5 ms·

I don’t think any country that charges people for such lamely crass jokes as this can reasonably criticize North Korea for their lack of free speech. The only d

I don’t think any country that charges people for such lamely crass jokes as this can reasonably criticize North Korea for their lack of free speech. The only difference is the severity of the consequence, for now.

kingcharles 5y ago
Many Western nations condemn nations for things they themselves have a bad record on. USA condemns Middle-Eastern states for child marriage, yet has states with no minimum age for marriage.
kjeetgill 5y ago
That ... Seems pretty drastic. I think it's silly to find the guy guilty too, but the degrees aren't nothing. > The only difference is the severity of the consequence, for now. So the only difference is most all of it.
- FpUser 5y ago
  >"I think it's silly to find the guy guilty too" Not just that. They will also sentence him. Sorry it is not silly, it is a crime in my eyes to deprive human from freedom for the things like that. Sure it is not NK. And it will probable never be. But turning into some China like version of social credit system is definitely a possibility with the way things are going. So what would be our arguments then - we do not burn people alive?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kaashif 5y ago
The saddest thing to me is that most people in the UK don't care about this. The only free speech that actually needs protection is offensive speech, and no group of people or political party would go near any of this stuff. The only chance any of this stuff could be reformed is off the back of a party with a huge majority ramming it through without much discussion or input from the public. Which is to say it could happen, but it won't be any kind of vote winner or manifesto promise. And it wouldn't be very democratic.
- skissane 5y ago
  > The only chance any of this stuff could be reformed is off the back of a party with a huge majority ramming it through The Courts could do something about it. The European Convention on Human Rights (and the Human Rights Act 1998 which incorporates the Convention into UK law) protects freedom of speech. Its free speech guarantee has a lengthy list of exceptions, but it is up to the Courts to interpret the scope of the exceptions. Thus far, they've tended to read them broadly, limiting the value of the Convention's free speech guarantees; but, maybe one day the Courts will start interpreting them in a more narrow way. I wouldn't get one's hopes up, but it wouldn't be an impossible development. The UK Conservative government plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a "British Bill of Rights" [0]. It is hard to predict what the outcome will be. On the one hand, the overall intention is to "water down" the European Convention on Human Rights, making it harder to pursue claims under it in the UK Courts. On the other hand, the UK government wants it to put special emphasis on "free speech" rights. In particular, it wants to prioritise freedom of the press over the right to privacy, contrary to recent case law which the UK government perceives as putting the priority the other way around. We can't yet know whether this project of replacing the Human Rights Act will succeed, nor can we yet know what exactly any replacement legislation will say, nor can we yet know what the Courts will make of it. But it is possible that it might improve the situation on free speech, even at the price of regression in other areas of human rights protection. [0] https://consult.justice.gov.uk/human-rights/human-rights-act-reform/ https://consult.justice.gov.uk/human-rights/human-rights-act...
  - collegeburner 5y ago
    Plenty of other European countries passed laws with "hate speech" crimes, nothing from EU courts. I don't think they will do anything to fix it.
EdwardDiego 5y ago
IIRC the laws used in this prosecution were introduced when the UK was seeing a lot of ISIS support in certain segments of their population, and of course the various associated terrorist attacks. There was a great outcry (led by Murdoch's media properties) that British citizens were tweeting pro-ISIS, anti-British sentiments but couldn't be charged under any law. So the Tories changed that, and it was a popular change. Of course, people always support laws that control "Them", but laws apply to all of us. This kinda stuff is classic "Leopards ate my face, says lady who voted for the Face-eating Leopards Party".
- plorg 5y ago
  In this case it depends if people being charged for decrying the military are the same people who supported the laws under anti-ISIS justification. I suspect it's the other way around. "Leopards ate my neighbors face, says lady whose neighbor told her his face would be eaten by a leopard."
- Jensson 5y ago
  I'd guess the guy charged here was from Ireland on the anti union side, so also an enemy of UK. They were still killing and bombing each other there a few decades ago, so from the British perspective he would be the same as an ISIS sympathiser.
- Jon_Lowtek 5y ago
  Took me a bit to track down what the guy was charged with[3]: The relevant words of section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003 [1] have not been changed since it was enacted and were directly taken from section 43 of the Telecommunication Act of 1984. [2] I don't think Murdoch and ISIS had anything to do with those, not sure about the Tories. Yet cautionary tales about electing face-eating leopards are never completely wrong, even when they are false ;-) 1: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 2: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/12/section/43 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/12/section/43 3: court documents aren't published yet, info from media reports
  - 5y ago

kingcharles 5y ago

Many Western nations condemn nations for things they themselves have a bad record on. USA condemns Middle-Eastern states for child marriage, yet has states with no minimum age for marriage.

kjeetgill 5y ago

That ... Seems pretty drastic. I think it's silly to find the guy guilty too, but the degrees aren't nothing. > The only difference is the severity of the consequence, for now. So the only difference is most all of it.

FpUser 5y ago
>"I think it's silly to find the guy guilty too" Not just that. They will also sentence him. Sorry it is not silly, it is a crime in my eyes to deprive human from freedom for the things like that. Sure it is not NK. And it will probable never be. But turning into some China like version of social credit system is definitely a possibility with the way things are going. So what would be our arguments then - we do not burn people alive?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kaashif 5y ago

The saddest thing to me is that most people in the UK don't care about this. The only free speech that actually needs protection is offensive speech, and no group of people or political party would go near any of this stuff. The only chance any of this stuff could be reformed is off the back of a party with a huge majority ramming it through without much discussion or input from the public. Which is to say it could happen, but it won't be any kind of vote winner or manifesto promise. And it wouldn't be very democratic.

skissane 5y ago
> The only chance any of this stuff could be reformed is off the back of a party with a huge majority ramming it through The Courts could do something about it. The European Convention on Human Rights (and the Human Rights Act 1998 which incorporates the Convention into UK law) protects freedom of speech. Its free speech guarantee has a lengthy list of exceptions, but it is up to the Courts to interpret the scope of the exceptions. Thus far, they've tended to read them broadly, limiting the value of the Convention's free speech guarantees; but, maybe one day the Courts will start interpreting them in a more narrow way. I wouldn't get one's hopes up, but it wouldn't be an impossible development. The UK Conservative government plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a "British Bill of Rights" [0]. It is hard to predict what the outcome will be. On the one hand, the overall intention is to "water down" the European Convention on Human Rights, making it harder to pursue claims under it in the UK Courts. On the other hand, the UK government wants it to put special emphasis on "free speech" rights. In particular, it wants to prioritise freedom of the press over the right to privacy, contrary to recent case law which the UK government perceives as putting the priority the other way around. We can't yet know whether this project of replacing the Human Rights Act will succeed, nor can we yet know what exactly any replacement legislation will say, nor can we yet know what the Courts will make of it. But it is possible that it might improve the situation on free speech, even at the price of regression in other areas of human rights protection. [0] https://consult.justice.gov.uk/human-rights/human-rights-act-reform/ https://consult.justice.gov.uk/human-rights/human-rights-act...
- collegeburner 5y ago
  Plenty of other European countries passed laws with "hate speech" crimes, nothing from EU courts. I don't think they will do anything to fix it.

EdwardDiego 5y ago

IIRC the laws used in this prosecution were introduced when the UK was seeing a lot of ISIS support in certain segments of their population, and of course the various associated terrorist attacks. There was a great outcry (led by Murdoch's media properties) that British citizens were tweeting pro-ISIS, anti-British sentiments but couldn't be charged under any law. So the Tories changed that, and it was a popular change. Of course, people always support laws that control "Them", but laws apply to all of us. This kinda stuff is classic "Leopards ate my face, says lady who voted for the Face-eating Leopards Party".

plorg 5y ago
In this case it depends if people being charged for decrying the military are the same people who supported the laws under anti-ISIS justification. I suspect it's the other way around. "Leopards ate my neighbors face, says lady whose neighbor told her his face would be eaten by a leopard."
Jensson 5y ago
I'd guess the guy charged here was from Ireland on the anti union side, so also an enemy of UK. They were still killing and bombing each other there a few decades ago, so from the British perspective he would be the same as an ISIS sympathiser.
Jon_Lowtek 5y ago
Took me a bit to track down what the guy was charged with[3]: The relevant words of section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003 [1] have not been changed since it was enacted and were directly taken from section 43 of the Telecommunication Act of 1984. [2] I don't think Murdoch and ISIS had anything to do with those, not sure about the Tories. Yet cautionary tales about electing face-eating leopards are never completely wrong, even when they are false ;-) 1: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 2: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/12/section/43 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/12/section/43 3: court documents aren't published yet, info from media reports
- 5y ago