Mister Bean condemns the British government's response to speech

Yeah, the Brits are in a tougher situation in that regard, they don't have quite the same level of speech protections we have. I've seen John Cleese, as well, complain about how they feel that younger liberals in Britain have "sold out free speech"

While Rowan Atkinson (over here in the US) is best known as "Mr. Bean"...only us "British Comedy nerds" over here in the US are probably familiar with his other works, like Not the 9'clock News and Thin Blue Line...two shows that certainly would not be considered "PC" by some modern progressive standards.

I would assume Rowan (like John Cleese) probably has vivid (and somewhat fond) memories of the time when it was the left that was saying the controversial things and pushing the envelope and it was "those stuffy old conservative party poopers" who wanted to censor things they found offensive.

So when they see how things have sort of "flipped", and now when John Cleese is trying to do a stage production of "Life of Brian", and it's progressive 20-something theater actors saying that he needs to "cut the Loretta scene because it could be triggering for some people", people like John and Rowan probably see that as quite disappointing.

And that's understandable. For the people who fought and took risks to kick open certain doors, to see the people (who they thought were their ideological allies and fellow lovers of the craft) fight to close those doors back up, I can see how they'd be miffed by that.

I can't possibly comment...

HTacianas said:

How bad does it have to get?

Click to expand...

We need some context here.

Atkinson is generally the smartest man in whatever room he walks into. And he's a staunch believer in free speech. As the video clip shows. But that speech wasn't in response to the recent riots in the UK or the governments actions. It was made back in 2012 and was made in support of a change to Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. This was to persuade Parliament to remove the word 'insulting' from sections (a) and (b):

A person is guilty of an offence if he/she:
(a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive],within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."


This would mean that you could still be charged for using threatening or abusive language. A debateable point for some, but Atkinson was not arguing against that. He felt, very strongly indeed, that you could, and should be able to insult someone (without being threatening or abusive). That was the context of the video clip (and here's an article explaining Atkinson's action: Rowan Atkinson defends freedom of speech, while Frankie Boyle wins it in court).

Furthermore, the video clip linked to in the OP is by a right wing social media company as you can see by checking out the rest of 'Crossroads News' on Youtube.

As to why they are posting these videos, it's because the British Government is having talks with media companies to stress the importance of vigilance in regard to posts which have been used in the recent riots to incite violence and to also spread misinformation - which has also led to violence. I would expect any government to do the same, be they right wing conservative or left wing liberal. But the right wing is taking this, far from being a reasonable discussion about what should and shouldn't be allowed, as a fight against free speech itself. And we've seen exactly the same thing within this forum.

It's a discussion that needs to be had. But junk so-called news outlets who try to convince you that well thought of celebrities are arguing against what is happening now doesn't help in the slightest. It's underhand and dishonest.

ThatRobGuy said:

Yeah, the Brits are in a tougher situation in that regard, they don't have quite the same level of speech protections we have. I've seen John Cleese, as well, complain about how they feel that younger liberals in Britain have "sold out free speech"

While Rowan Atkinson (over here in the US) is best known as "Mr. Bean"...only us "British Comedy nerds" over here in the US are probably familiar with his other works, like Not the 9'clock News and Thin Blue Line...two shows that certainly would not be considered "PC" by some modern progressive standards.

I would assume Rowan (like John Cleese) probably has vivid (and somewhat fond) memories of the time when it was the left that was saying the controversial things and pushing the envelope and it was "those stuffy old conservative party poopers" who wanted to censor things they found offensive.

So when they see how things have sort of "flipped", and now when John Cleese is trying to do a stage production of "Life of Brian", and it's progressive 20-something theater actors saying that he needs to "cut the Loretta scene because it could be triggering for some people", people like John and Rowan probably see that as quite disappointing.

And that's understandable. For the people who fought and took risks to kick open certain doors, to see the people (who they thought were their ideological allies and fellow lovers of the craft) fight to close those doors back up, I can see how they'd be miffed by that.

Click to expand...

Yea, one of my favorite shows “Mind your language” would not fly on the airwaves today.

Not a Rowan Atkinson show.

ThatRobGuy said:

Yeah, the Brits are in a tougher situation in that regard, they don't have quite the same level of speech protections we have. I've seen John Cleese, as well, complain about how they feel that younger liberals in Britain have "sold out free speech"

While Rowan Atkinson (over here in the US) is best known as "Mr. Bean"...only us "British Comedy nerds" over here in the US are probably familiar with his other works, like Not the 9'clock News and Thin Blue Line...two shows that certainly would not be considered "PC" by some modern progressive standards.

I would assume Rowan (like John Cleese) probably has vivid (and somewhat fond) memories of the time when it was the left that was saying the controversial things and pushing the envelope and it was "those stuffy old conservative party poopers" who wanted to censor things they found offensive.

So when they see how things have sort of "flipped", and now when John Cleese is trying to do a stage production of "Life of Brian", and it's progressive 20-something theater actors saying that he needs to "cut the Loretta scene because it could be triggering for some people", people like John and Rowan probably see that as quite disappointing.

And that's understandable. For the people who fought and took risks to kick open certain doors, to see the people (who they thought were their ideological allies and fellow lovers of the craft) fight to close those doors back up, I can see how they'd be miffed by that.

Click to expand...

In regards to free speech...I consider imposing speech controls (beyond the necessary actual violent threats)...to be a form of slavery.

Taken to its extreme in places like N Korea or Soviet Russia...it becomes a constant state of lying. Truth becomes a threat to power.

Controlling someone's physical body is one kind of slavery....controlling the thoughts one can express is another.

Bradskii said:

We need some context here.

Atkinson is generally the smartest man in whatever room he walks into. And he's a staunch believer in free speech. As the video clip shows. But that speech wasn't in response to the recent riots in the UK or the governments actions. It was made back in 2012 and was made in support of a change to Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. This was to persuade Parliament to remove the word 'insulting' from sections (a) and (b):

A person is guilty of an offence if he/she:
(a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive],within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This would mean that you could still be charged for using threatening or abusive language. A debateable point for some, but Atkinson was not arguing against that. He felt, very strongly indeed, that you could, and should be able to insult someone (without being threatening or abusive). That was the context of the video clip (and here's an article explaining Atkinson's action: Rowan Atkinson defends freedom of speech, while Frankie Boyle wins it in court).

Furthermore, the video clip linked to in the OP is by a right wing social media company as you can see by checking out the rest of 'Crossroads News' on Youtube.

As to why they are posting these videos, it's because the British Government is having talks with media companies to stress the importance of vigilance in regard to posts which have been used in the recent riots to incite violence and to also spread misinformation - which has also led to violence. I would expect any government to do the same, be they right wing conservative or left wing liberal. But the right wing is taking this, far from being a reasonable discussion about what should and shouldn't be allowed, as a fight against free speech itself. And we've seen exactly the same thing within this forum.

It's a discussion that needs to be had. But junk so-called news outlets who try to convince you that well thought of celebrities are arguing against what is happening now doesn't help in the slightest. It's underhand and dishonest.

Click to expand...

I've come to notice that people on the left never actually have the discussions they claim we should have.

Bradskii said:

We need some context here.

Atkinson is generally the smartest man in whatever room he walks into. And he's a staunch believer in free speech. As the video clip shows. But that speech wasn't in response to the recent riots in the UK or the governments actions. It was made back in 2012 and was made in support of a change to Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. This was to persuade Parliament to remove the word 'insulting' from sections (a) and (b):

A person is guilty of an offence if he/she:
(a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive],within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This would mean that you could still be charged for using threatening or abusive language. A debateable point for some, but Atkinson was not arguing against that. He felt, very strongly indeed, that you could, and should be able to insult someone (without being threatening or abusive). That was the context of the video clip (and here's an article explaining Atkinson's action: Rowan Atkinson defends freedom of speech, while Frankie Boyle wins it in court).

Furthermore, the video clip linked to in the OP is by a right wing social media company as you can see by checking out the rest of 'Crossroads News' on Youtube.

As to why they are posting these videos, it's because the British Government is having talks with media companies to stress the importance of vigilance in regard to posts which have been used in the recent riots to incite violence and to also spread misinformation - which has also led to violence. I would expect any government to do the same, be they right wing conservative or left wing liberal. But the right wing is taking this, far from being a reasonable discussion about what should and shouldn't be allowed, as a fight against free speech itself. And we've seen exactly the same thing within this forum.

It's a discussion that needs to be had. But junk so-called news outlets who try to convince you that well thought of celebrities are arguing against what is happening now doesn't help in the slightest. It's underhand and dishonest.

Click to expand...

For whatever it's worth, Rowan also protested against the 2020 Scottish hate crime bill as well, so his commentaries on that situation may be more pertinent to the present day situation than his 2012 speech.
(the reason was that the hate crime bill in question would've completely ignored intent, and merely was to the effect of "anything that could potentially have the capability to potentially stir up hatred, regardless of the intent -- meaning, an actual Neo Nazi, and a sketch comedian doing a bit playing a Neo Nazi would've had no distinctions made)


Do you think there should be a better effort for people who are concerned about the things you mention to add a layer of separation between themselves and the people who wish to enforce the types of censorship Rowan was talking about?

Because one issue I see, in terms of how the public receives these proposals, is that if the same people calling for the "sensible" guardrails, also happen to be most of the same people who were clamoring to ban mean jokes because someone else could find them "triggering" (and trying to get actors and comedians fired) 4 years prior, then it's not unreasonable for people to be skeptical about whether or not they're acting in good faith, or using it as a trojan horse to be able to do the thing they wanted to do a few years prior.


Not to go off topic (just purely using this as an example). There are parallels to the abortion debate in the US with regards to the distrust between the factions. When state GOP legislatures proposed the "sensible" restrictions on abortion, the left didn't trust them to stop there, because many of those same GOP members were clamoring for outright bans a few years prior (and some still were). So if a state GOP legislature said "this isn't about doing complete bans, this is just about reigning it in to the reasonable limits that Scandinavia has", the perception from the left would, quite understandably, be "they're not just going to stop there, this is just a way for them to get their foot in the door".


I think the same applies to this situation.

In a practical sense, if one looks at the crowd of people saying "we need to ban misgendering and offensive jokes on social media!", and 5 years later, looks at the crowd of people saying "we just want to ban the things that could incite violence, that's all, this isn't a speech ban", and they see the same faces in the crowd, some people are going to naturally be skeptical about that.

Bradskii said:

.....It's a discussion that needs to be had. But junk so-called news outlets who try to convince you that well thought of celebrities are arguing against what is happening now doesn't help in the slightest. It's underhand and dishonest.

Click to expand...

So the speech is from 2012 and not a response to current events?

When deception is employed as an argumentative tactic, that becomes issue #1 for me at the moment, above and beyond the desired topic.

Lying to promote the value of free speech isnt helping. I'm not saying the OP poster is lying. But the "news" site they trusted sure is.

Epistemological hygiene, people.

I can't help but believe that OP really believes Rowan Atkinsons surname is Bean.

The problem with a law like that is the question of what is threatening and what is abusive. We have people saying words are violence. And many who say they feel unsafe or threatened by words said or written such as "there are only two genders". And the UK government is taking it that way. It becomes a removal if free speech. In the most recent case a woman was arrested for pointing the violence perpetrated upon British citizens by immigrants. I believe she was sentenced to 20 months in jail. Absolutely ridiculous. And people are advocating for that in the US.

That should show a clear reason why the left is out of control and it's governance leans to totalitarianism.

As Rowen pointed out so eloquently the reason this has become an issue is because of the cultural change regarding the left. Where the left has become the group of intolerance. This law has been on rhe books for a long time, but is now being used to go after people whom disagree with leftist ideology or want to point out something rhat is happening.

The two tier police system is now weaponized against those that express their frustration or disagreement with what is going on around them.

adrianmonk said:

Yea, one of my favorite shows “Mind your language” would not fly on the airwaves today.

Not a Rowan Atkinson show.

Click to expand...

The IT Crowd, Black Books, Mind Your Language...

ThatRobGuy said:

In a practical sense, if one looks at the crowd of people saying "we need to ban misgendering and offensive jokes on social media!", and 5 years later, looks at the crowd of people saying "we just want to ban the things that could incite violence, that's all, this isn't a speech ban", and they see the same faces in the crowd, some people are going to naturally be skeptical about that.

Click to expand...

I don't see it as a problem. Some things offend me. So I'm offended. Big deal. Some things make me angry. So I'm angry. Big deal. Get over it, Bradskii. If I respond violently ecause I am angry then that's down to me. It's not the fault of whoever put me in that state.

But, that said...if I am encouraged to be violent or there is an incitement to violence, then that is categorically different. That some want to muddy the waters in that regard doesn't change things.