Do you mind highlighting the text in your link that says it's illegal to criticise a judge? that is an absolute crock of sh@t.
Sure. Read the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 53: "The law also contains an absolute prohibition against post-trial interviews with jurors; and gives judges the power to postpone reports of proceedings, ban the mention of names or other items of evidence. It was used against
The Independent's reporting on the
Spycatcher litigation even though it was not a party to earlier cases involving
The Guardian and
The Observer.
It also also an offense, though rarely invoked, to "scandalize" the court by criticizing (in Scotland, "murmuring") judges."
Yes we do have "incitement laws" in the UK, if it's suspected that someone has done something with the intention of stirring up hatred/prejudice against a certain group they can be investigated/prosecuted.
Right... that's why police investigate pictures of burning poppies. What you have in the UK goes far beond "incitement laws."
Does the word "McCarthyism" ring any bells
It sure does. What bells did you mean to ring? Joe McCarthy was a drunk who made grandiose statements that he was never able to prove; he was, ultimately, censured by his peers and died disgraced and destroyed by his own hubris. As far as I'm concerned his actions were against the
spirit of the Constitution, if not its letter, and most Americans would, I suspect, agree, considering that his name lives on, to this day, as an insult.
Please note that I never said that we are perfect, nor do I claim that our politicians can do no wrong. Indeed, that's why I don't trust politicians and want their power tightly circumscribed by a Constitution that they
cannot change without true support from the citizens.
"The Communist Control Act" ...Not much freedom of speech/expression there then!
We have no such restrictions in the UK...
Another shameful historical relic. Although still technically on the books, I don't think any Administration has tried to enforce it and there are Communist Parties in most states. Luckily, they're relegated to the thrash can, where Communist Parties belong, and not because of any legislative action.
As for having no such restrictions in the UK, all I have to say is "
Really?" You mean that the British Union of Fascists was not banned? What about Sinn Féin?
So we have laws that are designed to prevent people from intentionally stirring up hatred against another group, you outlaw certain political parties.
While that's true, you are omiting a critical detail: you enforce those laws, we don't. And besides, you have much more than laws that prevent people from "intention stirring up hatred." You have laws that prohibit speech.
Overall you really have no more freedom than us and the probably actually have less than most of the rest of developed world. Because you still have loads of lunatic puritanical(as you call them) right wingers with massive influence over your society.
Actually we do. You want examples?
Police in the United States cannot (generally) stop you or demand identification withour meeting a minimum standard which depends on the jurisdiction. In the UK, police can stop and demand that you produce identification without
any reason.
The United States Government cannot censor the media; they can't even do it when they are about to post classified papers, something which the Court made clear in the case involving the Pentagon Papers. In the UK, the various Official Secrets Acts mean that the Government can censor anything it cares to censor.
As for the religious nutjobs, they are
mostly limited to complaining about our moral decay and yearning for the days of olde, when boys and girls shared malts at the local malt shop, music was pure and pompadours were painstakingly styled with Brylcreem. While they still hold some sway and their influence is felt on particularly contentious issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) they are on their way out.
