4 ms·

The thing that boggles my mind most is the UK libel laws where stating a true, verifiable fact can be illegal if it makes the subject look bad. Someone tell me

The thing that boggles my mind most is the UK libel laws where stating a true, verifiable fact can be illegal if it makes the subject look bad. Someone tell me I’ve got that wrong.

mig39 1y ago
No, this is incorrect, and a quick google search would verify that. Where did you get that idea? Truth is a _defence_ against libel.
- cobbzilla 1y ago
  I did have it technically wrong but practically correct. Do go have a quick conversation with your favorite AI about this. Ask if anyone in the UK has ever been punished for saying a true thing, and whether the cost on the defendant to prove innocence is not so exorbitant as to allow libel to be weaponized by the wealthy against their critics.
- burnt-resistor 1y ago
  Who decides which facts and truth are "correct"? The same arbiters of what is and isn't "antisemitic" is who simply because speech criticizes IDF or Likud propaganda and/or genocide.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
anonymousiam 1y ago
In the UK, you don't even need to speak to be arrested. https://reason.com/2024/10/17/british-man-convicted-of-criminal-charges-for-praying-silently-near-abortion-clinic/ https://reason.com/2024/10/17/british-man-convicted-of-crimi...
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  That was in a specifically protected area covered by a PSPO that explicitly banned prayer. He then refused to move on, so this was a deliberate protest against abortion. > On the day, he was asked to leave the area by a community officer who spoke to him for an hour and 40 minutes - but he refused. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo
  - cobbzilla 1y ago
    Got it, standing and thinking could be a criminal offense, depending on what you are thinking. Understood.
    - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
      I don't think you've got a clear understanding of how PSPO orders work. Do you really think that standing and thinking would be a criminal offense? Maybe if you stood somewhere awkward (e.g. blocking the doors to an A&E department) and refused to move when asked, then I can understand it, but I think you're being disingenuous.
      - cobbzilla 1y ago
        In the linked article, the criminal was not alleged to have obstructed anything. He did message the town council saying he was holding a silent vigil, which he had done before apparently without incident. This time he was arrested, PSPO was applied, and he was fined £9000. If his message to the council said he’d be standing there reading the newspaper, would the arrest and conviction have been made?
        ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
        What are you on about? The PSPO specifically prohibited activity in favour or against abortion services, including protests, harassment and vigils. He was blatantly holding a vigil and even then, I expect he could have just moved on when asked and faced no charges. Reading a newspaper would be fine, obviously, unless he specifically concocted his own newspaper with slogans on it which would then surely be a protest of some kind.
BonoboIO 1y ago
Well … it’s even true in Germany, not libel but you can be convicted of „Volksverhetzung“ even if you state something that is true, like that a certain person of a religion would be today be called a pedophile. It’s literally stated in the religions holy book, but if the statement is ment to push racism it can be still a crime.

The thing that boggles my mind most is the UK libel laws where stating a true, verifiable fact can be illegal if it makes the subject look bad. Someone tell me I’ve got that wrong.

mig39 1y ago

No, this is incorrect, and a quick google search would verify that. Where did you get that idea? Truth is a _defence_ against libel.

cobbzilla 1y ago
I did have it technically wrong but practically correct. Do go have a quick conversation with your favorite AI about this. Ask if anyone in the UK has ever been punished for saying a true thing, and whether the cost on the defendant to prove innocence is not so exorbitant as to allow libel to be weaponized by the wealthy against their critics.
burnt-resistor 1y ago
Who decides which facts and truth are "correct"? The same arbiters of what is and isn't "antisemitic" is who simply because speech criticizes IDF or Likud propaganda and/or genocide.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

anonymousiam 1y ago

In the UK, you don't even need to speak to be arrested. https://reason.com/2024/10/17/british-man-convicted-of-criminal-charges-for-praying-silently-near-abortion-clinic/ https://reason.com/2024/10/17/british-man-convicted-of-crimi...

ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
That was in a specifically protected area covered by a PSPO that explicitly banned prayer. He then refused to move on, so this was a deliberate protest against abortion. > On the day, he was asked to leave the area by a community officer who spoke to him for an hour and 40 minutes - but he refused. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo
- cobbzilla 1y ago
  Got it, standing and thinking could be a criminal offense, depending on what you are thinking. Understood.
  - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
    I don't think you've got a clear understanding of how PSPO orders work. Do you really think that standing and thinking would be a criminal offense? Maybe if you stood somewhere awkward (e.g. blocking the doors to an A&E department) and refused to move when asked, then I can understand it, but I think you're being disingenuous.
    - cobbzilla 1y ago
      In the linked article, the criminal was not alleged to have obstructed anything. He did message the town council saying he was holding a silent vigil, which he had done before apparently without incident. This time he was arrested, PSPO was applied, and he was fined £9000. If his message to the council said he’d be standing there reading the newspaper, would the arrest and conviction have been made?
      - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
        What are you on about? The PSPO specifically prohibited activity in favour or against abortion services, including protests, harassment and vigils. He was blatantly holding a vigil and even then, I expect he could have just moved on when asked and faced no charges. Reading a newspaper would be fine, obviously, unless he specifically concocted his own newspaper with slogans on it which would then surely be a protest of some kind.

BonoboIO 1y ago

Well … it’s even true in Germany, not libel but you can be convicted of „Volksverhetzung“ even if you state something that is true, like that a certain person of a religion would be today be called a pedophile. It’s literally stated in the religions holy book, but if the statement is ment to push racism it can be still a crime.