Free Speech

[HenrySwanson]

Has the fallout from the riots made people question what they post on the internet?

For example, I feel "safe" posting this:



without double checking if the story in the tweet is even real.

However if the story was saying that the hero was a white guy and witnesses reported that the knifeman was a POC I would think twice before posting.

Now, it only takes me 5 seconds to see that Abdullah is the subject of a story in the Mirror but should someone who hasn't done their due dilligence be punished?

 

[MatskiMonk]

but should someone who hasn't done their due dilligence be punished?

I don't think that's an easy one to answer, but for me, there seems to be a disconnect between responsibility and accountability.

 

[HenrySwanson]

There's a video on Twitter of a white guy being arrested with sirens in the background with people saying that it's the offender.

And here is some more info from the Times:

Desmond, 45, a Darth Vader impersonator, said that a white man wearing a black T-shirt and jeans had been walking with a woman and her child before attacking the youth.

“I saw a young man put the little girl in a headlock and stab her in the armpit,” he said. “Before I could jump down and go to help, two men grabbed him, put him on the ground and the police came immediately. I think the woman was also stabbed but the child was targeted mostly.

“They were just walking together, these three people. Before the attack everything was normal,” he said. “It’s terrible. I’ve never seen such a thing like that.”

Now, would it be responsible to share that video without really knowing its true provenance with the information I have?

Again, switch the skin colour and would it be more or less tolerated by the criminal justice system.

 

[UKMikey]

‘It’s a bit harsh!’ The Kent district where you can get fined £100 for swearing

“Draconian” new council powers allowing enforcement officers to dish out £100 fines for swearing have left residents divided.

www.kentonline.co.uk

Is there a subscription plan for people who suffer from Tourette's syndrome?

 

[Famine]

Has the fallout from the riots made people question what they post on the internet?

For example, I feel "safe" posting this:



without double checking if the story in the tweet is even real.

However if the story was saying that the hero was a white guy and witnesses reported that the knifeman was a POC I would think twice before posting.

Now, it only takes me 5 seconds to see that Abdullah is the subject of a story in the Mirror but should someone who hasn't done their due dilligence be punished?

There's a video on Twitter of a white guy being arrested with sirens in the background with people saying that it's the offender.

And here is some more info from the Times:



Now, would it be responsible to share that video without really knowing its true provenance with the information I have?

Again, switch the skin colour and would it be more or less tolerated by the criminal justice system.

Why is this a free speech issue again?

Also I'm rather enjoying the occupation of the eyewitness.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Why is this a free speech issue again?

I have no idea what the laws cover and frankly don't want to risk finding out.

Chester woman, 55, arrested over false posts about Southport murders

Woman arrested on suspicion of publishing written material to stir up racial hatred as police warn of misinformation

www.theguardian.com

I saw this:

A 55-year-old woman has been arrested in relation to a social media post containing inaccurate information about the identity of the suspect in the Southport murders.

The woman, from near Chester, was arrested on Thursday on suspicion of publishing written material to stir up racial hatred and false communications. She is being held in custody by Cheshire police.

And this:



And didn't dive any further into the specifics of the laws and their scope.

 

[Famine]

I have no idea what the laws cover and frankly don't want to risk finding out.

Chester woman, 55, arrested over false posts about Southport murders

Woman arrested on suspicion of publishing written material to stir up racial hatred as police warn of misinformation

www.theguardian.com

I saw this:

And this:



And didn't dive any further into the specifics of the laws and their scope.

Can you join the dots for me? I'm not seeing whatever it is you think you're seeing.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Can you join the dots for me? I'm not seeing whatever it is you think you're seeing.

What counts as misinformation and inciting racial hatred?

The video I found early of the arrest had yet to be independently verified by a trustworthy source so could be classed as misinformation depending on the skin colour/ethnic features of the person being detained and atmosphere the UK is currently in.

I don't know what else was in the post that led to this:

A 55-year-old woman has been arrested in relation to a social media post containing inaccurate information about the identity of the suspect in the Southport murders.

 

[Famine]

What counts as misinformation and inciting racial hatred?

The video I found early of the arrest had yet to be independently verified by a trustworthy source so could be classed as misinformation depending on the skin colour/ethnic features of the person being detained and atmosphere the UK is currently in.

I don't know what else was in the post that led to this:

Again, I'm not seeing whatever it is you're seeing here, or why you're thinking it's a free speech issue.

Can you, like, explain? Forum posts aren't limited in the number of words you can type and it really would be of great benefit to whatever the point is if you could take us from whatever you think is happening at the start of it to whatever you think might happen at the end of it and cover what you mean by feeling "safe" to post these embeds that turns it into a free speech issue.

 

[MatskiMonk]

And didn't dive any further into the specifics of the laws and their scope.

These are the sentencing remarks for a 26 old lad that got 38 months for a Twitter post. The slightly unusual thing about this to me, is that he was repeating the words of somebody else locally that had been arrested for saying them, in support of her - not a retweet, but not necessarily and entirely original sentiment either.

That aside, it's clear the judgement is based on the intention and motivation, and not simply the action. Personally I'm not entirely sure this isn't problematic, but it's pretty evident from the Judge's comments that inadvertently sharing something that might turn out to be not as first thought shouldn't really be a big fear - the timing, the context, and the audience were taken into account as well as simply what he said.

I was watching this guy's Tweets as he posted as he was commenting on 'protest' action in my local town, and some of what he was saying was more stupid than offensive, but he clearly believed it was his right to say it, even tagging in his local police force. And I think that shows a fundamental lack of understanding as to what freedom of expression actually is in this country - and because of this, he's off to prison, which is unlikely to achieve anything positive at all for anybody.

It's fun to just say FAFO - but the reality is, we've now got an entire generation of adults that grew up as kids on social media, with the mask of anonymity, no repercussions for their digital actions, and nobody actually explaining the reality of it to them in understandable terms. That to me is more of a problem than a possible 'over-reaction' by the law - which I'm guessing is what you are getting at.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Again, I'm not seeing whatever it is you're seeing here, or why you're thinking it's a free speech issue.

Can you, like, explain? Forum posts aren't limited in the number of words you can type and it really would be of great benefit to whatever the point is if you could take us from whatever you think is happening at the start of it to whatever you think might happen at the end of it and cover what you mean by feeling "safe" to post these embeds that turns it into a free speech issue.

From that article I have no idea what it was in the post that warranted that woman's arrest. All I know is it contained misinformation about the attacker's identity, and therefore was likely to be from the same source as what stirred up the response to the stabbings that culminated in riots and led to @Dennisch's post in the thread. Did it contain extra info? An opinion? How did it "incite racial hatred"?

Fast forward to the Leicester Sq stabbing and I found a video showing an arrest of a white guy that purported to be of the attacker. My question is, given the febrile atmosphere of the UK, if that video was of a POC suspect could it be argued that it is misinformation that can be used to incite racial hatred since it fits the narrative of the far-right.

What exactly is the threshold?

EDIT: To go further, one of the earliest tweets with the video said he looked Eastern European and received immense pushback (and rightfully so, although the author is feeling justified now that we know he's a Romanian national). Should that be criminalised?

 

[Famine]

What exactly is the threshold?

For what?

Can you, like, explain? Forum posts aren't limited in the number of words you can type and it really would be of great benefit to whatever the point is if you could take us from whatever you think is happening at the start of it to whatever you think might happen at the end of it and cover what you mean by feeling "safe" to post these embeds that turns it into a free speech issue.

I have absolutely no idea why you're talking about "feeling safe" posting Tweets on GTPlanet, nor what it has to do with some woman being arrested, and even less - still - why it's a free speech issue that merits posting in the free speech thread.

You've made five vague posts, two sharing some social media posts, and none explain what you think is happening, what you think might happen, why you need to "feel safe" posting messages, what threshold you're talking about, or why this is part of a discussion on free speech.

 

[HenrySwanson]

For what?

I have absolutely no idea why you're talking about "feeling safe" posting Tweets on GTPlanet

Investigation by the police.

EDIT: I can't remember if it was the Guardian article or this one that I initially read:

Woman held over social media post after Southport killings

A 55-year-old is arrested on suspicion of publishing written material to stir up racial hatred, police say.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Famine]

Investigation by the police.

Of whom and about what?

I can't believe you're still being this vague. Explain what you are talking about, in words. Start at the beginning, take us through the middle, end at the end, and explain what your point is. I can't read your mind, only your words.

Six posts, for what you should have done in one.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Of whom and about what?

I can't believe you're still being this vague. Explain what you are talking about, in words. Start at the beginning, take us through the middle, end at the end, and explain what your point is. I can't read your mind, only your words.

Six posts, for what you should have done in one.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea how else to explain it?


"A 55-year-old woman has been arrested in relation to a social media post containing inaccurate information about the identity of the suspect in the Southport murders.

The woman, from near Chester, was arrested on Thursday on suspicion of publishing written material to stir up racial hatred and false communications. She is being held in custody by Cheshire police.


Ch Supt Alison Ross said: “We have all seen the violent disorder that has taken place across the UK over the past week, much of which has been fuelled by malicious and inaccurate communications online.

“It’s a stark reminder of the dangers of posting information on social media platforms without checking the accuracy. It also acts as a warning that we are all accountable for our actions, whether that be online or in person.”

• I found a video of someone being arrested
• This video was supposedly of the suspect in the Leicester Sq stabbings
• If it turned out not to be the suspect, could I be investigated for misinformation

These are the sentencing remarks for a 26 old lad that got 38 months for a Twitter post. The slightly unusual thing about this to me, is that he was repeating the words of somebody else locally that had been arrested for saying them, in support of her - not a retweet, but not necessarily and entirely original sentiment either.

That aside, it's clear the judgement is based on the intention and motivation, and not simply the action. Personally I'm not entirely sure this isn't problematic, but it's pretty evident from the Judge's comments that inadvertently sharing something that might turn out to be not as first thought shouldn't really be a big fear - the timing, the context, and the audience were taken into account as well as simply what he said.

I was watching this guy's Tweets as he posted as he was commenting on 'protest' action in my local town, and some of what he was saying was more stupid than offensive, but he clearly believed it was his right to say it, even tagging in his local police force. And I think that shows a fundamental lack of understanding as to what freedom of expression actually is in this country - and because of this, he's off to prison, which is unlikely to achieve anything positive at all for anybody.

It's fun to just say FAFO - but the reality is, we've now got an entire generation of adults that grew up as kids on social media, with the mask of anonymity, no repercussions for their digital actions, and nobody actually explaining the reality of it to them in understandable terms. That to me is more of a problem than a possible 'over-reaction' by the law - which I'm guessing is what you are getting at.

That's more obvious (not saying it's right).

My article left a lot of ambiguity on the table.

 

[MatskiMonk]

• I found a video of someone being arrested
• This video was supposedly of the suspect in the Leicester Sq stabbings
• If it turned out not to be the suspect, could I be investigated for misinformation

That's not the same as Bonnie Spofforth's situation. She didn't share something she'd thought was genuine online, she created a tweet that was false, on the basis of something she'd 'heard', and the effect of that, was to kick off all the trouble we've seen over the last couple of weeks. If you're not doing that (or similar), why would you be worried?

Woman 'who first shared lies that sparked UK riots' arrested

It comes after millionaire mum Bonnie Spofforth said she was 'mortified' to be accused of being the first to spread the false rumours.

metro.co.uk

 

[Famine]

I'm sorry, but I have no idea how else to explain it?

Forum posts aren't limited in the number of words you can type and it really would be of great benefit to whatever the point is if you could take us from whatever you think is happening at the start of it to whatever you think might happen at the end of it

“It’s a stark reminder of the dangers of posting information on social media platforms without checking the accuracy. It also acts as a warning that we are all accountable for our actions, whether that be online or in person.”

• I found a video of someone being arrested
• This video was supposedly of the suspect in the Leicester Sq stabbings
• If it turned out not to be the suspect, could I be investigated for misinformation

Still having to play guess the point with this one, which is ridiculous and exhausting after seven posts (four of which come after me asking you to explain what you're talking about, and you not doing that).

Are you suggesting that because someone was arrested for making up things about an incident that were not true, you think there's a possibility that you could be arrested for sharing a post containing a screenshot of a news article from a news website (BBC News, in this case) on GTPlanet and you are somehow worried about this?

If so, why can't you just say... that instead of all this weird, vague evasiveness?

If not, explain better. Start, middle, end, make point.

 

[Danoff]

From that article I have no idea what it was in the post that warranted that woman's arrest.

Are you suggesting that because someone was arrested for making up things about an incident that were not true, you think there's a possibility that you could be arrested for sharing a post containing a screenshot of a news article from a news website (BBC News, in this case) on GTPlanet and you are somehow worried about this?

I'm guessing this is correct and that it stems from the quote above, which is that Henry doesn't know where the boundary is between what's allowed and what isn't.

The reason I'm guessing this is because from my perspective in the US, I also don't know what would be allowed in the UK in this situation, and so I wouldn't know when a GTP post might be criminal in the UK.

 

[HenrySwanson]

That's not the same as Bonnie Spofforth's situation. She didn't share something she'd thought was genuine online, she created a tweet that was false, on the basis of something she'd 'heard', and the effect of that, was to kick off all the trouble we've seen over the last couple of weeks. If you're not doing that (or similar), why would you be worried?

Woman 'who first shared lies that sparked UK riots' arrested

It comes after millionaire mum Bonnie Spofforth said she was 'mortified' to be accused of being the first to spread the false rumours.

metro.co.uk

That explains it.

I saw either the Guardian or BBC article before posting about the Leicester Sq stabbings which didn't provide this information.

Still having to play guess the point with this one, which is ridiculous and exhausting after seven posts (four of which come after me asking you to explain what you're talking about, and you not doing that).

Are you suggesting that because someone was arrested for making up things about an incident that were not true, you think there's a possibility that you could be arrested for sharing a post containing a screenshot of a news article from a news website (BBC News, in this case) on GTPlanet and you are somehow worried about this?

If so, why can't you just say... that instead of all this weird, vague evasiveness?

If not, explain better. Start, middle, end, make point.

See above.

For reference, now that I know it's ok, the tweet I mentioned in one of the posts above including the video was by Twitter user PyrPrometheus

EDIT:

Should also point out....a screenshot of BBC News or anything doesn't count for much:

Elon Musk shares faked far-right 'detainment camp' post

The image was faked to look like it had come from the Daily Telegraph website.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Famine]

I'm guessing this is correct and that it stems from the quote above, which is that Henry doesn't know where the boundary is between what's allowed and what isn't.

The reason I'm guessing this is because from my perspective in the US, I also don't know what would be allowed in the UK in this situation, and so I wouldn't know when a GTP post might be criminal in the UK.

There is almost zero chance. The instances cited elsewhere of people arrested over social media posts contain gross racial hatred, incitement to violence, and what we'd refer to as "racially aggravated" (those made on the basis of race or designed to incite ongoing racist sentiment) comments.

I think "here's a screenshot of an actual BBC News article" falls some way short of being on the same level as a post whipping up racial hatred by trying to gather a mob to burn down hotels housing asylum seekers ("set fire to all the ****ing hotels full of the bastards", "mask up", "no cars so no number plates"), or one in which a suspect of a triple-murder is incorrectly identified on the basis of race alone (she made up a name, made up the fact he was an asylum-seeker, made up the fact he was on an MI6 watch list) to tap into racist sentiment. It's the old "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" thing, but with asylum seekers and atrocities.

They're so far apart it's just other-worldly to vaguepost about whether it's "safe" to make such a post, while making it anyway. Anyone who's a regular GTPlanet member ought to know that if you're in doubt, don't post it - or ask the staff first. And we'd be the second line of defence (or the first for ourselves!) if someone were to post something more race-baity than literal news.


Additionally, GTP wouldn't fall under the purview of any law regarding social media as it isn't true social media: it doesn't meet the user networking criterion.

Although the forums do feature ways for users to network and interact on their own sub-networks (follow/ignore, private message groups) the site isn't built around those features and (crucially) you cannot curate your own experience by who you follow. It is closer to an old-school bulletin board with limited networking features.

 

[HenrySwanson]

or one in which a suspect of a triple-murder is incorrectly identified on the basis of race alone (she made up a name, made up the fact he was an asylum-seeker, made up the fact he was on an MI6 watch list) to tap into racist sentiment. It's the old "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" thing, but with asylum seekers and atrocities.

Reading about her case, this doesn't appear to be true (according to her):

Discussing the far-right riots that erupted after misinformation swelled online, Ms Spofforth told MailOnline: “I’m mortified that I’m being accused of this. I did not make it up. I first received this information from somebody in Southport.”

----

If that Prometheus account had said the Leicester sq suspect was a homeless Romanian before it was confirmed, is that legal? (They said he was "of Eastern European origin"). They, like Spofforth, based it on "people who were there (at the scene of the attack)".

 

[Famine]

according to her

Yes, quite the rationalisation considering that she is definitively the source quoted across outlets which don't use second sources.

 

[HenrySwanson]

They're so far apart it's just other-worldly to vaguepost about whether it's "safe" to make such a post, while making it anyway. Anyone who's a regular GTPlanet member ought to know that if you're in doubt, don't post it - or ask the staff first. And we'd be the second line of defence (or the first for ourselves!) if someone were to post something more race-baity than literal news.

But if I saw the article @MatskiMonk posted there would be no issue.

The problem was I only saw the BBC or Guardian one, and the reactions to the Gov.uk tweet.

 

[Danoff]

I think "here's a screenshot of an actual BBC News article" falls some way short of being on the same level as a post whipping up racial hatred by trying to gather a mob to burn down hotels housing asylum seekers ("set fire to all the ****ing hotels full of the bastards", "mask up", "no cars so no number plates"), or one in which a suspect of a triple-murder is incorrectly identified on the basis of race alone (she made up a name, made up the fact he was an asylum-seeker, made up the fact he was on an MI6 watch list) to tap into racist sentiment. It's the old "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" thing, but with asylum seekers and atrocities.

I'm guessing the Henry was taking her at her word - that she was just passing this information from another source along. And Henry was probably noting some parallels between her passing information along and him passing that same information along.

If you assume that she fabricated the information for the purpose of inciting violence against a certain person or a certain group of individuals, I can see why you come to the conclusion about just how different that kind of speech might be. In the US, I would guess that these kinds of statements were libel (civil, rather than criminal). But I'm not the free speech expert that @TexRex is.

One thing that bothers me about this case is that she seems to be getting prosecuted on the basis that her statements were amplified by others, which is not necessarily something she could have reasonably foreseen. How can we hold people accountable for going viral? I think it's fair to claim that if she had fabricated the information she could have foreseen the harm that it might cause to the person she lied about, but being amplified by a russian news outlet seems like something else.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I'm guessing the Henry was taking her at her word - that she was just passing this information from another source along. And Henry was probably noting some parallels between her passing information along and him passing that same information along.

If you assume that she fabricated the information for the purpose of inciting violence against a certain person or a certain group of individuals, I can see why you come to the conclusion about just how different that kind of speech might be. In the US, I would guess that these kinds of statements were libel (civil, rather than criminal). But I'm not the free speech expert that @TexRex is.

One thing that bothers me about this case is that she seems to be getting prosecuted on the basis that her statements were amplified by others, which is not necessarily something she could have reasonably foreseen. How can we hold people accountable for going viral? I think it's fair to claim that if she had fabricated the information she could have foreseen the harm that it might cause to the person she lied about, but being amplified by a russian news outlet seems like something else.

This is where I'm confused.

I remember seeing posts calling out Nick Lowles for falsely claiming there was an acid attack on Muslim women. One video is out there of a group on the street who said it was happening which could be referring to his tweet.

 

[MatskiMonk]

One thing that bothers me about this case is that she seems to be getting prosecuted on the basis that her statements were amplified by others, which is not necessarily something she could have reasonably foreseen. How can we hold people accountable for going viral?

To me this is an incredibly weak defence. The function of the platform she used is to spread and amplify - liking & retweeting, with visible representations available of how much that is done, is a fundamental part of the platform. Yes a foreign outlet picking it up and republishing it using a different platform might be an unreasonable expectation, but the maximum extent to which a post can go viral within the same software environment is a well know quantity to users of the platform.

 

[Danoff]

I remember seeing posts calling out Nick Lowles for falsely claiming there was an acid attack on Muslim women. One video is out there of a group on the street who said it was happening which could be referring to his tweet.

What are you trying to say about this? That you think Nick Lowles did the same thing as Spofforth? It would help if you came out and said that so that I'd know where you're trying to go with this.

If that's what you're saying, your portrayal of what Nick Lowles said (I have no idea who this person is or what they said), leaves a major distinction - which is that it doesn't include targeting someone or a group of people as being responsible. It's hard to see how this is inciting violence given that the people or person it would be incited against isn't named.

 

[HenrySwanson]

What are you trying to say about this? That you think Nick Lowles did the same thing as Spofforth? It would help if you came out and said that so that I'd know where you're trying to go with this.

If that's what you're saying, your portrayal of what Nick Lowles said (I have no idea who this person is or what they said), leaves a major distinction - which is that it doesn't include targeting someone or a group of people as being responsible. It's hard to see how this is inciting violence given that the people or person it would be incited against isn't named.

The tweet I'm curious about is the top left one:



And yes, there is a difference, but then what if a racial group is identified:



If violence came from these going viral, would they both be clear.

I.e. Where is the line from those to:

“Ali Al-Shakati was the suspect, he was an asylum seeker who came to the UK by boat last year and was on an MI6 watch list. If this is true, then all hell is about to break loose.”

 

[Danoff]

The tweet I'm curious about is the top left one:



And yes, there is a difference, but then what if a racial group is identified:



If violence came from these going viral, would they both be clear.

Well obviously I'm not an expert in UK speech laws. I have no idea whether saying that a white guy pulled a headscarf is inciting violence. But I'd think not.

 

[Scaff]

The tweet I'm curious about is the top left one:



And yes, there is a difference, but then what if a racial group is identified:



If violence came from these going viral, would they both be clear.

I.e. Where is the line from those to:

“Ali Al-Shakati was the suspect, he was an asylum seeker who came to the UK by boat last year and was on an MI6 watch list. If this is true, then all hell is about to break loose.”

Intent seems to be the clear difference here, aside from that, the irony of a Daily Mail and Telegraph journalist making that claim is stunning!