32 ms·
Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service in UK
- hunglee2 5y agoInteresting case: drunken tweet to a small follower count, deleted after 20 minutes, leading to prosecution and conviction. The Online Safety Bill which is due to be passed, with further empower institutions to police 'harmful messages'. I guess ideological conformity is a good thing for stable society?
- onion2k 5y agoI guess ideological conformity is a good thing for stable society? I don't think this is about "ideological conformity". No one is stopping you thinking, or saying, whatever you want at any time. The problem is when you use a platform to broadcast that message to a wider audience, especially one like Twitter that will show your posts to people who don't follow you.
- mantas 5y agoThat's like prosecuting for saying wrong stuff out in a street because someone may have heard our and friends' chat.
- conradfr 5y ago> No one is stopping you (...) saying, whatever you want at any time. Well it seems this law actually does that.
- onion2k 5y agoOnly if you think there's no difference between saying something and publishing it on the internet. When I said "saying" I mean that in a literal sense - speaking to people face to face. That is not the same as publishing something.
- betwixthewires 5y agoFYI, and this is in the article, the law used to prosecute the man was written to prevent you from saying offensive things over the telephone. This distinction between a voice and a megaphone doesn't apply to this particular situation because the law itself makes no such distinction.
- throwaway684936 5y agoThere are still slander laws, so you're wrong.
- candiodari 5y agoThe problem is that that is never, ever, where it stops. There's always people that society suddenly decides are "really important", usually the most dumb-witted, cruel abusers you can come up with. And of course, the rules don't apply to them. Just look at the president of France, if you want to see a particularly bad fuckup. He, and his wife, have confessed, publicly, on TV, repeatedly to having a paedophilic relationship, where she abused her job to fuck children (she was even cheating on her husband doing it). He was 15, she was 40 years old at the time. Not only have they not been sued (in France, both would be punished) Needless to say, a whole bunch of people were sued for stating this during the campaign, as well as for a bunch of other negative things they said about him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Macron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Macron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Macron#Personal_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Macron#Personal_life
- ttybird2 5y agoThe linked article say that they met when he was 15 and that they became a couple when he was 18. "in France, both would be punished" It seems absurd to me that both the victim and the abuser would be punished. Do you have any source for this?
- onion2k 5y agoa whole bunch of people were sued for stating this during the campaign The burden of proof for libel action is very different to the burden of proof for criminal liability. It's the difference between civil and criminal law - they're worlds apart. You can't really compare the two, despite them both being based around the act of writing something on the internet. Posting something potentially libellous on Twitter won't get you convicted of a crime, but it absolutely could get you sued.
- candiodari 4y agoThey both said on TV they fucked when he was 15/16, and while she was in a power relationship over him (as his French teacher). Pointing out there might be a problem with that doesn't violate libel laws for a whole host of reasons. Likewise, public confessions satisfy the standard of proof for criminal liability. If you say "I'm glad I killed this guy" next to what looks like a corpse with 100 people watching, you can be convicted of murder without the police so much as checking it's indeed a corpse, based on testimony (does not even need to be direct testimony, done in court, it can be a police officer saying one of the hundred confirmed this to them) of one person. If you say it on TV, well the laws on this predate TVs, I'm sure it will work the same. And, technically, since he was a minor, French law says the public prosecutor HAS to sue the adult (ie. her), no choice. Don't you love "someone think of the children" laws? Needless to say, this didn't happen.
- ashtonkem 5y ago> No one is stopping you thinking, or saying, whatever you want at any time. They literally arrested and prosecuted someone for an off color joke. This is as straightforward a case of “them” stopping you from saying what ever you want at any time as it gets.
- gmac 5y agoI assume your question is ironic. This case looks like an appalling over-reaction by an increasingly authoritarian state.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cm2187 5y agoIt’s also disturbing that the police complains it is not given the means to combat knife crime but thinks it is a good use of their resource to police politeness on twitter.
- dazc 5y agoThe police like to chase easy targets and social media offers up lots of opportunities to prove how well they are doing their job. The only people who are scared of the police in the UK are middle class, normally law abiding citizens. One minor slip-up and they will be on you like a ton of bricks.
- _0ffh 5y agoYeah, they really like their soft targets, don't they? On the other hand, a gathering of young men who believably signal that they're totally down for a bit of street violence, now that's not such an attractive target to confront.
- tored 5y agoWhat is typical for organization like police is that they prioritize things that gets the best statistics in a spreadsheet, not the best result for society.
- soco 5y agoWhich only shows their activities are graded with wrong criteria. But as we all know from office life, picking valid criteria for performance ratings is an adventure by itself...
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoYes, if you ever have trouble getting them to take a problem seriously then log each recurrence separately and ask for a reference each time.
- hnlmorg 5y agoAre the police really motivated by this? Or are specific senior figures who are in they public eye and thus don’t want their “reputation” shamed on social media the real individuals pushing for these kinds of legislation? I’d wager most police officers couldn’t give a rats arse what someone posts online given the barrage of verbal abuse they likely get each day. They would much rather see the streets safer.
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoThe fact he was drunk doesn't really have much to do with it. It wouldn't be an excuse for running somebody down in his car or stabbing someone and shouldn't be here.
- VBprogrammer 5y agoDrunk in charge of a communications device is hardly on the same scale as driving a vehicle. One is likely to cause actual bodily harm. The other is most likely to result in minor embarrassment, except in a few wild outlier cases.
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoTrue but you can argue the punishment isn't on the same scale either. If I vandalised your car or even stole it then being drunk wouldn't be a reasonable defence in those cases either.
- rndgermandude 5y agoIt actually might be an excuse to some degree. Diminished capacity is considered in many jurisdictions, and defendants who can demonstrate diminished capacity at the time of the offense can often get lesser sentences.
- cjrp 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_intoxication_in_English_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_intoxication_in_Engl... > Where the defendant is on trial for a crime of specific intent, his state of intoxication will be relevant to whether he formed the required intent.[8] This may prevent the defendant from having the required mens rea. If the defendant's intoxication is so significant as to prevent any sort of intent, this can lead to acquittal.
- HL33tibCe7 5y agoThis is fucking mental
- moss2 5y agoWhat the fuck.
- cjrp 5y agoThat seems like an incredibly low-bar for what's considered "grossly offensive". Then again, the worst stuff is made by anonymous accounts and the police probably aren't going to trace those.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- basisword 5y agoI’m generally in favour of some limits on speech. I don’t think you should be able to tweet racist messages for example. It’s obviously very complicated and something people are going to argue a lot about. BUT this case has made me change my opinion. Things much worse than this are tweeted every day and this is the one that gets prosecuted. It’s blatantly politically motivated (‘national hero’, British soldier etc) and in terms of awful things people tweet…it’s not actually that bad. Suddenly I find myself agreeing with the people arguing these restrictions are a slippery slope.
- naoqj 5y agoIf you are in favour of limits on speech then you should not have a problem with this. Everything is offensive to someone. We should all go to prison!
- Aeolun 5y agoIt’s more that it should be clearly defined what counts as ‘limits on speech’. “Nazi glorification” is fairly specific. “Grossly offensive” is not. If nobody is aware that it’s prosecutable that you are happy someone is dead (a perfectly valid opinion), then you shouldn’t prosecute people for it.
- jeffalyanak 5y agoJust like how speed limits necessitate the arrest of everyone who drives.
- michaelscott 5y ago...over the speed limit, yes. The point of parent's post is that the offensive nature of a statement or speech in general is subjective and can change with whims and the time. A speed limit is objective and quantifiable; if you go over the speed limit stated you get fined, there's no room for interpretation
- Pyramus 5y ago
- smcl 5y ago
- RicoElectrico 5y ago
- basisword 5y agoWhat’s the issue with the knife ban?
- RicoElectrico 5y agoYou need to be 18+ and present ID to buy a kitchen knife. Or even scissors.
- kitd 5y agoNot scissors. Or folding pocket knives <3ins long. https://www.bromley.gov.uk/leaflet/122601/20/480/d https://www.bromley.gov.uk/leaflet/122601/20/480/d
- RicoElectrico 5y agoI see, probably the person I got this info from encountered an overzealous seller. Which is not unusual, Lidl in Poland requires ID to but non-alcoholic beer. Literally nobody else does that.
- oraoraoraoraora 5y agoThe alternative would be selling pre-sliced food like most Asian countries. Anticipating news of someone being spooned to death.
- whostolemyhat 5y agoStabbings are... good?
- jackweirdy 5y agoThe history of this law dates back to 1935, when it was designed to protect post office staff who ran telephone switchboards from being harassed by the public, and it that context, it makes sense. Of course in 21st century the law doesn't make sense as it isn't humans transmitting our messages any more Some legal commentary about its previous use: http://barristerblogger.com/2018/03/24/its-time-to-change-the-bad-law-used-to-prosecute-count-dankula/ http://barristerblogger.com/2018/03/24/its-time-to-change-th... While there is certainly a slippery slope argument about the validity of restrictions on speech, that is not how I see this - this is legislative debt, and an argument in favour of deleting deprecated laws
- xeromal 5y agoIs it legislative debt if it is actively being used in a modern setting? Not walking around with an ice cream cone in your back pocket is more what I think about when I think of legislative debt.
- Claude_Shannon 5y ago
- tgv 5y agoNo, he wasn't. It's offensive, but the figure of speech "the only good ... is a dead ..." does not call for murder. And offending soldiers is not a hate-crime, AFAIK. The tweeter should have been made to pay a fine to the charity Captain Tom was endorsing.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago"burn auld fella" sounds like a call to action to me.
- Krollifi 5y agoIsn’t he talking about one’s burning in hell which no humans have a say in.
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoYou are correct, I didn't realise he had already died.
- smcl 5y agoHe's very clearly trying to say that Captain Tom is (burning) in hell.
- cassianoleal 5y agoCalling for the murder of a dead person?
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoWas he dead then?
- Red_Tarsius 5y ago
- hhmc 5y ago
- car_analogy 5y agoYes, it would have been better if the poster had cited sources instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aylesbury_child_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aylesbury_child_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banbury_child_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banbury_child_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_child_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_child_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby_child_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby_child_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_child_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_child_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huddersfield_grooming_gang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huddersfield_grooming_gang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keighley_child_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keighley_child_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_child_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_child_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_child_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_child_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_sex_abuse_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_sex_abuse_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_child_sexual_exploitat...
- hhmc 5y agoSo ~0.1% of towns, does that constitue 'widespread'?
- car_analogy 5y agoThose are the ones with wikipedia articles about them that I found in ~5 minutes of searching. Many things can be greatly minimized if we pretend the only instances that exist are those so widely publicized to earn themselves a wikipedia article. Grooming ‘epidemic’ as almost 19,000 children identified as sexual exploitation victims in England [1] implies it is widespread, but it's not clear from the article how that number is split between grooming gangs and other perpetrators, so it remains a mere implication, not fact. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-child-sex-abuse-exploitation-rotherham-rochdale-police-a9215261.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-chi...
- pwim 5y agoThe thing I’m most interested in isn’t in this article nor the source it cites: how was the tweet itself reported or discovered by the authorities in the first place?
- topynate 5y agoSame as usual – someone dobbed him in.
- thyrox 5y agoHave UK courts heard of the Streisand effect? I have a strong urge to search the said tweet to find what the hell did he say and I'm pretty sure it will be like the first or second result in google images if i had enough motivation for it.
- conradfr 5y agoIt's actually in the article.
- prmoustache 5y agoThe idea is not to hide the message but to condemn it and motivate people to not do that.
- skilled 5y agoGovernments sure do make it hard to love them.
- justin66 5y agoIt’s the nature of the average voter that they might whinge about their freedom of speech being infringed and, on another occasion, call for a guy like this to be punished, without appreciating the inconsistency.
- tommek4077 5y agoStop setting up those user accounts with your real names. Pseudonyms are a thing in the net since forever.
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoOr don't have a Twitter account if you can't control yourself after a drink.
- throwaway684936 5y agoCan't believe I'm seeing this downvoted on HN. It's the absolute lowest common denominator of internet common sense.
- cdot2 5y agoThis is part of why we have the first amendment. People should be allowed to express their opinions even if they're "grossly offensive".
- nisegami 5y agoAre you sure about the first amendment protects against speech that would be considered grossly offensive? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
- Manuel_D 5y agoAbsolutely, yes. The first amendment not only protects against offensive speech, but even hate speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul
- Havoc 5y agoFeels like it is on the wrong side of balancing freedoms while keeping things in check. Sure the tweet is terrible. But ruining someone’s career prospects for it levels bad?
- Accacin 5y agoI'm a bit confused who found this message that offensive? I have a brother who served in the British Army and I struggled to take offense at all. Just one guy with an opinion.
- bjourne 5y ago> The day after his death, Kelly, 36, tweeted “the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella buuuuurn.” This is nothing compared to what people tweeted the day after Margaret Thatcher died. You absolutely should not be prosecuted for that.
- sacrosancty 5y agoWho is it even offensive to? The target is dead, so it's not him. If insulting dead people is a crime, how far back do you have to go to be safe?
- xboxnolifes 5y agoI feel like I must have been corrupted by the internet or something if the tweet in question is considered "grossly offensive". It certainly isn't nice, but 18 months supervision and 150 hours of community service? I don't even know how to put my bafflement into words here.
- MadSudaca 5y agoAt first glance it may seem baffling, but if you see it from the “different culture different values” framework, you realize it’s just how people there want their society to conduct itself. It’s no different, from this perspective, to how baffling may seem cultures where burping loudly in the dinner table is not frowned upon, where people really value their personal space or not, and on and on.
- xboxnolifes 5y agoIt's not baffling to me that people don't like people who act this way. I don't like such comments either. What's baffling to me is the punishment given for it. Using the given parallel, I'm not familiar with a case where such punishment was given to someone who burped loudly at their dinner table (or some other social faux pas). It seems currently and historically, such social norms and expectations have been primarily enforced through social shaming and avoidance, rarely government intervention. That's the baffling part to me.
- MadSudaca 5y agoWhat about China’s supposedly social credit system? Maybe government intervention on such “trifling” matters is now possible thanks to IT systems, and we will come to see this as the norm, rather than the exception, as more and more people forcefully or willingly give up some of their liberties in order to have (or merely feel?) more security.
- xboxnolifes 5y agoI'm aware of the existence of China's social credit system, but that's not exactly a system I'm keen on holding up as a something to strive for. This being in the UK, I feel we should look at UK historical norms, not China's.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pixelbreaker 5y agoregardless of arguments about free speech. Using drunkenness as an excuse for anything is pathetic.
- nickt 5y agoThe Open Rights Group has statistics and a list of the more well-known prosecutions under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003/Section_127 https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Communications_Act_200...
- paxys 5y agoCrickets from the usual crowd who would be crying "cancel culture!" on all TV and radio for weeks and calling for heads to roll had the tweet been about something other than a cause they support (military worship). Governments and companies continue to get more and more empowered to do this stuff because people always show that it has never really been about freedom but rather pushing their own views.
- xanaxagoras 5y agoI'm on the right, the far right even by HN standards. This response is either comically out of touch or disingenuous. Nobody in my circles is celebrating this, it has always been about freedom, and I have never encountered your straw man in real life or even on the dangerous alt-right forums where I was radicalized.
- pie_flavor 5y agoMostly because they spent all their time shouting about it when he was initially arrested. Why get worked up twice over the same issue? UK gonna UK.
- nailer 5y agoI normally cry cancel culture and I find this awful despite not sympathizing with the man's views. Likewise I'm concerned about the impact of 'nuisance' laws in the UK on legitimate dissent despite finding most protestors to be annoying.
- coolso 5y agoI think you may be looking for an issue where there is none on this one. While "the usual crowd" absolutely rightly believes in canceling the cancelers as pushback for anti-freedom policies like the cancel culture embraced by the left and progressives, I just Googled the guy's name and there's barely any news articles on it at all aside from a few tabloid-tech style sites like this one, starting a day or two ago. I'd chalk this one up to "most people have no idea this even happened".
- elliekelly 5y ago
- ruined 5y agonow do the rest of them. we could revitalize public works
- eunos 5y agoWoah the infamous "Picking quarrels and provoking trouble" went global https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picking_quarrels_and_provoking_trouble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picking_quarrels_and_provoking... And they said PRC lacks global influence and soft-power.
- at_a_remove 5y agoPresumably, the bobbies of the UK are hot on the trail of the people who Tweeted https://twitter.com/dataracer117/status/1272737061703790592 https://twitter.com/dataracer117/status/1272737061703790592 and will get those community services sentences on the schedule. Death threats, after all, are worse than being glad someone is dead.
- DoctorOW 5y agoI like how to justify the "including verified accounts" it's defining "Harassment" to include a regular critique of her ideas but with a naughty swear word.
- petercooper 5y agoAnother British case from this week: a man got 3 months in jail for being drunk on a plane. The judge acknowledged he wasn't violent or aggressive or even rude to anyone, but he did vomit: https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/drunk-passenger-vomit-jet2-flight-b2046992.html https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/drunk-p...
- juanani 5y ago
- zone411 5y agoIn another UK case, a 19-year-old just got 6 weeks in jail for using a racist slur directed at a football (soccer) player in a tweet: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60927111 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60927111.
- minimilian 5y agoWhat was the actual content of the tweet?
- garbagetime 5y ago
- IncRnd 5y agoThat's the thing. People often don't know the contents of these tweets, so we don't even know whether the accused actually said anything, let alone something that violated a law. However, we are told that what was said was, "The spokesman said the tweet, which included Rashford's username, saw Price swear, use a racist slur and claim that his 'dead nan could have scored that.'"
- recuter 5y agoI don't know about this one, but there was a teenager that quoted a snoop song on her instagram (not directed at anyone but rather in memory of her friend that died in a car crash) and got threatened with an ankle bracelet and a $1000 fine. And this is before the rules got even more strict.
- minimilian 5y agoIs my downvoted & dead sister so because she is false or because she spoke an unspeakable truth? Surely this cannot be one of those places where mentioning an offensive word (as distinct from using it) is considered offensive? @dang
- wait_a_minute 5y agoStop using Twitter. Build open decentralized alternatives that won't cooperate with speech police. Defund the useless bureaucrats who exist only to police speech. Fire them. Let them compete for their bread and wine like all of us who work for a living.
- dymk 5y agoFancy new crypto and system design does not and cannot solve societal and cultural problems.
- wait_a_minute 5y agoBut they will solve speech-policing issues where some UK nanny politicians feel empowered to try to send people to prison over things like this.
- AdrianB1 5y agoIt sounds great, except for the "decentralized alternative" part that sounds great, but there is nothing available soon enough.
- mherdeg 5y agoI'm a little surprised that the UK press is allowed to name Mr Kelly. Once he has completed his punishment and appropriately paid for his crimes against society and the late Captain Moore, why will Mr Kelly still be newsworthy? Won't he earn the right to have his crimes forgotten?
- FeaturelessBug 5y agoI'm an American so I don't know that my opinion has much importance here, but as someone who has never really believed in "cancel culture" and who regularly rolls their eyes at the self victimization of politicians and celebrities who advocate for hate against marginalized groups then act like they are being bullied when those same groups call them on it, this is definitely eye opening.
- anikan_vader 5y ago>> Hundreds of UK citizens have been found guilty under Section 127, often for insulting, abusing, and harassing public figures like athletes, journalists, and MPs. A good opportunity for the Americans among us to feel gratitude at our constitutional right to insult the dunderheads in both chambers of our congress! It's times likes these that I like to reflect on how fortunate it was that the Sedition Act of 1798 was allowed to expire long before I was born.
- digianarchist 5y agoGood case for asylum in the United States if the guy feels like moving.
- null0pointer 5y agoI feel like we've got this totally backwards. If we're going to have laws around speech at all then it should protect the general public more than public figures. In fact some public figures, such as politicians, should be entirely exempt from protection. But we don't see it protecting the general public because those cases are never as high profile.
- taxyz23 5y agoThis is why USA has First Amendment. Using the law to enforce subjective standards of niceness is the first step to political suppression.
- paulpauper 5y agoFunny how some people take 'freedom of speech' for granted or universal..nope...that is uniquely an American feature, still, even after centuries. Democracy does not mean free speech.
- Synaesthesia 5y agoThe US only got freedom of speech in the 60's.
- andrekandre 5y agothe 1st amendment wasn't enacted in the 60s so there must be something i'm missing... can you clarify?
- livueta 5y agoPresumably a reference to how the Brandenburg decision only threw out Whitney/Schneck/Abrams/etc in 1969. Legal rights are just words on paper without a corresponding culture of respect for their importance. The US has a long and sordid tradition of nakedly political censorship. Ask Eugene Debs how much good the 1st amendment did him.
- Traster 5y agoThere's something I find loathesome about this "Send a message" sentencing. What the judge has done is send a clear message, that he won't sentence you on the merits of the case but will sentence you to serve his own agenda. The only message this sends is that justice has failed. It's always completely transparent who exactly gets made an example of, and who gets off with a slap on the wrist. We'll spend months hunting down every rioter in the London riots throwing the book at them and putting up massive billboards in city centres trying to identify them, but when a prominent tory steal millions from the tax payer in dodgy PPE contracts? Well let's just write that off shall we. Because as we know, stealing some shoes from JD sports is much worse than stealing millions in the middle of a pandemic.
- dp-hackernews 5y ago"Remember, that not he who gives ill language or a blow insults, but the principle which represents these things as insulting. When, therefore, anyone provokes you, be assured that it is your own opinion which provokes you." ~ Epictetus, Enchiridion
- dekken_ 5y agoWords can only hurt you if you let them
- timcavel 5y ago
- Terry_Roll 5y agoOne thing I have learnt is that anything bad reported in the so called british press that other countries do, goes on here in the uk as well. Churchill summed it up best, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, which means people will be made examples of as and when needed.
- FpUser 5y ago>"Churchill summed it up best, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" Looking at the cases it seems like "the needs of few" at the top outweigh the needs of many. So cut the BS Mr. Churchill
- OscarCunningham 5y agoGiven the date, it feels appropriate to point out that the same law also makes it illegal to send a message that you know to be false for the purpose of causing annoyance.
- leach 5y agoBreaking: man in UK jailed for thinking bad thoughts, "experts say the body language of the man clearly indicated he was thinking thoughts that go against public interest, the man has been apprehended and we hope to set an example for this kind of behavior" I mean this is satire now but with the way things are going its not entirely ludicrous
- timcavel 5y ago
- mariodiana 5y agoI believe after Margaret Thatcher died, "Ding-Dong, the Witch Is Dead" hit Number 1 on iTunes UK. Should everyone who purchased the song have been sentenced to community service, too?
- sascha_sl 5y agoBased on the severity of this tweet, the people who harass me on twitter would be getting life sentences.
- blockwriter 5y agoThis is a disgusting policy.
- freedomben 5y agoIn many ways, we haven't moved much beyond the middle ages where "make an example" was the standard operating principle. Sure we don't publicly hang or draw & quarter people in the square anymore (which I am glad for of course), but the basic underlying principle of "increase obedience by scaring people when they see what you did to person X" is still very much in use. I really hope to see our justice system progress toward a system with a goal of reforming people rather than punishing people. Ostensibly that's what the purpose is already, but if you look at the output, it clearly isn't.
- pphysch 5y agoYouTube also removed a channel last week on direct orders from the UK Ministry of Defense, after it published a video prank involving the current Defense Secretary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vovan_and_Lexus#YouTube_ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vovan_and_Lexus#YouTube_ban Who knows what sort of punishment those guys would have gotten if they were UK "citizens".
- dmix 5y agoI remember 8 years ago when the UK police started conducting night raids on houses like they were going after the Taliban, because the people tweeted something anti-muslim after a terrorist attack: https://www.businessinsider.com/in-britain-police-arrest-twitter-and-facebook-users-if-they-make-anti-muslim-statements-2013-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/in-britain-police-arrest-twi...
- standardUser 5y agoIt wasn't a threat or a call to violence. It was just a sentiment, and one seemingly made in knowing jest (though I don't really get the context).
- Fargoan 5y ago
- purplejacket 5y agoLooks like UK could learn a thing or two from the United States based on this story. Damn, I never thought I'd see myself saying _that_ .
- Aerroon 5y agoThis is yet another example that the United Kingdom does not have free speech. They've been doing this for years now.
- smarri 5y agoInteresting that the news article can freely print the exact same thing this guy did, and give the message a bigger audience that it had.
- sreejithr 5y agoI've been noticing how much I'm "self-censoring" nowadays. The whole "free world" concept is a lie. Even the "guardians of freedom" USA wants you to disclose all social media handles if I apply for a visa. That means whatever I say online is already getting profiled.
- impalallama 5y agoReading that headline, I was thinking it might be like a specific graphic death threat against someone, or just some vile racial epithets but no its just the kinda edgy stuff you see all over social media. Upsetting that this is even a thing and sets a very bad precedent.
- trhway 5y agoTo illustrate the effects of administrative suppression of free speech one can observe that Russian propaganda freely blossoms on the platforms where free speech is significantly administratively suppressed, ie. for example FB, Twitter, LinkedIn - the places where speech violating various "safe space" rules is handled by getting administratively deleted. Russian propaganda is a product of a free speech suppressed environment and easily thrives in such conditions. The rebuttals to Russian propaganda on those platforms gets reported by Russians as harassment and bullying and thus frequently gets deleted, and as a result the Russian propaganda stays there unchallenged or weakly challenged at best. One of the main point of Russian propaganda is rationalization and normalization of the actions of their fascist regime, and such rationalization/normalization naturally fits the "safe space" rules of those platforms, while denying "safe space" to that propaganda is one of the most important thing in fighting it, yet those platforms in many cases de-facto help Russian propaganda by allowing it to highjack the free speech suppression machinery on those platforms. Compare that to for example HN and Reddit - the places where free speech has much less administrative suppression and where the speech is mostly moderated by the community. There is much less Russian propaganda in those environments because any time it appears it gets strong rebuttals which stay together with the propaganda. As a result anybody exposed to that propaganda here gets also exposed to the rebuttals, and that is naturally net loss to the propaganda, ie. the propaganda can't thrive in the environments where free speech isn't suppressed.
- onemanstartup 5y agoWhy are you so obsessed over Russia? Why are you so eager to "explain" Russia on HN? Seems like you are wasting a lot of time.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoA bit steep but I like the idea of toxic individuals getting some fresh air and working with the community.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- encryptluks2 5y agoFunny, cause both political sides thinks the other base is toxic and so I guess when you are forced to take a train to a camp and do some outside work you won't mind so much.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoNo. I just think there might be a nugget of merit to this idea.
- anony23 5y ago
- da39a3ee 5y agoWow the examples of UK prosecutions under Section 127 of the Communications Act are an embarrassment: https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offensive-tweet-prosecution-section-127-2003-communications-act https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offens... Most of them are just losers saying stupid offensive shit; clearly not worth giving the time of day let alone prosecuting. And one was someone who was understandably angry about the actions of foreign troops in Afghanistan; he has a right to express his anger.
- whysocirius 5y agoIs this some kind of April fool's joke?
- vips7L 5y ago150 hours is insane. In my area most non-profits will only give you 2-3 hours per volunteering shift and you'll be lucky to do that once per week.
- jimmaswell 5y ago"I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free" - for all our problems, these are still not hollow words. I wouldn't choose to live anywhere else.
- baryphonic 5y ago> The deterrence is really to show people that despite the steps you took to try and recall matters, as soon as you press the blue button that’s it. It’s important for other people to realise how quickly things can get out of control. You are a good example of that, not having many followers. I'm genuinely confused by what "get out of control" means. Violence? SWATing? Other people on the Internet may get mad?
- quantum_state 5y agoUK judges should be sanctioned for this outrageous act against freedom of speech!
- siruncledrew 5y agoThe tweet is certainly bad taste and something that would be appalling if said out loud, however, this seems like a bit over-the-top judicial response to tweets. Isn’t stuff like this why the ‘report’ function exists? Or couldn’t the gov just request a takedown / account suspension? Or the social pressure of responses to the tweet would create enough backlash…? This just seems like an archaic way to patrol social media, which is basically a nebulous void. On the other hand, I guess if you really need a lot more free public involvement in community service and picking up litter, then this law is the answer…
- voidr 5y agoIf I would have my way, I would allow all offensive speech, however if a society wants to be policed, I'd rather it be done by a court of the state and not by private companies because there is a higher chance of things being fair if it's done by the state and it's easier to hold courts to account than private companies.