4 ms·

So if it's Illegal to take images of illegal immigrants because of the unsafe boats -> something -> children, is it also illegal to take images of unsafe play e

So if it's Illegal to take images of illegal immigrants because of the unsafe boats -> something -> children, is it also illegal to take images of unsafe play equipment? Or photograph a teacher assaulting a child. What about children paddling in the sea? Plenty of kids have drowned? The news shows plenty of unsafe things, perhaps we should get rid of the press?

O__________O 4y ago
UK has a long history of the press freely speaking as long as it suits the government, but it has no constitutional guarantee of the freedom of the press. As long as UK remains a constitutional monarchy, this is unlikely to change.
- benj111 4y ago
  What has constitutional monarchy got to do with it, the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. If the ERA protected freedom of the press, we'd have freedom of the press.
  - O__________O 4y ago
    Monarchy uses the press bans all the time to hide internal family drama. All the press bans related to UK government, for example, ban of satirical references to government, are done in the name of enabling constitutional monarchy. If not for the monarchy, why else would the people limit their own freedoms for the sake of the government?
    - eynsham 4y ago
      It’s almost as if there are vested bureaucratic interests in Britain’s constitutional democracy as in any other state.
      - O__________O 4y ago
        Difference being in some countries they are unable to hide or criminalize sharing information on their hypocrisy — unlike the UK, which is not for the people, by the people. Ignorance is bliss.
    - benj111 4y ago
      >for example, ban of satirical references to government Examples?
      - O__________O 4y ago
        Sure, here’s the relevant rule from the “House of Commons: Broadcasting Committee: The Rules of Coverage” on page 17 — “no extracts of Parliamentary proceedings may be used in any light entertainment programme or in a programme of political satire”; link to related document: - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmbroad/786/786.pdf https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmbr... This is a rule of coverage for Parliamentary footage that has existed since 1989. It is an infringement on both freedom of speech and press. With the globalisation of media through the internet and social media, it is now foolish to assume that the electorate will be 'protected' from seeing satirical footage of Parliament — yet the law still stands. List of other forms of censorship in UK: - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom Which includes specific examples related to rule mentioned above; search for ”satir” on the page.
        benj111 4y ago
        That isn't a ban on satirical references to the government though. I would guess it came about because like the courts, filming in parliament wasn't allowed until the 80s. When they did introduce it, they had rules like this because they weren't sure how it would be used. As to the question of whether it's needed now after 30 years, probably not, but then it's probably not high up anyone's agenda to get it repealed.
Zuider 4y ago
It is not about protecting children. It is considered illegal because criticism of mass immigration and the strain that puts on society is now categorized as racist hate speech. This escalation in policing all online communication and categorizing dissent from government policy as 'far right' appears to have been decided at the meeting of the World Economic Forum at Davos in 2023.
- benj111 4y ago
  FTA Mrs Elphicke’s amendment called for the removal of “content that may result in serious harm or death to a child while crossing the English Channel with the aim of entering the United Kingdom in a vessel unsuited or unsafe for those purposes.” I mean I know what they want it to do, but if they state a bs official reason, surely I can criticise on the basis of that reason.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > because criticism of mass immigration and the strain that puts on society is now categorized as racist hate speech I do not think the Tory party are categorising "criticism of mass immigration and the strain that puts on society" as "racist hate speech" because that would put most of them and their manifesto under that banner and, dumb as they are, they're not quite -that- dumb as to out themselves directly.
  - benj111 4y ago
    > they're not quite -that- dumb as to out themselves directly I don't know. Have you heard some brexiteers complaining about brexit. Of course the problem is that Brexit wasn't done 'properly'. 'brexit means brexit' and all that.

O__________O 4y ago

UK has a long history of the press freely speaking as long as it suits the government, but it has no constitutional guarantee of the freedom of the press. As long as UK remains a constitutional monarchy, this is unlikely to change.

benj111 4y ago
What has constitutional monarchy got to do with it, the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. If the ERA protected freedom of the press, we'd have freedom of the press.
- O__________O 4y ago
  Monarchy uses the press bans all the time to hide internal family drama. All the press bans related to UK government, for example, ban of satirical references to government, are done in the name of enabling constitutional monarchy. If not for the monarchy, why else would the people limit their own freedoms for the sake of the government?
  - eynsham 4y ago
    It’s almost as if there are vested bureaucratic interests in Britain’s constitutional democracy as in any other state.
    - O__________O 4y ago
      Difference being in some countries they are unable to hide or criminalize sharing information on their hypocrisy — unlike the UK, which is not for the people, by the people. Ignorance is bliss.
  - benj111 4y ago
    >for example, ban of satirical references to government Examples?
    - O__________O 4y ago
      Sure, here’s the relevant rule from the “House of Commons: Broadcasting Committee: The Rules of Coverage” on page 17 — “no extracts of Parliamentary proceedings may be used in any light entertainment programme or in a programme of political satire”; link to related document: - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmbroad/786/786.pdf https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmbr... This is a rule of coverage for Parliamentary footage that has existed since 1989. It is an infringement on both freedom of speech and press. With the globalisation of media through the internet and social media, it is now foolish to assume that the electorate will be 'protected' from seeing satirical footage of Parliament — yet the law still stands. List of other forms of censorship in UK: - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom Which includes specific examples related to rule mentioned above; search for ”satir” on the page.
      - benj111 4y ago
        That isn't a ban on satirical references to the government though. I would guess it came about because like the courts, filming in parliament wasn't allowed until the 80s. When they did introduce it, they had rules like this because they weren't sure how it would be used. As to the question of whether it's needed now after 30 years, probably not, but then it's probably not high up anyone's agenda to get it repealed.

Zuider 4y ago

It is not about protecting children. It is considered illegal because criticism of mass immigration and the strain that puts on society is now categorized as racist hate speech. This escalation in policing all online communication and categorizing dissent from government policy as 'far right' appears to have been decided at the meeting of the World Economic Forum at Davos in 2023.

benj111 4y ago
FTA Mrs Elphicke’s amendment called for the removal of “content that may result in serious harm or death to a child while crossing the English Channel with the aim of entering the United Kingdom in a vessel unsuited or unsafe for those purposes.” I mean I know what they want it to do, but if they state a bs official reason, surely I can criticise on the basis of that reason.
zimpenfish 4y ago
> because criticism of mass immigration and the strain that puts on society is now categorized as racist hate speech I do not think the Tory party are categorising "criticism of mass immigration and the strain that puts on society" as "racist hate speech" because that would put most of them and their manifesto under that banner and, dumb as they are, they're not quite -that- dumb as to out themselves directly.
- benj111 4y ago
  > they're not quite -that- dumb as to out themselves directly I don't know. Have you heard some brexiteers complaining about brexit. Of course the problem is that Brexit wasn't done 'properly'. 'brexit means brexit' and all that.