[karajorma]

I love the characterisation of Europe as oppressive. I suspect you'd have a hard time getting the majority of Europeans to agree with that in the slightest.

[Luis Dias]

I didn't misrepresent you at all. I simply pointed out that being lower on the slope is not necessarily a bad thing.

Ah I see. So I misrepresented your misrepresentation. My bad. I'll try again. My point was never that if you're in a lower position on the slope, that means the tendency is to go lower faster, or that there's any necessity of badness (or goodness) in any particular localization on the slope itself. My point was rather that the null pressures for society are for it to go into autocracy. It benefits the system if you cannot challenge it, it benefits those in power if you can't have a say against them. "Free Speech" is such an incredible idea precisely because it tries to counter these obvious pressures. We tell ourselves all the stories why it's such an incredible idea (it makes our societies thrive, it makes our societies more "anti-fragile" in all sorts of ways, etc.), but that doesn't make the pressures stop existing.

Those pressures will always exist, and they will gain ground once people start accepting that perhaps freedom of speech is not that much of a great idea. And then awkward cases and situations might start to happen.

What I am saying is that this is where we should be fighting, against the curbing of free speech, not for it. That the biggest dangers are lurking in the curbing of them, not in the liberation of speech. That is, what I am saying is that, given natural pressures on that slope, we should be worrying about sliding to one side more than to the other.

[666maslo666]

You have the Right to free speech
I have the Right to not feel threatened or persecuted by another without just cause

Intent or humour ends at the point where someone else is adversely affected and the law in this case is there to protect the majority over the minority.

Also where is the difference between #killallwhitemen #killallblackwomen #killallmuslimtrans
what separates the above from #blowupbritishbusses ?

it is all disgusting and is criminal for a good reason.

Yeah, no. You dont have a right to not feel persecuted or threatened, not if its just words. I dont think your feelings should be a matter of criminal proceedings, that is very egoistical IMHO. "Adverse effect" must be something more than just feeling bad.

[NGTM-1R]

Obviously case-by-case judgement is necessary, but the Internet - and by extension Twitter is a mass medium, and there is absolutely no way of knowing what kind of audience received that message. Who's to say someone didn't take it seriously?

You are advocating the prosecution of someone over the possibility of a crime having been committed.

I'm sure this is a good idea. Let's go back to the Inquisition. Vehement suspicion of heresy!

Worse yet, it's the possiblity of a crime having been committed that the person being charged with has neither intent to commit, nor knowledge of. If somebody did take it seriously, it's extremely likely that the person who tweeted never knew.

That's insane.

[666maslo666]

I love the characterisation of Europe as oppressive. I suspect you'd have a hard time getting the majority of Europeans to agree with that in the slightest.

Youd have a hard time getting a majority of Saudi Arabians to agree that their country is oppressive, but it is. Europe is not oppressive in general but when it comes to freedom of speech it is pretty bad and sometimes comparable to third world dictatorships. It doesnt happen often than I feel sorry for a radical feminazi but now I do. Oppressive is the right word.

[karajorma]

I didn't misrepresent you at all. I simply pointed out that being lower on the slope is not necessarily a bad thing.

Ah I see. So I misrepresented your misrepresentation. My bad. I'll try again. My point was never that if you're in a lower position on the slope, that means the tendency is to go lower faster, or that there's any necessity of badness (or goodness) in any particular localization on the slope itself. My point was rather that the null pressures for society are for it to go into autocracy. It benefits the system if you cannot challenge it, it benefits those in power if you can't have a say against them. "Free Speech" is such an incredible idea precisely because it tries to counter these obvious pressures. We tell ourselves all the stories why it's such an incredible idea (it makes our societies thrive, it makes our societies more "anti-fragile" in all sorts of ways, etc.), but that doesn't make the pressures stop existing.

Those pressures will always exist, and they will gain ground once people start accepting that perhaps freedom of speech is not that much of a great idea. And then awkward cases and situations might start to happen.

What I am saying is that this is where we should be fighting, against the curbing of free speech, not for it. That the biggest dangers are lurking in the curbing of them, not in the liberation of speech. That is, what I am saying is that, given natural pressures on that slope, we should be worrying about sliding to one side more than to the other.

I don't disagree with that in the slightest. But unless you can prove that the UK is sliding towards autocracy faster than the US in this respect, I don't see where the problem is. We've decided where our balance is. And while the US might have a better position for their culture, it's not the right one for us. As The E pointed out, most of Europe are very happy with their position on the slope. And despite what 666 claims, I doubt you can be happily oppressed.

[Luis Dias]

My comment about the tendency towards autocracy is generalist. I agree that being on any point on the slope is not predictive of its delta.

Also, my personal take on the issue is that Europe's laws are indeed oppressive regarding free speech (I do have issues with portuguese law, for instance), they are just less oppressive than Chinese law. And my preference goes to US law. Although you could probably find specific things where I'd be forced to disagree with.

[headdie]

You have the Right to free speech
I have the Right to not feel threatened or persecuted by another without just cause

Intent or humour ends at the point where someone else is adversely affected and the law in this case is there to protect the majority over the minority.

Also where is the difference between #killallwhitemen #killallblackwomen #killallmuslimtrans
what separates the above from #blowupbritishbusses ?

it is all disgusting and is criminal for a good reason.

Yeah, no. You dont have a right to not feel persecuted or threatened, not if its just words. I dont think your feelings should be a matter of criminal proceedings, that is very egoistical IMHO. "Adverse effect" must be something more than just feeling bad.

And yet we are posting on a forum with mods, part of whose remit is to take action against those who submit words which may or may not cause undue offense, and while intent is considered the rule still exists.

As for intent as I just mentioned that is considered here, the magistrate will consider intent during the case.

I love the characterisation of Europe as oppressive. I suspect you'd have a hard time getting the majority of Europeans to agree with that in the slightest.

Youd have a hard time getting a majority of Saudi Arabians to agree that their country is oppressive, but it is. Europe is not oppressive in general but when it comes to freedom of speech it is pretty bad and sometimes comparable to third world dictatorships. It doesnt happen often than I feel sorry for a radical feminazi but now I do. Oppressive is the right word.

Saudi is Middle east, not Europe

[The E]

You are advocating the prosecution of someone over the possibility of a crime having been committed.

I'm sure this is a good idea. Let's go back to the Inquisition. Vehement suspicion of heresy!

Worse yet, it's the possiblity of a crime having been committed that the person being charged with has neither intent to commit, nor knowledge of. If somebody did take it seriously, it's extremely likely that the person who tweeted never knew.

That's insane.

I would agree with NGTM-1R here. Yes, there are occasions where you can and should hold a person accountable for the reactions their speech engenders. A speaker at a public rally calling for the smashing in of windshields of parked cars has a different level of accountability than J. Random Tweetbot posting using the #SmashAllWindshields hashtag.

As The E pointed out, most of Europe are very happy with their position on the slope. And despite what 666 claims, I doubt you can be happily oppressed.

I.... don't think I did? I mean, I agree with the statement, but I don't think I mentioned my stance on this in this thread.
All I can say is that the laws limiting freedom of speech in Germany haven't done much harm to the public discourse, and while they have on occasion been misused to prosecute political enemies (Spiegel-Affair), such misuses have always been corrected in the past. So while we're certainly a country that has a lesser freedom of expression as the US, we're still far away from being an oppressive, autocratic nightmare of rightspeech, and show no inclination to become one.

[Luis Dias]

And yet we are posting on a forum with mods, part of whose remit is to take action against those who submit words which may or may not cause undue offense, and while intent is considered the rule still exists.

Holy ****. That's the worst analogy ever. Mods are not the police or courts. The worst they can do is to force you to find another forum for you to press keyboard keys.

[666maslo666]

And yet we are posting on a forum with mods, part of whose remit is to take action against those who submit words which may or may not cause undue offense, and while intent is considered the rule still exists.
As for intent as I just mentioned that is considered here, the magistrate will consider intent during the case.

Obviously, being banned from a private forum is something entirely different than a criminal penalty.

Saudi is Middle east, not Europe

Doesnt matter for my point. And when it comes to free speech, some European countries may as well be in Middle East, it is a similar mentality.

And despite what 666 claims, I doubt you can be happily oppressed.

Oh, you can. Saudis are pretty happy and if it was up to their population they would have even more strict sharia, the ruling elite is actually the liberal wing. So they are happy, well except for women or homosexuals maybe, but everyone knows their opinions do not count. Just like the opinion of this woman does not count.

[karajorma]

Saudi is Middle east, not Europe

I can't talk about Saudi Arabia but I will point out that you might not get the response 666 expects in China.

I.... don't think I did? I mean, I agree with the statement, but I don't think I mentioned my stance on this in this thread.

I didn't refer to your stance, simply that you pointed out the stance of your country.

[The E]

I.... don't think I did? I mean, I agree with the statement, but I don't think I mentioned my stance on this in this thread.

I didn't refer to your stance, simply that you pointed out the stance of your country.

Didn't mention that either, this is my second post in this thread.....

[karajorma]

Ah sorry, It was Black Wolf not you. You've said similar things in the past though IIRC.

[headdie]

And yet we are posting on a forum with mods, part of whose remit is to take action against those who submit words which may or may not cause undue offense, and while intent is considered the rule still exists.
As for intent as I just mentioned that is considered here, the magistrate will consider intent during the case.

Obviously, being banned from a private forum is something entirely different than a criminal penalty.

What matters is the idea of being just and I have just as much right to be free of persecution on here as I do twitter or over the phone

Saudi is Middle east, not Europe

Doesnt matter for my point. And when it comes to free speech, some European countries may as well be in Middle East, it is a similar mentality.

Example please

[Herra Tohtori]

Here's a question.

Should inciting people to criminal activity be allowed or not?




Personally, I think yes, yes it should. I get the point that everyone's responsible for their own actions so if they commit a crime they're the ones responsible for it, whether someone told them to do it or not. And I do agree that they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

However there are situations where someone holds an overwhelming influence over a group of people. People with a position of authority, people who are popular, people who have any kind of following (IRL or online). Things start to get really dodgy when you consider how seriously some people might take what they say, and personally I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect the people in such position to be responsible enough not to say something that their herd of followers might decide to follow up on.

Obviously there's a difference between whether the Pope tells Catholics to slaughter all Protestants, or an imam tells his congregation of muslims that the punishment for apostasy is death, or a blogger resorts to a hyperbole calling the death of all white males. There *is* a difference in the consequences that these claims could realistically be expected to have.

But these kinds of distinctions and lines are pretty difficult to write up into the legislation. To preserve the principle of legality, all people must be equal in the eyes of the law. That means you can't just pick and choose which particular encouragements to criminal activity should be illegal and which ones should not.

That's why the legislation must necessarily take all claims of this nature similarly at face value. The consequences, on the other hand, should definitely be scaled according to common sense. Specifically on how much influence the person encouraging others to commit crimes can realistically be seen to have, and whether or not they themselves are aware of said influence.



For a blogger, I wouldn't expect very serious consequences. Mostly I would expect a fine of some amount and a stern talking-to.


..."while you were typing 6 new replies have been posted." Crikey, I put my fingers in a hot soup didn't I...

[666maslo666]

What matters is the idea of being just and I have just as much right to be free of persecution on here as I do twitter or over the phone

As I said, you do not have any right to be free of verbal "persecution" on any forum. The reason why people here cannot "persecute" you is not because of any rights of yours, but because this is a private forum and those in charge decided than if someone will begin to "persecute" you then that user will be banned. It is not because if any rights of yours, it is just how things are on this site. If HLP turns to anarchy tomorrow and someone begins to freely "persecute" you then still no rights of yours would be violated at all. There are certainly forums on the internet where you may very well get "persecuted" and they have as much right to exist as HLP does.

Example please

Putting people into prison for tweeting #killallwhitemen hashtag.

[headdie]

What matters is the idea of being just and I have just as much right to be free of persecution on here as I do twitter or over the phone

As I said, you do not have any right to be free of verbal "persecution" on any forum. The reason why people here cannot "persecute" you is not because of any rights of yours, but because this is a private forum and those in charge decided than if someone will begin to "persecute" you then that user will be banned. It is not because if any rights of yours, it is just how things are on this site. If HLP turns to anarchy tomorrow and someone begins to freely "persecute" you then still no rights of yours would be violated at all. There are certainly forums on the internet where you may very well get "persecuted" and they have as much right to exist as HLP does.

I actually do have the right not to be threatened by a law that is nearly as old as I am

Threatening letters or other articles - Section 1 Malicious Communications Act, 1988
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, see Stones 8.20830, deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings. Poison-pen letters are usually covered.

Particularly serious examples may justify a more serious charge, e.g. threats to kill.

The offence is one of sending, delivering or transmitting, so there is no requirement for the article to reach the intended recipient.

The terms of section 1 were considered in Connolly v DPP [2007] 2 All ER 1012, and "indecent or grossly offensive" were said to be ordinary English words. The fact that there was a political or educational motive behind the accused sending graphic photographs of aborted foetuses did not help her, and her argument that her behaviour was protected by Articles 9 and 10 ECHR (freedom of religion and speech) did not succeed, because the restrictions on those rights were justified under Articles 9(2) and 10(2).

A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both.

also 6 months is nothing, she will probably be out on a tag after 3 weeks.  I would also like to add that quite frankly I find it backwards that the person causing offense has more rights that the offended party in the US

Example please

Putting people into prison for tweeting #killallwhitemen hashtag.

So the UK is comparable to a Middle Eastern state?  do you really want to go there?

[Luis Dias]

Yeah nothing to look here, move on, it's just jailing someone for 3 weeks because they made a jokeish hashtag on twitter. Really people, what the fuss is all about? I mean, if we allow stupid hashtags like that, what else will we allow? We must stop this "allowing" stuff. People might confuse this place with a "free society" or something equally disturbing and horrendous.

[666maslo666]

also 6 months is nothing, she will probably be out on a tag after 3 weeks.  I would also like to add that quite frankly I find it backwards that the person causing offense has more rights that the offended party in the US

So the UK is comparable to a Middle Eastern state?  do you really want to go there?

Accused should always have more rights than the victims. It is the old maxim "better a hundred criminals go free than an innocent go to jail". Certainly much older than a 25 years old weird law. Victim centric legal system is wrong. Punitive power of the government should be restricted by various checks and balances even if it means some people will be offended without compensation. Especially when it comes to trivial "offenses" such as in this case.

And yes, the UK is comparable to Middle eastern state when it comes to freedom of speech. Especially in last decade or two, after various hate speech laws have been enacted. Just replace "blasphemers, apostates, homosexuals" with "racists, bigots, hate speechers", or whatever the state sanctioned enemy is in this zeitgeist. You probably dont realize how really broad UK laws are to even prosecute something like this. You should read them, it is pretty absurd on paper. I mean, Slovakian laws are pretty oppressive in this, too, unworthy of a modern nation, and they are still a lot less broad than UK ones. And at least we have the advantage of our government continuing to ignore the very existence of the internet, lol. For once I am glad that it is so incompetent, lol.