The Death Of Free Speech In The Uk Continues

[Goat]

No, the clue is in the name: Malicious Communications Act. It deals with malicious communications.

The law was passed 26 years ago by the Thatcher government to cover incidents of precisely this kind. It has absolutely nothing to do with Blair. In those days, people thought it reasonable that communications of this kind should be punishable. The golden age of freedom of speech before Blair exists only in your imagination.

Erm, the law was indeed introduced in 1988 however it was substantially amended by the criminal justice and police act 2001, and is definitely part of the Bliar legacy.

The law as originally enacted soley dealt with letters, which was a reasonable and proportionate piece of legislation. The 2001 amendment extended the law to include electronic communications, which meant it moved from dealing with deliberate and considered acts (write letter, put in envelope, post) to criminalising petty, thoughtless acts such as tweeting jokes in poor taste.

The current law is IMO vastly different to the one originally enacted.

[ccc]

I find your post criticising our lawmakers grossly offensive.

Your head, be off with it!

That's next !!

PS I was referring to the use in official legislation of the words 'his' and 'him' specifically when they choose not to use the word 'person'.

What exactly is stopping them using 'his/her' or ' their' ?

[Executive Sadman]

"The messages were not read out in court"

That's the huge issue with it.

Kafkaesque or what.

Of which we must not speak. Its a bit like the 'n-word'

We all know what it is, yet, uttering it somehow it, even if in a wholly non-aggressive context makes the lefties ears bleed.

Its as superstitious as those muslims who cant draw what they think Allah (or is it mohammed) might look like.

The whole PC-hate speech agenda is almost comedic, like some 16th century throwback.

I guess I shouldnt strictly treat it as a left right issue, the mary whitehouse types just seem to get more indulged by the left nowadays.

[Riedquat]

What exactly is stopping them using 'his/her' or ' their' ?

"Their" is plural, even if it often gets (mis)used as a genderless singular.

[snowflux]

Erm, the law was indeed introduced in 1988 however it was substantially amended by the criminal justice and police act 2001, and is definitely part of the Bliar legacy.

The law as originally enacted soley dealt with letters, which was a reasonable and proportionate piece of legislation. The 2001 amendment extended the law to include electronic communications, which meant it moved from dealing with deliberate and considered acts (write letter, put in envelope, post) to criminalising petty, thoughtless acts such as tweeting jokes in poor taste.

The current law is IMO vastly different to the one originally enacted.

You're grasping at straws there. A malicious communication is a malicious communication regardless of the medium used to convey it; this makes no difference to its capacity to cause distress to its recipient. The 2001 amendment simply reflected changes in the use of technology for conveying messages. What sense would it make to penalise malicious letters but not malicious emails, etc.? Granted, a judge might view the ease with which messages can be sent electronically as a mitigating factor, but in essence they amount to the same thing.

[MrPin]

"The messages were not read out in court"

That's the huge issue with it.

Kafkaesque or what.

Only I am allowed to say that!

[snowflux]

That's next !!

PS I was referring to the use in official legislation of the words 'his' and 'him' specifically when they choose not to use the word 'person'.

What exactly is stopping them using 'his/her' or ' their' ?

For the last 150 years or so, legislation was framed on the premise that the norm of humanity is male for the sake of brevity - a policy that has been called ‘the masculine rule’. You'll be pleased to know, though, that pressure from feminist groups over the last couple of decades has led to more modern legislation generally being drafted in gender-neutral terms.

See The End of the ‘Masculine Rule’? Gender-Neutral Legislative Drafting in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

[MrPin]

For the last 150 years or so, legislation was framed on the premise that the norm of humanity is male for the sake of brevity - a policy that has been called ‘the masculine rule’. You'll be pleased to know, though, that pressure from feminist groups over the last couple of decades has led to more modern legislation generally being drafted in gender-neutral terms.

See The End of the ‘Masculine Rule’? Gender-Neutral Legislative Drafting in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

I don't think many of us are "gender neutral" Mr Snowy! I reckon I'm a bloke, and the other ones, with the chest bumps might be women, or better, ladies, maybe a duchess!

[ccc]

For the last 150 years or so, legislation was framed on the premise that the norm of humanity is male for the sake of brevity - a policy that has been called the masculine rule. You'll be pleased to know, though, that pressure from feminist groups over the last couple of decades has led to more modern legislation generally being drafted in gender-neutral terms.

See The End of the Masculine Rule? Gender-Neutral Legislative Drafting in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

Interesting - cheers. I assumed it was the usual misandry slipping into society. I am rather cynical

[porca misèria]

Erm, the law was indeed introduced in 1988 however it was substantially amended by the criminal justice and police act 2001, and is definitely part of the Bliar legacy.

The law as originally enacted soley dealt with letters, which was a reasonable and proportionate piece of legislation. The 2001 amendment extended the law to include electronic communications, which meant it moved from dealing with deliberate and considered acts (write letter, put in envelope, post) to criminalising petty, thoughtless acts such as tweeting jokes in poor taste.

The current law is IMO vastly different to the one originally enacted.

The wording to the original: "send or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety"

Intention. Check.

Malice. Check.

But crucially, it's about a single (so implicitly targeted) recipient. The horses head in your bed principle. Deliberate acts of harrassment against a victim.

Utterly different to an offensive remark in a pub, or on twitter!

If I walk into a church and shout "B u g g e r G o d", I may be causing shock and offence, but what should be the sanction? It clearly doesn't fall under the 1988 act. But it does look a lot like the twitter offences that have got some idiots locked up since Blair put the state's jackboot into the spirit of Voltaire.

[happy_renting]

Edit: Stupid new editor won't allow work-around to suppress inappropriate s! :angry:

The world would be a better place if they incorporated Smileys into Acts of Parliament.

[Riedquat]

The wording to the original: "send or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety"

Intention. Check.

Malice. Check.

But crucially, it's about a single (so implicitly targeted) recipient. The horses head in your bed principle. Deliberate acts of harrassment against a victim.

Utterly different to an offensive remark in a pub, or on twitter!

If I walk into a church and shout "B u g g e r G o d", I may be causing shock and offence, but what should be the sanction? It clearly doesn't fall under the 1988 act. But it does look a lot like the twitter offences that have got some idiots locked up since Blair put the state's jackboot into the spirit of Voltaire.

How about sticking up a banner somewhere very visible to lots of passers-by, even if it's nowhere near where any person that it might conceivably be directed at would be? A lot of things you say on the internet are more akin to that than to a conversation in the pub.

[SNACR]

The case is always presented in a way that suggests that times have changed and laws must also be to keep up. I have never seen very much evidence that there's anything wrong with the long established laws and rights

[Riedquat]

The case is always presented in a way that suggests that times have changed and laws must also be to keep up. I have never seen very much evidence that there's anything wrong with the long established laws and rights

Occasionally something genuinely new comes up that might justify new laws, but nowhere near as often as new laws get passed.

[SarahBell]

Only I am allowed to say that!

I have a certificate saying I can too.

[snowflux]

The case is always presented in a way that suggests that times have changed and laws must also be to keep up. I have never seen very much evidence that there's anything wrong with the long established laws and rights

Does that mean you think that the 1988 Malicious Communications Act should not have been amended in 2001 to cover electronic messages as well as letters? Or do you think it should never have been passed in the first place?

[porca misèria]

Does that mean you think that the 1988 Malicious Communications Act should not have been amended in 2001 to cover electronic messages as well as letters? Or do you think it should never have been passed in the first place?

OK, I'll bite (though I don't think you're really so thick as not to have got it).

The key is the first question: covering electronic messages was a convenient cover story, but has little relevance. The attack on Free Speech was the extension from a law to protect individual victims of persistent threats and harassment to one that concerns itself with general and nebulously-defined offensiveness.

[1929crash]

OK, I'll bite (though I don't think you're really so thick as not to have got it).

The key is the first question: covering electronic messages was a convenient cover story, but has little relevance. The attack on Free Speech was the extension from a law to protect individual victims of persistent threats and harassment to one that concerns itself with general and nebulously-defined offensiveness.

+1 Good response to a flawed argument.

[snowflux]

OK, I'll bite (though I don't think you're really so thick as not to have got it).

The key is the first question: covering electronic messages was a convenient cover story, but has little relevance. The attack on Free Speech was the extension from a law to protect individual victims of persistent threats and harassment to one that concerns itself with general and nebulously-defined offensiveness.

The law applies as it is written, not how you imagine it should do. The Malicious Communications Act, as passed in 1988, states:

... is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should ... cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

so I suppose it comes down to whether the sender intended his Twitter messages to be communicated to people who would be distressed by them. Given the public nature of Twitter messages, it seems reasonable to me for the judge to decide that he did. If they had been, say, private emails to friends, then I'm sure the judge would have decided otherwise.