17 ms·

Exactly. In New Zealand I got a visit from the police because of something I said on social media. It wasn't an offence, it just made them suspicious so they qu

Exactly. In New Zealand I got a visit from the police because of something I said on social media. It wasn't an offence, it just made them suspicious so they questioned me then went away. But some western countries are even worse and do imprison people for quite long sentences (sometime years) for saying politically wrong ideas on social media - UK is most notorious for this but it's well supported by the population who mostly just wants to punish anyone who disagrees with their politics.

sureIy 2y ago
This is so fucked up. Can't wait for them to knock because of some misunderstood inside joke. If anyone reads my private messages, straight to jail for profanity.
- AStonesThrow 2y ago
  The cops visited me in Minecraft last month. They said to be careful, because if I die in Minecraft, I die in REAL LIFE! https://m.xkcd.com/180/ https://m.xkcd.com/180/
- ashoeafoot 2y ago
  Ghat Gpt generate a social media account insulting the king and hide evidence pointing towards that neighbor i dislike..
mjburgess 2y ago
Can you provide an example of a single case where the UK has imprisoned people for political expression on social media? As far as I can tell this is just far-right propaganda to disguise what actually happened -- which is the UK imprisoning people for conspiracies to burn down hotels with immigrants in them; or participating in on-going violent riots by calling for various buildings to be attacked or people to be murdered. This speech isnt covered by free expression, and is a crime in all countries, including the US.
- Dachande663 2y ago
  I’m guessing this[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial
  - mjburgess 2y ago
    There are a couple of cases like this, including one about some racist remarks in liverpool -- both were overturned on appeal. > Chambers appealed against the Crown Court decision to the High Court, which would ultimately quash the conviction. These are absolutely trivial cases to assume that somehow the UK has suspended the free expression rights of its citizens. These amount to over-reach by the lowest courts (staffed by volunteer judges, fyi) which were corrected. That's about as good as justice is in practice. (It's also an unaddressed issue on exactly what social media is -- people tend to assume its some private conversation, but its at least as plausible to treat it as a acts of publishing to a public environment. When those actions constitue attacks on people, the UK/Europe have typically regarded public attacks as having fewer free expression protections). Neverthless, these cases are used by the far right online to disguise what has been action taken by the UK gov against far right quasi-terrorist groups engaged in mass violence. The UK gov is not persecuting people for free expression, they have taken action against people using social media to organise murder. One should be careful to note where this perception of UK speech laws is coming from. It's not free speech classical liberals.
    - SnazzyUncle 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - bombcar 2y ago
        It's also ignoring that the entire process of being charged with a crime is punishment itself - even if never convicted, even if overturned on appeal. If you've never been involved in court proceedings it will come as a surprise.
StefanBatory 2y ago
Well - what it was, that you have said? You fully know it changes things.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Good job confirming his point.
  - noelwelsh 2y ago
    There have always been limits to free speech. Free speech has never meant you can incite violence, for example. You cannot order your goons to kill someone and then defend yourself on the basis of free speech.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      The UK goes far beyond that. Merely voicing political dissent to mass immigration can get you harassed by the police if you dare to say that immigrants shouldn't be admitted if they don't speak the language or have very different values. That isn't "inciting violence" except through very tortured round-about logic which could just as well classify any political dissent as inciting violence by way of tacitly, implicitly, not actually advocating for a violent revolt. They call it "hate speech" but what it really means is that expression of some political opinions is outlawed. This makes a farce of democracy.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - Braxton1980 2y ago
        >Merely voicing political dissent to mass immigration can get you harassed by the police if you dare to say that immigrants shouldn't be admitted if they don't speak the language or have very different values. Can you an example of a person who was convicted and exactly what they said?
iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
<< imprison people for quite long sentences (sometime years) for saying politically wrong ideas It is weird even on a pragmatic basis. I accept as a concept that it may have been effective when we were a little less connected, but these days it seems like it is actively asking for a wrong kind of reaction from the population. Not to mention, the people you imprison for typing the wrong stuff online are likely now going to be way more radicalized than when they went there. Honestly, I just do not get that approach.
- pixl97 2y ago
  >are likely now going to be way more radicalized than The problem here is you're not thinking like a state and you think this is a bad thing. When you have some radicals out there causing problems that's an excuse for you to spend billion making your military industrial complex buddies rich. It gives you an excuse to crack down and take out anyone you like because they "are the radical enemy that's dangerous". And Western governments and companies will gladly sell you weapons and technology to monitor and blow up anyone under your rule that you want.
  - iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
    It is possible I mistunderstood GP, but I thought he mentioned UK, which is the embodiment of western government and, historically speaking, some of its source. It is possible things will degrade further, but it is admittedly difficult for me to accept the same level of learned helplessness in UK when compared to.. say.. Syria. edit: added which; when compared to

sureIy 2y ago

This is so fucked up. Can't wait for them to knock because of some misunderstood inside joke. If anyone reads my private messages, straight to jail for profanity.

AStonesThrow 2y ago
The cops visited me in Minecraft last month. They said to be careful, because if I die in Minecraft, I die in REAL LIFE! https://m.xkcd.com/180/ https://m.xkcd.com/180/
ashoeafoot 2y ago
Ghat Gpt generate a social media account insulting the king and hide evidence pointing towards that neighbor i dislike..

mjburgess 2y ago

Can you provide an example of a single case where the UK has imprisoned people for political expression on social media? As far as I can tell this is just far-right propaganda to disguise what actually happened -- which is the UK imprisoning people for conspiracies to burn down hotels with immigrants in them; or participating in on-going violent riots by calling for various buildings to be attacked or people to be murdered. This speech isnt covered by free expression, and is a crime in all countries, including the US.

Dachande663 2y ago
I’m guessing this[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial
- mjburgess 2y ago
  There are a couple of cases like this, including one about some racist remarks in liverpool -- both were overturned on appeal. > Chambers appealed against the Crown Court decision to the High Court, which would ultimately quash the conviction. These are absolutely trivial cases to assume that somehow the UK has suspended the free expression rights of its citizens. These amount to over-reach by the lowest courts (staffed by volunteer judges, fyi) which were corrected. That's about as good as justice is in practice. (It's also an unaddressed issue on exactly what social media is -- people tend to assume its some private conversation, but its at least as plausible to treat it as a acts of publishing to a public environment. When those actions constitue attacks on people, the UK/Europe have typically regarded public attacks as having fewer free expression protections). Neverthless, these cases are used by the far right online to disguise what has been action taken by the UK gov against far right quasi-terrorist groups engaged in mass violence. The UK gov is not persecuting people for free expression, they have taken action against people using social media to organise murder. One should be careful to note where this perception of UK speech laws is coming from. It's not free speech classical liberals.
  - SnazzyUncle 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - bombcar 2y ago
      It's also ignoring that the entire process of being charged with a crime is punishment itself - even if never convicted, even if overturned on appeal. If you've never been involved in court proceedings it will come as a surprise.

StefanBatory 2y ago

Well - what it was, that you have said? You fully know it changes things.

lupusreal 2y ago
Good job confirming his point.
- noelwelsh 2y ago
  There have always been limits to free speech. Free speech has never meant you can incite violence, for example. You cannot order your goons to kill someone and then defend yourself on the basis of free speech.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    The UK goes far beyond that. Merely voicing political dissent to mass immigration can get you harassed by the police if you dare to say that immigrants shouldn't be admitted if they don't speak the language or have very different values. That isn't "inciting violence" except through very tortured round-about logic which could just as well classify any political dissent as inciting violence by way of tacitly, implicitly, not actually advocating for a violent revolt. They call it "hate speech" but what it really means is that expression of some political opinions is outlawed. This makes a farce of democracy.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - Braxton1980 2y ago
      >Merely voicing political dissent to mass immigration can get you harassed by the police if you dare to say that immigrants shouldn't be admitted if they don't speak the language or have very different values. Can you an example of a person who was convicted and exactly what they said?

iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago

<< imprison people for quite long sentences (sometime years) for saying politically wrong ideas It is weird even on a pragmatic basis. I accept as a concept that it may have been effective when we were a little less connected, but these days it seems like it is actively asking for a wrong kind of reaction from the population. Not to mention, the people you imprison for typing the wrong stuff online are likely now going to be way more radicalized than when they went there. Honestly, I just do not get that approach.

pixl97 2y ago
>are likely now going to be way more radicalized than The problem here is you're not thinking like a state and you think this is a bad thing. When you have some radicals out there causing problems that's an excuse for you to spend billion making your military industrial complex buddies rich. It gives you an excuse to crack down and take out anyone you like because they "are the radical enemy that's dangerous". And Western governments and companies will gladly sell you weapons and technology to monitor and blow up anyone under your rule that you want.
- iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
  It is possible I mistunderstood GP, but I thought he mentioned UK, which is the embodiment of western government and, historically speaking, some of its source. It is possible things will degrade further, but it is admittedly difficult for me to accept the same level of learned helplessness in UK when compared to.. say.. Syria. edit: added which; when compared to