3 ms·

Wait what? I have seen multiple stories of the police showing up to people's house and fining them for tweets in the UK? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-su

Wait what? I have seen multiple stories of the police showing up to people's house and fining them for tweets in the UK? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-60260292 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-60260292 Also it is my understanding that it is much easier to sue someone for libel in the UK. I would think that the UK score should actually be lower.

azekai 4y ago
The US also has a higher bar for what constitutes slander/libel than the UK, which can also have a chilling effect on speech.
- thfuran 4y ago
  How would a higher bar for defamation have a chilling effect on speech?
  - akvadrako 4y ago
    The opposite - the UK has the chilling effect.
- wahern 4y ago
  Anything that makes people accountable for what they say will have a chilling effect on speech, just like people handle real guns with much more care and attention than they do toy guns. The real question is whether the benefit is worth the cost.
ben_w 4y ago
IMO the standard is (1) when/why this can happen, and (2) how often it actually does so. (Though the linked story it wasn’t the police issuing the fine, which is an important distinction). While I think of free speech as a continuum rather than a Boolean, I accept that it is coherent to take the position that anything, including calls for attacks against yourself named personally, are covered by free speech. I believe Twitter used to take that position: https://twitter.com/wef/status/710616930252677120 https://twitter.com/wef/status/710616930252677120 I don’t know what the tweet in the linked story actually wrote; he pleaded guilty to “pleaded guilty to sending an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing message”, but as I’m not a lawyer and even if I looked up the law I’d misunderstand it somehow, and as a non-lawyer will see the word “offensive” in that list and easily believe it could include something as simple as swearing, I can sympathise with the belief that the law is wrong. However, I suspect the problem with his tweet was not really simply swearing. > Also it is my understanding that it is much easier to sue someone for libel in the UK. Yes on paper, but if you ask a lawyer they’ll explain the Streisand effect.

azekai 4y ago

The US also has a higher bar for what constitutes slander/libel than the UK, which can also have a chilling effect on speech.

thfuran 4y ago
How would a higher bar for defamation have a chilling effect on speech?
- akvadrako 4y ago
  The opposite - the UK has the chilling effect.
wahern 4y ago
Anything that makes people accountable for what they say will have a chilling effect on speech, just like people handle real guns with much more care and attention than they do toy guns. The real question is whether the benefit is worth the cost.

ben_w 4y ago

IMO the standard is (1) when/why this can happen, and (2) how often it actually does so. (Though the linked story it wasn’t the police issuing the fine, which is an important distinction). While I think of free speech as a continuum rather than a Boolean, I accept that it is coherent to take the position that anything, including calls for attacks against yourself named personally, are covered by free speech. I believe Twitter used to take that position: https://twitter.com/wef/status/710616930252677120 https://twitter.com/wef/status/710616930252677120 I don’t know what the tweet in the linked story actually wrote; he pleaded guilty to “pleaded guilty to sending an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing message”, but as I’m not a lawyer and even if I looked up the law I’d misunderstand it somehow, and as a non-lawyer will see the word “offensive” in that list and easily believe it could include something as simple as swearing, I can sympathise with the belief that the law is wrong. However, I suspect the problem with his tweet was not really simply swearing. > Also it is my understanding that it is much easier to sue someone for libel in the UK. Yes on paper, but if you ask a lawyer they’ll explain the Streisand effect.