At least Jeremy Clarkson is witty and charming and is worth listening to on some things.

There goes the hard-won credibility.

“By lead, I meant first paragraph not your headline. The casual reference to Spain not being able to cast off the mindset of Franco’s dictatorship. For Pete’s sake. If it was meant in a light hearted way, then fair enough.”

I know Spain has come on leaps and bounds since Franco’s dictatorship, which was why I said “fully shake off”. I would argue that this law is indeed a leftover of the mindset from Franco’s era, as it is designed to punish the mocking of authority.

“Your inability to reciprocate generous praise from the mainland stands you out as a little Englander within the European context. At least Jeremy Clarkson is witty and charming and is worth listening to on some things.”

When have I received generous praise from the mainland? When you say “Little Englander”, if you mean by that the belief that Britain is distinct from Europe then I suppose that I am a ‘Little Englander’.

“Democracy is a broad church and no legal system is flawless.”

I agree. In general, Spain’s is no worse than England’s. However, it does not follow that anythig in the Spanish legal system should be above criticism.

“It would have been far more intelligent to draw a comparison with the Danish cartoon controversies — that might have made for an interesting debate — and used the Spanish example to highlight ways in which secular systems can also be used to suppress freedom of expression.”

True enough. But I did not want to turn this thread into an argument over the Danish cartoons, which it would have become. That is why I only lightly implied it in passing. You are welcome to debate it though.

“The thing that bugs me about your attempts to remain the liberal brown-skin friendly Tory is your inability to grasp that European immigrants to this country also reserve the right to embrace and adhere to the culture of their parents while integrating deeply into British society.”

Sorry, when have I attacked European immigrants? When have I even discussed Europeans integrating in this country? Please provide some examples, as I am at a loss.

“In short, you are a wanker.”

You did not need to summarise your post.

“Yes rumbold of course its different, but similar principles imho.”

One is a platform, the other is the law. If I delete you, I am not saying that you can never say such a thing, just not say it here. The law bans you from saying it anywhere in the country.

“Well, is there a difference these days? Skewing a point of view, and ignoring others to push an agenda, and sometimes damn right lying… something in the lines of Fox News?

I think you hold a fundamentalist view that media should not be accountable for what it spouts and everything should be acceptable (except inciting hate), all in the name of freedom of speech. That I believe is losing sight of what freedom of speech is supposed to accomplish.”

I do not really mind being labelled a ‘free speech fundamentalist’. I am never quite sure what media accountability means- I do not like the idea that newspapers could be censured so easily. Yes, there are downsides to such a free press (such as some of Fox’ news coverage), but I believe that the positives easily outweigh the negatives.

“That I believe is losing sight of what freedom of speech is supposed to accomplish.”

Which is what exactly? Surely the principle laying behind freedom of speech is that we are able to say what we want, and we do not have to justify it to the state. As Thomas Paine said, “tolerance is the counterfeit of intolerance, not the opposite, for it presumes that one has the right to be tolerant of a particular activity [i.e. has the right to dictate someone's behaviour in this regard].”

“Do you mean lies or exaggerations?”

Well, is there a difference these days? Skewing a point of view, and ignoring others to push an agenda, and sometimes damn right lying… something in the lines of Fox News?

I think you hold a fundamentalist view that media should not be accountable for what it spouts and everything should be acceptable (except inciting hate), all in the name of freedom of speech. That I believe is losing sight of what freedom of speech is supposed to accomplish.

“What about media that propagates lies and damn lies?”

Do you mean lies or exaggerations?

” You are talking about what is acceptable and what is not, not necessarily the form of punishment.”

But there is a difference between freedom of speech and giving someone a platform to express those views. Nick Griffin should be free to speak his mind, but I would not want to invite him along to an event to propagate his views. Pickled Politics is the same- people have the right to express themselves, but that is not the same as this blog allowing anyone to say anything on it.

“A bit different surely? If someone is deleted/banned then that is all that happens to them- hardly much of a punishment.”

You are talking about what is acceptable and what is not, not necessarily the form of punishment. I do remember a picture you linked a few days ago depicting a very famous blogger celebrating diwali and enjoying himself with a certain other, and which a few hours later, you auto-censored for unknown reasons. Another blow to freedom of speech in pickled politics?

“Any statement or expression should be acceptable unless it is a direct incitement to violence”

What about media that propagates lies and damn lies?

“I really hate the emphasis that some people put on “unnatural” sex acts”

Morgoth, the term “unnatural” is still used by homophobes and far right to describe homosexual acts, and that is why I used it under quotes. However, I meant it is an umbrella term for a number of less common sexual activity, including incest, necrophilia and bestiality. My point, which seems to have been lost with your observation, is that such depictions to ridicule are not acceptable in my opinion.

“Mind you, i daresay the royal family could say its their country and if you don’t like their policy, you don’t have to participate!

after all, if blogs can do it, why not rulers of physical spaces.”

A bit different surely? If someone is deleted/banned then that is all that happens to them- hardly much of a punishment. In Spain you can go to prison, or else go into exile.

after all, if blogs can do it, why not rulers of physical spaces.

of course it might deviate from the norm, but that’s hardly enough for us to say its not ‘natural’. it might well be ‘natural’ to have a full spectrum of behaviours, some of which are at what we consider ‘extremes’.

“Rumbold, I do agree with you that this is not the case of “vendetta” and the message of the cartoon is fair play, and I don’t agree with special laws against the monarchy, specially in the context of a criminal case.

However, I am wondering if you consider that anything should be accepted in the name of freedom of speech? Maybe you consider a cartoon depicting the naked royal couple having sex doggy style is fair play, but what about publishing a real photograph? What about depicting royals in “unnatural” sex acts?

Everything should be accepted, because otherwise it will be a blow to freedom of speech?”

I certainly wouldn’t make it a crime. Any statement or expression should be acceptable unless it is a direct incitement to violence.

As for defamation, if the ‘wronged’ party could prove that it went beyond the realm of criticism/satire (calling someone a paedophile for instance), that should be libellious.

I really hate the emphasis that some people put on “unnatural” sex acts. If there are two (or more) willing participants, then there’s no such thing as an “unnatural” act.

Aren’t all sex acts by definition natural?

“Well, as I said before there should be a few libel laws to protect against vendettas. But as Katherine pointed out, this was a criminal law, and such a picture can hardly be described as a ‘vendetta’.”

Rumbold, I do agree with you that this is not the case of “vendetta” and the message of the cartoon is fair play, and I don’t agree with special laws against the monarchy, specially in the context of a criminal case.

However, I am wondering if you consider that anything should be accepted in the name of freedom of speech? Maybe you consider a cartoon depicting the naked royal couple having sex doggy style is fair play, but what about publishing a real photograph? What about depicting royals in “unnatural” sex acts?

Everything should be accepted, because otherwise it will be a blow to freedom of speech?