Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's another disturbing free speech story, this time from England:
The boy, who is described only as a minor, was taking part in a demonstration outside the church's central London headquarters on May 10 when City of London Police officers ordered him to remove the placard.It read: "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult."
When he refused, he was issued with a form of summons for an alleged breach of public order. Police plan to pass a file to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether charges can be brought.
And here we get the ridiculous justifications from the police:
A spokesman for the force said the youth had been "reported" under section five of the Public Order Act, which contains measures against displaying signs considered to be "threatening, abusive or insulting"...Chief Supt Rob Bastable said: "City of London Police upholds the right to demonstrate lawfully, but we have to balance that with the right of all sections of community not to be alarmed, harassed or distressed as a result of other people's behaviour."
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. The fact that another person's opinion causes you "distress" is your problem, not theirs. Expressing a negative opinion about a religion may upset adherents of that religion, but so what? No one has a right not to be offended by the views of others. Where in the world did this idea come from that you have free speech unless you say something that bothers other people?
There is one thing that is absolutely guaranteed if you live in a free society: you're going to be confronted with ideas you don't like. You're going to be offended, even insulted, by someone expressing their views or criticizing yours. Don't like that? Tough. You can be insulted all you want, but the government has no business intervening to prevent you from being offended.
Politics
Comments
Update - Crown Prosecution tells the City of London Police not to be so fucking stupid:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7416425.stm
Note for non-Brits - the City of London Police is a rinky-dink little outfit which is only responsible for the 1 square mile City of London. They shouldn't be confused with London Metropolitan Police who are quite happy to let protestors call Scientologists whatever they like.
Posted by: philbert | May 23, 2008 9:59 AM
This is same Crown Prosecution Service which last year advised a police force to complain about a TV documentary on Islamist fundamentalism in the UK. The documentary-makers have just won a libel action, the CPS was obliged to apologise.
Posted by: Bartholomew | May 23, 2008 10:00 AM
As a British citizen living in Wales and subject to exactly the same law let me be the first to say this on here. Scientology *is* a dangerous cult, and I'm Spartacus ;-)
Posted by: Matt | May 23, 2008 10:02 AM
I find this weird because I remember Scientology was specifically not granted standard religious status, on the basis that it was (in the words of the judge) "A sinister cult".
That said, there are some bullshit laws in Britain against protesting, and what counts under the riot act.
Posted by: FireWalk | May 23, 2008 10:04 AM
philbert - maybe they've learnt! But it contradicts a previous report:
Posted by: Bartholomew | May 23, 2008 10:04 AM
This is the same City of London Police force that the scientologists have been working on for the past few years.
Posted by: MartinM | May 23, 2008 10:10 AM
Apparently, the Church of Scientology has been trying to gain influence within the City of London Police in the not-too-recent past:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6171948.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/22/freedomofinformation.religion
It may not be overly paranoid to draw a connection between this and the case in question.
Posted by: Iain Walker | May 23, 2008 10:24 AM
Oops, beaten to the punch ...
That'll teach me not to refresh the page before posting.
Posted by: Iain Walker | May 23, 2008 10:27 AM
I'm so glad the kid got off. The charge was so fucking ridiculous. What's really amusing to me is that all the news agencies that's been reporting the story has been repeating the "threatening, abusive or insulting" phrase over and over! Great PR for anonymous.
Posted by: bubicarus | May 23, 2008 10:28 AM
I for one am alarmed, harassed, and distressed by Scientology. Why won't the nanny state protect me?
Posted by: Ken Shabby | May 23, 2008 10:32 AM
MartinM - You mean the those funny handshakes cops give aren't Masonic? - Damn! -;)DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 23, 2008 10:32 AM
philbert,
Hooray for the Crown Prosecution for telling the CLP to stuff it; however, I would feel much happier about the situation if they hadn't used the justification that there was "not abusive or insulting" and that there was no "offensiveness". I reserve the right to insult whom I please, and I think my British bretheren deserve the same right.
Posted by: Shygetz | May 23, 2008 10:40 AM
Would it have been better if it read:
"Scientology is like all religions: it is a dangerous cult."
Posted by: Jason Failes | May 23, 2008 11:01 AM
They shouldn't be confused with London Metropolitan Police who are quite happy to let protestors call Scientologists whatever they like.
So long as you don't do it outside Parliament.
Posted by: jc | May 23, 2008 11:04 AM
I was outside the Scientology cult building on Tottenham Court Road (London) about 3 weeks ago. There was a smallish protest on the other side of the road. Maybe 20 people, completely peaceful. The police broke this up and moved them on. A number of non-protestors complained to the police about their actions.
Posted by: SteveF | May 23, 2008 11:22 AM
Ugh - I read this is the Grauniad yesterday. Would make me ashamed of my country if I weren't quite so far past shame.
Still - kudos to the teenager involved: when the police challenged his sign, he did actually referred them to a 1984 High Court ruling calling Scientology a sinister cult. (Possibly the same ruling noted by FireWalk above).
Anyway - since reading this I've checked out section 5 of the Public Order act, and it is in fact true: it is actually illegal to be insulting in England.
Think about what that actually means! Cos right now I'm terrified.
Posted by: James W | May 23, 2008 11:34 AM
Which can be read here, by the way. (Scroll down for section 5).
http://www.webtribe.net/~shg/Public%20Order%20Act%201986%20(1986%20c%2064)%20Sect%204A,%205,%206.htm
I have no kind of facility with the interwebs, so you've got the full link as copied out of my browser. Sorry.
Posted by: James W | May 23, 2008 11:36 AM
Good on the CPS for quashing the charges, but the kid still had his right to protest disrupted. Will the City Of London cops accept this as a guideline for the future, or will they act the same way next time?
The root of the problem is that the law forbids "insulting" people. That it should be illegal to insult someone of some organization (short of damaging slander and defamation) is unbelievable. ("Threatening" is a different issue, which does go beyond reasonable limits, but just calling something a cult doesn't do that).
Posted by: Eamon Knight | May 23, 2008 11:41 AM
I wonder how it is determined what counts as an "insult" (one hopes it isn't the mere hurt feelings of the "victim"). For that Scientology is not a religion, but instead a dangerous cult, is a straightforward statement of fact.
But that can't be all there is to it. When ID'ers want to insult people they call them atheists. Of course they're often wrong about that (surprise!). But even when they're not, and the "charge" is true, they're still being insulting, even if the insulting part - that atheism is heinous - is merely implied. Not, of course, that I think they should be prevented from doing this! (For one thing, it shows what dingbats they are.) My point is just that even speaking the truth can still be "insulting." Not sure where that leaves us though.
Posted by: Dave M | May 23, 2008 12:03 PM
I can't say for sure, of course, but I secretly suspect that one major source feeding this is -- improvements in parenting.
For at least a generation or two, it's practically a given among the educated that guiding kids towards being kind, considerate, and sensitive to the feelings of other people is THE most important task you can do as a mother or father. And for schools, too. Cruelty, harshness, name-calling, insults, criticism, and bullying is not only the cause of unhappiness in childhood and later on in adulthood but -- if you follow it up -- all war and strife around the globe. In one form or other, this idea seems to get promoted a lot. It's a major focus and concern when dealing with children, and teaching them to become responsible adults, so we can one day achieve World Peace.
Everything we need to know we learned in kindergarten: Don't make other people feel bad, and there will be no more fights.
I'm not arguing that this is completely wrong, of course. Children should learn to be kind, considerate, and tactful. Of course. So should we all -- to an extent. Within limits.
But it seems to me that this attitude is spilling over into policy. And it's being applied to the idea of critique and disagreement as a whole. Advocates of hate speech laws don't seem to frame it in terms of Big Brother telling people what to do. No, it's more like Big Mommy, soothing hurt feelings and fixing conflicts by making people say "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings" and that's the end of the problem. That's all problems really are, after all. Not enough niceness.
I don't know. Maybe this is at least part of it. Whenever I talk to people who want laws or rules or taboos against harsh criticism, they always seem to sound like mothers in a playgroup.
Posted by: Sastra | May 23, 2008 12:57 PM
The really funny bit is that, quoted from the original Guardian article:
"The teenager refused to back down, quoting a 1984 high court ruling from Mr Justice Latey, in which he described the Church of Scientology as a "cult" which was "corrupt, sinister and dangerous". After the exchange, a policewoman handed him a court summons and removed his sign."
Or in other words, he was using the same words as used by a high court judge. Hahahahhaaa.
Posted by: guthrie | May 23, 2008 2:34 PM
Isn't some of the reaction to this item over the top? The cops quoted a law, which, like it or not, is on the statute book of England and Wales. Readers might think that the particular law is unreasonable, but the cops' interpretation wasn't seriously unreasonable (I am NOT trying to justify the law, and the police have the duty of applying the law whether they agree with it or not). It's possible that the cops weren't acting in good faith, I can't tell.
The lad wasn't arrested or beaten up, the Crown Prosecution Service clarified the law to the cops, nobody went to court, it all got cleared up.
And Scientology's grubby nature got more publicity!
All sounds OK to me - as I said, whether the law should exist is another issue.
Posted by: Sam C | May 23, 2008 2:47 PM
London scilons have been complaining to the bobbies day and night about anonymous. It could be that the police nolonger listents with such a great interest.
Posted by: Anonyymi | May 23, 2008 3:55 PM
cult cult culty cult cult CULT!
Posted by: tbell | May 23, 2008 4:40 PM
Last year a man was fined £80 for wearing a 'bollocks to Blair' t-shirt. The policeman issued the fine (no legal process - cop gets pissed off, lays fine on man's ass for wearing a t-shirt) because the slogan may cause offence or distress.
And again, a man was hit with a fine by a civil enforcement officer (not a warranted law enforcement officer) because he wore a t-shirt saying 'Don't piss me off, I'm running out of space to hide the bodies.'
We have growing freedom of speech problems in Britain and are not rioting as we should.
Posted by: Peter Mc | May 23, 2008 5:21 PM
So much for conquering their "Reactive Minds"... these übermenschen fear a SIGN?
FRAUD!!!!!
Posted by: JL | May 23, 2008 5:23 PM
All of this goes to show why Britian needs a written constitution ASAP. Freedom of speech and assembly have been whittled down ever since Thatcher came in. The Human Rights Act looked like it might help things, but it allows too many loopholes in the name of public order and morality.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | May 23, 2008 6:07 PM
All of this goes to show why Britian needs a written constitution ASAP.
Didn't help Keith Henson any. :(
The kid was lucky he didn't try that in California.
Posted by: PalmSprangs | May 23, 2008 10:09 PM
ps. Scientology is a cult
Posted by: PalmSprangs | May 23, 2008 10:11 PM
A very clever person once pointed out that the whole idea of "tolerance" presupposes the existence of something that you find abhorrent. Not only does "freedom" only mean something if you grant it to what you don't like, so does "tolerance".
Mention this to your PC friends some time.
Posted by: Pseudonym | May 24, 2008 12:09 AM
Ginger Yellow: The trouble with getting a written constitution is making sure it is written correctly. Can you imagine what a modern body politic would put in a constitution? I have no doubt the right not to be offended would end up in there, and free speech would be heavily caveated. You need a constitution set up before things turn to custard, not after.
PS, I'd say the same thing about a constitution for New Zealand as well, so I'm not picking on England.
Posted by: James K | May 24, 2008 5:22 PM
Since there is a draft European Union constitution there's no need to guess. It's very wishy washy of course, but "right not to be distressed" is not in there AFAIK.
What about the UK's Human Rights Act? Couldn't it be invoked in favor of free speech?
Posted by: windy | May 28, 2008 10:14 PM