20 ms·

Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

167 points by MrBuddyCasino 5y ago

SMAAART 5y ago
What if I suffered psychological harm as a result from reading this article? Who's going to be held responsible? HN? Twitter? The Times? The author? All of the above?
arp242 5y ago
Actual text of the law can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safety-bill https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safe... I didn't read all of it, because it's 145 pages, but the most relevant section seems to be on page 52, section 46 "Meaning of “content that is harmful to adults” etc"
tacobelllover99 5y ago
Dystopia is here
FundementalBrit 5y ago
Oh boy well this is another nail in the coffin for free speech in the UK. Back in my day it was just a given people said mean things on the internet.
- everyone 5y ago
  Yeah its the fuckin' internet for fucks sake!!
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  >Back in my day it was just a given people said mean things on the internet. Isn't this indicative of a serious problem though? If there were places IRL where the average person is subjected to a constant barrage of callousness it wouldn't continue to exist, would it? Can we have free speech without accountability? In the past accountability seemed like a major factor.
  - cain 5y ago
    > If there were places IRL where the average person is subjected to a constant barrage of callousness it wouldn't continue to exist, would it? Is this not why the real issue is related to social media itself, rather than generalised "trolling"? This isn't as much of an issue in niche forums or niche-dedicated social sites. We are free to make our accounts private, block/sign out/delete/not partake in social media, yet many feel like they are __unable__ to make use of these features. IRL, you can't always easily escape bullying. Online, you can choose not to engage; yet people continue to place themselves in the line of fire. I think this speaks to a much deeper issue (as you point out) and I'm not sure jailing trolls is the answer.
    - micromacrofoot 5y ago
      Oh sure, I don't think jailing is the answer for most things... but there's a subset of people who think that free speech should be entirely unrestricted, and I also don't think that's the answer. I don't think anyone's really cracked this issue yet. I was subject to a harassment campaign at one point, and blocks seemed to just stoke the flame. It eventually subsided when I disengaged from social media entirely for a while, but it felt like I was surrendering to the harassers. They're the ones restricting my speech at that point. So I get why people refuse to "disengage" – it feels like someone responding to IRL harassment by telling you not to leave your house, it just doesn't seem fair.
  - bityard 5y ago
    > Isn't this indicative of a serious problem though? If there were places IRL where the average person is subjected to a constant barrage of callousness it wouldn't continue to exist, would it? Haha, "if"? You must live in a very different world than I do. Junior high school, the old guys running the local hardware store, almost every cubicle farm in the financial services industry, the city of New York... I could give endless of examples where indifference, callousness, or even plain old mean-spiritedness is the prevalent culture. A person who has not experienced some form of this is not ready for the real world. Humans are wonderful, but also complete bastards and that's something that will never change.
- klyrs 5y ago
  Back in my day it was a given that nerds would get their asses kicked by jocks. While I'm not in favor of this bill, your argument is extremely flimsy.
spamizbad 5y ago
So does this mean if you participate in a twitter mob while in the UK you could be sent to jail? The way the law it written it sounds pretty board - an errant like or retweet (which is not necessarily any endorsement) could land you in hot water.
FundementalBrit 5y ago
Archive link of article: https://archive.md/IPga5 https://archive.md/IPga5
recursivedoubts 5y ago
subjectivity is loved by the powerful rule of subjectivity is, at the end of the day, rule of the powerful: when two parties disagree and the situation can be defined in primarily subjective terms, the most powerful party wins by hiding behind outcast, oppressed or unpopular groups with often legitimate (though perhaps subjective, to an extent) grievances, the powerful are able to push through the subjective zeitgeist, which is then used to their advantage
- md8z 5y ago
  What's subjective about it though? Do you think it is not possible by now for us to collectively come up with an objective definition of what trolling and abusive language is? To me it's pretty clear after spending just a few minutes on Twitter...
  - Clubber 5y ago
    >for us to collectively come up with an objective definition That's not how the game works, we don't collectively do anything, the powerful come up with the definition. Just wait for a powerful person to take criticism and be able to jail the person because of "psychological harm."
    - md8z 5y ago
      I don't understand, these decisions appear to be made by people appointed by democratically elected MPs? Are you making a different complaint about the democratic process? That's fine for you to do, but that seems to be unrelated to the topic.
      - Clubber 5y ago
        So in the US, you get to choose from a group of politicians. All those politicians need money to run their campaigns. Those politicians get money from corporate interests to fund their campaigns. Therefore, nearly all politicians you are able to choose from have already been tainted by corporate money. Corporate interests don't just cut big checks and expect nothing in return. Point being, this is a law that helps the powerful imprison people who criticize them disguised as a way to stop people from hurting other people's feelings. It won't be the sole purpose, I'm sure regular people can get people imprisoned who criticize them as well, but once the law is there, powerful people will use it to stifle criticism. Is this really a good idea?
batch12 5y ago
Actual article instead of twitter > article https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5cdadf7c-3a85-11ec-9bef-aa3112940013 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5cdadf7c-3a85-11ec-9bef-a...
kodah 5y ago
It feels like this is at least one destination under harm prevention rhetoric. I'm all for holding mobs accountable, but I don't think this is the thing. If you are on social media doing bullying or participating in mobs while calling it activism, what you need isn't jail time it's help. I suspect a lot of these folks are just lonely.
lbriner 5y ago
I call BS. We already have about 100 times more laws than we have the capacity to prosecute so it's just noise. We already have laws about malicious communications but yet social media is still swimming with incredibly malicious content. Insulate Britain had a number of injunctions taken against them to not block main roads and when they do, they get arrested - 1 of them saying they had been arrested 11 times. Now regardless of whether you agree with them or not, the enforcement of these headline grabbers is terrible. Once we have enough police enforcing things consistently and as strictly as necessary then I will worry about a dystopia, until then, it's just more attempts to win votes and is just noise.
- batch12 5y ago
  On the flip side, the more laws you have, the more impossible it is to not violate those laws. Then it's easier to arrest someone you just don't like.
  - cute_boi 5y ago
    I think this is how dictatorship works. Make subjective laws and arrest anyone who stands in your way? Looks like freedom is fading away slowly.
- apatters 5y ago
  We now have so many laws that my metric for assessing the relevance of any law has become - "how many people have been prosecuted under this law" Statistically I doubt I will be the first.
- Zpalmtree 5y ago
  Inconsistent application of unjust laws is maybe even worse than them being applied to everyone, now you have a great reason to discount the people being abused if they don't agree with your politics.
  - lbriner 5y ago
    Inconsistency is terrible regardless of how high-quality the law is. Law is about setting boundaries but if you see everyone else breaking a law and then you get prosecuted for breaking it yourself, you don't create anything except resentment. I think poorly written and inconsistently applied laws is a big part of why the UK has become so selfish. Easier just to worry about me and mine rather than what I think society wants.
lgleason 5y ago
The UK is quickly becoming an authoritarian country. RIP freedom and democracy.
- ljm 5y ago
  The UK has arguably had an authoritarian bias for a long time, under the guise of being paternalistic. I wouldn't say it's always a bad thing, as many times this does work in the society's favour (e.g. consumer protection laws, various other regulations), and the loosening of the restriction works against it (e.g. the course of events that led to the Grenfell Tower fire). Of course, you also get stuff like this, the various porn bills that surface every few years, and the Snooper's Charter. This is the real Nanny State stuff. The UK simply has a different perspective on how government should work. Arguably because it's had a thousand years to figure it out.
  - mathverse 5y ago
    It is not only UK. It is NZ and Australia as well. It is really weird to watch these countries to mimic CCP controlled China without all the benefits that CCP managed to pull off.
    - cal5k 5y ago
      Canada as well. All Commonwealth countries seem to be reading from an identical script at this point.
      - mathverse 5y ago
        I did not know thar about Canada. Thought it is a bit on the rational side of things compared to the other 3. Sad to hear that.
      - _0ffh 5y ago
        I'd go even further and say most western countries, because I think the US and EU are headed in a similar direction. My guess is that they see trouble ahead and want to get a firmer grip on power, so they're trying to get the kid gloves off as stealthily as possible. If they could, they'd go full CCP before you can say "communo-fascism", but they can't, because then they'd have to deal with too much push back at once.
umvi 5y ago
A society where everyone is safe A society where everyone is free Choose one (Obviously real life is not so binary, but since freedoms are abused to inflict harm on others, removing the source of harm necessitates removing the freedom that led to it)
- kelseyfrog 5y ago
  Weird comment. Why lead with a false dichotomy and then slide into everything is a gray area? Maybe pick an example and go with that?
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    It's not a false dichotomy, it's a hyperbole meant to illustrate an uncomfortable trade-off.
    - kelseyfrog 5y ago
      It isn't a trade off. That's the falseness of setting it up as two mutually exclusive and exhaustive choices. There are better ways to make a point than hyperbole.
      - CountDrewku 5y ago
        Explain how it isn't a tradeoff. Give me one example that supports your stance please. It's a sliding a scale. You get to move the marker one way or the other. Whatever you do for the "greater good" will inherently remove rights from someone.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
ryeights 5y ago
(in the UK)
Subsentient 5y ago
And this is why I'm never going to move to Europe. My jokes would be considered "obscene" or "indecent" or something and I'd be thrown in prison. At least here in the States, for now, the government is letting the private companies perform the censorship, and not imprisoning people for tasteless humor.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Who is getting thrown in to prison for jokes? Assange was thrown into jail for basic journalism, but that was at America's behest.
  - drost 5y ago
    > Meechan was arrested on suspicion of breaching the Communications Act 2003.[20] On 19 March 2018, Meechan was convicted of breaching the act by Sheriff Derek O'Carroll at Airdrie Sheriff Court.[21] The court ruled that Meechan's claim that the video was a joke intended for his girlfriend "lacked credibility" as Meechan's girlfriend did not subscribe to the YouTube channel to which the video was posted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan
    - hypersoar 5y ago
      > On 23 April 2018, Meechan was sentenced to a fine of £800, with no prison sentence.
      - HNo 5y ago
        >Meechan was arrested Technically if you're arrested you're thrown in jail (overnight or for a few days).
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    In some countries legal bases were set for imprisoning people after jokes. Cassandra Vera Paz, Spanish, aged 22 during the event, was charged in 2016 with "injury to victims of terrorism", in the context of legislation "against the praising of terrorism", after she posted jokes on twitter - the homicide through explosives of Luis Carrero Blanco, ally to General Franco, by the Basque separatist group ETA, was related to a (NASA like) "space programme". She was condemned in 2017 to spend one year in prison (plus a year of "absolute disqualification" from public offices and aid). The ruling was reversed in 2018 by the Supreme Court, which called the jokes socially and morally reprehensible but not sufficient for penal sanction. Granddaughter Lucia Carrero Blanco reportedly wrote «I’m scared of a society in which freedom of expression, however regrettable it may be, can lead to jail sentences».
AzzieElbab 5y ago
Can’t wait until they get Interpol involved
LordAtlas 5y ago
Thankfully, psychological harm is incredibly easy to establish, and therefore this could never be misused. All you have to do is ask someone, "were your feelings hurt?" and there you have it.
- topspin 5y ago
  Plus the investigating authority has discretion as to whether or not the complaint is credible and should be pursued. Of course these decisions won't be simple minded reflections the prevailing moral panics. Perish the thought.
  - marcusverus 5y ago
    The proposed regulation makes so much sense that it sees safe to assume that anyone arguing against it is likely acting in bad faith. Bad faith arguments on a topic so near and dear to my hear make me feel attacked and unsafe! Hopefully be this policy will help reign such antisocial discourse.
PrinceRichard 5y ago
Great idea!
chmod775 5y ago
In any other place a headline like this would be used by a satirical publication to elicit laughs - successfully. I was laughing until I realized it's The Times, did a double take, and continued laughing.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  I'll reserve judgement until I can see the actual bill rather than what The Times prints.
  - Mindwipe 5y ago
    The Times has been consistently full of shit on this legislation and I'd ignore their witterings entirely. It is not the paper it was in terms of reporting, and it's quality is pretty low nowadays.
- Verdex 5y ago
  <Two hard looking men are in a jail cell. Covered with scars and tattoos> What are you in for? Grand theft auto. You? Bank robbery. <They look over to the unassuming third man in the the cell> New guy. What are you in for? Er, <visible hesitation> I suggested that the UK's new social media harassment law was a satirical publication. Apparently it hurt one of the author's feelings. <The first two men share a quick glance and then move away from the third one quickly>
antihero 5y ago
Here on sanity island we have been deemed such absolute lads that the internet needs to be protected from our merciless and relentless banter.
concinds 5y ago
A society where: - you are held responsible for other people's feelings, and for their feelings as a result of your words and actions, and: - anything that causes anyone to feel bad, is looked down upon by the collective Is tyranny by the emotionally stunted. The fundamental problem with it, is it makes society more enmeshed (a pathological relationship dynamic). People start caring more about going with the grain, the mainstream opinion, and rejecting the troublemakers, because they don't want to be cast out too; and they self-censor more. Humans are beautiful in their diversity, their wildness, and their distrust of authority, and there's been a definite attempt to domesticate people on all fronts (funny, there was a discussion here days ago about domesticated animals having 15-35% smaller brains). Societal cohesion is the Borg, not a utopia. And I just watched Demolition Man yesterday (fantastic movie), this immediately reminds me of the "verbal morality fines" they hand out. The most fundamental piece of applicable psychology is the idea that you are responsible for your own thoughts, feelings, and actions, period. You are responsible for making yourself happy, for asserting yourself, for setting any boundaries you choose. People on Twitter can just block, or mute, or turn off their DMs for people they don't follow. What's wrong with that? Now there's a human right to use Twitter unhindered? They just spent the last decade telling us there wasn't! Besides it seems clear we've already swung far too far in the "style over content" direction. People hate on Nassim Taleb because he dares insult lobbyists and people he considers scientific frauds; would he be put in jail if he lived in the UK? Big Tech is being used to engineer a new kind of society, and I don't like it. It seems Web 3.0 is the only thing able to fight this dynamic.
- _fat_santa 5y ago
  > The proposed law change will shift the focus on to the “harmful effect” of a message rather than if it contains “indecent” or “grossly offensive” content, which is the present basis for assessing its criminality. I'm feeling very harmed after reading your comment. I realize the content's of your message are objectively harmless, but I "feel" harmed. So...off to jail you go. --- But on a more serious note. Like you said I it's insane that we have come to the point where what you actually say, you intentions, are completely irrelevant, it's all about how your message is perceived. What are the guardrails here? Harmful effect can be anything. I could plagiarize the top ShowHN post from yesterday, post it here and get called out. Then try to get all the commenters prosecuted because my feelings were hurt? Is this seriously how this law works? Hell an even more extreme example could be "hey it's really nice and sunny outside today", and someone will comment "I identify as darkness, this is hurtful to my people". Am I headed to the slammer for saying that the weather was nice?
bufferoverflow 5y ago
Another step towards erasing free speech to protect feelings. People need to read 1984 and Gulag Archipelago.
- bruce511 5y ago
  And Fahrenheit 451
ebanana 5y ago
maybe we can start with journalists from cnn and fox using social media or members from the ccp using social media to cause a culture way between the two ruling parties in the us
sktrdie 5y ago
Stopping one from expressing their true feelings in a way is a form of torture. I want to live in a world where I can get to experience the true behavior of people (whether bad or good). Then of course have the possibility to remove them from my life. But I still want to be able to filter them myself!
mdp2021 5y ago
From TFA: > A “knowingly false communication” offence will be created that will criminalise those who send or post a message they know to be false with the intention to cause “emotional, psychological, or physical harm to the likely audience”. Government sources gave the example of antivaxers spreading false information that they know to be untrue. One sinister side: how does one prove something is «know[n] to be untrue»? Whose side has the burden of proof?
- Zigurd 5y ago
  how does one know? The same way the actual malice standard is applied in, for example, libel cases. The law is not self-executing. That's why we have judges and trials.
  - StanislavPetrov 5y ago
    You could ask Paul Craig Murray about legal standards. Except he's in prison for reporting on a criminal trial about judges and politicians.
CountDrewku 5y ago
Not surprising coming from the country that won't even let people carry a locking pocket knife around without showing it's a necessity for work.
RickJWagner 5y ago
I've somehow slipped into a Monte Python skit. I have to find my way back to reality.
- drak0n1c 5y ago
  The BBC used to nationally broadcast Monty Python doing Nazi satire replete with costumes and salutes. But a few years ago the British government opted to prosecute a man who uploaded to YouTube a satirical video training his Pug to do a Nazi salute. British tolerance for Swiftian expression seems to be regressing lately.
onecommentman 5y ago
Late, but… This isn’t that surprising a development for the UK. You can think of it as a philosophically consistent extension of the UK interpretation of libel. “In American courts, the burden of proof rests with the person who brings a claim of libel. In British courts, the author or journalist has the burden of proof, and typically loses.” https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/...
dazag 5y ago
Since free will doesnt exist, you can check that out. Anything that I make anytime of my day, like a thought, will unstoppably affect you all... That's why education is tremendously important, because you have to anckowledge that we either cooperate or kill each other. So this is so stupid to start with, that I won't try to make a point further that making people realize, how fucked up we are
azth 5y ago
For one second there I thought it was referring to patent trolls.

167 points by MrBuddyCasino 5y ago

What if I suffered psychological harm as a result from reading this article? Who's going to be held responsible? HN? Twitter? The Times? The author? All of the above?

arp242 5y ago

Actual text of the law can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safety-bill https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safe... I didn't read all of it, because it's 145 pages, but the most relevant section seems to be on page 52, section 46 "Meaning of “content that is harmful to adults” etc"

tacobelllover99 5y ago

Dystopia is here

FundementalBrit 5y ago

Oh boy well this is another nail in the coffin for free speech in the UK. Back in my day it was just a given people said mean things on the internet.

everyone 5y ago
Yeah its the fuckin' internet for fucks sake!!
micromacrofoot 5y ago
>Back in my day it was just a given people said mean things on the internet. Isn't this indicative of a serious problem though? If there were places IRL where the average person is subjected to a constant barrage of callousness it wouldn't continue to exist, would it? Can we have free speech without accountability? In the past accountability seemed like a major factor.
- cain 5y ago
  > If there were places IRL where the average person is subjected to a constant barrage of callousness it wouldn't continue to exist, would it? Is this not why the real issue is related to social media itself, rather than generalised "trolling"? This isn't as much of an issue in niche forums or niche-dedicated social sites. We are free to make our accounts private, block/sign out/delete/not partake in social media, yet many feel like they are __unable__ to make use of these features. IRL, you can't always easily escape bullying. Online, you can choose not to engage; yet people continue to place themselves in the line of fire. I think this speaks to a much deeper issue (as you point out) and I'm not sure jailing trolls is the answer.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    Oh sure, I don't think jailing is the answer for most things... but there's a subset of people who think that free speech should be entirely unrestricted, and I also don't think that's the answer. I don't think anyone's really cracked this issue yet. I was subject to a harassment campaign at one point, and blocks seemed to just stoke the flame. It eventually subsided when I disengaged from social media entirely for a while, but it felt like I was surrendering to the harassers. They're the ones restricting my speech at that point. So I get why people refuse to "disengage" – it feels like someone responding to IRL harassment by telling you not to leave your house, it just doesn't seem fair.
- bityard 5y ago
  > Isn't this indicative of a serious problem though? If there were places IRL where the average person is subjected to a constant barrage of callousness it wouldn't continue to exist, would it? Haha, "if"? You must live in a very different world than I do. Junior high school, the old guys running the local hardware store, almost every cubicle farm in the financial services industry, the city of New York... I could give endless of examples where indifference, callousness, or even plain old mean-spiritedness is the prevalent culture. A person who has not experienced some form of this is not ready for the real world. Humans are wonderful, but also complete bastards and that's something that will never change.
klyrs 5y ago
Back in my day it was a given that nerds would get their asses kicked by jocks. While I'm not in favor of this bill, your argument is extremely flimsy.

spamizbad 5y ago

So does this mean if you participate in a twitter mob while in the UK you could be sent to jail? The way the law it written it sounds pretty board - an errant like or retweet (which is not necessarily any endorsement) could land you in hot water.

FundementalBrit 5y ago

Archive link of article: https://archive.md/IPga5 https://archive.md/IPga5

recursivedoubts 5y ago

subjectivity is loved by the powerful rule of subjectivity is, at the end of the day, rule of the powerful: when two parties disagree and the situation can be defined in primarily subjective terms, the most powerful party wins by hiding behind outcast, oppressed or unpopular groups with often legitimate (though perhaps subjective, to an extent) grievances, the powerful are able to push through the subjective zeitgeist, which is then used to their advantage

md8z 5y ago
What's subjective about it though? Do you think it is not possible by now for us to collectively come up with an objective definition of what trolling and abusive language is? To me it's pretty clear after spending just a few minutes on Twitter...
- Clubber 5y ago
  >for us to collectively come up with an objective definition That's not how the game works, we don't collectively do anything, the powerful come up with the definition. Just wait for a powerful person to take criticism and be able to jail the person because of "psychological harm."
  - md8z 5y ago
    I don't understand, these decisions appear to be made by people appointed by democratically elected MPs? Are you making a different complaint about the democratic process? That's fine for you to do, but that seems to be unrelated to the topic.
    - Clubber 5y ago
      So in the US, you get to choose from a group of politicians. All those politicians need money to run their campaigns. Those politicians get money from corporate interests to fund their campaigns. Therefore, nearly all politicians you are able to choose from have already been tainted by corporate money. Corporate interests don't just cut big checks and expect nothing in return. Point being, this is a law that helps the powerful imprison people who criticize them disguised as a way to stop people from hurting other people's feelings. It won't be the sole purpose, I'm sure regular people can get people imprisoned who criticize them as well, but once the law is there, powerful people will use it to stifle criticism. Is this really a good idea?

batch12 5y ago

Actual article instead of twitter > article https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5cdadf7c-3a85-11ec-9bef-aa3112940013 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5cdadf7c-3a85-11ec-9bef-a...

kodah 5y ago

It feels like this is at least one destination under harm prevention rhetoric. I'm all for holding mobs accountable, but I don't think this is the thing. If you are on social media doing bullying or participating in mobs while calling it activism, what you need isn't jail time it's help. I suspect a lot of these folks are just lonely.

lbriner 5y ago

I call BS. We already have about 100 times more laws than we have the capacity to prosecute so it's just noise. We already have laws about malicious communications but yet social media is still swimming with incredibly malicious content. Insulate Britain had a number of injunctions taken against them to not block main roads and when they do, they get arrested - 1 of them saying they had been arrested 11 times. Now regardless of whether you agree with them or not, the enforcement of these headline grabbers is terrible. Once we have enough police enforcing things consistently and as strictly as necessary then I will worry about a dystopia, until then, it's just more attempts to win votes and is just noise.

batch12 5y ago
On the flip side, the more laws you have, the more impossible it is to not violate those laws. Then it's easier to arrest someone you just don't like.
- cute_boi 5y ago
  I think this is how dictatorship works. Make subjective laws and arrest anyone who stands in your way? Looks like freedom is fading away slowly.
apatters 5y ago
We now have so many laws that my metric for assessing the relevance of any law has become - "how many people have been prosecuted under this law" Statistically I doubt I will be the first.
Zpalmtree 5y ago
Inconsistent application of unjust laws is maybe even worse than them being applied to everyone, now you have a great reason to discount the people being abused if they don't agree with your politics.
- lbriner 5y ago
  Inconsistency is terrible regardless of how high-quality the law is. Law is about setting boundaries but if you see everyone else breaking a law and then you get prosecuted for breaking it yourself, you don't create anything except resentment. I think poorly written and inconsistently applied laws is a big part of why the UK has become so selfish. Easier just to worry about me and mine rather than what I think society wants.

lgleason 5y ago

The UK is quickly becoming an authoritarian country. RIP freedom and democracy.

ljm 5y ago
The UK has arguably had an authoritarian bias for a long time, under the guise of being paternalistic. I wouldn't say it's always a bad thing, as many times this does work in the society's favour (e.g. consumer protection laws, various other regulations), and the loosening of the restriction works against it (e.g. the course of events that led to the Grenfell Tower fire). Of course, you also get stuff like this, the various porn bills that surface every few years, and the Snooper's Charter. This is the real Nanny State stuff. The UK simply has a different perspective on how government should work. Arguably because it's had a thousand years to figure it out.
- mathverse 5y ago
  It is not only UK. It is NZ and Australia as well. It is really weird to watch these countries to mimic CCP controlled China without all the benefits that CCP managed to pull off.
  - cal5k 5y ago
    Canada as well. All Commonwealth countries seem to be reading from an identical script at this point.
    - mathverse 5y ago
      I did not know thar about Canada. Thought it is a bit on the rational side of things compared to the other 3. Sad to hear that.
    - _0ffh 5y ago
      I'd go even further and say most western countries, because I think the US and EU are headed in a similar direction. My guess is that they see trouble ahead and want to get a firmer grip on power, so they're trying to get the kid gloves off as stealthily as possible. If they could, they'd go full CCP before you can say "communo-fascism", but they can't, because then they'd have to deal with too much push back at once.

umvi 5y ago

A society where everyone is safe A society where everyone is free Choose one (Obviously real life is not so binary, but since freedoms are abused to inflict harm on others, removing the source of harm necessitates removing the freedom that led to it)

kelseyfrog 5y ago
Weird comment. Why lead with a false dichotomy and then slide into everything is a gray area? Maybe pick an example and go with that?
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  It's not a false dichotomy, it's a hyperbole meant to illustrate an uncomfortable trade-off.
  - kelseyfrog 5y ago
    It isn't a trade off. That's the falseness of setting it up as two mutually exclusive and exhaustive choices. There are better ways to make a point than hyperbole.
    - CountDrewku 5y ago
      Explain how it isn't a tradeoff. Give me one example that supports your stance please. It's a sliding a scale. You get to move the marker one way or the other. Whatever you do for the "greater good" will inherently remove rights from someone.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

ryeights 5y ago

(in the UK)

Subsentient 5y ago

And this is why I'm never going to move to Europe. My jokes would be considered "obscene" or "indecent" or something and I'd be thrown in prison. At least here in the States, for now, the government is letting the private companies perform the censorship, and not imprisoning people for tasteless humor.

mandmandam 5y ago
Who is getting thrown in to prison for jokes? Assange was thrown into jail for basic journalism, but that was at America's behest.
- drost 5y ago
  > Meechan was arrested on suspicion of breaching the Communications Act 2003.[20] On 19 March 2018, Meechan was convicted of breaching the act by Sheriff Derek O'Carroll at Airdrie Sheriff Court.[21] The court ruled that Meechan's claim that the video was a joke intended for his girlfriend "lacked credibility" as Meechan's girlfriend did not subscribe to the YouTube channel to which the video was posted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan
  - hypersoar 5y ago
    > On 23 April 2018, Meechan was sentenced to a fine of £800, with no prison sentence.
    - HNo 5y ago
      >Meechan was arrested Technically if you're arrested you're thrown in jail (overnight or for a few days).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- mdp2021 5y ago
  In some countries legal bases were set for imprisoning people after jokes. Cassandra Vera Paz, Spanish, aged 22 during the event, was charged in 2016 with "injury to victims of terrorism", in the context of legislation "against the praising of terrorism", after she posted jokes on twitter - the homicide through explosives of Luis Carrero Blanco, ally to General Franco, by the Basque separatist group ETA, was related to a (NASA like) "space programme". She was condemned in 2017 to spend one year in prison (plus a year of "absolute disqualification" from public offices and aid). The ruling was reversed in 2018 by the Supreme Court, which called the jokes socially and morally reprehensible but not sufficient for penal sanction. Granddaughter Lucia Carrero Blanco reportedly wrote «I’m scared of a society in which freedom of expression, however regrettable it may be, can lead to jail sentences».

AzzieElbab 5y ago

Can’t wait until they get Interpol involved

LordAtlas 5y ago

Thankfully, psychological harm is incredibly easy to establish, and therefore this could never be misused. All you have to do is ask someone, "were your feelings hurt?" and there you have it.

topspin 5y ago
Plus the investigating authority has discretion as to whether or not the complaint is credible and should be pursued. Of course these decisions won't be simple minded reflections the prevailing moral panics. Perish the thought.
- marcusverus 5y ago
  The proposed regulation makes so much sense that it sees safe to assume that anyone arguing against it is likely acting in bad faith. Bad faith arguments on a topic so near and dear to my hear make me feel attacked and unsafe! Hopefully be this policy will help reign such antisocial discourse.

PrinceRichard 5y ago

Great idea!

chmod775 5y ago

In any other place a headline like this would be used by a satirical publication to elicit laughs - successfully. I was laughing until I realized it's The Times, did a double take, and continued laughing.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
I'll reserve judgement until I can see the actual bill rather than what The Times prints.
- Mindwipe 5y ago
  The Times has been consistently full of shit on this legislation and I'd ignore their witterings entirely. It is not the paper it was in terms of reporting, and it's quality is pretty low nowadays.
Verdex 5y ago
<Two hard looking men are in a jail cell. Covered with scars and tattoos> What are you in for? Grand theft auto. You? Bank robbery. <They look over to the unassuming third man in the the cell> New guy. What are you in for? Er, <visible hesitation> I suggested that the UK's new social media harassment law was a satirical publication. Apparently it hurt one of the author's feelings. <The first two men share a quick glance and then move away from the third one quickly>

antihero 5y ago

Here on sanity island we have been deemed such absolute lads that the internet needs to be protected from our merciless and relentless banter.

concinds 5y ago

A society where: - you are held responsible for other people's feelings, and for their feelings as a result of your words and actions, and: - anything that causes anyone to feel bad, is looked down upon by the collective Is tyranny by the emotionally stunted. The fundamental problem with it, is it makes society more enmeshed (a pathological relationship dynamic). People start caring more about going with the grain, the mainstream opinion, and rejecting the troublemakers, because they don't want to be cast out too; and they self-censor more. Humans are beautiful in their diversity, their wildness, and their distrust of authority, and there's been a definite attempt to domesticate people on all fronts (funny, there was a discussion here days ago about domesticated animals having 15-35% smaller brains). Societal cohesion is the Borg, not a utopia. And I just watched Demolition Man yesterday (fantastic movie), this immediately reminds me of the "verbal morality fines" they hand out. The most fundamental piece of applicable psychology is the idea that you are responsible for your own thoughts, feelings, and actions, period. You are responsible for making yourself happy, for asserting yourself, for setting any boundaries you choose. People on Twitter can just block, or mute, or turn off their DMs for people they don't follow. What's wrong with that? Now there's a human right to use Twitter unhindered? They just spent the last decade telling us there wasn't! Besides it seems clear we've already swung far too far in the "style over content" direction. People hate on Nassim Taleb because he dares insult lobbyists and people he considers scientific frauds; would he be put in jail if he lived in the UK? Big Tech is being used to engineer a new kind of society, and I don't like it. It seems Web 3.0 is the only thing able to fight this dynamic.

_fat_santa 5y ago
> The proposed law change will shift the focus on to the “harmful effect” of a message rather than if it contains “indecent” or “grossly offensive” content, which is the present basis for assessing its criminality. I'm feeling very harmed after reading your comment. I realize the content's of your message are objectively harmless, but I "feel" harmed. So...off to jail you go. --- But on a more serious note. Like you said I it's insane that we have come to the point where what you actually say, you intentions, are completely irrelevant, it's all about how your message is perceived. What are the guardrails here? Harmful effect can be anything. I could plagiarize the top ShowHN post from yesterday, post it here and get called out. Then try to get all the commenters prosecuted because my feelings were hurt? Is this seriously how this law works? Hell an even more extreme example could be "hey it's really nice and sunny outside today", and someone will comment "I identify as darkness, this is hurtful to my people". Am I headed to the slammer for saying that the weather was nice?

bufferoverflow 5y ago

Another step towards erasing free speech to protect feelings. People need to read 1984 and Gulag Archipelago.

bruce511 5y ago
And Fahrenheit 451

ebanana 5y ago

maybe we can start with journalists from cnn and fox using social media or members from the ccp using social media to cause a culture way between the two ruling parties in the us

sktrdie 5y ago

Stopping one from expressing their true feelings in a way is a form of torture. I want to live in a world where I can get to experience the true behavior of people (whether bad or good). Then of course have the possibility to remove them from my life. But I still want to be able to filter them myself!

mdp2021 5y ago

From TFA: > A “knowingly false communication” offence will be created that will criminalise those who send or post a message they know to be false with the intention to cause “emotional, psychological, or physical harm to the likely audience”. Government sources gave the example of antivaxers spreading false information that they know to be untrue. One sinister side: how does one prove something is «know[n] to be untrue»? Whose side has the burden of proof?

Zigurd 5y ago
how does one know? The same way the actual malice standard is applied in, for example, libel cases. The law is not self-executing. That's why we have judges and trials.
- StanislavPetrov 5y ago
  You could ask Paul Craig Murray about legal standards. Except he's in prison for reporting on a criminal trial about judges and politicians.

CountDrewku 5y ago

Not surprising coming from the country that won't even let people carry a locking pocket knife around without showing it's a necessity for work.

RickJWagner 5y ago

I've somehow slipped into a Monte Python skit. I have to find my way back to reality.

drak0n1c 5y ago
The BBC used to nationally broadcast Monty Python doing Nazi satire replete with costumes and salutes. But a few years ago the British government opted to prosecute a man who uploaded to YouTube a satirical video training his Pug to do a Nazi salute. British tolerance for Swiftian expression seems to be regressing lately.

onecommentman 5y ago

Late, but… This isn’t that surprising a development for the UK. You can think of it as a philosophically consistent extension of the UK interpretation of libel. “In American courts, the burden of proof rests with the person who brings a claim of libel. In British courts, the author or journalist has the burden of proof, and typically loses.” https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/...

dazag 5y ago

Since free will doesnt exist, you can check that out. Anything that I make anytime of my day, like a thought, will unstoppably affect you all... That's why education is tremendously important, because you have to anckowledge that we either cooperate or kill each other. So this is so stupid to start with, that I won't try to make a point further that making people realize, how fucked up we are

azth 5y ago

For one second there I thought it was referring to patent trolls.