The UK doesn't have any anti free speech laws. It has laws against Libel and Slander
The UK does have anti-free speech laws, and libel/slander are examples of them - restriction of speech. Every country has laws like these, because every country has decided that completely unrestricted speech is unwise.
However some countries cling to the concept of free speech as a propaganda tool. Their people are so indoctrinated to believe that their country has free speech and that makes their country special that they convince themselves that any law contradicting this belief must therefore not be actually restricting speech. So you get convoluted explanations as to why laws that quite clearly restrict people from saying things aren't actually curtailing free speech.
If I am restricted from knowingly saying untrue, disparaging things about another person, then that is a restriction of my speech. There's no getting away from that. You can either think the law is bad because it curtails free speech, or you can accept the idea that restrictions on free speech is sometimes acceptable. The more common third option, "excusing" the law (most likely by redefining "speech" to exclude the unwanted speech), is not intellectually honest.
To put it another way - if it's an anti-free speech law that you have grown up with, then you are likely to be unable to recognise it as an anti-free speech law. It's just the way things are for you. If it's a new law that is being introduced, then you are more likely to recognise it as such.
I'm not so sure that laws against Libel and Slander (or inciting hatred as another example) are actually anti-free speech. They are laws which govern what people do with their free speech. You can say/publish what you wish, but there be consequences of saying/publishing it. For example, you have the right to publish lies about somebody, but they have just as much right to point out that there were lies and seek compensation as a result of their publication.
See those 3 monitors with nothing on? - they put some images on them.. whoop dee doo! I can even understand why they would with the one in the middle - the brightness of it dominates the shot.
Would you like them to go back into the command centre and take another picture, or would you prefer them to get on with working on the leak?
As someone mentioned earlier - its just sensationalist journalism looking for more hits by jumping on the "BP = evil" campaign. Not that I'm saying BP are not evil, just that in this case they've not done anything in particular of note.
Slashdot Mirror
The UK does have anti-free speech laws, and libel/slander are examples of them - restriction of speech. Every country has laws like these, because every country has decided that completely unrestricted speech is unwise.
However some countries cling to the concept of free speech as a propaganda tool. Their people are so indoctrinated to believe that their country has free speech and that makes their country special that they convince themselves that any law contradicting this belief must therefore not be actually restricting speech. So you get convoluted explanations as to why laws that quite clearly restrict people from saying things aren't actually curtailing free speech.
If I am restricted from knowingly saying untrue, disparaging things about another person, then that is a restriction of my speech. There's no getting away from that. You can either think the law is bad because it curtails free speech, or you can accept the idea that restrictions on free speech is sometimes acceptable. The more common third option, "excusing" the law (most likely by redefining "speech" to exclude the unwanted speech), is not intellectually honest.
To put it another way - if it's an anti-free speech law that you have grown up with, then you are likely to be unable to recognise it as an anti-free speech law. It's just the way things are for you. If it's a new law that is being introduced, then you are more likely to recognise it as such.
I'm not so sure that laws against Libel and Slander (or inciting hatred as another example) are actually anti-free speech. They are laws which govern what people do with their free speech. You can say/publish what you wish, but there be consequences of saying/publishing it. For example, you have the right to publish lies about somebody, but they have just as much right to point out that there were lies and seek compensation as a result of their publication.
Agree completely..
here is the original photo (unphotoshopped to my knowledge) which the whole thing started over:
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/images/HIVE_houston01.jpg
See those 3 monitors with nothing on? - they put some images on them.. whoop dee doo! I can even understand why they would with the one in the middle - the brightness of it dominates the shot.
Would you like them to go back into the command centre and take another picture, or would you prefer them to get on with working on the leak?
As someone mentioned earlier - its just sensationalist journalism looking for more hits by jumping on the "BP = evil" campaign. Not that I'm saying BP are not evil, just that in this case they've not done anything in particular of note.