsistent with British The values ​​of unity, tolerance and mutual respect. ”But these values ​​are now undermined amid confusion and anxiety.

Since 2007, the crime of hatred has been defined in England and Wales as “any criminal crime imagined by the victim or any person who stimulates hostility or bias towards someone on the basis of a personal property”: a dangerous widespread definition. Only some groups are protected, which pays endless demands to expand a range. There were appeals to formally recognize the homeless, the elderly, and even the Goths (after a teenager) in the legislation of hate crimes.

More than Orwellian is “non -crime hate accidents” that were presented after the killing of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence. The perpetrators included a 9 -year -old child who was called a classmate “Delay”, neighbors fighting to hedge and a doctor claiming to have sinned in diagnosing a patient because they were dual sex. The police can spend up to 60,000 hours a year on this, according to policies on the back. The current Interior Minister wants the police to use “good instinct”, but it will not cancel it. However, the concept of “non -crime” is double thinking. It should not be present.

Two recent cases have tested the Voltaire principle. Last year, a 51 -year -old physician was convicted of violating a buffer zone silently near the abortion facility in Bournemouth. I am a supporter of enthusiasm and I have tremendous sympathy for any woman who felt annoyed in attending this clinic. But I cannot say frankly that the actor was so frightening that it should be criminalized.

The most stringent challenge for liberals is Lucy Conan, a 41 -year -old girl and a 41 -year -old girl and lost her resumption of referee. Konoli was imprisoned after last summer riots in Southport, which erupted after three young girls were killed in a dance chapter by a young man who later turned into the son of Muhajir Rwandi. A tweet has completely published: “Light fire in all the damned hotels full of vessels”, and delete it after four hours. Some argue that she should not be in prison: she has expressed her remorse and has a child of school age. I do not agree: I acknowledged that she is guilty of inciting racist hatred. But her 31 -month sentence feels excessive, longer than some rioters who have caused physical damage. The judge ruled that she knew how volatility of the situation was, and that this volatility “led to a serious disturbance where the reckless violence was used.” This logic seems to be an extension. One of the reasons why activists exercise their case is that it appears to be proportional to a pattern of excessive access.

Something I found useful is the Prandenburg issue against Brandenburg against Ohio (1969) in which the US Supreme Court ruled on how to explain the right to amend the first freedom of expression stipulated in the constitution. The court stated that the government can punish the inflammatory discourse, only if it is “addressed to incitement or producing an imminent work without law, and it is likely to incite or result in such a procedure.” This looks like a good template: the arduous edges, and distribution with the feelings of crime.

The police are placed in an impossible position here: they are pulled into trivial discontent and settled the result. Not only does it pay attention to the solution to more crimes; It undermines confidence in a nation that is not comfortable with itself.

It is important to try to raise feelings. The field of law that should be clear, both for the police and the public, has become guided and arbitrary. Regardless of everything that happens in America, we must look with envy in the first amendment.

[email protected]