5 ms·

Some thoughts if you have them, are illegal to express, even in private, for your own consumption. This is the law that means none of our devices or possessions

Some thoughts if you have them, are illegal to express, even in private, for your own consumption. This is the law that means none of our devices or possessions are protected from snooping. You have a tough challenge to convince me it’s anything other than a mundane device to give some groups an information advantage over others in their own society, for the unfair pursuit of political and economic advantage.

dingnuts 1y ago
> Some thoughts if you have them, are illegal to express, even in private, for your own consumption. fuck this attitude with a rake
- kypro 1y ago
  In the UK we take this a step further – if you're by an abortion clinic and the police believe you could be praying in your head for those getting an abortion they can charge you. There are also examples where the people have been charged for retweeting opinions or sharing lyrics which are considered grossly offensive. Although I suppose in these cases you could at least argue something is being expressed.
  - giveita 1y ago
    Any case law for first claim?
    - DontBreakAlex 1y ago
      Apparently that is Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. Article regarding the claim: https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/news/guilty-army-vet-convicted-for-praying-silently-near-abortion-facility https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/news/guilty-army-vet-conv... > In its decision, the court reasoned that his prayer amounted to “disapproval of abortion” because at one point his head was seen slightly bowed and his hands were clasped. I'm all for women's rights, but that's not how to do it
      - strbean 1y ago
        > The safe zone, introduced in October 2022, bans activity in favour or against abortion services, including protests, harassment and vigils. > During the case, brought by BCP Council, the court heard Smith-Connor had emailed the council the day before to inform it about his silent vigil, as he had done on previous occasions. > 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.com/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo So he told the council he was going to have a silent vigil against abortion, and then it had to take place within the buffer area to protect women from anti-abortion activism. He was totally free to walk a few yards away and do whatever he wanted, but he refused. Sounds like he wanted to stir the pot to preserve the right to menace women seeking medical care.
        DontBreakAlex 1y ago
        It tells a lot about echo chambers that the first article google showed me for "man charged for praying abortion" is the adf one and you presumably got the bbc one. Anyway, there's nothing to see here, the UK banned vigils in front of abortion clinics, he got charged for keeping a vigil somewhere not allowed, so no thoughtcrime involved. Freedom of speech and banning vigils/demonstration is a different debate that we already have all the time...
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - cobbzilla 1y ago
    I am curious what would happen if one of those people tried to pray while having a sign above their head that said “I’m praying for <favorite sports team> to win their next game” Could they still arrest you?
    - giveita 1y ago
      They probably could. Especially given the magistrate deciding and no jury to convince.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
port11 1y ago
In other words, the people in power get to dictate which thoughts you're allowed to have/express? Even in the privacy of your own house? And if the people in power decide acts of kindness or expressing love for your children are illegal…?
- riazrizvi 1y ago
  Rather, the expansion of surveillance legislation in 1986, and 2001, introduced the idea that private material on your computer can be criminal, which opened the door to government installed malware to monitor you, whereas before that, criminal activity involving information was restricted to communication or social organization. Then later in 2003 with the introduction of private contractors to implement this tech, there was a further expansion in the people who had access to this information. An example of what happens when people have this power is captured in this Bloomberg article [1] and this New Yorker article [2]. And we know that some Silicon Valley leaders do not believe in market fairness/competition. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel... [2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-facebook https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-fa....

dingnuts 1y ago

> Some thoughts if you have them, are illegal to express, even in private, for your own consumption. fuck this attitude with a rake

kypro 1y ago
In the UK we take this a step further – if you're by an abortion clinic and the police believe you could be praying in your head for those getting an abortion they can charge you. There are also examples where the people have been charged for retweeting opinions or sharing lyrics which are considered grossly offensive. Although I suppose in these cases you could at least argue something is being expressed.
- giveita 1y ago
  Any case law for first claim?
  - DontBreakAlex 1y ago
    Apparently that is Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. Article regarding the claim: https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/news/guilty-army-vet-convicted-for-praying-silently-near-abortion-facility https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/news/guilty-army-vet-conv... > In its decision, the court reasoned that his prayer amounted to “disapproval of abortion” because at one point his head was seen slightly bowed and his hands were clasped. I'm all for women's rights, but that's not how to do it
    - strbean 1y ago
      > The safe zone, introduced in October 2022, bans activity in favour or against abortion services, including protests, harassment and vigils. > During the case, brought by BCP Council, the court heard Smith-Connor had emailed the council the day before to inform it about his silent vigil, as he had done on previous occasions. > 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.com/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo So he told the council he was going to have a silent vigil against abortion, and then it had to take place within the buffer area to protect women from anti-abortion activism. He was totally free to walk a few yards away and do whatever he wanted, but he refused. Sounds like he wanted to stir the pot to preserve the right to menace women seeking medical care.
      - DontBreakAlex 1y ago
        It tells a lot about echo chambers that the first article google showed me for "man charged for praying abortion" is the adf one and you presumably got the bbc one. Anyway, there's nothing to see here, the UK banned vigils in front of abortion clinics, he got charged for keeping a vigil somewhere not allowed, so no thoughtcrime involved. Freedom of speech and banning vigils/demonstration is a different debate that we already have all the time...
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- cobbzilla 1y ago
  I am curious what would happen if one of those people tried to pray while having a sign above their head that said “I’m praying for <favorite sports team> to win their next game” Could they still arrest you?
  - giveita 1y ago
    They probably could. Especially given the magistrate deciding and no jury to convince.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

port11 1y ago

In other words, the people in power get to dictate which thoughts you're allowed to have/express? Even in the privacy of your own house? And if the people in power decide acts of kindness or expressing love for your children are illegal…?

riazrizvi 1y ago
Rather, the expansion of surveillance legislation in 1986, and 2001, introduced the idea that private material on your computer can be criminal, which opened the door to government installed malware to monitor you, whereas before that, criminal activity involving information was restricted to communication or social organization. Then later in 2003 with the introduction of private contractors to implement this tech, there was a further expansion in the people who had access to this information. An example of what happens when people have this power is captured in this Bloomberg article [1] and this New Yorker article [2]. And we know that some Silicon Valley leaders do not believe in market fairness/competition. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel... [2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-facebook https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-fa....