Paul Harvey's take on prayer in public/Xmas (In general, a "freedom of speech" topic)

Hi Brian,Schraf pointed out some of the differences in US law and (apparently) Scottish laws. In this context, most of the anti-hate-speech statutes deal explicitly with threats of or incitements to violence. Even some of these are being challenged on freedom of speech grounds. So in your example, yeah, the individual could stand on a street corner and scream this out. And the forensic examiners and police that will investigate the resultant mutilated corpse found in a dustbin will do so because of the crime, not the speech. There ARE consequences.In the US, at least, you are not protected from being offended. Only from threats of or actual violence. We have had experience with neo-Nazis obtaining official permission to parade through middle America. And lawsuits resulting from their ban. Mike White, former mayor of Cleveland, Ohio (and a good friend), was named in a suit when he banned a similar march through downtown Cleveland a few years back. The city was able to defeat the suit by making the case that the risk of civil disorder outweighed the rights of the marchers. They ended up holding a rally in a confined area - with just about every member of Cleveland's police force out protecting them. Freedom of speech CAN be a two-edged sword.

CAreful Jazzns. You guys are shooting past each other on this point: You're arguing from two different legal systems. Under British law, an arrest is de facto presumption of guilt. The burden of proof in a trial is on the defense to prove the accused DIDN'T commit (or couldn't have committed) the crime. Under the US system, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the accused committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt.US: Innocent until proven guilty.
UK: Guilt presumed until proven innocent.It's obviously more complicated than that, but that's the gist. So Brian is correct: under the British system, it is rational to assume the individual is guilty of a crime if arrested./side comment

I understand your point. However, I don't think Brian was being deliberately disingenuous. He really does think, perhaps forgetting for the moment the differences in the legal systems, that In the US, the above is not necessarily the case. You are generally arrested (unless caught in the act), on suspicion of breaking a law - whether you actually did or not. Then it's up to the prosecution to make the case. In the UK, they tend to be waaaay more careful about who they arrest.