undefined | Better HN

0 pointspjc503y ago0 comments

Until the Human Rights Act 1998 established it as a positive right.

> _would_ have no laws restricting freedom of speech (libel and incitement excepted)

This is optimistic ahistorical nonsense; the UK had a censorship regime until the Lady Chatterly trial. There has been intelligence service related censorship as long as those have existed, as well (see Spycatcher, Zircon). And let's not get into Northern Ireland. Nobody old enough to remember "Gerry Adams has his voice read by an actor" would claim the UK used to be a bastion of pure free speech.

0 comments

int_19h3y ago

Since HRA is just a bill, it can be trivially overridden entirely or on a case-by-case basis by any other bill, requiring only a simple majority in the Parliament, thanks to parliamentary sovereignty. So it doesn't really meaningfully protect anything.

pjc50OP3y ago

Kind of a constitutional problem, but of course until Brexit it was guaranteed by international treaty. And still is in Northern Ireland:

https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/ourrolesandp...

"The British Government will complete incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention, including power for the courts to overrule Assembly legislation on grounds of inconsistency."

barry-cotter3y ago

The ECHR does not meaningfully guarantee free speech.

> The European Court of Human Rights has upheld the conviction of an Austrian lecturer who suggested that the founder of Islam, Prophet Mohammed was "a pedophile" for marrying a 6-year-old child.

https://neonnettle.com/news/5449-austrian-woman-convicted-fo...

> Woman’s conviction in Austria for calling the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile did not breach her right to free speech, European Court of Human Rights rules

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-corre...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse