5 ms·

Pretty sure the goal is to strengthen their cases against known radicalized individuals, not to send in jail someone that clicked a bad link...

benj111 8y ago
The goal of the Article 50 legislation was to start the ball rolling with regard to Brexit. Its now being used as a stick to get parliament to accept a withdrawal agreement that 3/4s of them have already rejected. Don't look at the goal, look at how it can be used.
orf 8y ago
I think that nuance escapes people across the pond.
- icebraining 8y ago
  It's hard to assume nuance after stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial As someone on your side of the pound, though a bit closer to the equator, count me as one who wouldn't trust that kind of selective enforcement from the UK justice system.
  - striking 8y ago
    I didn't expect much from the link, but the person implicated had to pay nearly £1000 out of pocket, had lost his job, and then had to fight his conviction for a year and a half in three different appeals. For a tweet immediately considered not credible as a threat by the people to whom it was directed. Read a week after it was sent. Not sure what amount of nuance can be had after something like this.
marcosdumay 8y ago
Whose goal? Once a law is published, anybody can use it for any action it allows.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
The goal matters little if the law, as written, does not discriminate or limit overly expansive wording. The goal of background checks was to protect the most vulnerable, not create a license to work required for a quarter of all jobs, etc, etc.
- orf 8y ago
  Judges in the UK don't always follow the letter of the law, it's at their discretion. Precedent and the spirit of the law is pretty important. If someone avoids tax by exploiting a loophole due to a badly worded phrase, then no, they are not complying with the spirit of the law. That works both ways. It's also completely at the juries discretion to override any order given by a judge, and they apply common sense to the whole situation. If you can't convince 10 out of 12 people that this person should be arrested for clicking a link, then no, they won't be. No matter what the judge says.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Relying on a jury nullifying is not something I'd like to depend on. It's little known, and discouraged (for obvious reasons). It is, of course, entertaining when it happens and gets some publicity. Occasionally it can make plain when the law is an ass. Most famous example is probably the Official Secrets Act prosecution of Clive Ponting after the Falklands war. No defence was valid, jury acquitted anyway, govt of the day was not happy.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    > If you can't convince 10 out of 12 people that this person should be arrested for clicking a link, then no, they won't be. No matter what the judge says. They'll have already been arrested, detained for months, and likely spent thousands on legal costs by the time it's before a jury.
    - zaroth 8y ago
      Agreed! And besides financial bankruptcy, you can also expect personal and reputation ruin from being charged with being a terrorist. And good luck working after being acquitted, with the Internet history that no doubt will have accumulated. A jury of your peers is the last line of defense for justice, but in no measure whatsoever does it serve to balance the cruelty of an unjust law.
mpweiher 8y ago
Funny how these laws always get misapplied outside their ostensible "goal". Some German states just strengthened their laws, ostensibly to fight terror. First application: protesters trying to protect a forest. When you must rely on the law being applied benevolently, it is no longer "rule of law".
- Tomte 8y ago
  Protestors trying to protect a forest, and in trying to achieve that goal, committing clear-cut crimes. Why shouldn't that be out of the question a priori? It's very much debatable whether the application of these laws is proportionate, but it's not against people peacefully assembling with banners and chanting slogans.
AllegedAlec 8y ago
Where 'radicalised' is an ever-expanding definition of beliefs that the government deems to be unacceptable.
HillRat 8y ago
That makes it worse; enacting a law intended to be selectively enforced based on the offender is just tyranny with a fig leaf and traduces the principle that one prosecutes the crime, not the criminal. Once you write laws to be used against some people and not others you’ve created an entire class of unpersons.

benj111 8y ago

The goal of the Article 50 legislation was to start the ball rolling with regard to Brexit. Its now being used as a stick to get parliament to accept a withdrawal agreement that 3/4s of them have already rejected. Don't look at the goal, look at how it can be used.

orf 8y ago

I think that nuance escapes people across the pond.

icebraining 8y ago
It's hard to assume nuance after stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial As someone on your side of the pound, though a bit closer to the equator, count me as one who wouldn't trust that kind of selective enforcement from the UK justice system.
- striking 8y ago
  I didn't expect much from the link, but the person implicated had to pay nearly £1000 out of pocket, had lost his job, and then had to fight his conviction for a year and a half in three different appeals. For a tweet immediately considered not credible as a threat by the people to whom it was directed. Read a week after it was sent. Not sure what amount of nuance can be had after something like this.

marcosdumay 8y ago

Whose goal? Once a law is published, anybody can use it for any action it allows.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

The goal matters little if the law, as written, does not discriminate or limit overly expansive wording. The goal of background checks was to protect the most vulnerable, not create a license to work required for a quarter of all jobs, etc, etc.

orf 8y ago
Judges in the UK don't always follow the letter of the law, it's at their discretion. Precedent and the spirit of the law is pretty important. If someone avoids tax by exploiting a loophole due to a badly worded phrase, then no, they are not complying with the spirit of the law. That works both ways. It's also completely at the juries discretion to override any order given by a judge, and they apply common sense to the whole situation. If you can't convince 10 out of 12 people that this person should be arrested for clicking a link, then no, they won't be. No matter what the judge says.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Relying on a jury nullifying is not something I'd like to depend on. It's little known, and discouraged (for obvious reasons). It is, of course, entertaining when it happens and gets some publicity. Occasionally it can make plain when the law is an ass. Most famous example is probably the Official Secrets Act prosecution of Clive Ponting after the Falklands war. No defence was valid, jury acquitted anyway, govt of the day was not happy.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  > If you can't convince 10 out of 12 people that this person should be arrested for clicking a link, then no, they won't be. No matter what the judge says. They'll have already been arrested, detained for months, and likely spent thousands on legal costs by the time it's before a jury.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    Agreed! And besides financial bankruptcy, you can also expect personal and reputation ruin from being charged with being a terrorist. And good luck working after being acquitted, with the Internet history that no doubt will have accumulated. A jury of your peers is the last line of defense for justice, but in no measure whatsoever does it serve to balance the cruelty of an unjust law.

mpweiher 8y ago

Funny how these laws always get misapplied outside their ostensible "goal". Some German states just strengthened their laws, ostensibly to fight terror. First application: protesters trying to protect a forest. When you must rely on the law being applied benevolently, it is no longer "rule of law".

Tomte 8y ago
Protestors trying to protect a forest, and in trying to achieve that goal, committing clear-cut crimes. Why shouldn't that be out of the question a priori? It's very much debatable whether the application of these laws is proportionate, but it's not against people peacefully assembling with banners and chanting slogans.

AllegedAlec 8y ago

Where 'radicalised' is an ever-expanding definition of beliefs that the government deems to be unacceptable.

HillRat 8y ago

That makes it worse; enacting a law intended to be selectively enforced based on the offender is just tyranny with a fig leaf and traduces the principle that one prosecutes the crime, not the criminal. Once you write laws to be used against some people and not others you’ve created an entire class of unpersons.