Britain - The Official Thread

[BHRxRacer]

Well handled inquiry overall, difficult subject but something that needed to be resolved quickly.

@BHRxRacer, there's a dicussion ongoing in the Hermerrsexualist thread about the normalcy of intimacy between couples that goes some way to implying what's acceptable. You should have a skeg at the above comments

EDIT: Sorry, I always talk 'Ull when I've been on the fern to urrm

What exactly do you want me to comment on, the article? If you've uncovered a plot by a group of Islamists that tried impose their opinions illegally in a school, good on you.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What exactly do you want me to comment on, the article? If you've uncovered a plot by a group of Islamists that tried impose their opinions illegally in a school, good on you.

Did you read the article or the comments on the normalcy of intimacy (something you're very much against)?

I don't need your patronage for the report to stand but I thank you nonetheless

 

[BHRxRacer]

Did you read the article or the comments on the normalcy of intimacy (something you're very much against)?

I don't need your patronage for the report to stand but I thank you nonetheless

Yes I did. What are you trying to say? Get to it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yes I did. What are you trying to say? Get to it.

Not in this thread, I'll tag you in the post in the correct place

 

[TenEightyOne]

BBC: Nick Griffin steps down as leader of the BNP.

The man who put the "git" in "seems legit".

 

[DK]

Wait, the BNP are still relevant?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Wait, the BNP are still relevant?

Let me check, let's see now... no.

 

[Touring Mars]

Another "The picture and headline are not connected" incident...

 

[Wiegert]

"YOUNG PRINCE OUT OF A HOME"


Oops. My mind is still trying to find ways of connecting the two.

 

[Touring Mars]

"YOUNG PRINCE OUT OF A HOME"

That is exactly what I saw the first time I saw the page as well

Meanwhile, all this stress has clearly got to Liz...

I just took this screen cap on my phone...

I think the Beeb need to think about people like me when writing these tickers

 

[Wiegert]

Somebody must have spiked the Queen's feed... Er, food.


EDIT: Flicked over to have a look for myself. I honestly expected that to be a typo, not an excerpt from a full sentence that was ridiculously easy to exploit.

 

[Robin]

Another "The picture and headline are not connected" incident...

I saw one where they had those holiday offers banner photos with a woman smiling happily in a bikini running on the beach and below was the aftermath of the MH17 crash... though that was slightly in bad taste.

 

[Tesla]

"Charged with making a malicious communication." Really Britain?

 

[PeterJB]

Obviously that's not a very nice thing to say, but surely he'd be within his rights to under free speech laws?

 

[Tesla]

Obviously that's not a very nice thing to say, but surely he'd be within his rights to under free speech laws?

Nope. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27

Saying things to other people that "causes distress or anxiety" can be punished for a maximum of 6 months in prison and/or a fine of up to 5000 pounds. Crazy, land of the Hurt Feelings Brigade.

 

[TenEightyOne]

"Charged with making a malicious communication." Really Britain?

Yes, really, because otherwise where would one draw the line?

I think that communication was malicious in intent and it was definitely offensive to many. Twitter's a private company, remember, you don't have free speech through private publishers (like this forum and many others, for example).

A tweet that wished more people from a certain area had died is childish, true, but nonetheless it's also very wrong.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Obviously that's not a very nice thing to say, but surely he'd be within his rights to under free speech laws?

Free speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of what you say and never has - so say Mr Slander & Mr Libel.

 

[Tesla]

Yes, really, because otherwise where would one draw the line?

I think that communication was malicious in intent and it was definitely offensive to many. Twitter's a private company, remember, you don't have free speech through private publishers (like this forum and many others, for example).

A tweet that wished more people from a certain area had died is childish, true, but nonetheless it's also very wrong.

The problem doesn't lie with Twitter - they're free to take down whatever they want because he agreed to it. However, the government cannot (or rather, should not) decide where freedom of speech ends. The moment that there are restrictions on free speech is the moment when it is no longer free speech. This gives way to any other arbitrary line in the sand - who decides what is and isn't offensive?

Free speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of what you say and never has - so say Mr Slander & Mr Libel.

Except that defamation covers falsifications against legal entities purported as fact while knowing that it isn't true. It does not cover opinions, and it certainly doesn't cover the case from before where there was no specific entity being targeted. You can read more here if you want: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Defenses

 

[ShiftingGears]

Twitter's a private company, remember, you don't have free speech through private publishers (like this forum and many others, for example).

That is because businesses reserve the right to edit or delete posts that don't comply with the terms of use. Not because the government decides to charge someone for something they deem to be offensive.

Free speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of what you say and never has - so say Mr Slander & Mr Libel.

And what he said was neither of those.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Except that defamation covers falsifications against legal entities purported as fact while knowing that it isn't true. It does not cover opinions, and it certainly doesn't cover the case from before where there was no specific entity being targeted. You can read more here if you want: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Defenses

"More Newcastle Fans"? Fairly specific group. "Shame there weren't more on the flight". The named group should have died in greater numbers.

You think that's not an offensive post? Messages of hate/death are part of free speech, but so is democratic control of people who say them.

Just because one is allowed to say something out loud doesn't mean that one won't be acted against for saying it.

 

[KSaiyu]

Just because one is allowed to say something out loud doesn't mean that one won't be acted against for saying it.

But if it's acted on then they aren't allowed to say it out loud in the first place

 

[TenEightyOne]

But if it's acted on then they aren't allowed to say it out loud in the first place

Yes they are, they said it didn't they? They had the choice to form their words and they had the opportunity to speak them.

The thing about society is that it may then choose that the things some people say are just too offensive or full of hatred to be tolerable. Which is what happened here.

I could say that I hope you die quite nastily in a plane crash, I have the right to say that aloud in public (which this forum isn't, but I'm making the point). Even if you yourself weren't offended the chances are that people who know you (and some who don't) would find my words to be offensive for obvious reasons.

You either have a society full of offensive speech and hatred or you don't. I know which I'd prefer to live in.

Is legal oversight always perfect? Of course not, not at all... but having imperfect oversight is a darned-sight better than having none at all.

 

[KSaiyu]

So it's an allusion of freedom of speech - it depends on the audience whether it's punishable or not?

 

[ShiftingGears]

You either have a society full of offensive speech and hatred or you don't. I know which I'd prefer to live in.

Once upon a time people would've found it offensive to suggest that the world was round, or that people of different races should be treated as equals. Would you want to live in a society that would see you imprisoned for expressing those views?


Freedom of Speech isn't there to protect popular speech.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So it's an allusion of freedom of speech - it depends on the audience whether it's punishable or not?

Nail, head.

 

[Famine]

There should be no ability for the State to take action against individuals' comments. Freedom of speech should be guaranteed under law.

But freedom of speech does not guarantee a platform from which to make that speech nor protection from the consequences of it. Twitter is a private institution with private rules and a membership agreement (much like GTPlanet) and they very much can retain the ability to remove idiots from their midst.

Similarly, the chap who shouts "BOMB!" in a crowded Tube station and causes a stampede is liable for the injuries or deaths as a result, despite it being public space.


The Malicious Communications Act was never intended for this purpose and its use to prosecute and imprison people who say stupid things on the internet is a gross overstepping of its bounds. Yet it's now being done on a daily basis - sure, the guy who Tweeted a "bomb threat" to Robin Hood airport, or said on Facebook that he was glad the teacher who was stabbed to death had died, or even the bloke who relayed exactly the same kind of joke we used to tell in the playground about April Jones from Sickipedia are idiots, morons and in some cases detestable human beings, but sending them to prison for their "offences" makes the law even more detestable.

 

[Maccer_42]

The internet is serious business in Britain... Lol, seems quite clearly it was a joke and it was supposed to be offensive. This isn't the first time this has happened in Britain either is it? There's a few cases now where people have been charged and possibly convicted for jokes posted on social media.

 

[Keef]

I can tell a British person wrote this article on ladybugs. It says "ladybird" is a common term in the southern US but that's nonsense. I've never heard another American refer to these bugs as anything but ladybugs. I'm about to edit it because anything called a ladybird should have feathers.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I can tell a British person wrote this article on ladybugs. It says "ladybird" is a common term in the southern US but that's nonsense. I've never heard another American refer to these bugs as anything but ladybugs. I'm about to edit it because anything called a ladybird should have feathers.

Just asked two friends from Houston and a third from Arkansas... the Houstonites call them ladybirds and the Arkansasasasasansian calls them ladybugs. The wiki says "some parts of the southern United States".

EDIT: They were also called ladybirds in the US when the "bug" was dropped as it was also a reference to sodomy. (Source)

 

[Liquid]

Obviously that's not a very nice thing to say, but surely he'd be within his rights to under free speech laws?

Free speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of what you say and never has - so say Mr Slander & Mr Libel.

There should be no ability for the State to take action against individuals' comments. Freedom of speech should be guaranteed under law.

The United Kingdom constitution(s), however, do(es) not protect free speech for its citizens. Free speech in the Bill of Rights extends only to MPs under strict Parliamentary privilege.

Obviously it should, but it doesn't. Too much talk of terrorism and 'security' means it's doubtful we could successfully lobby for it at this juncture.