Freedom of speech?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39869769

Is it freedom of speech to broadcast, or disseminate information on how not to get caught for a criminal offense?

-Obviously (I hope/imho), the particular crime discussed is pretty bad, but at the root of the debate, the particular crime shouldn't matter. ... or should it?

The PSA could have been crafted to not call out the hiding of a particular crime, and it would be "acceptable" and up to the listener to determine what he would be hiding.

I hear commercials about a supply shop for growing hydroponic " Tomatoes " (and they say it in a funny voice). They could grow tomatoes or other plants, but their intent is something else - less legal.
Yes, this example is somewhat different, similar intent (illegal activity)

What do you think?

The First Amendment prohibits abridging the freedom of speech

"For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience?" 1 Corinthians 10:29.).

If I remember law correctly, which would be a massive miracle in and of itself, as long as you don't promote or 'egg someone on' to commit a crime I THINK it's legal? You could certainly argue that it's immoral or irresponsible to tell someone how to hide evidence, or hot wire a car, or pick a lock, but as long as you aren't directly encouraging someone to commit a crime it isn't illegal.

Hacking is basically writing or rewriting code. This is taught in schools across the nation. It could certainly be used to commit crimes, but as long as it's not being encouraged I think it's legally fine. Same with lock picking. Just knowing how a locking mechanism is made means that you can figure out how to compromise most standard locks. Even if you can't, the information on how to do so is still readily available online with a simple google search.

Yes, (unfortunately - for this circumstance) I agree with both of you.

That's a tough one. Technically, according to prior authority, limitations on the First Amendment can be enforced if there is a clear need to protect public welfare by doing so. It's why things like threats or inciting violence are not protected by the 1st, but it's pretty hard in a lot of cases to enact those restrictions.

I can absolutely see silencing something like this being argued as protection of public welfare but things are never that cut and dry when it comes to law and what may seem an objective certainty to the average person may not be interpreted that way by the court.

Whether it's protected or not, it was kind of a s***head move on that radio station's part to actually allow it. A surprisingly s***head move, actually.

As odious as the subject matter may be, there is an argument that it is a valid matter for social debate.

As I understand it, the programme was aired late at night when the audience was most likely to be adults who are presumably mature enough to be capable of taking part in a rational discussion on a topic of legitimate public interest without being corrupted by it.

If the broadcaster incited individuals to go out and commit a crime then that would be a different matter. Incitement is not debate.

The broad issue here is whether or not the broadcaster broke the law by offering advice which might be useful to another party in the commission of a crime. This depends on the law of the relevant state.

I don't believe that anybody is necessarily corrupted by such discussion. If an individual takes to seeking such material after hearing the programme, then it was likely that he was predisposed to doing so. At the very worst, such a discussion might act as a trigger for somebody but that could be said of any discussion. Are we to ban all debate just because somebody in the audience might then carry out a crime..?

But to start a petition on the basis that the message was "sickening" is ridiculous. Your sensitivities are not my gag.

I know it sounds like a cliche, but the audience does have the option of not listening to the message. They know where the off switch is.

If the radio station has broken the law then let them be prosecuted accordingly. If not, then let discussion take place and those who don't like it need not join in.

It isn't as much of a question of whether or not something is in poor taste or if it's sickening to most people as it is a question of whether or not it's actually harmful. Giving a pedophile information on how to conceal his crimes is arguably of considerable detriment to the public welfare and as such, may not actually be protected speech.

Those aren't really opinions...that's how the law works here.

I understand the concept of aiding and abetting a crime, but where is the proof that the information given has actually enabled a crime to be successfully concealed?

Would you prosecute on the basis of probability that a crime may be committed? What is the legal threshold of probability that would justify arrest over there? 10%..? 25%..? 50%..? Who calculates that threshold..?

It would be a different thing if it became known to the police that a crime was planned and the broadcast was directly linked to the planning of the proposed crime, then a charge of conspiracy might be brought according to the circumstances / evidence gathered.


OK.... We all know that policing is largely reactive. Eg, a crime is committed, the police investigate and suspects are arrested and due process takes place. Simple.

Intelligence led policing however is proactive. Eg: Where the police / security services gather intelligence of, say, a terror attack being prepared, they can use that intelligence to thwart it in the planning / pre-execution stage. Hurrah for Justice..!!

But where is the conspiracy in giving out information of such a broad-based nature to society at large in a public forum such as a radio programme..?

I agree the broadcast was irresponsible and MAY be used by individuals to conceal criminal activity, but that shouldn't make the broadcaster liable in law for the misuse of that information by others unless a definite link to a specific crime is established, and it is ascertained beyond a reasonable doubt that the broadcaster intended that to happen.


I guess we've just got different ideas of what constitutes Liberty.

Well...we aren't talking about prosecution. We're talking about whether something is protected speech or not. I'm not sure where all of the talk about criminality came from.



And for the record, I haven't said a solitary word about my idea of what constitutes liberty. I have posted facts about what the law says here, sure, but I haven't posted an opinion on anything in this thread, so I am not sure where that came from either.

Seriously, are you just trying to pick a fight here?

Not at all. I'm not taking the issue personally, rather I see it as a national issue. My use of the "we" is in the national sense, not the personal. I didn't think I needed to spell that out these days.


If we discuss the issue as a matter of lawful free speech, then there is nothing to discuss. The radio station did nothing illegal, at least as far as "we"... the British that is.... are concerned. If "you"... the American people... decide that what happened was illegal then the inevitable conclusion is that yes, we DO have different ideas of what constitutes liberty.

If it isn't illegal, then what other reason could there be for objecting and what would be the end result of that..? Surely any objection to a lawful and legitimate broadcast can only be on the grounds of morality or taste and as we all know, morality and taste differ from individual to individual. Do "we"... the people of the free world.... condone censorship just because a few individuals decide their personal sensitivities have been wounded.?


I'm a little bemused by this "protected" speech. Surely speech doesn't have to be protected if its free use is already guaranteed by a written Constitution.

"We" don't have a written Constitution. "We" have a set of Statutes which are based on history, custom, Royal Proclamation (pre-Parliament), Parliamentary Act and legal precedent. Our first book of law dates back to Alfred the Great in the ninth century so there is no single definitive point of reference which I believe gives us a much more flexible system that is able to adapt with the times.

There is no doubt that the people who like to look at the images in question are committing a noxious crime. But do we change our way of life and compromise our civil liberties at a very fundamental level just to express disapproval of their actions..? Or do we let the laws we already have in place to punish transgressors to do their job?



I'll drop the "...." punctuation now..? I think I've made my point.

Okay, fair enough...it was a simple, easy to make mistake on my part. You and I were involved in an exchange and so when you said "we," a reasonable person could assume you were referring to you and me. The sideways jab in your last sentence there is totally unnecessary



Well...that the British and the Americans have a different idea of liberty is really no surprise or news. But on the topic of freedom of speech, as it turns out, we (that's Britain and the US) actually do agree the most part when it comes to the US Constitution and Article 10 of the European Convention. The only difference, it seems is that Britain actually has adopted more limitations on free speech than are provided by the Constitution.




You are predicating this entire premise on the speech in question not being illegal when that is what I have only pointed out I'm not really sure of. If you reread my posts, you will find that I have not said the broadcast was or wasn't illegal, just that it's possible for a legal argument to claim that it was. I am not sure if I was being unclear?

Do we condone censorship just because a few individuals decide their sensitivities have been wounded? In the United States, no. We do not do that. That is why racist speech is actually legal here. In Britain on the other hand, racist speech has successfully been criminalized under Article 10 on more than one occasion. Some other limitations under the same Article are indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency. Hm.

At any rate, I don't think you're talking about the same thing that I am here. I am not talking at all about personal sensitivities, I am talking about criminality and again, have not asserted even that one way or another.



When Americans say "protected speech" they are referring to speech protected by the Constitution. "Protected" and "guaranteed" as you use it above are interchangeable in this case.



Our Constitution is not the only law we operate under either and its stasis is not absolute.

Anyway, where have I said anything about compromising civil liberties? Where have I said anything about the broadcast not being allowed to air?

What I have said is that it's unclear to me whether the laws we already have in place to punish transgressors consider the broadcast to be a transgression or not. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you have, I'm not sure why you think I have called for censorship or silencing or outrage based on individual sensitivity but I've done none of those things at all. This is a strange conversation to me because you seem to be arguing against points that I have never made.

As an aside, didn't you recently spend some time in another thread admonishing Erimitis and telling him how he should and shouldn't write his posts because you were unfamiliar with a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?




Yes, please do drop it along with the undue tone of condescension?

I'm not convinced a court would uphold that claim, though. Courts typically end up having constrictive, precise rulings. Even the 'liberal' ones. As I mentioned previously, while spreading information that could result in a crime is not universally protected, the litmus test for determining that is very narrow and precise. I'm not convinced that any lawyer would want to take that big a gamble on a case like this. There is precedent against his case, and the counter-argument I would expect from a lawyer would rely on proving intent. A notoriously murky and dangerous legal argument to make. Could the legal argument be made and not be considered 'trolling the court'? Sure, but that still leaves what I see as an uphill, difficult legal battle.

Agreed.