4 ms·

And if we had a time machine and went back to 2022 I would agree with you. Section 127 got repealed in 2023 and got updated with a more comprehensive version se

And if we had a time machine and went back to 2022 I would agree with you. Section 127 got repealed in 2023 and got updated with a more comprehensive version see [1] and you know what they will probably define it even more if there are other ambiguities. Like it should be and like I said before. I am seriously questioning your intentions now, it's clearly not in good faith anymore. [1] https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/blog/the-online-safety-act-2023-nine-new-criminal-offences-come-into-force/ https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/blog/the-online-safety-act-202...

_heimdall 2y ago
I missed that the UK extended that law, thanks for the link. I still see a lot of fray area there left up to a judge's interpretation after the fact. > 1. send a message; > 2. conveying information that they know to be false; > 3. at the time of sending it they intend the message to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience (i.e. someone who is likely to read it, whether originally or after someone has shared it); and > 4. they have no reasonable excuse for sending the message (1) seems totally fine, no gray area there. The last three points are all only known by the person being charged with the crime. It is extremely difficult to prove intent , or what the person knew at the moment of sending a message. Short of the person confessing, prosecutors would be left with having to find evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt what the person knew at the time and the intent behind a message. My argument there is that realistically this will lead to either no convictions or convictions based on circumstantial evidence and a judge's opinion of what the person knew and intended. The qualifications listed for threats have similar gray area, I won't copy them here for brevity. To the citizen, this means anything they say related to a topic protected by these laws may be legal or illegal, they will never know unless a judge is asked to decide. Two reasonable judges could interpret a person's message and intent differently, meaning that the law is too unclear to be enforced fairly on the public.
- BoredPositron 2y ago
  "The Kingdom of Conscience will be exactly as it is now. Moralists don't really have beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded. Centrism isn't change -- not even incremental change. It is control. Over yourself and the world. Exercise it. Look up at the sky. Ask yourself: is there something sinister in moralism? And then answer: no. God is in his heaven. Everything is normal on Earth."

_heimdall 2y ago

I missed that the UK extended that law, thanks for the link. I still see a lot of fray area there left up to a judge's interpretation after the fact. > 1. send a message; > 2. conveying information that they know to be false; > 3. at the time of sending it they intend the message to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience (i.e. someone who is likely to read it, whether originally or after someone has shared it); and > 4. they have no reasonable excuse for sending the message (1) seems totally fine, no gray area there. The last three points are all only known by the person being charged with the crime. It is extremely difficult to prove intent , or what the person knew at the moment of sending a message. Short of the person confessing, prosecutors would be left with having to find evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt what the person knew at the time and the intent behind a message. My argument there is that realistically this will lead to either no convictions or convictions based on circumstantial evidence and a judge's opinion of what the person knew and intended. The qualifications listed for threats have similar gray area, I won't copy them here for brevity. To the citizen, this means anything they say related to a topic protected by these laws may be legal or illegal, they will never know unless a judge is asked to decide. Two reasonable judges could interpret a person's message and intent differently, meaning that the law is too unclear to be enforced fairly on the public.

BoredPositron 2y ago
"The Kingdom of Conscience will be exactly as it is now. Moralists don't really have beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded. Centrism isn't change -- not even incremental change. It is control. Over yourself and the world. Exercise it. Look up at the sky. Ask yourself: is there something sinister in moralism? And then answer: no. God is in his heaven. Everything is normal on Earth."