4 ms·

> A law exists in the UK about using public communications networks to send grossly offensive or indecent communications. Why? Why is this any of the governmen

by pdonis 4y ago

> A law exists in the UK about using public communications networks to send grossly offensive or indecent communications. Why? Why is this any of the government's business?

notavalleyman 4y ago
One purpose of government in the UK is law writing, so the Communications Act 2003 is absolutely their business. As to why the behaviour needs legislating: because the British social contract required it, because in British society they're willing to trade the right to say grossly offensive things to people, for protection against hearing grossly offensive things. Lots of reasons, it's fine for them, you don't often hear clamour to repeal the law, they don't have the same issue with it that you do. So who are you to tell Brits that they shouldn't have a law?
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > it's fine for them, you don't often hear clamour to repeal the law, they don't have the same issue with it that you do. Why make all of this up? Just so you can call someone a meddling busybody for having an opinion in a thread that you're also posting an opinion in?
  - notavalleyman 4y ago
    The question was - why is (this legislated behaviour) any of the government's business? That's not an opinion. Ultimately it's a question of consent and the social contract. My answer, which you're critical of here, is that ultimately the government have consent of the people to enforce this law and therefore it's the government's business. It's consented by the Brits, there is not democratic clamour to rewrite that law, and it's not for other countries to impose their values here. I hope you don't think I'm being pedantic, I'm just trying to answer the question that was put to me; why, in the UK, is this a regulated behaviour
- xdennis 4y ago
  > because in British society they're willing to trade the right to say grossly offensive things to people, for protection against hearing grossly offensive things I doubt it represents British society's desire. It's more likely a case of "when you're a hammer everything looks like a nail". MPs feel that their job is to always legislate. Let's not forget that since the 90s raves have been illegal in the UK.
  - undersuit 4y ago
    >MPs feel that their job is to always legislate. Would you rather pay them to do nothing at all, or maybe adopt the US model where they spend a year of their term campaigning on the public's dime?
    - maxehmookau 4y ago
      This is an underrated comment that made me laugh. Thank you.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  > So who are you to tell Brits that they shouldn't have a law? Probably most people in Iran agree with the laws that gay people should be executed. Based on your "social contract" theory, that's just fine? I mean, who are you to tell the Iranians that they shouldn't have a law? Right?
  - notavalleyman 4y ago
    No, not right. UK is democratic and the elected reps' body is sovereign over law. An Iranian cannot stand for election in her region on the platform of: I am going to repeal "Islamic" law. A person can stand for election in the UK saying: vote for me and we'll repeat the 2003 Communications Act. I don't think that you didn't know this, so I don't understand why you asked it really
    - Turing_Machine 4y ago
      What you are calling "democratic" and a "social contract" others call "mob rule". Sorry, no.
hengistbury 4y ago
For the same reason that it's the governments business if you are grossly offensive or indecent in person. Shouting abuse at someone in public can see the law involved, and that is the same if the public space is online.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > For the same reason that it's the governments business if you are grossly offensive or indecent in person. Ok, so why is it the government's business if you are grossly offensive or indecent in person? Why can't the normal tools people always use in social interaction handle this? > Shouting abuse at someone in public Is not what the person who was arrested in this case was doing. His tweet was not directed at any particular person. The law does recognize assault as a crime, and shouting abuse at someone in public can rise to the level of assault if the person being shouted at could reasonably believe that the shouter was threatening actual harm. But the crime in this case is not speech; the shouting isn't a crime because it is expressing an offensive opinion. It's a crime because it's a threat of actual harm.
gchamonlive 4y ago
Isn't the government through law and police the entity that encodes and enforces the current set of moral values of a society? When same-sex relations were deemed imoral in less refined times the police would arrest people for that. Now we understand as a society that we can't tolerate repressive ideologies like fascism and so it falls upon the government the burden of repressing and regulating the use of symbols in the context of promoting such ideologies. What other institution would do this instead of the government? Because having no form of regulation is in my opinion not viable. Just think of it for a second. No regulation is a double edge knife. Yes, maybe it would make for a less repressive society, but you would be opening ways for any sort of expression, not only those that don't bother you directly but also those that do. So lacking a better option, the government fills this gap. If that is not acceptable to you, you should come up with alternatives other than unlimited freedom.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  > Yes, maybe it would make for a less repressive society, but you would be opening ways for any sort of expression, not only those that don't bother you directly but also those that do. Yep, I get all kinds of really mean things said to me. Sometimes I even get upset by them. I don't feel a need to arrest and jail the people saying those mean things.
  - gchamonlive 4y ago
    You get just "upset" with fascism?
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      By fascism do you mean some guy on the internet posting things? What, precisely, do you mean here?
    - bakugo 4y ago
      Someone posting a meme on the internet is not fascism. Please go outside.
daveoc64 4y ago
Because the UK's elected parliament has decided that it should be. The UK's elected parliament is free to repeal or amend the law at any time - it has chosen not to. If this is a matter that concerns the electorate, they can ask their MP to raise the point in parliament.

by pdonis 4y ago

> A law exists in the UK about using public communications networks to send grossly offensive or indecent communications. Why? Why is this any of the government's business?

notavalleyman 4y ago

One purpose of government in the UK is law writing, so the Communications Act 2003 is absolutely their business. As to why the behaviour needs legislating: because the British social contract required it, because in British society they're willing to trade the right to say grossly offensive things to people, for protection against hearing grossly offensive things. Lots of reasons, it's fine for them, you don't often hear clamour to repeal the law, they don't have the same issue with it that you do. So who are you to tell Brits that they shouldn't have a law?

pessimizer 4y ago
> it's fine for them, you don't often hear clamour to repeal the law, they don't have the same issue with it that you do. Why make all of this up? Just so you can call someone a meddling busybody for having an opinion in a thread that you're also posting an opinion in?
- notavalleyman 4y ago
  The question was - why is (this legislated behaviour) any of the government's business? That's not an opinion. Ultimately it's a question of consent and the social contract. My answer, which you're critical of here, is that ultimately the government have consent of the people to enforce this law and therefore it's the government's business. It's consented by the Brits, there is not democratic clamour to rewrite that law, and it's not for other countries to impose their values here. I hope you don't think I'm being pedantic, I'm just trying to answer the question that was put to me; why, in the UK, is this a regulated behaviour
xdennis 4y ago
> because in British society they're willing to trade the right to say grossly offensive things to people, for protection against hearing grossly offensive things I doubt it represents British society's desire. It's more likely a case of "when you're a hammer everything looks like a nail". MPs feel that their job is to always legislate. Let's not forget that since the 90s raves have been illegal in the UK.
- undersuit 4y ago
  >MPs feel that their job is to always legislate. Would you rather pay them to do nothing at all, or maybe adopt the US model where they spend a year of their term campaigning on the public's dime?
  - maxehmookau 4y ago
    This is an underrated comment that made me laugh. Thank you.
Turing_Machine 4y ago
> So who are you to tell Brits that they shouldn't have a law? Probably most people in Iran agree with the laws that gay people should be executed. Based on your "social contract" theory, that's just fine? I mean, who are you to tell the Iranians that they shouldn't have a law? Right?
- notavalleyman 4y ago
  No, not right. UK is democratic and the elected reps' body is sovereign over law. An Iranian cannot stand for election in her region on the platform of: I am going to repeal "Islamic" law. A person can stand for election in the UK saying: vote for me and we'll repeat the 2003 Communications Act. I don't think that you didn't know this, so I don't understand why you asked it really
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    What you are calling "democratic" and a "social contract" others call "mob rule". Sorry, no.

hengistbury 4y ago

For the same reason that it's the governments business if you are grossly offensive or indecent in person. Shouting abuse at someone in public can see the law involved, and that is the same if the public space is online.

pdonis 4y ago
> For the same reason that it's the governments business if you are grossly offensive or indecent in person. Ok, so why is it the government's business if you are grossly offensive or indecent in person? Why can't the normal tools people always use in social interaction handle this? > Shouting abuse at someone in public Is not what the person who was arrested in this case was doing. His tweet was not directed at any particular person. The law does recognize assault as a crime, and shouting abuse at someone in public can rise to the level of assault if the person being shouted at could reasonably believe that the shouter was threatening actual harm. But the crime in this case is not speech; the shouting isn't a crime because it is expressing an offensive opinion. It's a crime because it's a threat of actual harm.

gchamonlive 4y ago

Isn't the government through law and police the entity that encodes and enforces the current set of moral values of a society? When same-sex relations were deemed imoral in less refined times the police would arrest people for that. Now we understand as a society that we can't tolerate repressive ideologies like fascism and so it falls upon the government the burden of repressing and regulating the use of symbols in the context of promoting such ideologies. What other institution would do this instead of the government? Because having no form of regulation is in my opinion not viable. Just think of it for a second. No regulation is a double edge knife. Yes, maybe it would make for a less repressive society, but you would be opening ways for any sort of expression, not only those that don't bother you directly but also those that do. So lacking a better option, the government fills this gap. If that is not acceptable to you, you should come up with alternatives other than unlimited freedom.

vorpalhex 4y ago
> Yes, maybe it would make for a less repressive society, but you would be opening ways for any sort of expression, not only those that don't bother you directly but also those that do. Yep, I get all kinds of really mean things said to me. Sometimes I even get upset by them. I don't feel a need to arrest and jail the people saying those mean things.
- gchamonlive 4y ago
  You get just "upset" with fascism?
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    By fascism do you mean some guy on the internet posting things? What, precisely, do you mean here?
  - bakugo 4y ago
    Someone posting a meme on the internet is not fascism. Please go outside.

daveoc64 4y ago

Because the UK's elected parliament has decided that it should be. The UK's elected parliament is free to repeal or amend the law at any time - it has chosen not to. If this is a matter that concerns the electorate, they can ask their MP to raise the point in parliament.