I blindly clicked this expecting an article about the matter. Was kinda surprised to be given a live demonstration. I can reach nhs.uk fine.
Edit: searching Google, there are recent reports that make me feel like this is their response to being too incompetent to process cyber crime reports. I’m genuinely curious if someone unilaterally decided that people not physically in the uk don’t matter.
Doesn't work from Australia either, so apparently the Commonwealth can get fucked. I imagine some middle-ranking civil servants at the FCO will, in a not-too-distant-future, be expressing a measure of dismay to their Home Office counterparts. Before which time, hopefully, the gov.uk folks will figure out how to selectively block access to live reporting channels, not the entire police service, in response to vexatious abuse.
Prank emergency calls from children have been a hassle since time immemorial, and I see these circumstances as entirely corresponding, merely at scale; I'd even express surprise if this is a first for online British police channels.
>> You can email the site owner to let them know you were blocked. Please include what you were doing when this page came up and the Cloudflare Ray ID found at the bottom of this page.
This is almost certainly an IT admin not bothering to read Cloudflare's documentation and leaving something on the wrong setting.
Number of customers who read documentation << number of customers, although it seems especially endemic in infosec.
I'm not saying it makes complete sense, but I'm not sure I understand why it bothers you that much? I'm not sure how many times I've visited police.uk in my (British) life, probably a few, but I'm pretty sure it's zero for police.au or whatever it is.
I've had reason to correspond with British police forces on several occasions. There are many transnational matters of diplomacy, law enforcement, citizenship, sport, tourism, hiring, migration, security, and trade for which police clearance and input may be (sometimes must be) sought, or notification given, and this disrupts all of them: websites are a starting point for interaction, documentation, and communication, and it's a massive burden if you're forced back to calling up folks at your UK offices (or worse, the high commission) just to start a conversation each time, let alone work through a process.
There's a good chance that instead of "fuck you Aussies", what we have is a firewall that has been battered to the point of banning most of the world.
The UK is under some form of attack at the moment (probably mostly internally generated - no need to invoke bogeymen). We have seen quite a lot of anti racist activity recently and it is likely the nasty lot have been contained (hopefully).
The Commonwealth is always welcome here - that's why our mutual Queen (EIIR) created it. She got to grips with us proles rather well from around 1995 onwards when the Royal Family realised they have to engage with us lot.
Personally speaking, I've always thought of AU and NZ (SA etc) as mates. We might disagree about a few things and rugby and cricket and that. However we have more in common than not.
I have no doubt that the mood in AU and NZ is largely stirred with anti British sentiment (we see it here from Scotland, even though "modern Britain" was invented by a Scottish king - James 1 or VI).
NZ have often moved towards a silver fern on black flag. I say: why not - if that is your idea of your identity then crack on (it does look rather cool). Also, perhaps AU should rethink their flag - you go all in on gold and green. Ditch the blue thingie with the southern cross and the union flag in the top left - it doesn't suit you. ... or keep it because you can and proudly do whatever floats your boat. AU needs to sit down and take a really hard look at its flag and do what is best for AU.
The world is a messy place but let's keep it civil (and real).
I think the EU is affected as well by this. If there was any foreign region that needs access to the police services of the UK, I would bet the neighboring EU countries would be at the top of the list.
For those unaware, the UK police are currently promising to go after people posting misinformation and retweeting content (including video of riots) that might incite hate.
In response to this the UK police are being trolled on their live chats (largely by Americans I believe). I did originally post a link to these (you can find them on X), but given the content I don't want to risk it.
I'm assuming they're now blocking IPs because of the abuse.
the wild thing is in the UK private citizens can bring about criminal prosecutions. section 179 is a hornets nest waiting to be poked. in the UK prosecutors are not a bulwark against bad law. the courts would need to thread the needle to protect freedom of speech for elites but allow suppression for plebs.
> at the time of sending it, the person intended the message, or the information in it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience, and
even announcing future legitimate policy direction by the government could be construed as causing non-trivial psychological harm.
The exceptions are far more narrow than in the UK. Try and bring a libel charge in each country.
PS: And technically, afaik, it isn't a crime to call for the assassination of the president of the US. It's illegal to attempt it, and to take actions that support those attempting it. But if you just post on Facebook about it... you'll get a call from the Secret Service and a recommendation that you don't do that, but no charge.
Nevertheless, mocking the UK for having "free speech, except when we disagree with it" is kind of specious when that exactly describes free speech in the US as well. It's simply a matter of where different countries choose to draw the lines.
If you're making the absolutist argument, then yes, you are correct.
If you're making a practical argument, then we can trade exclusions 1-for-1 in the US vs UK, and the UK list will go on far after you've exhausted the US ones.
Post a copy of Pixar's latest movie online and see if that speech is protected. Or CSAM. It would be better to acknowledge that there very much are limits on the freedom of speech, just like everywhere else, instead of pretending we're better than everyone else and that we don't have any censors.
The restrictions on speech in the US a much narrower and more clearly defined than in the UK or Europe, where there is an ever changing and unprincipled perspective on what speech is allowed. In the US you cannot directly call for violence but you can do a lot of other things and you can see the case law around this in Brandenburg v Ohio and other such cases. Vague restrictions like “hate speech” are meaningless in US law (since obviously such labels can be weaponized arbitrarily) and journalism is protected without restriction. Whereas in the UK, sharing a video of the riot is apparently enough to get yourself arrested by gestapo at the doorstep.
To offer more detail on how far the Brandenburg case went in protecting free speech rights: it ruled that seditious speech – including speech that constitutes an incitement to violence – is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as long as it does not reach a level "where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”.
I live in a state that had a pre-Roe abortion ban on the books. After Roe was repealed. local prosecutors tried to use their prosecutorial veto to prevent enforcement.
It was pointed out that if they straight up said “we won’t enforce the law” Private citizens could enforce it.
Usually, a judge would throw the case out, but if a DA had publicly refused to do their job, judges would find it hard to simply defer to DA.
I suspect private criminal prosecutions are so rare because public prosecutors guard their monopoly.
Theoretically yeah. Maybe not for this particular act (the Online Safety Act 2023), see eg section 179(7) and 179(9) which sort of imply only a prosecutor can bring proceedings. Though I think that's largely by oversight rather than design.
It's a really poorly written act though. Compared to acts written by previous governments, this one has a pretty bad structure.
>> I'm currently waiting for a knock at my door along with 65 million of Brits who have posted inaccurate information online from time to time. Legal note: if anything I have said here is inaccurate I was unaware of it at the time of posting.
how fucking funny. Everytime when something like this is getting discussed the only response is sarcasm and hybris. No acknowledgment of the problem, no ideas, just fucking bad one liners. It's a real problem and you can be glad that you haven't had to deal with it. Yeah, ofc what they are doing now is absolute shite but sometimes you could at least acknowledge the law in it's meaning and not the shitty execution of it and no I don't care about your sarcasm "disclaimer" you are not five.
Totalitarian regimes don't win when the majority believes the general line. That never happens. Totalitarian regimes win when the people give in to despair. That's why people use the one-liners. They are coping.
The problem isn't the hate speech or the enforcement really.
The problem is that these powers have, can, and will be abused by petty bureaucrats, power-hungry law enforcement, the government itself and, as a result, enable actual tyranny.
Civil servants desperately trying to hide their mistakes won't believe they are overreaching, and neither will their friends or the politicians who would held responsible by the media.
Rather than disregarding the concern, how would you propose the overreach should be handled? And is it possible to handle the overreach before it harms citizens caught in the middle, or can it only be dealt with after innocent people are on the wrong end of the overreach?
And innocent people that get harmed by non action are irrelevant? Laws can and will always be abused but if they are about online discourse the only possibility seems to be that there will be nothing but abuse. As long as you are in a country with an intact democracy and separation of power you'll be fine and if not vote against it.
Who is harmed specifically by online speech? Speech can certainly lead to people deciding to take some kind of action, but that action is what harms people and those actions are very likely already illegal.
When it comes to separation of powers, that's a much bigger discussion but I have concerns over how our three branches operate in the US today. Our legislative branch has outsourced much of their power to the executive branch, though the overturn of Chevron may eventually help that. I wish it were as simply as voting, but I'm generally only offered one or two options for most elected positions and when it comes down to it neither party will allow anyone on the ballot that wants to actually reform anything meaningful about how the system works.
Dismissing others opinions by rolling them up into some faceless group of guys and refusing to discuss or consider your views is helpful to no one. You haven't get explained how speech online itself hurts anyone, I'd be interested to hear how that might work.
I only brought up the US because you specifically referenced voting and separation of powers. I can only vote in the US so my context is limited, and the separation of powers is very much an American idea that has since been adopted in various ways in other countries.
You're not even voicing an opinion. You're "just asking questions." Online hate speech isn't just words on a screen; it can seriously mess people up mentally and emotionally. That's why we've got laws like the Network Enforcement Act in Germany and the EU's Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online. These aren't for show – they're there because hate speech can lead to real-world violence and discrimination. If you're so curious, look up the studies on how online harassment affects mental health. But let's be real, you're probably not interested in facts, just in stirring up trouble. Well, I'm not biting. The laws are there, the research is there, and people's lived experiences are there. Deal with it.
I understand that we have different opinions on the risk of speech, there's nothing wrong with that. But how do you see my comments here as not voicing an opinion? I pretty clearly raised my view that speech itself can't cause harm and shouldn't be regulated, though that actions taken by people should be.
Okay, you are clearly missing the context of what we’re discussing in this thread.
Here’s a primer:
- The UK has experienced racial riots over the past few weeks.
- There was a mass murder in the last weeks.
- During these racial riots, someone "identified" an immigrant as the attacker, which turned out to be misinformation and incited a manhunt.
- This individual was apprehended.
- 4chan went full "fr33d0m" and launched a DDoS attack against the police website.
- In response, the UK police blocked international IPs to mitigate this attack.
The law is clear-cut: it defines illegal hate speech as public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group, defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin.
This is the situation we’re discussing. Your stance may be that you believe the woman had the right to lie and incite violence, but that still violates the specific law we're addressing, and my initial comment was directed at this particular issue, this law. You might not agree with the law and may argue that saying "Kill all illegal immigrants." or "Kill this specific immigrant." is acceptable online or even offline. While Elon might be on board with that perspective, I’m glad the governing bodies of the UK and EU are not. It's the libertè thing again...
The "clear cut" of the law you cited is anything but. The definition of hatred, for example, is not only insufficient for a just law, but can be – and is – reasonably stretched to encompass anything the current regime doesn't like.
That's why there is a division of powers but I am not gonna try to explain that to a person who tries to haggle about the meaning of words while calling a freshly elected democratic government a regime. That would just be silly. lmao
> The law is clear-cut: it defines illegal hate speech as public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group, defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin.
The law isn't clear though. The Verge had a write up [1] on Section 127 a couple years ago that does a good job of pointing out where that specific law is vague. Other hate speech laws in the UK have similar issues.
The law is clear in defining what power it is granting to authorities and what classifications can be used to deem speech illegal. It is very unclear on how it will be decided that speech has crossed that line. Functionally what this means is that judges are given the sole authority to decide when speech crosses the line and citizens have no way of knowing what that determination will be.
And if we had a time machine and went back to 2022 I would agree with you. Section 127 got repealed in 2023 and got updated with a more comprehensive version see [1] and you know what they will probably define it even more if there are other ambiguities. Like it should be and like I said before. I am seriously questioning your intentions now, it's clearly not in good faith anymore.
I missed that the UK extended that law, thanks for the link.
I still see a lot of fray area there left up to a judge's interpretation after the fact.
> 1. send a message;
> 2. conveying information that they know to be false;
> 3. at the time of sending it they intend the message to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience (i.e. someone who is likely to read it, whether originally or after someone has shared it); and
> 4. they have no reasonable excuse for sending the message
(1) seems totally fine, no gray area there. The last three points are all only known by the person being charged with the crime. It is extremely difficult to prove intent , or what the person knew at the moment of sending a message.
Short of the person confessing, prosecutors would be left with having to find evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt what the person knew at the time and the intent behind a message. My argument there is that realistically this will lead to either no convictions or convictions based on circumstantial evidence and a judge's opinion of what the person knew and intended.
The qualifications listed for threats have similar gray area, I won't copy them here for brevity.
To the citizen, this means anything they say related to a topic protected by these laws may be legal or illegal, they will never know unless a judge is asked to decide. Two reasonable judges could interpret a person's message and intent differently, meaning that the law is too unclear to be enforced fairly on the public.
"The Kingdom of Conscience will be exactly as it is now. Moralists don't really have beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded. Centrism isn't change -- not even incremental change. It is control. Over yourself and the world. Exercise it. Look up at the sky. Ask yourself: is there something sinister in moralism? And then answer: no. God is in his heaven. Everything is normal on Earth."
I think part of the problem at hand is when laws written poorly can be enforced in ways that don't align with the meaning behind the original laws.
The solution really is simple - write clearly defined and contained laws or don't write any at all. Most people wouldn't be comfortable with that, though, and in a world where news stories and political debates are forgotten in a matter of weeks people won't find it acceptable if legislators spend months or years writing laws that are easy to understand and don't come with a mountain of edge cases and loopholes.
Yeah, that's a cop out no law will ever be satisfactory initially with your requirements. Every constitution gets amendments and the same can go for a law like we are discussing now. That the only conclusion is "do nothing at all" is mind boggling.
Its not a cop out. How can you as a citizen try to stay on the right side of the law when laws are horribly verbose, difficult to understand, and full of gray area?
I wouldn't expect a law to be absolutely 100% buttoned up but we're very, very far from that today.
Laws are difficult to understand? Is it the first one you've read? Oh no you haven't read it... because the one we are talking about is pretty straight cut. Sorry but you are really not commenting in good faith here. It's just straw man argument after straw man argument.
It's just liberté and nothing else for you I guess.
For the average person, yes laws are absolutely difficult to understand. We wouldn't need to involve lawyers nearly as often if laws were easy to understand and the process, defined by laws, was clear.
It isn't just about liberté for me. The law in discussion here may be pretty straight cut with regards to understanding what's on the page, but not with understanding what power the government is actually granted or when/how it will be enforced. The whole point in this thread was that the law is unclear as to how the government will define content posted online that may turn out to be inaccurate as illegal and worthy of leading to prosecution.
Consider it this way - if you handed said law to 10 people in the UK, would they all walk away with the same understanding of where the line is that they shouldn't cross?
Oh stop the straw man arguments ask 10 people on the street about traffic laws and you get the same results for what you are fishing now. Ofc everyone will know that a Red Light means stop but than there are more obscure ones like the "Move Over" law in the US which even varies between states.
How is this a straw mab argument? I'm not saying poll any random 10 people on what they currently know of laws already on the book, I'd expect that to end poorly.
With regards to this specific law being clear and understandable by those who must follow it, I'm proposing that asking 10 of those people to read it and they wouldn't agree what the law means and when it will be enforced. I don't see that being a straw man, though I could very well be missing something there.
Okay we may be getting to the cote of where we disagree, regardless of free speech issues.
Do you not see it as a problem for the average person to be unable to understand the laws they are meant to follow?
For me, that's a real problem. In the example of traffic laws, either the laws are important to keep us safe on the road and the fact that people can't understand the laws as written puts us all at risk. Alternatively, if we're happy enough with road safety despite the fact that people can't understand traffic laws then the laws aren't serving a purpose and aren't needed. On top of that, people will be at risk of being fined or imprisoned for breaking laws that they didn't realize they broke, even when they took the time to read and try to understand the laws.
For completeness, the context here is a social media post alleging the identity of someone arrested hours earlier for a mass murder at a children’s play group — an extremely distressing event that has been followed, for unclear reasons, by nationwide rioting.
This person was “arrested in relation to a post about the identity of the attacker in the Southport murders” and specifically “on suspicion of publishing written material to stir up racial hatred”.
Most police forces / services / departments no doubt mis-use the law for vexatious arrests but this does not seem like one of those cases.
I do think it’s valid to question whether it’s moral for the Lilliputian Police to criminalise anti Big-Endian rhetoric. If everyone’s doing it it is hard to claim the nationwide rhetoric is responsible for specific violent crimes. If only a few people are doing it then there might be a causal link from their speech to the other crimes, and those links and subsequent crimes are a vital part of the debate.
I don’t think this is fair but I also shouldn’t have skirted around a bunch of things by just saying “unclear reasons”.
To be more specific those accused of stoking up the mobs — characters like Robinson, Fox, Tate, Farage — have a prior agenda that is wider than this specific knife attack and it is suspected that the rioting, while ostensibly being in response to the knife attack, is really about airing old prejudices based on race, religion, and nationality (hence the Swift reference.)
I hope the police are ready for a decade where a single highly motivated person who is willing to risk punishment can instantly weild the credence of one half of the entire debate, and win the attention of everyone with hushed sympathies. This is an extremely dangerous political climate.
Sadly, this began on July 29th with a single person willing to risk punishment for wanton violence. A common thread here is society producing outsiders: is this new or worse in the modern era?
> a 55 year old women was arrested for posting inaccurate information to social media
Well, it's not simply "posting inaccurate information", it's "publishing written material to stir up racial hatred" (which it clearly was) and "false communications" (technically true because her information was completely wrong.)
How many frustrated everyday UK citizens are going to get scammed into using malicious VPN/proxy services or malicious software to access UK government services from abroad?
$ host www.police.uk
www.police.uk is an alias for fallback.soh.police.uk.
fallback.soh.police.uk has address 104.18.28.214
fallback.soh.police.uk has address 104.18.29.214
$ host police.uk
police.uk has address 51.104.28.64
Could someone outside the UK use the above and explain what they experience. Then we can get to the bottom of this. Its a bit late here for me to ask remote customers if I can use their gear to diagnose this.
:~$ host police.uk
police.uk has address 51.104.28.64
:~$ host www.police.uk
www.police.uk is an alias for fallback.soh.police.uk.
fallback.soh.police.uk has address 104.18.28.214
fallback.soh.police.uk has address 104.18.29.214
$ host www.police.uk
www.police.uk is an alias for fallback.soh.police.uk.
fallback.soh.police.uk has address 104.18.29.214
fallback.soh.police.uk has address 104.18.28.214
"Anarcho-tyranny is a social condition characterized by a combination of anarchy and tyranny, where the government is simultaneously ineffective at enforcing laws against criminal behavior and overly oppressive against law-abiding citizens."
Reminiscent of that quote from the Gulag Archipelago.
"Your punishment for having a knife when they searched you would be very different from the thief’s. For him to have a knife was mere misbehavior, tradition, he didn’t know any better. But for you to have one was ‘terrorism."
106 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 207 ms ] threadEdit: searching Google, there are recent reports that make me feel like this is their response to being too incompetent to process cyber crime reports. I’m genuinely curious if someone unilaterally decided that people not physically in the uk don’t matter.
Prank emergency calls from children have been a hassle since time immemorial, and I see these circumstances as entirely corresponding, merely at scale; I'd even express surprise if this is a first for online British police channels.
This is almost certainly an IT admin not bothering to read Cloudflare's documentation and leaving something on the wrong setting.
Number of customers who read documentation << number of customers, although it seems especially endemic in infosec.
The UK is under some form of attack at the moment (probably mostly internally generated - no need to invoke bogeymen). We have seen quite a lot of anti racist activity recently and it is likely the nasty lot have been contained (hopefully).
The Commonwealth is always welcome here - that's why our mutual Queen (EIIR) created it. She got to grips with us proles rather well from around 1995 onwards when the Royal Family realised they have to engage with us lot.
Personally speaking, I've always thought of AU and NZ (SA etc) as mates. We might disagree about a few things and rugby and cricket and that. However we have more in common than not.
I have no doubt that the mood in AU and NZ is largely stirred with anti British sentiment (we see it here from Scotland, even though "modern Britain" was invented by a Scottish king - James 1 or VI).
NZ have often moved towards a silver fern on black flag. I say: why not - if that is your idea of your identity then crack on (it does look rather cool). Also, perhaps AU should rethink their flag - you go all in on gold and green. Ditch the blue thingie with the southern cross and the union flag in the top left - it doesn't suit you. ... or keep it because you can and proudly do whatever floats your boat. AU needs to sit down and take a really hard look at its flag and do what is best for AU.
The world is a messy place but let's keep it civil (and real).
This word just got added to my vocabulary for future use. Thanks stranger.
Huh!
In response to this the UK police are being trolled on their live chats (largely by Americans I believe). I did originally post a link to these (you can find them on X), but given the content I don't want to risk it.
I'm assuming they're now blocking IPs because of the abuse.
This started yesterday when the police said they have officers looking through social media for offences, https://x.com/ElijahKyama_/status/1821180825007763660/video/...
But heated up again today after a 55 year old women was arrested for posting inaccurate information to social media, https://www.cheshire.police.uk/news/cheshire/news/articles/2...
I'm currently waiting for a knock at my door along with 65 million of Brits who have posted inaccurate information online from time to time.
Legal note: if anything I have said here is inaccurate I was unaware of it at the time of posting.
> at the time of sending it, the person intended the message, or the information in it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience, and
even announcing future legitimate policy direction by the government could be construed as causing non-trivial psychological harm.
It's definitely not a right if it disappears when it's inconvenient.
PS: And technically, afaik, it isn't a crime to call for the assassination of the president of the US. It's illegal to attempt it, and to take actions that support those attempting it. But if you just post on Facebook about it... you'll get a call from the Secret Service and a recommendation that you don't do that, but no charge.
If you're making a practical argument, then we can trade exclusions 1-for-1 in the US vs UK, and the UK list will go on far after you've exhausted the US ones.
That's not the argument I'm making.
I'm noting that the US started from a right to free speech, and then carved out exclusions to that.
Whereas the UK came at it the other way and added to a list of types of speech that are free.
To offer more detail on how far the Brandenburg case went in protecting free speech rights: it ruled that seditious speech – including speech that constitutes an incitement to violence – is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as long as it does not reach a level "where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”.
I live in a state that had a pre-Roe abortion ban on the books. After Roe was repealed. local prosecutors tried to use their prosecutorial veto to prevent enforcement.
It was pointed out that if they straight up said “we won’t enforce the law” Private citizens could enforce it.
Usually, a judge would throw the case out, but if a DA had publicly refused to do their job, judges would find it hard to simply defer to DA.
I suspect private criminal prosecutions are so rare because public prosecutors guard their monopoly.
It's a really poorly written act though. Compared to acts written by previous governments, this one has a pretty bad structure.
The latter was exactly the excuse that communist regimes used to silence any criticism
how fucking funny. Everytime when something like this is getting discussed the only response is sarcasm and hybris. No acknowledgment of the problem, no ideas, just fucking bad one liners. It's a real problem and you can be glad that you haven't had to deal with it. Yeah, ofc what they are doing now is absolute shite but sometimes you could at least acknowledge the law in it's meaning and not the shitty execution of it and no I don't care about your sarcasm "disclaimer" you are not five.
The problem is that these powers have, can, and will be abused by petty bureaucrats, power-hungry law enforcement, the government itself and, as a result, enable actual tyranny.
"We'll end up in a dystopian autocratic tyranny nightmare TOMORROW if we do anything against it. With the only conclusion let's do nothing at all."
Great input.
When it comes to separation of powers, that's a much bigger discussion but I have concerns over how our three branches operate in the US today. Our legislative branch has outsourced much of their power to the executive branch, though the overturn of Chevron may eventually help that. I wish it were as simply as voting, but I'm generally only offered one or two options for most elected positions and when it comes down to it neither party will allow anyone on the ballot that wants to actually reform anything meaningful about how the system works.
I only brought up the US because you specifically referenced voting and separation of powers. I can only vote in the US so my context is limited, and the separation of powers is very much an American idea that has since been adopted in various ways in other countries.
Here’s a primer:
- The UK has experienced racial riots over the past few weeks.
- There was a mass murder in the last weeks.
- During these racial riots, someone "identified" an immigrant as the attacker, which turned out to be misinformation and incited a manhunt.
- This individual was apprehended.
- 4chan went full "fr33d0m" and launched a DDoS attack against the police website.
- In response, the UK police blocked international IPs to mitigate this attack.
The law is clear-cut: it defines illegal hate speech as public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group, defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin.
This is the situation we’re discussing. Your stance may be that you believe the woman had the right to lie and incite violence, but that still violates the specific law we're addressing, and my initial comment was directed at this particular issue, this law. You might not agree with the law and may argue that saying "Kill all illegal immigrants." or "Kill this specific immigrant." is acceptable online or even offline. While Elon might be on board with that perspective, I’m glad the governing bodies of the UK and EU are not. It's the libertè thing again...
The law isn't clear though. The Verge had a write up [1] on Section 127 a couple years ago that does a good job of pointing out where that specific law is vague. Other hate speech laws in the UK have similar issues.
The law is clear in defining what power it is granting to authorities and what classifications can be used to deem speech illegal. It is very unclear on how it will be decided that speech has crossed that line. Functionally what this means is that judges are given the sole authority to decide when speech crosses the line and citizens have no way of knowing what that determination will be.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offens...
[1] https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/blog/the-online-safety-act-202...
I still see a lot of fray area there left up to a judge's interpretation after the fact.
> 1. send a message; > 2. conveying information that they know to be false; > 3. at the time of sending it they intend the message to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience (i.e. someone who is likely to read it, whether originally or after someone has shared it); and > 4. they have no reasonable excuse for sending the message
(1) seems totally fine, no gray area there. The last three points are all only known by the person being charged with the crime. It is extremely difficult to prove intent , or what the person knew at the moment of sending a message.
Short of the person confessing, prosecutors would be left with having to find evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt what the person knew at the time and the intent behind a message. My argument there is that realistically this will lead to either no convictions or convictions based on circumstantial evidence and a judge's opinion of what the person knew and intended.
The qualifications listed for threats have similar gray area, I won't copy them here for brevity.
To the citizen, this means anything they say related to a topic protected by these laws may be legal or illegal, they will never know unless a judge is asked to decide. Two reasonable judges could interpret a person's message and intent differently, meaning that the law is too unclear to be enforced fairly on the public.
The solution really is simple - write clearly defined and contained laws or don't write any at all. Most people wouldn't be comfortable with that, though, and in a world where news stories and political debates are forgotten in a matter of weeks people won't find it acceptable if legislators spend months or years writing laws that are easy to understand and don't come with a mountain of edge cases and loopholes.
I wouldn't expect a law to be absolutely 100% buttoned up but we're very, very far from that today.
It's just liberté and nothing else for you I guess.
It isn't just about liberté for me. The law in discussion here may be pretty straight cut with regards to understanding what's on the page, but not with understanding what power the government is actually granted or when/how it will be enforced. The whole point in this thread was that the law is unclear as to how the government will define content posted online that may turn out to be inaccurate as illegal and worthy of leading to prosecution.
Consider it this way - if you handed said law to 10 people in the UK, would they all walk away with the same understanding of where the line is that they shouldn't cross?
With regards to this specific law being clear and understandable by those who must follow it, I'm proposing that asking 10 of those people to read it and they wouldn't agree what the law means and when it will be enforced. I don't see that being a straw man, though I could very well be missing something there.
Do you not see it as a problem for the average person to be unable to understand the laws they are meant to follow?
For me, that's a real problem. In the example of traffic laws, either the laws are important to keep us safe on the road and the fact that people can't understand the laws as written puts us all at risk. Alternatively, if we're happy enough with road safety despite the fact that people can't understand traffic laws then the laws aren't serving a purpose and aren't needed. On top of that, people will be at risk of being fined or imprisoned for breaking laws that they didn't realize they broke, even when they took the time to read and try to understand the laws.
I cannot visit that link, lol. IP blocked.
This person was “arrested in relation to a post about the identity of the attacker in the Southport murders” and specifically “on suspicion of publishing written material to stir up racial hatred”.
Most police forces / services / departments no doubt mis-use the law for vexatious arrests but this does not seem like one of those cases.
I do think it’s valid to question whether it’s moral for the Lilliputian Police to criminalise anti Big-Endian rhetoric. If everyone’s doing it it is hard to claim the nationwide rhetoric is responsible for specific violent crimes. If only a few people are doing it then there might be a causal link from their speech to the other crimes, and those links and subsequent crimes are a vital part of the debate.
To be more specific those accused of stoking up the mobs — characters like Robinson, Fox, Tate, Farage — have a prior agenda that is wider than this specific knife attack and it is suspected that the rioting, while ostensibly being in response to the knife attack, is really about airing old prejudices based on race, religion, and nationality (hence the Swift reference.)
Well, it's not simply "posting inaccurate information", it's "publishing written material to stir up racial hatred" (which it clearly was) and "false communications" (technically true because her information was completely wrong.)
also 55 isn't old! but I realise I may be closer to it than you are.
Let's keep it real please!
(EDIT - formatting)
www.police.uk is an alias for fallback.soh.police.uk.
fallback.soh.police.uk has address 104.18.29.214
fallback.soh.police.uk has address 104.18.28.214
└─[0] < > ~ host police.uk 8:41 police.uk has address 51.104.28.64
I'm in southeast asia and the website is blocked
$ host www.police.uk www.police.uk is an alias for fallback.soh.police.uk. fallback.soh.police.uk has address 104.18.29.214 fallback.soh.police.uk has address 104.18.28.214
https://www.police.uk/ is a police force landing page
"Your punishment for having a knife when they searched you would be very different from the thief’s. For him to have a knife was mere misbehavior, tradition, he didn’t know any better. But for you to have one was ‘terrorism."
https://x.com/surfmaxing/status/1821162520406630535