Will America shames itself and send the “Heretical Two” back to Britain?

Question

Britain has already shamed itself proving that it is a land where if you think, say or write something which the state does not approve of you can be subject to a show trial and get sent to prison. The “Heretical Two” case has demonstrated this. Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle from Britain, who were convicted at Leeds Crown Court for publishing hate articles on the internet, have skipped bail and flown to America, where they have claimed political asylum.

Some of Sheppard and Whittle's writing remains available on their website http://www.heretical.com/, so you can judge for yourselves. They certainly express views that many people do not agree with, but that is the way with free speech. Free speech and the right to hold an opinion however offensive, are essential to a free society, it is in totalitarian states that these things are suppressed.

In modern day Britain, telling the truth is no defence against hate crime charges.

Answer 1

I attended part of the trial on the 16th June and my wife attended after that. The local police actually went round the local houses asking local Jewish people to attend for the prosecution. On the stand one actually cried and said how horrified she'd been at the literature. Stephen Whittle, who has a Degree in languages was accused of learning Hebrew so he could use it to disparage Israel - honestly!

However, it was absolutely invigorating to see that neither Sheppard or Whittle lost any of their dignity or tenacity, they are absolutely unwavering in their quest for freedom of speech. This is a landmark case which if they are found guilty will have Worldwide ramifications.

I sincerely hope America grants them political asylum and allows them to stay.

Answer 2

Umm, does Yahoo provide this forum for rhetorical questions.  Assuming that it does, or that this is a valid question, it's still missing some critical details - mostly as to what the elements of the laws allegedly broken ere, and how the defendants were accused of breaking them.  What if they were heretical but they were charged with burglary - that's obviously a gross example, but not terribly different from taht normally encountered in the criminal justice system.  Defendants know that they can get sympathy by "pleading guilty" to a crime not considered as such, while ignoring accusations of a less ambiguous offense.

With all this talk of totalitarian states, it should be remembered that there is no real right to free speech absent government's express concession of that right.

What!?!?  How can that be?

Simple - what we now call the right to free speech is in fact a restriction on the government's right to penalize people for acts involving speech.  The difference between the two is largely academic, but could easily fall in your case (facts rather than hyperbole could resolve that issue).  A freedom of speech is an inherent right of the people that can be modified only at the will of the people - that's the practical meaning of having a right, it's subject to the whims of those who have it.  A restriction on government is different - the government is limited in penalizing people for exercising a right that the people don;'t have - this allows the government to impose restrictions on hwo speech is conveyed and is the source of the government's ability to prosecute movie critics from shouting things in crowded firehouses.  Incidentally, because the laws are meant to restrict our goverment, they also provide for greater protection of political speech.