5 ms·

I'm trying to give this comment a gracious reading. You can find videos on YouTube from the last couple months of police talking to people about comments they l

by pc86 2y ago

I'm trying to give this comment a gracious reading. You can find videos on YouTube from the last couple months of police talking to people about comments they left online, and tweets, and FB posts, etc. So saying that practice "was put to an end a couple of years ago" is a complete fiction. The freedom/security quote, why should that be uniquely American? Human rights are human rights, and if something infringes on them what does it matter whether or not a particular government acknowledges it? It's still an infringement and should be fought. > It is much harder to make glib assertions that principles are more important than physical safety when the violence happens in your city. Or maybe that's exactly the time you should make those assertions all the more loudly. Principles don't mean anything if you only hold them when it's easy, and we should all stop treating people who drop their principles at the slightest road bump as some kind of warrior for safety or whatever they'd like to frame it as, and treat them as they are - cowards and authoritarians. This is the first I've heard about the Forbidden Meatballs, thank you for the chuckle. > For those who are concerned that they will have to engage a solicitor to write reams of policies for their small Mastodon instance, need I remind you how utterly half-arsed everything in this country is? Oh so the hope is just that the government is too ineffectual to prosecute something they're completely within their rights to prosecute? How is that not absolute madness? Why in the world would you trust a government to enforce this fairly? What's to say your Conservative Party doesn't use this to target prominent supporters of Labour, or vice versa? > The Act requires protections for free speech As an American (the horror, I know, that I deign to comment on something British), I'd love to know where your freedom of speech is codified and what a government would have to do if they wanted to change what counts as speech, what doesn't, and what's protected and what isn't. I suspect that you and I have very different definitions of what qualifies as free speech. At the end this seems like the same thing we see in the US a lot - this is something my side of the political divide supports, so I should support it, so I'm going to twist myself into a mental pretzel to support it, even if it solves no real problem, opens up a huge door for future government abuse, and further erodes the rights of everyone.

daveoc64 2y ago
>As an American (the horror, I know, that I deign to comment on something British), I'd love to know where your freedom of speech is codified and what a government would have to do if they wanted to change what counts as speech, what doesn't, and what's protected and what isn't. I suspect that you and I have very different definitions of what qualifies as free speech. There is nothing easy to point to, like the first amendment to the US constitution, but it probably wouldn't matter anyway. The key differences between the UK and US, particularly in this area are that: 1) Governments in the UK tend to have large parliamentary majorities - the current government has a majority in excess of 150 seats. So if there was some sort of written constitution guaranteeing Free Speech, and it required a supermajority to change, it's likely that many UK governments would easily be able to do that. 2) Politicians and the public at large in the UK have very different attitudes to Free Speech (or rather, they take a more pragmatic approach to things and can see the need to compromise). Polling has shown that the Online Safety Act has over 70% of the public supporting it. Parts of the act see even higher support than that. Consequently, most of the major political parties support the act or even think it should go further. This is in deep contrast to the US, where imagining a scenario in which you could amend the constitution would be virtually impossible in the current climate.
- pc86 2y ago
  I like this comment a lot. I can understand the argument to amend the Constitution for things like the Second Amendment (I disagree but I can at least see how you would believe we should do that). Maybe I'm just too cloistered in my Americanism but I can't even comprehend the thought process that leads someone to believe in good faith that restricting someone's speech which doesn't incite violence and doesn't constitute fighting words to be a Good Thing. The example I come back to is that saying "the holocaust never happened" will get you jailed in some European countries (and maybe Israel too? IDK). To me and my suburban American sensibilities going to jail for saying that is worse than saying it in the first place. Saying that is objectively wrong and it points to some related beliefs that I find abhorrent. Saying it does not incite any violence. Saying it does not harm anyone - in the real, physical way not the pseudo-"speech can be violence" nonsense way. I think companies should be able to fire you for abhorrent speech. Platforms should be able to de-platform you. Business should refuse to serve you. I have no problem with any of that. But a government should be restricted in what it can do to people based on their speech. The parliamentary note is particularly interesting. It was posted elsewhere that Labour got something like 1/3 of the vote this time around but due to the parliamentary system is basically running the government? The US is obviously very different where even having a majority doesn't allow you do whatever you want (by design, and IMO a good thing).
cjs_ac 2y ago
> The freedom/security quote, why should that be uniquely American? It's a quote from one of the American founding fathers. I don't remember which, and I don't remember the exact quote. > Human rights are human rights, and if something infringes on them what does it matter whether or not a particular government acknowledges it? In British law, most of what we now call 'human rights' were granted as settlements following rebellions or civil wars, the most notable example being those in the Bill of Rights 1689[0]. It was the Americans who copied that piece of legislation and wrote God's name at the top. The Parliamentarians who first wrote that bill remembered the Second English Civil War and the execution of King Charles I on charges of Tyranny - he wanted to levy taxes that Parliament opposed. (Sound familiar?) > It's still an infringement and should be fought. We don't have absolute freedom of speech in this country and that's fine. Freedom in this country is about doing not speaking. > Or maybe that's exactly the time you should make those assertions all the more loudly. Principles don't mean anything if you only hold them when it's easy, and we should all stop treating people who drop their principles at the slightest road bump as some kind of warrior for safety or whatever they'd like to frame it as, and treat them as they are - cowards and authoritarians. We don't do abstract principles in Britain, we're all about 100% organic realpolitik. Our system of government has been slowly evolving for nearly one thousand years, and continues to evolve. One of our kings was a tyrant, so we killed him. The republic that replaced him was worse, so we restored the monarchy. We solve the problem in front of us - there's no need to solve every problem ever right now. > Oh so the hope is just that the government is too ineffectual to prosecute something they're completely within their rights to prosecute? How is that not absolute madness? This is how Britain has always been governed - with minimal effort. Yes, it's mad. With specific reference to prosecutions, the Crown Prosecution Service only prosecutes if it think it will get a guilty verdict. > Why in the world would you trust a government to enforce this fairly? What's to say your Conservative Party doesn't use this to target prominent supporters of Labour, or vice versa? The government (i.e., the Cabinet and other Ministers of the Crown) have no direct control over the implementation of this legislation; that is delegated to Ofcom, a regulatory body that answers to Parliament as a whole. Any attempt to seize control of Ofcom would require legislation, which would be heavily scrutinised by the House of Lords (which is not elected, and therefore is only weakly influenced by party whips) and would also have to gain Royal Assent, which would probably be refused if the legislation were seen to weaken British democracy. > As an American (the horror, I know, that I deign to comment on something British), I'd love to know where your freedom of speech is codified and what a government would have to do if they wanted to change what counts as speech, what doesn't, and what's protected and what isn't. I suspect that you and I have very different definitions of what qualifies as free speech. Absolute freedom of speech is only granted to parliamentarians when speaking in Parliament. The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British law; Article 10 of the Convention provides for a general right to freedom of expression, but permits certain restrictions. Prior to the Human Rights Act, there was no general freedom of speech; instead everything that was not specifically prohibited was allowed. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

by pc86 2y ago

daveoc64 2y ago

>As an American (the horror, I know, that I deign to comment on something British), I'd love to know where your freedom of speech is codified and what a government would have to do if they wanted to change what counts as speech, what doesn't, and what's protected and what isn't. I suspect that you and I have very different definitions of what qualifies as free speech. There is nothing easy to point to, like the first amendment to the US constitution, but it probably wouldn't matter anyway. The key differences between the UK and US, particularly in this area are that: 1) Governments in the UK tend to have large parliamentary majorities - the current government has a majority in excess of 150 seats. So if there was some sort of written constitution guaranteeing Free Speech, and it required a supermajority to change, it's likely that many UK governments would easily be able to do that. 2) Politicians and the public at large in the UK have very different attitudes to Free Speech (or rather, they take a more pragmatic approach to things and can see the need to compromise). Polling has shown that the Online Safety Act has over 70% of the public supporting it. Parts of the act see even higher support than that. Consequently, most of the major political parties support the act or even think it should go further. This is in deep contrast to the US, where imagining a scenario in which you could amend the constitution would be virtually impossible in the current climate.

pc86 2y ago
I like this comment a lot. I can understand the argument to amend the Constitution for things like the Second Amendment (I disagree but I can at least see how you would believe we should do that). Maybe I'm just too cloistered in my Americanism but I can't even comprehend the thought process that leads someone to believe in good faith that restricting someone's speech which doesn't incite violence and doesn't constitute fighting words to be a Good Thing. The example I come back to is that saying "the holocaust never happened" will get you jailed in some European countries (and maybe Israel too? IDK). To me and my suburban American sensibilities going to jail for saying that is worse than saying it in the first place. Saying that is objectively wrong and it points to some related beliefs that I find abhorrent. Saying it does not incite any violence. Saying it does not harm anyone - in the real, physical way not the pseudo-"speech can be violence" nonsense way. I think companies should be able to fire you for abhorrent speech. Platforms should be able to de-platform you. Business should refuse to serve you. I have no problem with any of that. But a government should be restricted in what it can do to people based on their speech. The parliamentary note is particularly interesting. It was posted elsewhere that Labour got something like 1/3 of the vote this time around but due to the parliamentary system is basically running the government? The US is obviously very different where even having a majority doesn't allow you do whatever you want (by design, and IMO a good thing).

cjs_ac 2y ago

> The freedom/security quote, why should that be uniquely American? It's a quote from one of the American founding fathers. I don't remember which, and I don't remember the exact quote. > Human rights are human rights, and if something infringes on them what does it matter whether or not a particular government acknowledges it? In British law, most of what we now call 'human rights' were granted as settlements following rebellions or civil wars, the most notable example being those in the Bill of Rights 1689[0]. It was the Americans who copied that piece of legislation and wrote God's name at the top. The Parliamentarians who first wrote that bill remembered the Second English Civil War and the execution of King Charles I on charges of Tyranny - he wanted to levy taxes that Parliament opposed. (Sound familiar?) > It's still an infringement and should be fought. We don't have absolute freedom of speech in this country and that's fine. Freedom in this country is about doing not speaking. > Or maybe that's exactly the time you should make those assertions all the more loudly. Principles don't mean anything if you only hold them when it's easy, and we should all stop treating people who drop their principles at the slightest road bump as some kind of warrior for safety or whatever they'd like to frame it as, and treat them as they are - cowards and authoritarians. We don't do abstract principles in Britain, we're all about 100% organic realpolitik. Our system of government has been slowly evolving for nearly one thousand years, and continues to evolve. One of our kings was a tyrant, so we killed him. The republic that replaced him was worse, so we restored the monarchy. We solve the problem in front of us - there's no need to solve every problem ever right now. > Oh so the hope is just that the government is too ineffectual to prosecute something they're completely within their rights to prosecute? How is that not absolute madness? This is how Britain has always been governed - with minimal effort. Yes, it's mad. With specific reference to prosecutions, the Crown Prosecution Service only prosecutes if it think it will get a guilty verdict. > Why in the world would you trust a government to enforce this fairly? What's to say your Conservative Party doesn't use this to target prominent supporters of Labour, or vice versa? The government (i.e., the Cabinet and other Ministers of the Crown) have no direct control over the implementation of this legislation; that is delegated to Ofcom, a regulatory body that answers to Parliament as a whole. Any attempt to seize control of Ofcom would require legislation, which would be heavily scrutinised by the House of Lords (which is not elected, and therefore is only weakly influenced by party whips) and would also have to gain Royal Assent, which would probably be refused if the legislation were seen to weaken British democracy. > As an American (the horror, I know, that I deign to comment on something British), I'd love to know where your freedom of speech is codified and what a government would have to do if they wanted to change what counts as speech, what doesn't, and what's protected and what isn't. I suspect that you and I have very different definitions of what qualifies as free speech. Absolute freedom of speech is only granted to parliamentarians when speaking in Parliament. The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British law; Article 10 of the Convention provides for a general right to freedom of expression, but permits certain restrictions. Prior to the Human Rights Act, there was no general freedom of speech; instead everything that was not specifically prohibited was allowed. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689