5 ms·

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-

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.
      - mjburgess 2y ago
        OK, so reflecting on the world at the moment. Do you want the police to suspend investigating all complaints involving social media, or to continue to investigate them? If you choose the first one, then you're preventing the investigation of mass riots, conspiracy to murder, mass disruption of public infrastructure -- and so on. All which have happened in the last 9mo, and gone through the courts. BUT you do have the advantage that police wont, once in a blue moon, turn up to someone's house and investigae them for a bit of nonesense that disappears within a day or at most a month when a real judge has looked at the case. If you choose two, then you can still offer guidance to local police forces to be more careful in assessing complaints -- guidance which has almost certainly been given, since the gov arent happy theyre being distracted with this BS. Now ask yourself: who at the moment really wants option number 1?
        SnazzyUncle 2y ago
        > OK, so reflecting on the world at the moment. Do you want the police to suspend investigating all complaints involving social media, or to continue to investigate them? Yes. I do. I want them to put resources into catch the criminals in my area that have been stealing motor vehicles instead as that actually affect me and my community. Not policing social media.
        mjburgess 2y ago
- timcobb 2y ago
  Nit: is this political? Looks like the issue with the "joke" was violence/terrorism. A political statement would be like > David Cameron is a twit Not > I'm going to blow up the airport Can't imagine why this person got jail time for that given that it was just idiocy, but still
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    >Can't imagine why this person got jail time for that given that it was just idiocy, but still Lots of "idiocy" is explicitly illegal. Being dumb isn't an excuse to commit a crime. Literal children in the US get in trouble (legally, as in, sent to juvie) for bomb threats all the time. Making a bad judgement call, like "surely everyone will understand I'm just joking about my threat to literally murder people" often has legal ramifications.
    - timcobb 2y ago
      Sure, I agree, but why take this person out of society for something like this when you can fine them or make them so community service? Certainly that's a deterrent?

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.
    - mjburgess 2y ago
      OK, so reflecting on the world at the moment. Do you want the police to suspend investigating all complaints involving social media, or to continue to investigate them? If you choose the first one, then you're preventing the investigation of mass riots, conspiracy to murder, mass disruption of public infrastructure -- and so on. All which have happened in the last 9mo, and gone through the courts. BUT you do have the advantage that police wont, once in a blue moon, turn up to someone's house and investigae them for a bit of nonesense that disappears within a day or at most a month when a real judge has looked at the case. If you choose two, then you can still offer guidance to local police forces to be more careful in assessing complaints -- guidance which has almost certainly been given, since the gov arent happy theyre being distracted with this BS. Now ask yourself: who at the moment really wants option number 1?
      - SnazzyUncle 2y ago
        > OK, so reflecting on the world at the moment. Do you want the police to suspend investigating all complaints involving social media, or to continue to investigate them? Yes. I do. I want them to put resources into catch the criminals in my area that have been stealing motor vehicles instead as that actually affect me and my community. Not policing social media.
        mjburgess 2y ago
timcobb 2y ago
Nit: is this political? Looks like the issue with the "joke" was violence/terrorism. A political statement would be like > David Cameron is a twit Not > I'm going to blow up the airport Can't imagine why this person got jail time for that given that it was just idiocy, but still
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  >Can't imagine why this person got jail time for that given that it was just idiocy, but still Lots of "idiocy" is explicitly illegal. Being dumb isn't an excuse to commit a crime. Literal children in the US get in trouble (legally, as in, sent to juvie) for bomb threats all the time. Making a bad judgement call, like "surely everyone will understand I'm just joking about my threat to literally murder people" often has legal ramifications.
  - timcobb 2y ago
    Sure, I agree, but why take this person out of society for something like this when you can fine them or make them so community service? Certainly that's a deterrent?