The Death Of Free Speech In The Uk Continues

[StuG III]

Do you think that if Derren Brown persuaded someone to commit a crime using his mix of NLP and hypnotism and whatever else he uses, he would have no responsibility for that person's actions?

The whole incitement thing is a bit of a red herring here though, isnt it? I mean the person has been nicked for being offensive, not for incitement to hatred or violence.

And the same thing has happened numerous times in the past. People are being prosecuted as criminals simply for being offensive. This is deeply disturbing because offence is inherently subjective and then where do we draw the line? We seem to be dangerously near to a situation where a person can be arrested for poking fun at someone else.

[swissy_fit]

The whole incitement thing is a bit of a red herring here though, isnt it? I mean the person has been nicked for being offensive, not for incitement to hatred or violence.

And the same thing has happened numerous times in the past. People are being prosecuted as criminals simply for being offensive. This is deeply disturbing because offence is inherently subjective and then where do we draw the line? We seem to be dangerously near to a situation where a person can be arrested for poking fun at someone else.

In this case, yes it's a red herring.

I was responding to the post where incitement was mentioned but it has nothing to do with the OP.

[Executive Sadman]

The whole incitement thing is a bit of a red herring here though, isnt it? I mean the person has been nicked for being offensive, not for incitement to hatred or violence.

And the same thing has happened numerous times in the past. People are being prosecuted as criminals simply for being offensive. This is deeply disturbing because offence is inherently subjective and then where do we draw the line? We seem to be dangerously near to a situation where a person can be arrested for poking fun at someone else.

Sure, its just to illustrate how far the whole speech thing has gone. Incitement laws themselves are a vicious abuse of free speech, this is just persecution of anyone who cant remember to shut their trap or has a dubious sense of humour (about 90% of the population). No property rights have been violated, no violence threatened. Its just the jackbooted state telling us 'who is the boss'

Meanwhile, the scumbag judges who threaten to steal this idiots freedom walk the streets with impunity.

I know who I feel more threatened by.

[StuG III]

Sure, its just to illustrate how far the whole speech thing has gone. Incitement laws themselves are a vicious abuse of free speech, this is just persecution of anyone who cant remember to shut their trap or has a dubious sense of humour (about 90% of the population). No property rights have been violated, no violence threatened. Its just the jackbooted state telling us 'who is the boss'

Meanwhile, the scumbag judges who threaten to steal this idiots freedom walk the streets with impunity.

I know who I feel more threatened by.

I'm actually quite in favour of the USA's attitude towards free speach. Its protected. Full stop.

I can kind of see the justification for slander and lible laws, and agree that some protection from harressment is neccesary, but other than that, say what you like.

[porca misèria]

I think some folks are missing the point here.

We may legitimately argue over where to draw a line between acceptable and grossly offensive. It's what happens when you cross that line in a moment of idiocy that's become totally out of hand.

In short, imprisonment is out of all proportion for being an **** on twitter, and the fact that it can happen is deeply disturbing. Along with other tokens of the end of Freedom, like book-burning. And the 'net seems to have given totalitarians in our society an excuse to censor things that noone gives a second thought to offline.

[porca misèria]

Meanwhile, the scumbag judges who threaten to steal this idiots freedom walk the streets with impunity.

Double-standards are rarely more blatant than in the question of whose freedoms you suppress.

They prosecute Abu Hamza at great length for (allegedly[1]) preaching hate. Yet when Melanie Phillips (definitely[2]) does it, she gets a respected national platform and - I imagine - a fee.

[1] I don't know - I've never heard him.

[2] I've heard her quite a few times, twisting and mistranslating something said by an arab or moslem into a monstrous "Have you stopped beating your wife" and bullying a hapless victim into looking like an evasive terrorist-sympathiser when they won't answer yes or no.

[swissy_fit]

I think some folks are missing the point here.

We may legitimately argue over where to draw a line between acceptable and grossly offensive. It's what happens when you cross that line in a moment of idiocy that's become totally out of hand.

In short, imprisonment is out of all proportion for being an **** on twitter, and the fact that it can happen is deeply disturbing. Along with other tokens of the end of Freedom, like book-burning. And the 'net seems to have given totalitarians in our society an excuse to censor things that noone gives a second thought to offline.

Not really.

The difference between spouting utter drunken twaddle, whether grossly offensive or not, down the pub (say) and typing it online is that online there is :-

1. Incontrovertible proof of what you typed.

2. A potential audience of several billion.

There was bound to be a difference in the way these things are treated.

[snowflux]

So - going by this report another nail in the coffin of free speech. In court over words.

The death is awful, terrible, and the tweeter is an idiot - but I remember seeing the same sort of show trials in the communist states. Making people scared to say anything, in case they say the wrong thing.

That's nothing new; the Malicious Communications Act was passed back in 1988 to cover verbal abuse of this kind. I can't say I've noticed much of a trend either way since then.

Edit: Actually, I'd tend to think we've become more, rather than less, tolerant of verbal abuse as an expression of freedom of speech since then. I don't remember whether there was much opposition to this law when it was passed, but I can't imagine it being passed nowadays with a great deal of resistance.

[Executive Sadman]

Double-standards are rarely more blatant than in the question of whose freedoms you suppress.

They prosecute Abu Hamza at great length for (allegedly[1]) preaching hate. Yet when Melanie Phillips (definitely[2]) does it, she gets a respected national platform and - I imagine - a fee.

[1] I don't know - I've never heard him.

[2] I've heard her quite a few times, twisting and mistranslating something said by an arab or moslem into a monstrous "Have you stopped beating your wife" and bullying a hapless victim into looking like an evasive terrorist-sympathiser when they won't answer yes or no.

Certainly, phillips supports the neo-con agenda that has murdered hundreds of thousands, if not millions. She's on the side of the state.

[wherebee]

The issue is that the prosecution is an example of the state deciding what can be punished, in terms of words, and what cannot. History has shown that those in power will use such methods to suppress dissent and threats to their power.

For example, the bloke prosecuted might be a commercial or power rival to someone in the police, CPS, or local government, or a connection of same. Without having to prove damages against property or individuals, a target can be removed. I doubt anyone reading this would be safe if 100% of what you had written or said in the last year was open to prosecution under race/religious/sexual offence laws. It's not even necessary to prosecute - just show the evidence and the target will be too afeared to continue to oppose you.

It is Big Brother, and it is terrifying.

[swissy_fit]

The issue is that the prosecution is an example of the state deciding what can be punished, in terms of words, and what cannot. History has shown that those in power will use such methods to suppress dissent and threats to their power.

For example, the bloke prosecuted might be a commercial or power rival to someone in the police, CPS, or local government, or a connection of same. Without having to prove damages against property or individuals, a target can be removed. I doubt anyone reading this would be safe if 100% of what you had written or said in the last year was open to prosecution under race/religious/sexual offence laws. It's not even necessary to prosecute - just show the evidence and the target will be too afeared to continue to oppose you.

It is Big Brother, and it is terrifying.

Imagine when everyone is wearing a camera and a microphone like some police forces are now doing, this seems a likely near future.

That will bring everything you say into the same legal zone currently occupied by everything you post online.

[porca misèria]

Not really.

You evidently didn't follow the link you highlighted. The 2008 story of a wikipedia page being censored in the UK for showing a picture of a record cover. The record itself has been legally on sale since the mid-1970s and right through the Mary Whitehouse era without anyone batting an eyelid.

[porca misèria]

Edit: Actually, I'd tend to think we've become more, rather than less, tolerant of verbal abuse as an expression of freedom of speech since then. I don't remember whether there was much opposition to this law when it was passed, but I can't imagine it being passed nowadays with a great deal of resistance.

If it's true that there'd be a lot more resistance today, it's precisely because we took free speech for granted back then. There was never a serious threat in the UK before Blair.

What were the mainstream meeja saying? I don't recollect anything about it!

[swissy_fit]

You evidently didn't follow the link you highlighted. The 2008 story of a wikipedia page being censored in the UK for showing a picture of a record cover. The record itself has been legally on sale since the mid-1970s and right through the Mary Whitehouse era without anyone batting an eyelid.

You're right, I didn't. I wonder why - maybe (rather like the pubtalk analogy) it's simply because it's easier to police and enforce online?

Honestly I'm not hugely bothered by this kind of thing, but when everything we say and do starts being recorded as well, that's another matter.

[snowflux]

If it's true that there'd be a lot more resistance today, it's precisely because we took free speech for granted back then. There was never a serious threat in the UK before Blair.

What were the mainstream meeja saying? I don't recollect anything about it!

I'm struggling to follow your reasoning here. The prosecution under discussion was brought under a law that was passed by the Thatcher government 26 years ago to cover precisely such instances and appears to have met with little opposition when it was introduced. But you think that Blair is somehow to blame?

[Executive Sadman]

I remember a few months back the rabid 'anti-bullying' nuts were demanding ask.fm was shut down after this case. Thankfully, despite populist politicians appealing to their kneejerk anti-free speech demands, nothing came of it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2621705/Schoolgirl-hanged-bedroom-trolled-Ask-fm-sent-abusive-messages-inquest-hears.html

And another one...where those jackbooted thugs who 'protect' us first arrested her family, the actual victims. Their harassment by the police would have never occurred in the first place if there were no anti-free speech laws.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552154/Woman-jailed-trolling-HERSELF-24-year-old-bombarded-Facebook-page-fake-abuse-bid-incriminate-estranged-family.html

[porca misèria]

I'm struggling to follow your reasoning here. The prosecution under discussion was brought under a law that was passed by the Thatcher government 26 years ago to cover precisely such instances and appears to have met with little opposition when it was introduced. But you think that Blair is somehow to blame?

I don't have a clear memory of it, but I expect the law in question was designed to deal with serious harassment, and very likely stalking (some serious cases hit the news).

It was Blair who launched a serious and systematic attack on Enlightenment values including Free Speech. So what was once a sensible measure (which it may or may not have been) becomes a potential instrument of oppression.

Here's an analogy. When I was last in a university environment, I was aware of a number of asian girl students wearing headscarves. They were an innocent cultural thing, like the scot who wore a kilt. Then came the awakening of religious tensions[1] under Blair and those previously-innocent (and often attractive) headscarves became a divisive symbol of us and them.

Blair turned innocent things into sinister things. And his worst legacy is yet to come, when generations raised in his us-and-them "faith" schools grow up to fear each other as the alien.

[1] OK, Northern Ireland had them already, but the rest of us were mercifully free of anything really nasty.

[SNACR]

I'm actually quite in favour of the USA's attitude towards free speach. Its protected. Full stop.

I can kind of see the justification for slander and lible laws, and agree that some protection from harressment is neccesary, but other than that, say what you like.

I always think libel is just an opportunity for liars with deep pockets and/or fragrant wives to get away with it.

[SNACR]

I don't have a clear memory of it, but I expect the law in question was designed to deal with serious harassment, and very likely stalking (some serious cases hit the news).

It was Blair who launched a serious and systematic attack on Enlightenment values including Free Speech. So what was once a sensible measure (which it may or may not have been) becomes a potential instrument of oppression.

Here's an analogy. When I was last in a university environment, I was aware of a number of asian girl students wearing headscarves. They were an innocent cultural thing, like the scot who wore a kilt. Then came the awakening of religious tensions[1] under Blair and those previously-innocent (and often attractive) headscarves became a divisive symbol of us and them.

Blair turned innocent things into sinister things. And his worst legacy is yet to come, when generations raised in his us-and-them "faith" schools grow up to fear each other as the alien.

[1] OK, Northern Ireland had them already, but the rest of us were mercifully free of anything really nasty.

Most of it was the body politic of the Labour party in central and local government that went batshit enacting their student Marxist fantasies. Blair just indulged it as it kept them quiet whilst he pursued more glamourous illegal wars.

[MrPin]

You evidently didn't follow the link you highlighted. The 2008 story of a wikipedia page being censored in the UK for showing a picture of a record cover. The record itself has been legally on sale since the mid-1970s and right through the Mary Whitehouse era without anyone batting an eyelid.

I did! Some ginger bird! Not very old, but obviously old enough to know what her parts were for!

[MrPin]

Most of it was the body politic of the Labour party in central and local government that went batshit enacting their student Marxist fantasies. Blair just indulged it as it kept them quiet whilst he pursued more glamourous illegal wars.

He certainly knew how to dole out shit!

[SarahBell]

So - going by this report another nail in the coffin of free speech. In court over words.

The death is awful, terrible, and the tweeter is an idiot - but I remember seeing the same sort of show trials in the communist states. Making people scared to say anything, in case they say the wrong thing.

"The messages were not read out in court"

That's the huge issue with it.

Kafkaesque or what.

[snowflux]

I don't have a clear memory of it, but I expect the law in question was designed to deal with serious harassment, and very likely stalking (some serious cases hit the news).

It was Blair who launched a serious and systematic attack on Enlightenment values including Free Speech. So what was once a sensible measure (which it may or may not have been) becomes a potential instrument of oppression.

Here's an analogy. When I was last in a university environment, I was aware of a number of asian girl students wearing headscarves. They were an innocent cultural thing, like the scot who wore a kilt. Then came the awakening of religious tensions[1] under Blair and those previously-innocent (and often attractive) headscarves became a divisive symbol of us and them.

Blair turned innocent things into sinister things. And his worst legacy is yet to come, when generations raised in his us-and-them "faith" schools grow up to fear each other as the alien.

[1] OK, Northern Ireland had them already, but the rest of us were mercifully free of anything really nasty.

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

It begins as follows:

1 Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

(1) Any person who sends to another person—

(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys—

(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;

(ii) a threat; or

(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or

( any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,

is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or ( above, 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.

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.

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

[ccc]

That link and that legislation is quite frightening by its use of certain terms. I assume others have picked up on it . . . .

[bendy]

That link and that legislation is quite frightening by its use of certain terms. I assume others have picked up on it . . . .

I find your post criticising our lawmakers grossly offensive.

Your head, be off with it!