4 ms·
There's a lot not to like about this legislation, but you're way off the mark here. The legislation doesn't impose a generic ban on anything that someone or oth
by foldr 2y ago
There's a lot not to like about this legislation, but you're way off the mark here. The legislation doesn't impose a generic ban on anything that someone or other considers 'harmful'. It's a raft of quite specific regulatory requirements relating to specific kinds of content. There are certainly arguments to be made against it, but your examples are quite irrelevant.
- wesselbindt 2y ago> psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress Has shown itself to be vague enough to be a perfect stand in for "harmful" in everything the parent comment says.
- scott_w 2y agoCan you provide examples in UK law?
- wesselbindt 2y agoNo sorry, that causes me too much psychological harm, amounting to at least serious distress.
- zarzavat 2y agoInfamously the Nazi dog salute case: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925
- foldr 2y agoThat was a hate crime case under existing legislation. It's not relevant to the interpretation of 'psychological harm' in this new legislation.
- zarzavat 2y agoWhat's your point? There's no examples of psychological harm under the new legislation because it's new. We can however infer from how the old legislation has been enforced.
- foldr 2y agoIt’s not a very specific point of comparison to serve as a response to scott_w’s question. You can infer that legislation is sometimes badly interpreted and badly enforced. I’m sure this new legislation will be badly interpreted and badly enforced in some instances. That doesn't lead us to the sort of over-the-top scenario that briandear was painting.