In reply to Paul Lawley-Jones.

@Dan Knauss,

While the British approach certainly can, in specific cases, produce similar results to what would be expected in the US, the whole approach to censorship is different and often leads to very different results.

The point I was making by quoting you was solely to point out that that is the epitome of the US approach to censorship cases. It's absolutely not the basis of the British approach.

I wasn't trying to suggest that the UK doesn't recognize a distinction between public and private; but it's not the fundamental basis for decisions on censorship.

Of course, there's nothing to stop any Brit from engaging in hyperbole about being censored, irrespective of context. Similarly, not every single Brit is going to express themselves in the same way. But Paul Lawley-Jones wasn't engaging in hyperbole in this thread; he was simply reflecting the regular British view.

This is, perhaps, more clearly shown if we look at this from the opposite perspective, and focus instead on the right to freedom of expression. Both Brits and Americans recognize such a right; they even use the same terminology. But they generally don't mean the same thing.

For Americans, brought up on the First Amendment, the right to freedom of expression means freedom from government interference. Note the focus on the entity there.

For Brits the right to freedom of expression means freedom from intereference. Brits would not insert into that statement any qualification that government must be involved. Instead, the focus is on the person whose rights are potentially being restricted.

If you want confirmation of this distinction, just look at any debate on censorship or freedom of expression on the The Guardian website. The Brits and Americans just continually talk past one another because so few of them realize that their views as to what these concepts mean are culturally specific. (Actually, the hope of avoiding similar "talkings past" was what motivated me to intervene here.)

Does the British view mean that the right to freedom of expression is necessarily broader there than in the US? No.

Why not? Because the American (First Amendment) approach allows few exceptions, whereas the British -- without a canonical document to interpret until the passage of the HRA, -- involves much more of a balancing exercise. (Actually, since the HRA incorporates the European Convention, and that generally requires a balancing exercise, this last point remains valid, although the nature of the balancing has changed.)

So, as I said, the approaches are very different, though they do lead to similar conclusions in certain cases.