4 ms·
I wonder how much you're loading into "simply practicing free speech".
by n4r9 1y ago
I wonder how much you're loading into "simply practicing free speech".
- flir 1y agoLook, I didn't mean someone should actually burn down the building with the occupants still inside. It was satire!
- kimixa 1y agoThe last one that made the rounds here ended up being carefully cut to give a specific impression (and the initial presented commentary straight up lies), and when the "full story" came out it turned out to be a lot less "simply practicing free speech" than implied. But retractions never get the same visibility, and it's already made the impression they wanted the post to make. Not a great site but gives the gist: https://www.newsweek.com/british-police-explain-video-officers-investigating-social-media-use-2133274 https://www.newsweek.com/british-police-explain-video-office...
- n4r9 1y agoMight not be what you're referring to, but: a couple of months ago a user posted this comment [0] claiming the linked video showed police offices arresting and threatening to jail an old grandmother in the middle of the night, simply for "liking facebook posts the gov doesn’t like" Needless to say there were no arrests, no jail time, not even threats of jail time, it was 1:30pm, the woman was 54 years old, and she had posted comments calling for a councillor's resignation. There's an argument in there about whether councillors have a bit too much influence on local police behaviour. But it gets drowned out by hyperbole, embellishment, and an over-eagerness to link it all up to a nation-wide conspiracy. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44593022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44593022
- SilverElfin 1y agoGo watch the videos and look up what was said. Most of them are clearly normal non violent free speech, but just politically not aligned to the current government’s platform. I’m not saying all are just doing free speech but am confident about most.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- n4r9 1y agoIn my experience, when someone has an extreme opinion and says "just watch this video", it's largely a waste of time. Video is too easily game-able as a medium.
- beeflet 1y agoGood thinking, you wouldn't want to expose yourself to extreme opinions. Come to think of it, when are we going to ban dangerous assault thoughts? Not everyone has a mind big enough for radical ideas of that caliber.
- n4r9 1y agoI'm open to a broad range of opinions. I'm less open to arguments hinging on watching a video. Especially if they won't even link to one.
- cortic 1y agoIt is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent). The Online Safety Act and Hate Crime Provision have extended these somewhat into the realms of 1984. But the police do tend to use them sparingly.
- teamonkey 1y ago> It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent). This is categorically untrue.
- oncallthrow 1y agoThe latter part at least is true. Sending "grossly offensive" messages is illegal under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, specifically Section 127: > a person is guilty of an offence if he— > (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or > (b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent. I suspect the former is also true, but am not well-read in that area
- teamonkey 1y ago[flagged]
- oncallthrow 1y ago> “Grossly offensive” is absolutely not the same thing as “any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive”. There is no statutory definition of “grossly”, so in effect it is the same. There is prior art for it being interpreted incredibly widely. Not to mention the other incredibly vague adjectives in the law. > Correct https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html “Don’t be snarky”.
- oncallthrow 1y agoIn many cases the “free speech” genuinely is racial hatred bordering on incitement. But on the other hand there genuinely have been many people arrested (and in some cases convicted) under these laws for statements that are shockingly milquetoast.
- kimixa 1y ago> But on the other hand there genuinely have been many people arrested (and in some cases convicted) under these laws for statements that are shockingly milquetoast. Care to name some? The vast majority of cases I've looked into end up being a lot more than the initially presented "They Were Arrested For Saying Bad Words On The Internet!" story pushed on the internet. In fact, I can't remember a single one where there wasn't a lot more, but that's not really more than anecdote.
- oncallthrow 1y agohttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46959556?app-referrer=deep-linkm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46959556... is one example of a successful prosecution. There are many more cases of harassment by the police or arrests, the most recent example that comes to mind being Graham Linehan. These are clearly not as bad as prosecutions, but still create a chilling effect.
- jdietrich 1y ago