Jacob Rees-Mogg's daily video discloses that a man who was convicted of
a public order offense when he burned a Koran in front of a Turkish consulate in the UK has had his conviction overturned by an appeal court
and by the High Court when the prosecutor appealed the appeal court ruling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1HyLuElzZM [9 minutes]
Rees-Mogg gives a clear explanation of why we need to have free speech,
even when that speech is offensive to some.
Jacob Rees-Mogg's daily video discloses that a man who was convicted of
a public order offense when he burned a Koran in front of a Turkish >consulate in the UK has had his conviction overturned by an appeal court
and by the High Court when the prosecutor appealed the appeal court ruling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1HyLuElzZM [9 minutes]
Rees-Mogg gives a clear explanation of why we need to have free speech,
even when that speech is offensive to some.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Jacob Rees-Mogg's daily video discloses that a man who was convicted of
a public order offense when he burned a Koran in front of a Turkish
consulate in the UK has had his conviction overturned by an appeal court
and by the High Court when the prosecutor appealed the appeal court ruling.
I question your conclusion.
While the American concept of judicial
review -- such and such a statute is unconstitutional given certain
facts and circumstances -- is based on judicial review in English common
law, lacking a constitution beyond Magna Carta, a judge cannot rule a
law unconstitutional.
If this sets precedent, and I have no understanding of how precedent
works, then the protection is quite limited. The only way to protect
speech and publishing rights is to repeal the statute. Till that's done, speech and publishing that gives offense without an underlying crime
remains disorderly conduct. There is no liberty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1HyLuElzZM [9 minutes]
Rees-Mogg gives a clear explanation of why we need to have free speech,
even when that speech is offensive to some.
Too bad the voters just won't vote in a government determined to repeal
all illiberal laws.
On 2026-03-01 3:28 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Jacob Rees-Mogg's daily video discloses that a man who was convicted of
a public order offense when he burned a Koran in front of a Turkish >>>consulate in the UK has had his conviction overturned by an appeal court >>>and by the High Court when the prosecutor appealed the appeal court ruling.
I question your conclusion.
Huh? Are you saying I misunderstood him?
While the American concept of judicial
review -- such and such a statute is unconstitutional given certain
facts and circumstances -- is based on judicial review in English common >>law, lacking a constitution beyond Magna Carta, a judge cannot rule a
law unconstitutional.
The Brits firmly believe that they DO have a constitution although they >describe it as unwritten! It was created during the Glorious Revolution
of 1688/89 and everyone seems to know what is in it. (Yeah, I don't
quite follow that either.)
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2. . .
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-03-01 3:28 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Jacob Rees-Mogg's daily video discloses that a man who was convicted of >>>> a public order offense when he burned a Koran in front of a Turkish
consulate in the UK has had his conviction overturned by an appeal court >>>> and by the High Court when the prosecutor appealed the appeal court ruling.
I question your conclusion.
Huh? Are you saying I misunderstood him?
I'm saying that you cannot conclude that others who speak or write
cannot be prosecuted for disorderly conduct just because this went to
the High Court. I don't believe that makes a law unenforceable at trial
in future.
While the American concept of judicial
review -- such and such a statute is unconstitutional given certain
facts and circumstances -- is based on judicial review in English common >>> law, lacking a constitution beyond Magna Carta, a judge cannot rule a
law unconstitutional.
The Brits firmly believe that they DO have a constitution although they
describe it as unwritten! It was created during the Glorious Revolution
of 1688/89 and everyone seems to know what is in it. (Yeah, I don't
quite follow that either.)
The unwritten constitution is a set of statutes. There is no agreement
on which statutes are in the set. As they are statutes, they can be
amended or repealed by Parliament in a future session. Courts have no
ability to review a statute for conformity with constitutional law with
no written constitution.
Common law, to the extent that it's precedent, goes away once the
statute it interprets is repealed or amended.
On 2026-03-01 4:22 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:So you're saying it's no guarantee that the next guy charged with the same thing is going to get off simply because this guy was. I simply don't know how precedents work in the UK. That is a question for someone like the BlackBeltBarrister.
On 2026-03-01 3:28 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Jacob Rees-Mogg's daily video discloses that a man who was convicted of >>>>> a public order offense when he burned a Koran in front of a Turkish
consulate in the UK has had his conviction overturned by an appeal court >>>>> and by the High Court when the prosecutor appealed the appeal court ruling.
I question your conclusion.
Huh? Are you saying I misunderstood him?
I'm saying that you cannot conclude that others who speak or write
cannot be prosecuted for disorderly conduct just because this went to
the High Court. I don't believe that makes a law unenforceable at trial
in future.
While the American concept of judicial
review -- such and such a statute is unconstitutional given certain
facts and circumstances -- is based on judicial review in English common >>>> law, lacking a constitution beyond Magna Carta, a judge cannot rule a
law unconstitutional.
The Brits firmly believe that they DO have a constitution although they
describe it as unwritten! It was created during the Glorious Revolution
of 1688/89 and everyone seems to know what is in it. (Yeah, I don't
quite follow that either.)
The unwritten constitution is a set of statutes. There is no agreement
on which statutes are in the set. As they are statutes, they can be
amended or repealed by Parliament in a future session. Courts have no
ability to review a statute for conformity with constitutional law with
no written constitution.
Common law, to the extent that it's precedent, goes away once the
statute it interprets is repealed or amended.
Okay, I think I get your drift. If you're saying it would be better to have freedom of speech "carved in stone" the way it is in the US Constitution, I expect you're right especially if it is written as strongly as your constitution, rather than the wishy-washy wannabe we have.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 19:30:21 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (21,017K bytes) |
| Messages: | 194,291 |