Yeah there is an un written rule best you bare that in mind ??
There's always one...
- Thread starter Odds
- Start date
Yeah there is an un written rule best you bare that in mind ??
Are you asking me - or reminding yourself?
Not asking you any thing I am telling you or reminding you about the un written rule
See that you adhere to it
The interesting question is how did that happen. Indirectly it relates to free speech and the rule newspapers need to apply which also apply to the web.
Then why add a q.mark?
This unwritten rule of which you speke: is it of your own device or something the forum whispers about in hushed tones around the coffee machine?
The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly rejected government attempts to prohibit or punish hate speech. Instead, the Court has come to identify within the First Amendment a broad guarantee of “freedom for the thought that we hate,” as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes described the concept in a 1929 dissent. In a 2011 ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts described our national commitment to protecting hate speech in order to preserve a robust democratic dialogue:
Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.
In other words, the First Amendment recognizes that the government cannot regulate hate speech without inevitably silencing the dissent and dialogue that democracy requires. Instead, we as citizens possess the power to most effectively answer hateful speech - whether through debate, protest, questioning, laughter, silence, or simply walking away.
In the UK, however, there's a different interpretation of Free Speech: UK laws are written to make sure that people can speak and write, even offensive material, without being prosecuted for their views. Parliament has tried to define laws in a way that balances our freedom of expression with the right to be protected from hate crime.
But In England and Wales it can be an offence to stir up hatred and the content of a website can also be illegal when it threatens or harasses a person or a group of people. If this is posted because of hostility based on race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender then we consider it to be a hate crime.
The UK Supreme Court has indicated that an offence is committed where the person posts or controls the material in this country. Therefore, much material that can be viewed in the UK is outside the jurisdiction of our courts. The USA, for instance does not have offences of inciting racial hatred but if someone inside the UK posts on a foreign site then that could still be illegal here. (The person posting is always responsible for their content and web hosts could be if they, for instance, encourage or knowingly allow it to remain).