Free Speech

James Heartfield Jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk
Tue Mar 20 00:31:23 PST 2001


In message <F148MIOGCvqQ7SzE2NS000030ca at hotmail.com>, Justin Schwartz <jkschw at hotmail.com> writes
>Jim,
>
>The state of free speech in England is becoming alarming. First, the new
>terrorism law, now this harassment theory. Probably I could be liable in
>England for something for saying this. For all the manifold defects of
>American constitutionalism, it makes me want to go out and give the First
>Amendment a great big hug. Is there any protection from the new laws in the
>EU, which has made some supranational right enforcveable in the courts of
>member states?
>
>--jks

There is the European Convention on Human Rights, to which UK is a signatory and has now incorporated into British law. Unfortunately the ECHR is the product of a rather different age than the American constitution. The rights set out there are muscular indeed, but the qualifications in the subsequent paragraphs - inserted by cautious ruling elites, self-conscious of the need to repress dissent - often negate the rights entirely. Most contain caveats about national security, public morals and welfare, which loopholes are bigger than the rights themselves. A few people (including myself, but perhaps more plausibly Conor Gearty) have argued that the application of the ECHR creates a sum reduction of liberty.

The harassment/stalking laws have caught a lot of people unawares because they are framed in terms that those enlightened liberals amongst us are likely to sympathise with - such as the need to stop violence against women. (That said, Amnesty spokesman Conor Foley once pointed out once that the anti-stalking law had been used most often against hunt saboteurs!).

-- James Heartfield



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list