British freedom of speech

Span off the Trolling thread.

In the United Kingdom, freedom of speech is a negative right in the Constitution rather than in the United States where its a positive right. Legislation was always written to define the boundaries of free speech such as hate speech and it wasn't til 1998 that freedom of speech was explicitly protected rather than implicitly protected.

Now before people jump off the slippery slope, no piece of British law can restrict or contradict or challenge the ECHR 1998 otherwise we'd be throw out of the European Union

Question; How does viewing freedom of speech as a negative right rather than a positive one affect how it's treated by the law? Because I genuinely don't know.

Er well, as far as I know, having a negative freedom of speech right means you legislate the boundaries of it whereas positive freedom of speech right means you don't have it till its legislated you do have it.

Pretty much. And its a source of confusion between a lot of Brits and Americans.

I think you might mean the Human Rights Act 1998. The ECHR dates from 1953.

Under the terms of s.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the British courts are obliged to interpret all parliamentary legislation in a way which is compatible with Convention Rights. However, if it is determined that the law in question cannot be reconciled with the Convention, parliamentary statute takes precedence in accordance with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.

The only remedy available under s.4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is a Declaration of Incompatibility, which parliament is under no obligation to act upon. At the moment, it's quite rare that the legislature doesn't do anything to rectify the discrepancy, but they don't actually have to.

So British people like to trust that their government won't screw them over.

~shrug~

Your funeral.

Well, the NHS hasn't killed us, the DVLA hasn't tracked our cars, so yes. We trust our government a little more than you would, USAF.

~shrug~

You have the benefit of multiple parties to squabble over petty grievances and which are therefore distracted and leave you alone.

Not really, its something called a Constitution that protects us.

It is simply "uncodified" in that it is not all collected into one document.

And a Monarch — Queen Elizabeth II.

If the Government steps over the Mark, and there is Public Support, she can bring down the Government by ordering the Military in.

edited 15th Sep '11 2:10:09 PM by Greenmantle

You're a unitary system, so it's much harder for you to rely on your constitution, if you have one (I didn't know you did, actually).

It's a common myth, even among Brits, that we have no constitution. Yes, we do, but it's spread over many thousands of documents. Common Law is the root of our laws, and much of that comes, if you go back far enough, from the Ten Commandments.

~shrug~

It's not really a constitution to me if it's not a collected document. It's merely a set of guidelines at that point, if it's so decentralized. A constitution is supposed to be very clear and concise...

I wouldn't say so. I imagine that most British people tend to expect that the government is and always has been engaged in a long-reaching plot to screw them over.

Maybe you should codify it? I couldn't tell you what the benefits of that are, though.

USAF, most modern day governments in the first world countries have protections in place somewhere. Generally through amendments and such.

Its just that there isn't enough brainpower or will in government to dick over the entire country.

Even our expenses "scandals" have been overblown and silly.

The benefits are usually that its now all collected together for others to read. The problem is that it then becomes much harder to alter which (whilst it could be argued to be good) can hinder actually getting things done. C.f The US constiution.

edited 15th Sep '11 2:15:23 PM by JosefBugman

Heh, we overestimate our government at all the wrong times, and you underestimate your government at all the wrong times.

I imagine we wouldn't last a week if we switched...

The Other Wiki's article is Here — it should provide some useful background.

There was a movement for a Codified Constitution but I haven't heard anything about it for a few years. Somehow, I guess there are bigger problems right now than Codifing our Constitution.

edited 15th Sep '11 2:20:42 PM by Greenmantle

If you said that to a British constitutional lawyer, they'd react like an American would if you told them the president should have more power than the congress or the courts.

To each his own. If it works for them, that's great. I certainly wouldn't want to run the US like that, though...

Well, our Constitution is also supplemented by the EU Constitution, so we have supranational protection as well.

In the same way your government can't screw you over, USAF, ours can't in the same way.

After seeing what happens with your codified constitution maybe you should try it.

edited 15th Sep '11 2:37:22 PM by whaleofyournightmare

The thing is though, Britain's Executive (i.e. Whitehall) and Legislature (i.e. the Commons) are drawn from the same pool.

What does that really mean? (I know what it actually means, but what does it mean, y'know...)

edited 15th Sep '11 2:40:34 PM by Inhopelessguy

I prefer a simple document I can look at and say "yup, that works," or "nope, that's bull." When I have to search through tons of different things to find what I'm looking for we're doing something wrong.