They justify this by saying:
We have a duty to ensure that that we understand the reasoning of a court so that we can correctly apply any considerations to future cases and charging decisions. This appeal was pursued because what is required, for all concerned, is clarity and certainty.
There is a technical description for that, which is it is drivel (other words could be used).
The reality is that the Tories want to limit free speech.
The courts would not do it.
Making a justified claim that the Tories are scum is clearly a legal thing to do.
Unless you are a Tory minister, of course, whose aim here is to politicise the Supreme Court, whatever the outcome. Which looks like the actions of Tory enemies of free speech to me.
Taking is to the Supreme Court clarifies whether it is legal to call a Tory minister scum. Which is what the department of pp is saying they’re doing.
“Scum” is clearly not libel, as it’s “mere vulgar abuse”. Something that was clarified in libel law by a case or 17 going up and down the court system until top judges clarified what “mere vulgar abuse” was and why it wasn’t libel.
There’s also behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace – currently calling someone n word probably is in a way that a century ago it probably wasn’t.
And so on. We have interlocking restrictions on what may and may not be legally said in public. We also have a common law system, which means that it’s, often enough, the judges making precedent setting rulings which define what those specific laws are.
Here we’ve an interesting question. Which needs to be sorted. So, the system we’ve got is going to sort it.
Ho Hum
On the other hand a lot of recent laws like those related to hate speech and ‘online harms’ seem to be written in such a way that it sn’t possible to know whether you are breaking them. And there are just too many laws relating to individual behaviour which no ordinary person could possibly keep track of. But ‘Ignorance of the law is no excuse’
Presumably it isn’t illegal to call a Tory a left wing socialist on account of it being the truth?
I like the Milei word ‘collectivist’ as a term of abuse. Can’t decide which syllable should be stressed though for max impact
A colleague has asked for Spud’s opinion….I wonder if he will respond?
“Yes, decided cases should be looked back of to see what is and is not considered libel.
Accusing Belize banks controlled by Lord Ashcroft of supplying illegal tax evasion services when they aren’t. That’s libel isn’t it?”
Yesterday’s court ruling against Lawrence Fox established that it is acceptable to call someone a racist but not a paedophile.
However in the US, as Elon Musk discovered, it is perfectly ok to call someone a paedophile.
John
“Yesterday’s court ruling against Lawrence Fox established that it is acceptable to call someone a racist but not a paedophile.”
I think it’s more limited than this. It established that it is acceptable for a right-wing , white, (apologies for this word) cisgender, male to be called a racist. But for a person with those attributes to call someone a pedo was not acceptable.
So it’s White Privilege. The privilege for white people to insulted or defamed with impunity, but not the other way round.
“Taking is to the Supreme Court clarifies whether it is legal to call a Tory minister scum.”
I always thought it was compulsory.
Only during the conference season. At other times it’s cunts or arseholes depending on whether there’s an R in the month
The reality is that the Tories want to limit free speech.
The courts would not do it.
Making a justified claim that the Tories are scum is clearly a legal thing to do.
Unless you are a Tory minister, of course, whose aim here is to politicise the Supreme Court, whatever the outcome. Which looks like the actions of Tory enemies of free speech to me.
So as well as being a paragon of virtue he’s now a Champion of Free Speech?
He could have a career in comedy
– 20,000 blocked on Twitter
– 250,000 uses in the blog of the word ‘Troll’
– Countless commentators facing blocks on the blog
– Consistent attempts to Libel critics as ‘fascists’ and other ‘undesirable’ labels when he is challenged
You do wonder if he is in fact a parody with posts like this…
Spud certainly wouldn’t like this development…
In the current atmosphere of Sensitivity about Microagressions, the Supremes may well find this term, alongside others, “too offensive” and agree with the position the use of them should be treated as libel.
Which would put Spud in a bit of a pickle, since the UK courts seem to have developed a taste for prosecutions and convictions well after the fact about such “trivialities”.
Which he himself tends to use quite a lot when lambasting People Who Don’t Agree With Him…
So yeah… He’s got a stake there.. He’s made quite a few enemies, after all….
Is this Murphy? He can’t be complaining about the Tories trying to eliminate freedom of speech because a) he supports such a thing – just for his preferred government, and b) uh, you don’t actually have freedom of speech in the UK in the first place.
You have a government that admits to no limits except those *temporarily* imposed on it by bloody revolution. I’m pretty sure the Magna Carta is no longer considered precedential or enabling legislation there anymore.
@ Agammamon
Magna Carta never was legislation …
As fire drives out fire, so drivel drivel.
We fortunately reintroduced a Lese Majeste law a few years ago, specifically protecting politicians. Certain liberals, like Ms Strack-Zimmermann, have been forced, by the immense number of bounders and cads regularly suggesting on twitter, occasionally in colourful language, that she and others like her may not be at all times acting in the best interests of the nation, to instruct lawyers to send out expensive cease-and-desists to the offenders. Such claims may not be made under this most welcome new law.
The civil actions, which number in the tens if not hundreds of thousands, are on top of prosecution for the offence of making a statement “suited to making that person’s public activities substantially more difficult”, wording which by intent encompasses the mildest of justifiable and accurate criticism of our wise and competent leaders.
The nation was dismayed therefore to learn that a rogue judge recently threw out such a prosecution against a scoundrel who had described Ms Strack-Zimmerman as “vomit-inducing”, stating that politicians could be expected to have a thicker skin than the average personoid of indeterminate gender on the Heinersdorf tram.
Doubtless this rogue judge will himself meet with the full force of the law, as did the few rogues who struck down any part of the “Pandemic” apparatus for being supposedly unconstitutional.
In Wales, I think Bevan called the Tory Party lower than vermin for creating poverty in Wales.
I am a big fan of Bevan for his socialist values. But would he be locked up now for insulting Tories?
I know of one bigot who called the Scottish racist names.