The British courts fail to understand the concept of free speech

Or, y'know, they recognize that people should be able to seek protection of the law for libel.

The fact that Private Eye is still in business would suggest that the libel laws are not THAT bad

What makes you say they don't understand freedom of speech? Your belief that people should not be held responsible for their actions is a failing on your part, not theirs.

you mean you have to be able to back up the random crap you print...oh no...a civilized nation.

It's satire.

Extrapolating from a single case and coming to a general conclusion about the state of free speech in general is wrong, Cap. And the fact is that Britain's libel laws are so harsh because when they weren't the press, especially the tabloids, abused the fuck out of them.

You're confusing things. Freedom doesn't mean lack of accountability. Which is something that Americans tend to do a lot. Free speech in Europe is alive and well, thank you very much. In fact the "stifled" press here is many times more agressive and critical where it counts, which is acting as the fourth estate, than the "free" press of the US.

stelios said it better than I ever could.

It's one story Cap, our legal system is actually pretty damn good.

Really I don't think journalists getting sued for stepping on the wrong toes and having to go through an overlong trial is something that's unheard of anywhere at all.

Not to be an ass Cap, but you're not getting it. And you won't until you start understanding that the United States ain't HTE AWESOM.

Just want to back up ElCap here. Just google "British libel law." Companies use them to pick on individual writers.

Yes, British libel laws are a joke. What do you expect when that nation has codified a class system (Lords, dukes, etc) into law, and says certain people get a voice in government simply for being born? The rich and powerful then get to write libel laws to insure no one can be mean to them

Let's go watch some Brit porn instead.

damn, and i was trying to ignore you two.

Cap, why not start ONE thread criticising the USA (not just democrats).

And whilst the UK system is different from the US system (ie: WRONG, eh Cap?) it does seem to prevent thousands of nuisance libel cases. And if fear of the cost of libel is stopping people from slaging people off in print well then good, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

The reasons people sue in the UK instead of elsewhere is because the costs are higher, and so are the damages, and the case is heard faster so when Tom Cruise sues someone for calling him a queer (for example) it can be dealt with faster and more harshly than in other countries. Yes, I suppose it does favour the rich, but as they are often the ones who get libelled and give a shit about it, does it really matter?

If you're going to pick an arbitrary piece of UK legislation to rip on might I suggest:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-u...ous-hatred-law

which prevents any criticism of any religion.

or better still the outrage for the scrapping of lap-dance tax breaks.

And you can fuck off as well bitch.

there may be a number of hereditary peers still in the House of lords but most have been cleared out by the last few governments, even then they only have the option of appearing in the house, they don't have to.

And last i checked there seems to be plenty of Americans who seem to be born into politics, sure they have the options to be other things but the fact that there are political family dynasties (Bush, kennedy etc) in a so called democratic system means you have very little room to criticise.

I love Kate's notion that us Brits are still being lorded over by the landed gentry. Also Capitan as someone who trained to be a journalist and as such had to spend a year learning about British Libel laws I can see where you're coming from, but our Libel laws are more of a protection than a tool of the wealthy, they're there to protect everyone and even though they're harsh they keep our newspapers, who get up to some quite odious stuff, on the side of legality

You can criticize it, sure, but you're from a country where you can sue anything and anyone no reason at all. Where capitalism is negatively affecting the standard of life of it's citizen. Where "free press" is nothing more than corporate-driven propaganda slowly pushing the country into ignorance. The whole healthcare debate is sadly hilarious, really. I've never seen so many people begging to stay in their puddle of shit, really.

I guess I'm pretty reactionary because you're the first one to take a piss at other systems and countries, but can't seem to realize the ironic position you're in.

Well excuse this ignorant Yankee. I am sorry the reality that my people's experience in this world helps to inform my opinion that it's better to live your years subject to no "king" or "queen" offends your sensibilities. I firmly believe the idea ANY woman or man is born with a sacred right to power and title is an is a unjust usurpation of the natural born equality of all free thinking people.

Then again, you across the pond are a funny bunch, so if you want to live your lives in a society that has lords and dukes and such, be my guest. I have no enmity, only sad confusion for the people of the UK.


What is my people's history you might wonder?

Well let's see. I had a relative on the Mayflower, fleeing the religious oppression of a land where an infallible ruler decreed there was only one true religion. You could not object because… well, God himself chose the King. Duh! Then the people of Massachusetts suffered a massacre of the Native peoples at the hands of those empowered with authority by the British crown. Then Boston suffers a massacre, and you tax us for items we have no choice in buying. And we cannot have a say in this because somebody was born a "King" and, well, um, that means he's in charge! LOL.

From Lexington to Concord, I've grown up around monuments to both British control, and my nations struggle against it for independence.
With this in mind, this is why it's difficult for me to have much patience for the idea of any person going by the title of "King" or "Queen" in the 21st century. But again, no offense meant. Just trying to enlighten you as to the experiences and history that informs my opinions on such issues.

And look, to be fair I give your people great credit for the progress you’ve made, and for the continued commitment to change found in your more progressive elements. My father fought in WW2 and my Grandfather in WW1. The friendship forged in the fire of these great conflagrations, as our two peoples fought side by side on the side of freedom, is stronger than any disagreement our two nations may have. I am simply discouraged by the vestiges of your feudal history you still seem to cling to.




PS Oh, also, thanks for giving us a system of slavery for black people! I really think it was a nice team building process to try and integrate that into a functioning humane society!


EDIT: Oh, also cannot forget that I'm also 50 percent Irish. Family came here fleeing a famine your nation had power to prevent :P LOL

EDIT 2: And last but not least, I'll just repeat: I am not bringing these things up to make British people feel guilty or say 'sorry'; I bring them up because that's how I roll. I keep it real. If I am going to have a discussion on inherited titles with a citizen of the UK, I want to make sure we're on the same page and they know why I feel the way I do.

You keep on believing your little daydreams about constitutional freedom being an American invention.

Yes, the Indian peoples of the East Coast of North America had a constitution (written!) , and the British people wiped them out (In fairness, we did too once we became our own nation).

I know what the Magna Carta was, but you guys never went the next logical step and declared everyone is born equal. We did that even before we practiced what we preached. It was declaring that principal in writing that has made it possible for all the changes and improvements we've ever made.

We elected Obama, but I've yet to see a Pakistani PM in the UK.

Just sayin..

Okay, Kate.

You've fucked off a History student and that's never a wise thing to do.

In 1642 there was a Civil War in England, this Civil War came about due to tensions between Parliament and the King. There were many factors building up the war itself but the major sticking point was an ideological conflict between the Protestant/Puritan populace and the Catholic royalty. This Civil War lasted until 1649 when we executed our king and installed what you could view as a proto President.

Oliver Cromwell became The Lord Protector of England and he achieved this not because he was born into the role but because he was the strongest voice of reform. Unfortunately he was a bit of a bastard, fortunately his son didn't want the job after he croaked. So in 1658 we got ourselves a new King, the previously executed ones son.

However Parliament had solidified their power now and this new King had to really fight for his rights. His son, James, wasn't particularly intelligent and tried to rule without Parliament. So we HIRED a new King and Queen who took over, but whom had to sign a Bill of Rights in 1689. This was the start of devolution of power to the common person and this Bill itself gave a large amount of rights to Protestants, over the next one hundred years or so Parliament would erode more and more the King and Queens power until by the time we get to the Georges in the late 1700s they are little more than figureheads.

The reason we still have a King and Queen is because we as a country realised the significance of maintaining a certain level of history. The King/Queen works almost as a public relations machine and effectively helped hold the country together whilst Revolution swept through Europe and America.

Also Kate the Slave trade started in the 1400s and was originally a Portugese and Spanish enterprise, the English didn't get involved until over a hundred years later.

lol

Look out! He's got a textbook!

I knew I should added that goddamn smiley.

Um. I was with you until that bit.

Unless your mother or father was born before 1845, this does not compute.

Yet to see a female Head of the Executive in the States.

Just sayin'....

What was your point again?

What I was trying to say is that the King/Queen became totemic. They are out ties to our history and our spokespeople for our country. In logistical terms the Royal Family is worth around $300-400 million each year in tourism and they're still a massive part of our national psyche.

I suppose the tourism income would be one way to justify having such a...costly totem? It's what's always baffled me about modern monarchies - having so much taxpayer money go into financing a high-end lifestyle for some people whose function is almost purely symbolic.

Mind you, I'd be chuffed to hand over some bucks to be able to say that I'll go out speaking the king's and/or detail to Chris Morris what I would do if someone were to attack the sovereign.

It's important to remember that the queen actually has no real power, everything is just tradition.

As for Heredity peers when one of them is Nigel Tufnel I am happy to keep them.

Hey we're crazy...but we're not stupid

Doesn't much of the monarchy's money come from their real estate, not the taxpayer?

The royals are a glorified celebrity dynasty kept around for cultural purposes and because enough people still want them there, and if they started trying to enforce their limited token powers against the will of the public they'd immediately get smacked down. So no need to patronisingly shake your heads in bemused sadness at us poor subjugated brits, thanks.

That's the kind of law that hangs around ineffectually decades after everyone stopped caring, eventually getting quietly thrown out after a bit of legal spring cleaning. This is Britain we're talking about - no one bats an eyelid when religion gets slagged off.

Might be worth pointing out that the idea of a constitutional monarchy is by no means some sort of exclusively british quirk - Spain has a similiar system, and just as with Britain, the royals appear in the tabloids and the actual job of governing is given to, you know, democratically elected officials.

At any rate it shows a certain level of self-sacrifice for Princess Kate to so staunchly oppose the concept of monarchy.

The other thing to factor in, is that the Queen is a hot piece of ass. You Americans could never understand the joyous pleasure of having her divine mug plastered all over your money. The recession doesn't seem nearly as bad when every time you open your wallet, an it's instant erection party.

I actually live in the oldest monarchy in the world. And as everyone else mentions it's all PR these days. They bring in a hell of a lot more money than we pay to sustain them and they play and important part in many people's psyche. I mean it's not like a president who is there in 4 or 8 years. These folks have been there always and in times of crisis and celebration our Queen feels like a sort of comforting mother for many people.

Power they have not.

Yes but you do have a delightful Aussie Princess.

As I understand it, the majority of the Royal Family's fiscal expenses are covered by the revenue generated by the value of their estate. I don't think the tax burden on the people of the UK is much, if anything at all.

They do actually claim expenses and get an allowance. It was the subject of some debate recently as MP's expenses came under heavy scrutiny.