Freedom of speech

[Duff Man]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

The freedom to say "Humans should be treated as humans" is under threat from online abuse and threats.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54355636

 

I'd like to shrug it off by saying "Twitter is a cesspool" but these cunts are just echoing and amplifying the hate-filled propaganda of the actual Government. 

Who, you could argue, are often just echoing the hateful propaganda of a right wing press who don't just prop up Tory governments but often set their agenda, too (as they do with Labour govts, as well, to some extent).

 

Obviously Twitter has its own particular set of problems, but I still think right wing media is by far the biggest source of pernicious attitudes and ideas in this country. Or to put it another way: is the hate filled cunt in that article calling the gay councilor a pedo without the influence of our hate filled press? I doubt it.

[Rico1304]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

If I ask a third time I'll get a surly "Do your own research".

Oh do fuck off you sanctimonious cunt. Why not read it or google it? 
I posted an article, just like you did a few posts up.  He’s being investigated as a publisher, so despite him not saying the racist shite he could be liable for it.  So the natural consequence is that in future interviewees who drop themselves in it would be protected as the publisher could be prosecuted   

[Rico1304]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

The freedom to say "Humans should be treated as humans" is under threat from online abuse and threats.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54355636

 

I'd like to shrug it off by saying "Twitter is a cesspool" but these cunts are just echoing and amplifying the hate-filled propaganda of the actual Government. 

What is this? 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Rico1304 said:

Oh do fuck off you sanctimonious cunt. Why not read it or google it? 
 

QED. 

[Rico1304]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

If I ask a third time I'll get a surly "Do your own research".

Good to see, that despite over a year of being blocked, that daft cunt is still obsessed. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

10 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Oh do fuck off you sanctimonious cunt. Why not read it or google it? 
I posted an article, just like you did a few posts up.  He’s being investigated as a publisher, so despite him not saying the racist shite he could be liable for it.  So the natural consequence is that in future interviewees who drop themselves in it would be protected as the publisher could be prosecuted   

You posted a link behind a paywall. 

 

Do you think, as a general point,  that publishers who choose to disseminate someone else's hate speech should be immune from prosecution or should be deemed unaccountable for any actions inspired by that hate speech? 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

13 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

What is this? 

It's a link to a BBC article.  If you click it, you can read it.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 10/10/2020 at 10:23, Bjornebye said:

He’s reported himself so he can get attention and money. 

Is this true?

[Bjornebye]

4 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Is this true?

Probably. 

[Rico1304]

15 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

You posted a link behind a paywall. 

 

Do you think, as a general point,  that publishers who choose to disseminate someone else's hate speech should be immune from prosecution or should be deemed unaccountable for any actions inspired by that hate speech? 

So the question was ‘can you post another link?’ Not a vague ‘what is this?’ That 2 seconds of googling would have resolved anyway.  
 

they aren’t now and shouldn’t be. Do you think this instance warranted police involvement. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Do you think this instance warranted police involvement. 

No idea. I still don't know what it is and I still don't know why I should be arsed Googling it.

[Numero Veinticinco]

32 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Good to see, that despite over a year of being blocked, that daft cunt is still obsessed. 

I’m not daft and I’m not obsessed. I posted QED, which you definitely didn’t read. Just because you are ignorant it doesn’t mean I have to ignore your posts. I’ll refute them all I want. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

8 minutes ago, Nummer Neunzehn said:

I’m not daft and I’m not obsessed. I posted QED, which you definitely didn’t read. Just because you are ignorant it doesn’t mean I have to ignore your posts. I’ll refute them all I want. 

I'm waiting for Stig to use his Latin degree and explain what QED means.

[Bjornebye]

9 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

I'm waiting for Stig to use his Latin degree and explain what QED means.

Quicksand Eats Deer 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

[Rico1304]

I mean, that’s perfectly reasonable isn’t it? 
 

 

[Colonel Bumcunt]

Rather than listen to Preston McChubster and his 'libertarian' fetish angle, you might like to read the whole consultation document.

https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/reform-of-the-communications-offences/#reform-of-the-communications-offences-consultation

 

Or, don't, as I won't either. 

 

But I do think that change is in the air, and it may well be that freedom of expression needs a sacrifice, which may be reforms like this, or it may be loss of anonymity.  

 

The right will be in uproar about it, but if the right had thought a little harder before being horrificly racist to the likes of Dianne Abbott for years then....yknow.

 

[Bjornebye]

Rachel Riley should have been cancelled immediately. 

 

Not even for the Corbyn slander t-shirt but for not being able to make 447 out of two from the top and 3 from the bottom.

 

 

 

2 -bob twat 

[Rico1304]

9 hours ago, Colonel Bumcunt said:

Rather than listen to Preston McChubster and his 'libertarian' fetish angle, you might like to read the whole consultation document.

https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/reform-of-the-communications-offences/#reform-of-the-communications-offences-consultation

 

Or, don't, as I won't either. 

 

But I do think that change is in the air, and it may well be that freedom of expression needs a sacrifice, which may be reforms like this, or it may be loss of anonymity.  

 

The right will be in uproar about it, but if the right had thought a little harder before being horrificly racist to the likes of Dianne Abbott for years then....yknow.

 

 

9 hours ago, Colonel Bumcunt said:

Rather than listen to Preston McChubster and his 'libertarian' fetish angle, you might like to read the whole consultation document.

https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/reform-of-the-communications-offences/#reform-of-the-communications-offences-consultation

 

Or, don't, as I won't either. 

 

But I do think that change is in the air, and it may well be that freedom of expression needs a sacrifice, which may be reforms like this, or it may be loss of anonymity.  

 

The right will be in uproar about it, but if the right had thought a little harder before being horrificly racist to the likes of Dianne Abbott for years then....yknow.

 

I’ve just started to read the consultation - anonymous responses are allowed so it looks like we’re losing the freedom of expression. 
 

Obviously this entire issue is the fault of the right.  Jesus. 

[Bruce Spanner]

3 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

 

I’ve just started to read the consultation - anonymous responses are allowed so it looks like we’re losing the freedom of expression. 
 

Obviously this entire issue is the fault of the right.  Jesus. 

I was listening to Dowden talk about this the other day and his reasoning behind the anonymous accounts was, and I’m slightly paraphrasing as I’ve slept since then, that, for instance, somebody goes to their local bookstore and buys a book they don’t like and posts a review for on the small independent bookstores website and this leads to them being identified and targeted in the community.

 

Yep, yep, that’s the example I would have gone with as well. You can tell these cunts are governing the world they know, not the world as is by the examples they give, like during the pre first lockdown planning when as public transport preparation was based on London’s underground.

 

 

[Bruce Spanner]

I do like this section though, they are legislating against themselves if a brief had a bit about him/her...

 

‘FALSE COMMUNICATIONS

The offence provisionally proposed in Chapter 5 is designed to replace section 127(1) of the CA 2003, but not section 127(2). In Chapter 6, we start by setting out provisional proposals for reform of section 127(2) of the CA 2003.
Under the existing offence, it is a crime
to send a knowingly false communication for the purpose of causing “annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety” to another. This is a low threshold. In our provisional view, it is too low. We therefore propose to raise the threshold.

 

Under our provisional proposal, the defendant would be liable if:
• The defendant sends or post a communication that they know to be false;
• in sending or posting the communication, they intend to cause non‐trivial emotional, psychological, or physical harm to a likely audience; and
• thedefendantsendsorpoststhe communication without reasonable excuse.

 

As in the case of the harm‐based offence, a communication is a letter, article, or electronic communication, and a likely audience is someone who, at the point at which the communication was sent or posted by
the defendant, was likely to see, hear, or otherwise encounter it.

 

We mean for “non‐trivial emotional, psychological, or physical harm” to include distress and anxiety, but not annoyance
or inconvenience. It is a higher threshold
of intended harm than under the existing offence, which we consider to be too low a threshold to justify the imposition of a criminal sanction. Even so, this offence would, like the offence under section 127(2) of the CA 2003, be summary‐only (triable only in the Magistrates’ court).

 

We do not propose to cover communications that the defendant believes to be true
– no matter how dangerous those communications may be. We recognise that misinformation and ‘fake news’ are serious social problems, but they lie beyond our Terms of Reference’ 

 

A lot of what they pump out could fall under this quite easily.

[Rico1304]

46 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

I was listening to Dowden talk about this the other day and his reasoning behind the anonymous accounts was, and I’m slightly paraphrasing as I’ve slept since then, that, for instance, somebody goes to their local bookstore and buys a book they don’t like and posts a review for on the small independent bookstores website and this leads to them being identified and targeted in the community.

 

Yep, yep, that’s the example I would have gone with as well. You can tell these cunts are governing the world they know, not the world as is by the examples they give, like during the pre first lockdown planning when as public transport preparation was based on London’s underground.

 

 

I think lots of people need anonymity to stay alive, or at least out of prison. 

[Bruce Spanner]

2 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

I think lots of people need anonymity to stay alive, or at least out of prison. 

You’re right, those book shops are hotbeds of violence.

 

There will always be outliers who require anonymity, but how far do you stretch and define this?

 

The ‘big’ social media platforms do need more legislation though as it’s the wild west for hate speech, especially amongst young folk where it’s being used to target and bully on a huge, and very unpleasant, scale.

 

It’s a difficult wire to walk.

[Rico1304]

5 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

You’re right, those book shops are hotbeds of violence.

 

There will always be outliers who require anonymity, but how far do you stretch and define this?

 

The ‘big’ social media platforms do need more legislation though as it’s the wild west for hate speech, especially amongst young folk where it’s being used to target and bully on a huge, and very unpleasant, scale.

 

It’s a difficult wire to walk.

It was your example, not mine.  
 

This isn’t hate speech though is it?  It’s offence.  

[Bruce Spanner]

6 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

It was your example, not mine.  
 

This isn’t hate speech though is it?  It’s offence.  

Not my example, it was the silly man’s example, the same silly man who signs this off as an MP.

 

He said that it could fall under it, yes, as it’s covered under much of the new proposals. So if not hate speech, you could still be liable to prosecution for things which fall under any of the other examples.

 

It’s in the example I posted above about false statements.