Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Telegraph reports on a minister in England being arrested for preaching that homosexuality is sinful.
Dale McAlpine was charged with causing "harassment, alarm or distress" after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of "sins" referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships...Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.
Seriously? That's their argument, that he can say it -- but only if he doesn't say it loud enough for others to actually hear it?
Sam Webster, a solicitor-advocate for the Christian Institute, which is supporting Mr McAlpine, said it is not a crime to express the belief that homosexual conduct is a sin."The police have a duty to maintain public order but they also have a duty to defend the lawful free speech of citizens," he said.
"Case law has ruled that the orthodox Christian belief that homosexual conduct is sinful is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society."
Jesus, that quote gives me the creeps. Why should it even matter whether the government thinks any given statement is "a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society"? Respect doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. There are vast numbers of ideas unworthy of respect; that hardly justifies arresting those who express them.
Mr McAlpine was handing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a "ticket to heaven" with a church colleague on April 20, when a woman came up and engaged him in a debate about his faith.During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness.
After the woman walked away, she was approached by a PCSO who spoke with her briefly and then walked over to Mr McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made, and that he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language.
The street preacher said he told the PCSO: "I am not homophobic but sometimes I do say that the Bible says homosexuality is a crime against the Creator".
He claims that the PCSO then said he was homosexual and identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police. Mr McAlpine replied: "It's still a sin."
The preacher then began a 20 minute sermon, in which he says he mentioned drunkenness and adultery, but not homosexuality. Three regular uniformed police officers arrived during the address, arrested Mr McAlpine and put him in the back of a police van.
At the station, he was told to empty his pockets and his mobile telephone, belt and shoes were confiscated. Police took fingerprints, a palm print, a retina scan and a DNA swab.
He was later interviewed, charged under Sections 5 (1) and (6) of the Public Order Act and released on bail on the condition that he did not preach in public.
Unfortunately, this is nothing new. Several people in England have been arrested and even convicted under this law for nothing more than offering their opinion. Absolutely appalling.
And please don't try to tell me that I can't criticize this law because I'm an American, whether you base that ridiculous argument on the grounds that America has its own problems with freedom (no shit; I criticize my country every day on that basis) or on the even sillier grounds that if you don't live in that country you can't criticize their policies.
If an American makes such a transparently idiotic argument when the United States is criticized for any number of wrongheaded policies, we would rightly condemn that American as a xenophobic asshole. It's no less idiotic when used by someone from another country. An argument is no less valid because it is offered by someone born across a line on a map. The argument is either valid or invalid, true or false. Engage it on that basis.
Politics
Comments
Well, with an election coming up, hopefully the lib-dems will get enough influence to be able to put a stop to this sort of nonsense. I can't see either Labour or the Conservatives opposing it.
Posted by: G.Shelley | May 5, 2010 9:50 AM
Living in the UK, the one thing I can say I am truley jealous of the States for is the first amendment...
The state of some of the laws that suppress opinion and free speech in the UK really do concern me at times.
(You can keep the second though)
Posted by: Truckle | May 5, 2010 9:54 AM
Actually Im ecstatic this minister was arrested for expressing his opinion. There is so much knee-jerk support for the "protection of religion and the religious from being offended" laws and movements currently in vogue. I think at least a few people will realize that if you dont allow non-believers to express offensive opinions about a given religion, then you may not be allowed to express opinions about a group you disapprove of. Maybe this will help open people's eyes to the ridiculousness of these "crimes."
Posted by: Lorax | May 5, 2010 9:54 AM
Anyone see the potential for a bit of hypocrisy in this statement? Would he make the same argument if an atheist were being charged for similar statements against religion? Sad thing is I agree with him regarding the duty of the government to protect free speech, unfortunately I have a sinking suspicion that we might differ if the content of that speech is a subject that he disagrees with. To be fair, I am basing this statement on the way he phrased his comment and nothing more, I could be completely wrong and this guy could be a principled advocate for broad free speech rights.
Why is it so many people, both abroad and here in the United States, don't understand that offensive speech is the very speech we need to defend the most? You don't need to protect the speech that everyone likes, you need to protect the speech that pisses people off ... I mean c'mon people, think about it!
Posted by: dogmeat | May 5, 2010 10:02 AM
This time I agree with you completely, Ed. This really is a free speech issue, and as noted, it is the response to speech that pisses people off which determine whether speech really is free or not!
Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | May 5, 2010 10:06 AM
I tend to think the same way, Lorax: the best way to eliminate a stupid law is to start applying it to the majority who thought they were going to be immune to its effects. Its a bit of a risky strategy, though, for two reasons. One, the majority may be perfectly happy to give up some of their freedom in order to prevent you from having yours. Two, they may attempt to argue that their beliefs are an exception to the rule.
This is just my opinion, but in the U.S. the former strategy is generally used by the far left (i.e. in pushing for more politically correct speech by everyone) while the latter strategy is seen on the right (i.e. the idea that founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation; Christianity seen as an exception to the 1st amendment.).
Posted by: eric | May 5, 2010 10:16 AM
I'm British and this makes me sick. Does anyone know of any equivalent to the ACLU in this country? If not it's about time we formed one!
> Unfortunately, this is nothing new. Several people in England have
> been arrested and even convicted under this law for nothing more
> than offering their opinion. Absolutely appalling.
Does anyone know of anywhere a list of these might exist?
Posted by: David Durant | May 5, 2010 10:23 AM
the article from the onion on free speech is a hoot.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-upholds-freedom-of-speech-in-obsceni,17372/
England seems like a sacry place right out of orwells 1984.
cameras everywhere , arresting people for speech .
as messed up as things are here in the U.S.A, i am thankfull that some of our liberties are still protected
Posted by: Vic Vanity | May 5, 2010 10:33 AM
That was my exact reaction, as well. So it's possible that the expression non-Orthodox Christian religious beliefs can be outlawed because they're not respectable? As if orthodoxy, Christianity, and respectability should have anything to do with the legality of speech?
Well, respectability can be argued to be a measure in U.S. obscenity laws, but I consider obscenity laws to be a violation of free expression as well.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 5, 2010 10:37 AM
Couple this with the guy convicted of leaving anti-religious material in the prayer room of a UK airport, and you have a full spectrum of punishing speech from the government.
Posted by: Jay | May 5, 2010 10:38 AM
I meant to leave a link for my comment above...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7624578/Atheist-given-Asbo-for-leaflets-mocking-Jesus.html
Posted by: Jay | May 5, 2010 10:42 AM
Any Brits on here (lurkers included please) want to put there hands up so we can get together and look into what we can do about this madness?
Posted by: David Durant | May 5, 2010 11:03 AM
from the Onion article:
"The plaintiff clearly brought this suit without reading the fucking Bill of Rights...because after 230 goddamn years of the U.S. Constitution, the general citizenry ought to know their own First Fucking Ammendment."
and now, for your edification, direct from Wikipedia, appearing here today, let's give it up for THE FIRST AMMENDMENT!!!!:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
Posted by: rob | May 5, 2010 11:16 AM
Gretchen wrote, "Well, respectability can be argued to be a measure in U.S. obscenity laws, but I consider obscenity laws to be a violation of free expression as well."
With US obscenity laws it was about the "community standards." Looks like this preacher was violating a "community standard."
And to think this is happening in the land that produced John Locke, John Stuart Mill, George Orwell, and greatly influenced Voltaire.
Posted by: Bill in NC | May 5, 2010 11:20 AM
As a drunken adulterer I am grossly offended by Mr McAlpine's comments but I still think he has every right to state his opinion even if it does reveal him to be a tight-assed, pea-brained, homophobic, supercilious, bible-thumping, mean-spirited, loud-mouthed poopie-head (no offense intended).
Posted by: Blondin | May 5, 2010 11:30 AM
Admittedly, I haven't lived in the UK for some time now (8 years) but I get the feeling that this is partly because many people are unwilling to actually put themselves on the line. They'd rather have the government take action for them than say to someone 'I believe your opinions are wrong for x, y, z reason'. The Daily Wail seems to epitomise the 'someone else do something about it' (with the article across the page complaining about how the 'nanny state' is then interfering). I'm not saying this is the case everywhere. Obviously there are people willing to do something.
Posted by: English Rose | May 5, 2010 11:37 AM
You've got this one exactly right Ed: this kind of thing is disgraceful and besmirches the good name of the UK.
Posted by: Coryat | May 5, 2010 11:53 AM
@David Durant:
Liberty might be a good organisation to contact:
www dot liberty-human-rights dot org dot uk
Posted by: Philbert | May 5, 2010 11:59 AM
Ed,
I am very glad that you are commenting on UK issues.
There was a very interesting ruling last week regarding the rights of an employee to refuse to provide services to a gay couple for religious reasons.
judgement here, worth reading:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/B1.html
In this case the judge made some excellent points about the nature of religious belief.
However in my view did not allow the plaintiff enough room to exercise his conscience.
I am a long term follower of your blog, a strong supporter of freedom and an atheist.
However, I think that the courts are being overly restrictive of the freedoms of religious people to follow their consciences.
However, for as long as you can be criminalised for leaving a cartoon in a chapel then the situation is balanced. Utterly wrong, but balanced.
Posted by: Felix | May 5, 2010 12:01 PM
I see Vic already provided the link, so here's a great quote from the article:
"It is the opinion of this court that the right to speak without censorship or fear of intimidation is fundamental to a healthy democracy," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. "Furthermore, the court finds that the right to say whatever the hell you want, whenever the hell you want, is not only a founding tenet, but remains essential to the continued success of this nation."
Added Ginsburg, "In short, freedom of speech means the freedom of fucking speech, you ignorant cocksuckers."
Posted by: Captain Mike | May 5, 2010 12:30 PM
This is part of what seems to be a wider problem here in the UK at the moment with the police zealously applying laws that are gently eroding our civil liberties.
Part of this did make me smile though. The Christian right has been pushing for blasphemy laws (c.f. Ireland) that could have led to comedians being arrested and all sorts of silly situations.
Oh, and definitely feel free to criticise UK law. It looks like we may finally be sorting out our libel laws and that is partly thanks to criticism from the US (various states passing laws protecting US citizens from UK libel and publications such as the NYT threatening to pull out of the UK entirely).
Posted by: Doug | May 5, 2010 12:40 PM
I have an extreme, slightly off topic hypothetical scenario that I've been curious to hear your opinions about, because I don't think I've seen it discussed, mostly because scenarios like it only comes up directly preceding a barroom brawl or something. Someone approaches someone else on the street and says to them directly "You're a dirty faggot and you're going to hell, you perverted freak!"
I understand those who say that in the British case, he was just standing on the corner spouting his drivel into the air and nobody has the right to not be offended. And I can stipulate that anywhere he can preach that blacks are mongrels and should be back in chains, he can preach bigotry against homosexuals. But in my exreme, degrading someone else on a personal level? Am I still going to hear "nobody has the right to not be offended?"
Posted by: paul | May 5, 2010 1:29 PM
You are going to hear exactly that from me. The only place I draw the line on free speech is when it's a direct incitement to violence, which your example is not.
I've had complete strangers say things to me that are easily that offensive, but I still defend unto death their right to say it...asshats though they may be.
Posted by: Captain Mike | May 5, 2010 1:41 PM
It might be worth mentioning that the claims reported by the Telegraph are simply the claims as stated by the Christian Institute, which has a history of, how shall I put this politely, a certain historical recklessness with the full facts.
If the CI are claiming this guy was merely saying something slightly too loudly, it's almost certain that this is not the case, and the guy in question really was behaving in a truly outrageous manner. Contrary to the Christian Institutes claims, calling homosexuality a sin is not illegal in the UK.
Ed, feel free to criticise UK law all you like. But for crying out loud, don't assume that our laws are what the Christian Institute - of all people - claim it is.
Posted by: baldywilson | May 5, 2010 1:49 PM
Am I still going to hear "nobody has the right to not be offended?"
I'd be offended were I the subject of such abuse. But I'd still defend the speaker's right to offend me. Which was also the point of @4, @5, and @15, in case you didn't see them.
Posted by: eric | May 5, 2010 1:55 PM
baldywilson
If this is true you must have some independent source, because that is not what you get from the article Ed linked. That article reports and then, as is common practice, relates comments from relevant parties, in this case from the Christian Institute. But it does not state that the details of the report are from the Christian Institute--it gives every indication that they are news, not opinion. Do you know something not in the article that would indicate the source of the story itself is from the Christian Institute (if you do provide a link) or are are you just blowing smoke?
Posted by: heddle | May 5, 2010 2:19 PM
Seems to me that this is a classic case of the police saying one thing, and the person they arrested saying something different. If McAlpine did, indeed, merely quietly tell a passerby that homosexuality is a sin, then he's definitely not in breach of law. However, if he did so very loudly, in effect, publicly preaching such a thing then, technically, he is in breach of law, and therefore the police are correct to arrest him, in legal terms, at least. However, from my reading of the Act, the focus of the Act is in preventing people from harrassing, threatening, intimidating or abusing people in public, whether individually or as a group, such as people loudly shouting and swearing in the street, rather than things such as this, so it could be argued this is a misuse of this particular Act. Either way, this is seen as a minor offence, where the guilty party is merely given a fine. The police are only authorised to arrest someone if they warn that person to stop it and they don't, basically. This means that either the police overstepped their authority, or the details given in the Telegraph are not entirely accurate and/or complete.
Posted by: Zmidponk | May 5, 2010 2:48 PM
I was in court in RI the other day, and some guy was getting charged with disorderly conduct for cussing his neighbor out...
...from inside his house, through a window.
You can get dragged into court for swearing loudly in your own house in the US. Some first amendment.
Posted by: Dan L. | May 5, 2010 2:48 PM
heddle
That may be common practice in the US, it is not common practice in the UK.
In the UK, the common practice is to simply run the press-release statement from the company being quoted which normally appears in the original press-release. In the UK we have two large Christian PR organisations - the Christian Institue and the Christian Legal Centre - and, as I say, these organisations have a history.
Do I know something not in the article? Yes I bloody well do. For starters I'm British and have a basic understanding of the law surrounding hate speech in the UK because I wrote many a bloody letter to my MP opposing them. I know they don't say what the CI are claiming they say. I know that the CI have a history of distorting facts, and I know too bloody well that the Telegraph - amongst other reporters, including the BBC - regularly report ludicrous press-releases from these organisations as fact, but when the matter is investigated in a court of law, these press-releases are found to be wholly inaccurate.
I also know that the right-wing British press are currently engaged in a rather ludicrous game of "Christianity is being banned in Britain", often with the (racist) tag-line "but Muslims get away with it".
In short I have a basic familiarity with British political reporting.
Can I state categorically that what happened is not precisely how the Telegraph "reported" (and I really do use that term very loosely) it? Of course not. For starters the CI's Press Release archives stop in January 2010. Yes, I checked there long before Ed posted this piece: check the date on the Telegraph article. This article has already been discussed at great length.
Posted by: baldywilson | May 5, 2010 2:50 PM
You can get dragged into court for swearing loudly in your own house in the US. Some first amendment.
Yes, but can you be convicted based on the content of your speech? That's the operative question. Sounds very similar to this 2007 case, which was dismissed.
Posted by: eric | May 5, 2010 2:58 PM
Not I---at least not the way the First Amendment is currently interpreted by the courts in the US, since the First Amendment now protects the right of people and corporations to spend as much money as they want getting someone elected, and thus the tight restrictions on the amount of money that can be spent during a UK election (plus the ban on paid political advertising on TV) would be overturned.
There are ways to fix the current issues with free speech laws without going that far. Adding an incitement to violence clause to the existing law would be a good start.
Posted by: tacitus | May 5, 2010 3:27 PM
I know that Onion article you guys linked to is satire, and as much as I love the Onion, I think the satire undermined itself when it said the city sued that theater group for use of profanity in a production funded by the city. If the theater group funded itself with its own money, then the First Amendment would unambiguously protect it, but as they are taking public money, then the public can have a say on the content of the production. Not so much a free speech issue as a "we want what we paid for" issue. Perhaps Ginsburg's evil Onion Twin should've addressed that in her fake majority opinion rather than flipping two birds to the cameraman. (Awesome picture though, by the way.)
Posted by: AL | May 5, 2010 3:45 PM
Because, and solely because, the Christian advocacy organisations have a history of presenting misleading descriptions of criminal and civil proceedings and tribunals involving religious expression, I will adopt the devil's advocate position.
Even the Daily Mail account says that two officers say they witnessed McAlpine shouting about the sinfulness of homosexuality. Depending on the circumstances of this conduct, it could have been (as alleged) a public order offence.
I also note that all parties seem to be agreed that this was prior to his sermon and not part of it. So any shouting in that context would be more likely to be abusive or intended to cause distress, rather than simply speaking up to make sure all those listening could hear his sermon. Both the UK and the USA have laws against abusive speech, and the First Amendment typically does not cover such speech.
Of course not knowing what actually happened I'll wait to see if it goes to trial and if so, what the court discovers.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | May 5, 2010 4:23 PM
I've got some background here:
http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/secularists-and-christians-complain-about-free-speech-in-the-uk/
Basically, it seems to me that in the UK we've always tended to ban things as an easy solution to challenges to mainstream society, it's just that the things we ban have changed. It used to be blasphemy, and back in the 1960s to 80s, it was "obscenity". Can you believe that in the 1960s it was argued in court that Lady Chatterley's Lover should remain banned because servants might read about a gardener cuckolding a Lord? Or that a gay fantasy about Jesus could be prosecuted for blasphemy in 1979?
That's all gone now, but instead the mainstream value is "tolerance" for other groups. That means you can get into trouble for attacking religion in provocative way, or for being religious in a way that might be disruptive. One our awful libel judges recently reminded us all that we don't have a "hierarchy of rights" in the UK, which is why freedom of speech doesn't trump other concerns. Unless free speech is valued absolutely for itself, then a habit of censorship will persist.
I really doubt that anyone who reads this post will complain about an American pointing out a situation which we all know to be crap, and which we lament decade after decade, casting an envious eye across the Atlantic.
Posted by: Bartholomew | May 5, 2010 4:45 PM
Tony @33: Both the UK and the USA have laws against abusive speech, and the First Amendment typically does not cover such speech.
If you mean 'personally abusive,' you blithering lump of juice squeezed from a pig's corpuscle, then you're wrong, the 1st does protect such speech. I am allowed to voice my opinion* of you, even if you don't like that opinion and find it offensive, and doing so is not illegal in the U.S.
*The above does not represent my actual opinion. But I think it illustrates my point.
Posted by: eric | May 5, 2010 4:55 PM
I'm not certainly not complaining, but I would question your assertion that Brits have been "casting an envious eye" to America for decades. In the 30 years I lived in the UK, I never saw any evidence of that. I think most Brits are actually quite comfortable with the current free speech laws, as flawed as they might be to the admirers of the US Constitution's First Amendment. It's certainly not been a campaign issue in any election I can remember.
There is no reason why the current law cannot be amended to protect people when they say offensive things, just as the blasphemy and obscenity laws were disposed of or amended in years past. Having lived the last couple of decades in the USA, I am not convinced that a First Amendment-style constitutional right is necessarily a good thing, given the number of headaches it has induced by the assertions that (spending) money and corporations also have protections under the same provision, and the resulting impact on the political and election process. (And it's not as though it's stopped free speech abuses from happening either.)
If there is enough will in Britain to do something about it (which I doubt at this moment) then I am sure the laws will be changed. But it can be done without the sweeping changes that a constitutional-style amendment could bring. (Although, in theory, if the amendment was specific enough, one could avoid many of the same pitfalls that have befallen the US amendment.)
Posted by: tacitus | May 5, 2010 6:29 PM
My wording was rather loose, for which I apologise. The relevant American legal doctrine is "fighting words", and permits certain forms of expression to be prosecuted, for instance as public order offences. The classic case law for this was Chaplinsky versus New Hampshire (1942). Coincidentally, that case also involved a preacher, although the alleged offence involved personally abusing the law enforcement officer.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | May 5, 2010 6:52 PM
I see that baldywilson has covered the reasons to be wary of this report (though not to dismiss it utterly, it's not that implausible).
There is indeed a "we're being persecuted" meme going around various British denominations at the moment. One woman traveled 300 miles from her home to be revolted at statues of Jesus with a giant phallus in a public art gallery, a registrar made a martyr out of herself by refusing to handle the paperwork to marry gay couples, a social worker went out of his way to hand out prayer cards to hospital patients who had not asked for them, and so on. All claimed the right to do so, all got support in the papers, and all their claims were rejected. This case seems to be different, though, because at first sight it appears to be a pure free expression case where nobody else's right to free expression is infringed.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | May 5, 2010 8:23 PM
I just got arrested in Cape Coral Florida for cussing. You should see the law they charged me under. It is from 200 years ago I bet. Right above it was that no one except doctors and dentists can give tatoos. I guess these red neck cops will be going around closing all the tatto parlors soon. Yea right. There vile is reserved for people like me that have had no problems since I was 21(now 37) with cops but am not letting these Jim Crow bastards fuck with me.
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 5, 2010 8:56 PM
Wow -- sorry to hear that, KoI. What were the circumstances of the arrest? (If you don't mind saying.) Are you going to fight the charges?
Posted by: tacitus | May 5, 2010 9:17 PM
I have been having on ongoing battle with these pricks ever since one of they stopped me on the street and demanded my ID or I was going to jail for no apparent reason other than it was late and my brother was stumbling because of a broken foot. This particular incident was a week after some shit head that called a 60 year old woman a bitch told me he was going to fuck me up for telling him not too. I left the bar and called the cops and they came and told me to leave the area. The next week I saw about 8 cars sitting and doing nothing while a bunch of drunk 18 year olds were running wild getting ready to fight. I went up and asked them why they do nothing when it is needed and fuck with other people? A conversation ensued. Then they showed me a sign that said they can ask me to leave and if not I get locked up. I was leaving and called the cop a prick and told him if he did not have his badge he would not even look at me the wrong way. I think I might have called him a mother fucker too. Some guy heard and said I offended his morals?
This shit has got to stop. Ed needs to keep writing on it. I think it was his posts on this shit that have made me stand up and not take it. Got me locked up too but fuck them and the corrupt ass judges here too. Jim Crow still lives in certain parts of the south.
As much as I agree in principle with the AZ immigration law this is the problem: red neck cops that we all know are pricks
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 5, 2010 9:55 PM
I like freedom of speech more than I dislike jerks like this guy. Let him bray and make himself look like an ass all he wants.
And remember how recently it was you'd be arrested for preaching that homosexuality wasn't a sin.
Posted by: Matthew Lagro | May 5, 2010 9:55 PM
Tony @37: The relevant American legal doctrine is "fighting words", and permits certain forms of expression to be prosecuted, for instance as public order offences. The classic case law for this was Chaplinsky versus New Hampshire (1942).
Interesting, I had no idea the U.S. still had a 1st amendment exception for fighting words. Thanks Tony. From here it appears that since 1942, every attempt to cite this case as precedent and implement it in law has failed; every time its tried, the court rules the resulting law is overbroad.
Posted by: eric | May 6, 2010 8:21 AM
I was going to say that what McAlpine said about drunkenness must have been okay since no one in the pubs or at home would have heard him, but you sorta beat me to it.
Oh, and you forgot booze-hating (aw, what the hell, just call him fun-impaired) in your non-offensive description.
Posted by: twincats | May 6, 2010 4:27 PM
eric, 43
I suspect the list you link to there is about case law, not a compendium of cases involving the principle. That would necessarily be weighted towards limitations of this very broad principle of common law. Obviously that's a good thing, but it doesn't mean that the principle isn't in daily use up and down the country.
That was the sole reason for my raising the principle: to demonstrate that the US and the UK have a common principles that are not limited by the First Amendment in their application. Obviously the details are affected by historical contingency and the strong emphasis on the Bill of Rights in US jurisprudence, but that doesn't mean that the First Amendment always trumps the underlying common law.
Of course this British case involved application of statute, but if I were so inclined I suspect that I could find local and possibly even federal statutes in American law that depend to some extent on this common law interpretation of the First Amendment.
And to repeat my big caveats: I cannot say what actually happened in this case, I'm only commenting on what I know about the legal aspects. And I'm not a lawyer but I've watched Perry Mason. :)
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | May 6, 2010 5:49 PM