4 ms·

From [1]: > Data from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), obtained by The Telegraph under a Freedom of Information request, reveals that 292 people have been

From [1]: > Data from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), obtained by The Telegraph under a Freedom of Information request, reveals that 292 people have been charged with communications offences under the new regime. This includes 23 prosecutions for sending a “false communication”… > The offence replaces a lesser-known provision in the Communications Act 2003, Section 127(2), which criminalised “false messages” that caused “needless anxiety”. Unlike its predecessor, however, the new offence carries a potential prison sentence of up to 51 weeks, a fine, or both – a significant increase on the previous six-month maximum sentence.… > In one high-profile case, Dimitrie Stoica was jailed for three months for falsely claiming in a TikTok livestream that he was “running for his life” from rioters in Derby. Stoica, who had 700 followers, later admitted his claim was a joke, but was convicted under the Act and fined £154. [1] https://freespeechunion.org/hundreds-charged-with-online-speech-crimes-under-online-safety-act-amid-us-free-expression-concerns/ https://freespeechunion.org/hundreds-charged-with-online-spe...

otterley 1y ago
Knowingly and intentionally sending false information or harassing people doesn't seem like the same thing as merely "speaking your mind."
- brigandish 1y ago
  Is your name Otterley? Tsk, tsk, knowingly misleading people on HN, we should criminalise that, don't you think?
  - otterley 1y ago
    I'm not holding it out as my real name.
    - brigandish 1y ago
      That’s a good point that unfortunately does nothing to change the point, should we criminalise those who do hold their fake names to be real names, simply because it’s misleading? There’s no relying on further harms, we have other crimes and civil torts to deal with those already, in this case the harm is deemed inherent in the lie itself.
      - hannasanarion 1y ago
        Which would be entirely valid if it had any basis in reality whatsoever. The law you're scaremongering over criminalizes "KNOWINGLY sending FALSE information with INTENT to cause NON-TRIVIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PHYSICAL HARM to a LIKELY audience". Emphasis mine on all of the words establishing a very high and reasonable legal bar that were cut out by the razor-thin quotes that you relied on to make your argument above.

otterley 1y ago

Knowingly and intentionally sending false information or harassing people doesn't seem like the same thing as merely "speaking your mind."

brigandish 1y ago
Is your name Otterley? Tsk, tsk, knowingly misleading people on HN, we should criminalise that, don't you think?
- otterley 1y ago
  I'm not holding it out as my real name.
  - brigandish 1y ago
    That’s a good point that unfortunately does nothing to change the point, should we criminalise those who do hold their fake names to be real names, simply because it’s misleading? There’s no relying on further harms, we have other crimes and civil torts to deal with those already, in this case the harm is deemed inherent in the lie itself.
    - hannasanarion 1y ago
      Which would be entirely valid if it had any basis in reality whatsoever. The law you're scaremongering over criminalizes "KNOWINGLY sending FALSE information with INTENT to cause NON-TRIVIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PHYSICAL HARM to a LIKELY audience". Emphasis mine on all of the words establishing a very high and reasonable legal bar that were cut out by the razor-thin quotes that you relied on to make your argument above.