4 ms·
> the act does create a new offense of “false communications,” criminalizing deliberately causing harm by communicating something the sender knows to be untrue
by auggierose 3y ago
> the act does create a new offense of “false communications,” criminalizing deliberately causing harm by communicating something the sender knows to be untrue
Wow. Is this more like China, or more like 1984?
- mdp2021 3y agoSorry but you found and are denouncing the possibly only fair point in the legislation. I dream of heads of state being prosecuted for "false communication [i.e. communicating something the sender knows to be untrue]".
- auggierose 3y agoHow is that a fair point? First, how do you define "untrue", and second "knows", in any meaningful sense? A country like China is in the position to define what "untrue" is, and of course, if it is untrue, then it is not possible that you have a different opinion, so you know by default that it is untrue. So this is just pure and simple censoring. And certainly against free speech.
- mdp2021 3y agoYou are reading it differently from a direct reading: it just means "lying" through an operational definition. "Prime minister (etc.), you called X "Y" even though it seems Y is not the case. Did you knowingly disseminate what you know was not true?" I am pointing to the fact that you can witness the practice of lying quite frequently from quite high chairs. I would not mind those crimes (as always justified under the idea of a "greater good", just like this law) to be assessed.
- almatabata 3y agoHeads of state and members of parliament will never get convicted based on this law. They have the funds and the connections to get an amazing defense in court you as a private citizen would never have access to unless you have enough wealth. Many of them have studied law, they know how to mount a defense and they have the money to last a long trial. This will get used against joe random who cannot mount a proper defense and does not have the same social capital to defend himself.
- lost_tourist 3y agoHeads of state and billionaires are not subject to the same set of laws as us plebeians.
- justinclift 3y agoThe article says: ... political disinformation with the potential to undermine democracy. Wonder if that applies to politicians, rather than just the populace? If so, politicians knowingly misleading people in significant ways might run afoul of it. ;)
- Brian_K_White 3y agoMaybe we can make lemonade and use it to make actual consequences for companies and politicians that lie. Next time a company gives a bs excuse for some action, or a government agency gives a bs rationale fot some policy, it should be possible to show both that it caused harm, and that they knew the communication was untrue, and we can go "Hey thanks for making that actually actionably illegal as it always should have been!" ah fantasies (i'm not in the uk so even more fantasy)