Freedom of speech...

[sploo]

She called for a hotel which housed migrants to be set on fire. It's swear-wordy so here's a link instead of me doing copy paste:
set fire to hotels

Maybe it was someone else then. I could have sworn there was a case of someone who claimed (in their defence of posting inciteful material) that they did it because they thought the Southport attacker was an immigrant. Granted it's a pretty weak defense, but it was to Blackswanwood's point about the line between posting material knowingly intending to do harm, and posting material that you genuinely thought was true.

 

[Chris152]

She called for a hotel which housed migrants to be set on fire. It's swear-wordy so here's a link instead of me doing copy paste:
set fire to hotels

I'd not seen that. So, she spoke 'freely', but it wasn't truth that she failed to be responsible for (no truth claim was made), it was the consequences - in this case, other people's safety. What a delightful woman.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Doe it matter which way around the analogy was used? The results were the same., centuries of church dominance and forced dogma.

Yes, to me I definitely think it does.

Galileo's position was not a new one - and he had the evidence to prove his claim that forebears did not possess, having only philosophised at the solar-centric model. In short, Galileo owned the truth.

The church was "organised post-truth" and misinformation peddlers selling, and violently enforcing a lie. (Whilst attempting to take moral high ground and perpetrating violent torture at the same time.) The analogy is almost a perfect one.

For my money the analogy of Galileo and the church can only really fit one way around. Ymmv,

 

[Ollie78]

That's an interesting grey area. For example; I'm pretty certain I recall a lady being prosecuted for posting some false information regarding the recent "Farage Riots" that she claimed she believed to be true. Is ignorance an acceptable defence when you may have incited people to violence? In that instance the law thought not.

The thing is it has been long accepted that there is no direct link between the things said and the actual violence commited.
This is the same flawed argument that was used by people saying violent video games would make everyone murderers.

The responsibility for the violence or rioting or whatever is solely in the hands of those who participated.
You cannot really suggest that the rioting thugs were waiting for the suburban houswife ringleader to send them into action with a tweet.

 

[Chris152]

The thing is it has been long accepted that there is no direct link between the things said and the actual violence commited.

Has it?

This is the same flawed argument that was used by people saying violent video games would make everyone murderers.

As far as I'm aware, nobody said that.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I'd not seen that. So, she spoke 'freely', but it wasn't truth that she failed to be responsible for (no truth claim was made), it was the consequences - in this case, other people's safety. What a delightful woman.

It wasn't even the consequences, per se, it wouldn't have mattered if anyone had followed through on her incitement and intent to incite violence. It was the incitement itself that constitutes the offence.

The fact that it would have been blinking obvious that tensions were high and that any incitement was far more likely to be followed through in those circumstances, compared to an everyday situation, that merely constituted an "aggravating factor". It had nothing at all to do with the offence. But it did affect the sentence after the guilty plea.

You just can't legally go around either "inciting racial hatred" (which is a specified offence) or "inciting actions likely to endanger life" (which is a specified offence). Whether those incitements are conveyed in speech, or on social media posts, or in a strongly worded letter is irrelevant, it's still the same offence that is being committed and likely to bring arrest and prosecution.

 

[Jake]

Sentencing remarks are always a helpful source of actual information on something like this.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/R-v-Lucy-Connolly.pdf

 

[sploo]

The thing is it has been long accepted that there is no direct link between the things said and the actual violence commited.
This is the same flawed argument that was used by people saying violent video games would make everyone murderers.

The responsibility for the violence or rioting or whatever is solely in the hands of those who participated.
You cannot really suggest that the rioting thugs were waiting for the suburban houswife ringleader to send them into action with a tweet.

Feels like they're two different things to me. One is escaping reality (playing video games) one is twisting reality (putting out untrue information that demonises or incites violence against some individual or a group).

Said thugs would probably have been unlikely to have rioted (in that instance) without the widespread sharing of fearmongering misinformation. A mob doesn't just appear from nowhere.

 

[Chris152]

Sentencing remarks are always a helpful source of actual information on something like this.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/R-v-Lucy-Connolly.pdf

I'd never seen that - interesting stuff.

 

[Ollie78]

The thing is it has been long accepted that there is no direct link between the things said and the actual violence commited.

Has it?

Yes, it was brought up in an interview I watched with Andrew Doyle. I forget the actual name of the studies etc.

You can`t blame the Sun or Daily mail if one of their readers decides to do something violent because of a story in the paper.

This is the same flawed argument that was used by people saying violent video games would make everyone murderers.

As far as I'm aware, nobody said that.

I realise you can`t type "tone" in a forum, this was meant in a tongue in cheek way.

But, actually they did say this in various ways.
I remember considerable outrage against the first GTA games, Mortal Kombat and Doom as well.
People have tried to link video games to several school shootings in America, the same argument about movies has been made for years as well.

Same with heavy metal music, which is particularly funny as metalheads are usually really nice despite appearances.

The point is, it is the individuals responsibility for their actions no matter what they have read or watched.

 

[Chris152]

The point is, it is the individuals responsibility for their actions no matter what they have read or watched.

They are, indeed. But so too is the person who may be shown to have incited their actions. Or is Marx (Communist Manifesto) not in any way responsible for the rise of communism and its revolutions, nor Hitler (Mein Kampf) responsible for the rise of National Socialism? In some cases, words provoke very positive outcomes; in others, very negative.

 

[Blackswanwood]

You can`t blame the Sun or Daily mail if one of their readers decides to do something violent because of a story in the paper.

I think you can if they haven’t exercised a suitable level of care to make sure what they are saying is accurate. Blaming them doesn’t absolve the violent individual from also needing to accept accountability and the consequences of their actions.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

The thing is it has been long accepted that there is no direct link between the things said and the actual violence commited.
This is the same flawed argument that was used by people saying violent video games would make everyone murderers.

The responsibility for the violence or rioting or whatever is solely in the hands of those who participated.

Yep. This is true. The perpetrators of violence were arrested on charges of violent affray and similar offences.

You cannot really suggest that the rioting thugs were waiting for the suburban houswife ringleader to send them into action with a tweet.

No, that is not what is being suggested at all. Did you not read any of my posts?
The offences that the housewife committed were entirely different, See above, they were actual specified offences under certain Acts.
The housewife is therefore to be held responsible for the specific offences she committed. Not the offences of the violent perpetrators. The two are separate and distinct.


The other part of the issue with "free speech" is that it has been widely distributed by some sections of the media that the housewife in question was singled out for nothing other than "non-PC language" or other such baloney, trying to obfuscate the actual crimes that were committed (while also saying other rubbish about being 2-tier and government led) none of which is true - the worst part being that the outlets that are peddling these deliberate lies know that they are lies.
The upshot being that if you weren't actually aware that the housewife in question was sentenced for pleading guilty and admitting to "intent to incite behaviour that endangered life" (a specific offence in its own right - regardless of whether any idiots carry out that intent or not), then it is highly likely that the media that you are getting your information from is a "right wing" outlet and is deliberately obfuscating the reality, in pursuit of its own agenda.


I also see that an arrest had taken place recently connected to a death threat sent to Jess Phillips. Intent to incite behaviour that endangers life" is not entirely dissimilar to sending a death threat, whether you actually try to carry out that death threat or not. It's the sending of a death threat that constitutes the offence.
https://news.sky.com/story/man-char...s-jess-phillips-sky-news-understands-13284679

The threats sent to Jess Phillips were sparked by people using their "Free Speech". /discuss

 

[Ollie78]

They are, indeed. But so too is the person who may be shown to have incited their actions. Or is Marx (Communist Manifesto) not in any way responsible for the rise of communism and its revolutions, nor Hitler (Mein Kampf) responsible for the rise of National Socialism? In some cases, words provoke very positive outcomes; in others, very negative.

Thinking about this, I still think there is a clear separation between the ideas in the books and the actions.

I don`t think Marx was directly responsible for what the various attempts at implementing communism did. He wrote his manifesto laying out his ideas Everyone was free to read it, most took it for an interesting thought experiment that could not work in reality, some other people took it a bit too far shall we say.

Similarly if Hitler would have stopped with the book it might have all been fine.


You cannot really suggest that the rioting thugs were waiting for the suburban houswife ringleader to send them into action with a tweet.

No, that is not what is being suggested at all. Did you not read any of my posts?
The offences that the housewife committed were entirely different, See above, they were actual specified offences under certain Acts.
The housewife is therefore to be held responsible for the specific offences she committed. Not the offences of the violent perpetrators. The two are separate and distinct.

Sorry, this was not a direct reference to the particular housewife or your post specifically. More a general principle about the responsibilty for the actions.I meant "you" in a general sense, not saying you were suggesting it. If you see what I mean.

 

[Vulcan]

Given the number of people immediately imprisoned recently for spreading “Misinformation”, I was quite surprised to read that the BBC can do this without fear of prosecution, or is this incorrect?

Jeremy Bowen is still unrepentant about his fake report about that Hospital car park in Gaza damaged by a Hamas rocket.

 

[martin45]

Given the number of people immediately imprisoned recently for spreading “Misinformation”, I was quite surprised to read that the BBC can do this without fear of prosecution, or is this incorrect?

Jeremy Bowen is still unrepentant about his fake report about that Hospital car park in Gaza damaged by a Hamas rocket.

View attachment 195749

From the Telegraph, not an exactly unbiased source of information!