Britain - The Official Thread

[DK]

At the moment, the porn block is planned to come in at the end of 2014. I'd say the bill would enter the House of Commons in the first half of 2014.

I wonder...if one were to posts links to porn sites on the Daily Fail's website, would that trigger the porn block? Is it wrong to say I'd love to watch Anonymous take them on?

 

[marxlien]

Ok now it's clear, thanks for the replies.

This is a real dumb idea, all.countries have real problems, obviously most important than this.

 

[Maccer_42]

Looks like this censorship's going even further than we thought

So if Cameron's "Block all the Internetz!" law does get passed which I wouldn't be surprised if it does in some form eventually does that mean no more GTPlanet for us Brits? This is a web forum (who knows what web forums he wants to block?) and we do have a "Smokers thread" and there is probably one for Alcohol on here too I'm guessing?

I don't imagine GTPlanet would be on the immediate list of blocked websites if this bill does pass in the current form Cameron wants, but I guess all it would take is a few easily offended people to report it (which it seems to me so many people are easily offended now) and it could be blocked, and I'd guess at a push those easily offended people could claim the Opinions and Current Events forum contains "Extremist Content" and persuade other easily offended people in the position of what websites do get blocked to block GTPlanet.

👎

 

[lbsf1]

So if Cameron's "Block all the Internetz!" law does get passed which I wouldn't be surprised if it does in some form eventually does that mean no more GTPlanet for us Brits? This is a web forum (who knows what web forums he wants to block?) and we do have a "Smokers thread" and there is probably one for Alcohol on here too I'm guessing?

I don't imagine GTPlanet would be on the immediate list of blocked websites if this bill does pass in the current form Cameron wants, but I guess all it would take is a few easily offended people to report it (which it seems to me so many people are easily offended now) and it could be blocked, and I'd guess at a push those easily offended people could claim the Opinions and Current Events forum contains "Extremist Content" and persuade other easily offended people in the position of what websites do get blocked to block GTPlanet.

👎

Don't worry, the more thinks he trys to block the more people he will effect and thus the more opposition he will get and thus more people will try to prevent or find ways around it. (eg: Anonymous)

 

[Youngun]

If they block content on forums, then they'll have to block every forum which unless i've been told otherwise, is against freedom of speak act. Porn, ok can be turned off, extremist content should have always been blocked. Its to easy to find out how to make, plant and detonate a bomb in many ways. Religious content should also be bloked as it provokes so many different conflicts.

Whoops, my bad

 

[Famine]

If they block content on forums, then they'll have to block every forum which unless i've been told otherwise, is against freedom of speak act.

We don't have one.

We won't even begin to discuss the rest of your post which is exactly as illegal as you think it isn't and against the GTP AUP:

You will not use these forums for the purposes of sharing or distributing viruses, licenses, registration information, software keys, pirated commercial multimedia files, “cracks”, or other information designed to do harm to or allow unlawful access to any computer software or systems.

 

[Youngun]

My bad

 

[lbsf1]

We don't have one.

We won't even begin to discuss the rest of your post which is exactly as illegal as you think it isn't and against the GTP AUP:

However Famine some topic is discussed on this forum that are illegal. The discussion about legalisation of cannabis for example is discussing and illegal topic.

So therefore website like this could be blocked simply because we are debating subjects that are illegal, even though what is being said isn't illegal.

I'm not clued up on law however I'm reasonably sure that it must be against some kind of freedom of speech/censorship law to block this content from view??

Correct me if I'm wrong. (Which I probably am.)


EDIT: After a quick google of UK freedom of speech law it does seem that most vaguely controversial topics could be put it as an exception to the rule. (According to wiki then content which is any of these, and many more is exempt from freedom of speech: advocating for the abolition of the monarchy (which cannot be successfully prosecuted),[98][99][100][101][102] sedition,[99] obscenity,[103] indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[104] defamation, likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace, sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety.)

 

[Youngun]

"Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another.

In many nations, particularly those with relatively authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other forms (see propaganda model) and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws even in countries seen as liberal democracies."

 

[Famine]

However Famine some topic is discussed on this forum that are illegal. The discussion about legalisation of cannabis for example is discussing and illegal topic.

Actually, it's not.

There's exciting geographical reasons for it, however there's also a gulf between discussing legalising cannabis is locations it isn't legal in and discussing where to get the best blow.

So therefore website like this could be blocked simply because we are debating subjects that are illegal, even though what is being said isn't illegal.

Since the proposed mechanism is an expert-compiled blacklist (much like Websense), if GTP makes it onto the blacklist we'll be blocked.

I'm not clued up on law however I'm reasonably sure that it must be against some kind of freedom of speech/censorship law to block this content from view??

Yeah, it would be if we had one.

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Yeah, now carry on reading that particular document and find all the other things it says are basic human rights (which aren't) that we don't recognise. For further reading, check out the ones that contradict each other.

And the best part of the quoted text?

and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another.

We don't have any such guarantee under law in the UK. In fact we have very, very many laws in the UK restricting speech, expression and action.

 

[Youngun]

But surely this countries going to pot enough by forcing everyone to do things they don't want to do already, Sex Ex classes sucked so internet was the best teaching method, no one dies from porn (well they would die happy) so it should be down to the parents to block, unblock or explain to there children as if there interested then they need to know about it.
The blacklist so be really violent/extremist/hardcore like some gore sites but i ended up on one before about horrific car crashes, but that taught be to wear seat belts, not risk driving reckless and only go above speed when in full control with open/empty roads. The internet is a great teaching toll, but you don't need the internet to rob, steal or riot so why start with something this harmless.

And heres the part for uk law, did study parts of this in college in law class. No cop or court can do you for talking about something. Just like everyone thinks about killing, destroying or doing something, but.without evidence, planning or action. They cant do squat.

"Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise."

And if we didn't up hold the Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that wod be braking EU law and the country could be put to trail.

 

[lbsf1]

Actually, it's not.

There's exciting geographical reasons for it, however there's also a gulf between discussing legalising cannabis is locations it isn't legal in and discussing where to get the best blow.Since the proposed mechanism is an expert-compiled blacklist (much like Websense), if GTP makes it onto the blacklist we'll be blocked.Yeah, it would be if we had one.

Yes I get that it isn't illegal to discuss it on the forum currently (otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to by the AUP.) However if the proposed bill does go ahead then it won't matter since the content will be against what will be deemed ok in the UK and thus blocked, no matter if it was/is legal to be discussed.

And yeah in my quick googling I was quite surprised on the small amount of law we have to protect us, however then there is a huge amount of exceptions to the law, to the extent where it could cover almost anything.

Once again I'm probably incorrect.


EDIT: However remember guys that this is currently Camerons wishlist, by the time this gets near being implemented I would bet my left nostril that it won't be anywhere near as invasive.

 

[Youngun]

He'll put oxford uni on it because he that snobby. Why doesn't any MP live in the real world.

 

[Famine]

But surely this countries going to pot enough by forcing everyone to do things they don't want to do already, Sex Ex classes sucked so internet was the best teaching method

Porn is about as bad a way of learning about sex as being locked in a room with Stuart Hall.

it should be down to the parents to block, unblock or explain to there children as if there interested then they need to know about it.

Of course parenting should be done by parents - but a combination of generations of parents leaving the job to teachers (or worse, priests) and their attitude that other people's kids are the issue and someone should step in and do something generates this lumbering behemoth of social legislation governing how people should do things. It's literally what's meant by "the nanny state".

And heres the part for uk law, did study parts of this in college in law class. No cop or court can do you for talking about something. Just like everyone thinks about killing, destroying or doing something, but.without evidence, planning or action. They cant do squat.

Oh really?

We're living in an era where men are taken to court for precisely that - it took 2 and a half years out of someone's life for Tweeting that Robin Hood airport had a week "to get its 🤬 together or I'll blow the place up" before he was exonerated. He's still unemployable. And lest we forget Matthew Woods, sent to gaol for telling a crap joke. Or Liam Stacey. Or John Kerlen - who got 80 hours of community service for calling an MP a 🤬 on Twitter. Literally just that.

And if we didn't up hold the Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that wod be braking EU law and the country could be put to trail.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU. Even if it were, we break it every time the CPS takes someone to court for "misuse of electronic communications".

For crying out loud, Germany and Austria make it a criminal offence to deny the Holocaust.

In this country we have no guarantee of the right to free expression in law.

 

[ExigeEvan]

EDIT: However remember guys that this is currently Camerons wishlist, by the time this gets near being implemented I would bet my left nostril that it won't be anywhere near as invasive.

Please don't be so naive. It's a classic political tactic.
Step 1 - State original ambition for controversial new law.
Step 2 - Once backlash has been provoked, then exaggerate your plans.
Step 3 - Return to original ambition, everyone breathes a sigh of relief that it never went as far as it could have, and public opposition decreases.

 

[Youngun]

Porn is about as bad a way of learning about sex as being locked in a room with Stuart Hall.Of course parenting should be done by parents - but a combination of generations of parents leaving the job to teachers (or worse, priests) and their attitude that other people's kids are the issue and someone should step in and do something generates this lumbering behemoth of social legislation governing how people should do things. It's literally what's meant by "the nanny state".Oh really?

We're living in an era where men are taken to court for precisely that - it took 2 and a half years out of someone's life for Tweeting that Robin Hood airport had a week "to get its 🤬 together or I'll blow the place up" before he was exonerated. He's still unemployable. And lest we forget Matthew Woods, sent to gaol for telling a crap joke. Or Liam Stacey. Or John Kerlen - who got 80 hours of community service for calling an MP a 🤬 on Twitter. Literally just that.The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU. Even if it were, we break it every time the CPS takes someone to court for "misuse of electronic communications".

For crying out loud, Germany and Austria make it a criminal offence to deny the Holocaust.

In this country we have no guarantee of the right to free expression in law.

Yes your right, written law is never followed to the letter as everyone sues anyone for anything but those allegations where directed at those targets. If they were talking about them not to them, it would be different, many people call cameron different names. Suggest blowing things up or threatening the countries safety are poles apart, that is part of the extremist part of the blacklist. And that thing where the teacher called a bear mohammed for class, didn't she go to court in that country? If you bring in targets, like im going to rob blah blahs house, thats intent. Going to kill blah blah, intent again. If its written, it can be read in many ways which is why, written speech is more literal than vocal speech.

Ok so wrong lettering but most countries in The EU follow the UN Human Rights through interpreted version
"Today freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights."
Human rights law is hard to argue with.
And with this, surely Freedom of Information act is surely acting this proposal too??

 

[lbsf1]

Please don't be so naive. It's a classic political tactic.
Step 1 - State original ambition for controversial new law.
Step 2 - Once backlash has been provoked, then exaggerate your plans.
Step 3 - Return to original ambition, everyone breathes a sigh of relief that it never went as far as it could have, and public opposition decreases.

Yes that's pretty much what I said. All these huge plans for banning other content will be forgotten and we will end up back at the impossible to implement porn ban.

 

[Famine]

Yes your right, written law is never followed to the letter as everyone sues anyone for anything but those allegations where directed at those targets. If they were talking about them not to them, it would be different, many people call cameron different names. Suggest blowing things up or threatening the countries safety are poles apart, that is part of the extremist part of the blacklist. And that thing where the teacher called a bear mohammed for class, didn't she go to court in that country? If you bring in targets, like im going to rob blah blahs house, thats intent. Going to kill blah blah, intent again. If its written, it can be read in many ways which is why, written speech is more literal than vocal speech.

Let's just quickly revisit your earlier point:

And heres the part for uk law, did study parts of this in college in law class. No cop or court can do you for talking about something. Just like everyone thinks about killing, destroying or doing something, but.without evidence, planning or action. They cant do squat.

Matthew Woods told a joke. No-one was threatened with anything, no crime was planned and he didn't act on anything. He told a joke and was sent to prison.

Liam Stacey referred to a footballer as a "black 🤬". No-one was threatened with anything, no crime was planned and he didn't act on anything. He called someone a name and was sent to prison.

John Kerlen referred to a local councillor as a "🤬". No-one was threatened with anything, no crime was planned and he didn't act on anything. He called someone a name and was sentenced to 80 hours community service.

Paul Chambers said he was going to blow up Robin Hood Airport. There was no plan or action to do this and no evidence of intent was ever found. He was still hauled through court over a legal process that took two and a half year to find him not guilty.


In no case above was there any credible threat made to anyone. There was no harm brought to anyone or anything. No harm was incited to anyone or anything. No crimes were planned. No crimes were carried out. Yet all the individuals were taken to court by the Crown Prosecution Service, three quarters were found guilty of a crime and half sent to prison.

They can do it. They have done it. "They can't do squat" is patently wrong.

Ok so wrong lettering but most countries in The EU follow the UN Human Rights through interpreted version
"Today freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights."
Human rights law is hard to argue with.

And yet both Germany - the lynchpin of the European Union - and Austria make a criminal offence of talking about the Holocaust as if it never happened. Holocaust denial is an indictable offence!

And with this, surely Freedom of Information act is surely acting this proposal too??

I can't even begin to imagine how. The FOIA 2000 applies only to government-held public data.

 

[Youngun]

All them cases were in context, first one was offensive content about 2 missing girls, partly obstructing justice, but did target the parents indirectly (and using he name, idiot) same with the guy that joked about Fabrice Muamba or soldiers that died in afghan. It may have been light hearted but parents will still take offensive of that. Second was a offensive racism directed their way, cause outrage by the public, hit out with the racism act. Third was still offensive language directed at someone who took it as offence. Forth was enough for intent as saying "im going to blow this up" is more than enough to arrest and charge.
Freedom of speech is still law but if you bring other laws in to it, then you will be charged, its a thin line.

Maybe no one was directly threatened but crimes were still committed by other laws. And the first 3, all could of caused harm (not always skin deep).

And with Germany, only an idiot would deny the holocaust. It was a major event in time that curved history and created Europe for what it is now.

(Mistake on the FOIA, to many acts in this country)

 

[Famine]

All them cases were in context, first one was offensive content about 2 missing girls, partly obstructing justice, but did target the parents indirectly (and using he name, idiot)

Tripe. He retold a joke from Sickipedia. His actions caused no harm or injury to anyone.

same with the guy that joked about Fabrice Muamba or soldiers that died in afghan.

As above.

It may have been light hearted but parents will still take offensive of that. Second was a offensive racism directed their way, cause outrage by the public, hit out with the racism act. Third was still offensive language directed at someone who took it as offence.

Remember the quotes you made about what freedom of speech is? See if you can find anything about not being offensive in there. Even the UN doesn't include it, and they're a wishy-washy bunch of plankton.

Fact is we're so used to having our language hobbled because of "offence" that we don't have freedom of speech - which is in part the reason why we don't have any laws protecting it.

And it's ludicrous. Anyone can take offence at anything, for any reason, at any time. It shouldn't be beholden on anyone not to cause it.

Forth was enough for intent as saying "im going to blow this up" is more than enough to arrest and charge.

There was no intent to blow up any airport. This was clearly established in court but shouldn't even have got that far. He had no means or ability to carry it out even if it were a genuine threat, which it wasn't.

Freedom of speech is still law

Not in the UK it isn't.

but if you bring other laws in to it, then you will be charged, its a thin line.

Maybe no one was directly threatened but crimes were still committed by other laws. And the first 3, all could of caused harm (not always skin deep).

And yet all four were charged with misusing electronic communications.

And with Germany, only an idiot would deny the holocaust. It was a major event in time that curved history and created Europe for what it is now.

Idiots are allowed to have and express opinions too. That's part of what "freedom of speech" is!

Except in Germany and Austria, of course.

 

[nealcropper]

Wow.

We, the UK, don't have freedom of speech laws, in fact we have laws that restrict what we can say. So it's quite the opposite in fact.

Unless, of course you come from overseas, and then you can say exactly what you like for around 10 years, and be looked after whilst you say it.

 

[Sureboss]

[/DailyMail]

 

[Youngun]

Tripe. He retold a joke from Sickipedia. His actions caused no harm or injury to anyone.As above.Remember the quotes you made about what freedom of speech.

Ok, so i read some of the jokes on there, ones that are racial or sexist, i don't spread as anyone could get offended. Ok so i "physically" didn't hurt anyone but if directed at someone, its "verbal assault" like what most of them were. Just cause they didn't direct it at anyone, doesn't mean that it didn't indirectly affect anyone.

And Would you go on FB and say "Im gonna blow up _________ Airport" it would be the same as going there and shouting it in the front door. People would get a bit jittery, terrorism is still around. And anyone can create a bomb, doesn't have to be C4 to create damage.

Yes FoS still exists but there are hundreds of laws to protect (control) what we say. Everything from, Discrimination, Sexism, Misuse, Public Disturbance, Religious and Terrorism. Breaking these through FoS is breaking the law but not that law.

 

[Famine]

Ok, so i read some of the jokes on there, ones that are racial or sexist, i don't spread as anyone could get offended.

It's their prerogative to be offended, or not, if they choose. Just like it ought to be yours to tell the jokes or not, if you choose. Turns out it isn't.


It'd take a couple of seconds to point out something you've typed on GTPlanet that would cause offence to someone who wanted to take offence at it. Your name has "gun" in it and that will offend someone whose kid was shot in a school shooting.

Hell, mine is "Famine" which is when there's no food and thousands of people die. Also I just said "hell" which might offend Christians.

See how untenable it is to legislate away freedom of speech on the grounds of offence being taken?

Ok so i "physically" didn't hurt anyone but if directed at someone, its "verbal assault" like what most of them were. Just cause they didn't direct it at anyone, doesn't mean that it didn't indirectly affect anyone.

Just about every joke does that. Almost every joke ever told requires someone's characteristics or fortune to be made fun of. Almost every joke ever told is offensive to someone somewhere simply because anyone can take offence at anything for any reason at any time.

If we're going to literally lock people up for telling a joke, we need to lock up everyone who's ever told a joke. How is that freedom of speech?

And Would you go on FB and say "Im gonna blow up _________ Airport" it would be the same as going there and shouting it in the front door.

How is it?

Posting it on Facebook means it gets seen by the people who you let see what you say if they want to. Shouting it into the doors means it gets heard by everyone present whether they want it or not. Only the latter will cause any direct action or panic.

Yes FoS still exists

No it doesn't, precisely because:

but there are hundreds of laws to protect (control) what we say.

And there are still no UK laws, statutes or regulations that guarantee British citizens any right of freedom of expression.

Which is why we're still letting people get sent to prison for telling a joke about a paedophile.

 

[Youngun]

Two words to this that would change it "Frankie Boyle" offends everyone on the books yet he's loved and hated the same. Those people did something different and effected people in a different way. And things like Peadophilia, its taken very seriously if in context. Being in writing, its alot harder to judge its intent or factual nature, if its said, you can judge tone, pitch, length, attitudge. Online, you read it who you want, some jokes could be read as statements, especially if posted on FB, if set to public, even worse. Things get trigger through certain phrases unless an IP blocker is used which is how they eventually get found out, or tip off or complaints.

 

[Famine]

Frankie Boyle is possibly the greatest single argument for legislation that constitutionally guarantees freedom of expression - and yet he's often used as an example of an argument for restricting it.

Usually by idiots, but then they're entitled to free speech too - at least until the laws they want preventing it come into force.

 

[Liquid]

The only freedom of speech laws in the UK are in the Bill Of Rights, but these only extend to MPs speaking exclusively under parliamentary privilege.

And actually, on a tangent, a good friend of mine's cousin is the bloke who 'threatened' to blow up Robin Hood Airport. They went through hell to finally get him cleared of terrorism charges.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/27/pornwall
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/uk-internet-porn-censor-to-also-block.html
The British prime minister's internet filters will be about more than just hardcore pornography, according to information obtained by the Open Rights Group.

The organisation, which campaigns for digital freedoms, has spoken to some of the Internet Service Providers that will be constructing Cameron's content filters. They discovered that a host of other categories of supposedly-objectionable material may be on the block-list.

As well as pornography, users may automatically be opted in to blocks on "violent material", "extremist related content", "anorexia and eating disorder websites" and "suicide related websites", "alcohol" and "smoking". But the list doesn't stop there. It even extends to blocking "web forums" and "esoteric material", whatever that is. "Web blocking circumvention tools" is also included, of course.

 

[Youngun]

It wasn't the freedom of speech that effected his charge but terrorism its self. If it was quoted better ie "What If i blow up blah blah airport" might not of got that far. How you word thing greatly affects how people read it.

 

[PeterJB]

Freedom of speech is basically non-existent here.

This is freedom of speech:

I seriously doubt anyone could get away with that in the UK.