Online Safety Act

[Delaney]

No, this is an out and out lie.

The government of the day does not and cannot interfere with "severe sentencing". It cannot. Sentencing is specifically controlled by the Judiciary. Current Sentencing Guidance is edited and amended ONLY by the Judiciary.

There are many examples where political pressure had a massive effect on sentencing.

Also he Home Sec sets guidelines for college of policing. The idea they are totally separate is naive and ignores a large amount of evidence.

 

[mudman]

The irony note was in relation to Delaney's statement. The sarcasm was the example I provided afterwards. Two entirely different things. But let's not get into semantics.

No let's get into semantics, that is what is important as it has to do with the meaning of words. I pulled you up on your response to Delaney where you had a clumsy attempt at what you then wanted to call irony but originally claimed was sarcasm.

The entire point I am making is that there should be consequences to 'free speech' that actively causes harm and this should be proportionate to the situation and outcome. A sarcastic example like this is unlikely to cause harm, and if so a possibly appropriate consequence would be an apology (Apologies to Delaney if my sarcasm caused offence), an inappropriate consequence would be armed police smashing down my door and arresting me. But the police aren't going to do that and this new amend to the law is not going to make them do that, despite the insistence that if we can't say anything to anyone (apparently excluding calls to violence because reasons) we'll instantly become a dictatorship.

You have said that you don't want free speech, that it is nonsense, but now you seem to be saying that it is okay so long as there are consequences but maybe not inappropriate consequences. So, are you in favour of free speech or not?

I believe I'm correct that we weren't in a dicatorship before the internet, so I'm reasonably confident that we won't suddenly end up in one if more laws are in place so that I'm not allowed to send online death threats to people in the name of free speech. The playing field changed and we are now updating the rules, it may take a while to get right but allowing a complete wild west internet is clearly not working.

You are but as someone above pointed out, restrictions on free speech can quickly escalate and lead to a repressed society,

 

[Blackswanwood]

The ideals of free speech have always been nested in the idea that we do make explicit calls to violence.

Really?

 

[Jake]

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are asking for. I gave you some definitions, as you seem to be confusing what they actually mean. So, as your question needs some work, I'll wait for you to refine it, then I may be able to answer it.

You don't know as much as you think you do, and you definitely do not understand this as well as I do.

You can start with reading the text of the HRA or the ECHR, it doesn't matter which. If you do that, I'll entertain further responses but if you CBA to even read the basics, I'm out.

 

[mudman]

No, this is an out and out lie.

The government of the day does not and cannot interfere with "severe sentencing". It cannot. Sentencing is specifically controlled by the Judiciary. Current Sentencing Guidance is edited and amended ONLY by the Judiciary.

Okay lets look at this:

1. The Sentencing Act 2020 states that:

(1)Every court—

(a)must, in sentencing an offender, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s case, and

(b)must, in exercising any other function relating to the sentencing of offenders, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the exercise of the function,

2. Who creates the Sentencing Guidelines? Well, it is the Sentencing Council, provision for which was created by the The Sentencing Guidelines Council (Supplementary Provisions) Order 2004. There's not a lot in that order but one interesting thing to note is that:

Removal of members​

3. The appropriate Minister may remove a judicial member or non-judicial member from the Council if he is satisfied that that member is—

(a)incapable of continuing to be a member of the Council; or

(b)has behaved in such a way that he is unfit to be a member of the Council.

3. Who appoints the members?
The Lord Chancellor appoints non-judicial members after an open competition
The Lord Chief Justice appoints judicial members with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor

So, the judiciary have to take the sentencing guidelines into account when sentencing, it is possible for government ministers to remove any member if the member deems him/her unfit. The Lord Chancellor, a government appointment, appoints some non-judicial members and has a say in who the judicial members are.

So, my contention is that the government have the tools at their disposal to interfere and influence sentencing by the judiciary.

 

[Agent_zed]

You insist I contradicted myself but I didn’t.

To me this is a contradiction:

If you say ‘i believe in feee speech but…’ you’re an authoritarian. You have authoritarian tendencies and you want to control the world based on your principles.

you then in the line after state:

We have a sensible guide line regarding free speech; no call to violence. Hypocritically I think we should have a law saying ‘no calls to remove freedoms’. A far more pernicious and dangerous use of language imo.

So if we take 'i believe in free speech but...' and add your sensible guideline of 'no call to violence'

we get 'i believe in free speech, but no call to violence' so in your own words you’re an authoritarian and want to control the world based on your principles.

We all have lines in the sand. I'm not arguing this is wrong, just to make you see that you too have specific things you want put (or left in) place.
Yours appears to be everything up to but not including calls to violence. My line is lower because I don't believe the current free for all on the internet is good for anyone, but that doesn't mean I want everyone silenced. In the same way that when motorways were introduced with no speed limits people did stupid speeds which endangered everyone, so they had to introduce sensible limits. They didn't take everyone's, excepts the ruling elites, right to drive on them away, they just made it reasonably safe for the majority.

 

[bbtex]

You don't know as much as you think you do, and you definitely do not understand this as well as I do.

You can start with reading the text of the HRA or the ECHR, it doesn't matter which. If you do that, I'll entertain further responses but if you CBA to even read the basics, I'm out.

I definitely know far less than I'd like to know, but if what I know is less than what I think I do, well, then I guess I have a learning opportunity. You could help out I think but I get the impression that you won't. I think I'll leave you to your calls for oppression and the removal of human rights in this country.

 

[Chris152]

I definitely know far less than I'd like to know, but if what I know is less than what I think I do, well, then I guess I have a learning opportunity. You could help out I think but I get the impression that you won't.

Well, he did suggest you read the text of the HRA or the ECHR - have you done that? I'm sure it'd take some time and effort.

 

[Jake]

So, my contention is that the government have the tools at their disposal to interfere and influence sentencing by the judiciary.

On a generic level you are right. It's more basic than that, the government (in reality, technically acting through Parliament) can and do determine in laws what possible sentences attach to what offences. The sentencing guidelines then provide more nuanced context as to what factors go to where in the range of permissible sentences a sentence in a particular case should land.

What doesn't (or at least shouldn't) happen is government intervening in the sentencing of an individual or particular case. The last Tory government didn't always entirely respect that.

 

[Jake]

Well, he did suggest you read the text of the HRA or the ECHR - have you done that? I'm sure it'd take some time and effort.

There's a nice basic guide here:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act

 

[Agent_zed]

No let's get into semantics, that is what is important as it has to do with the meaning of words. I pulled you up on your response to Delaney where you had a clumsy attempt at what you then wanted to call irony but originally claimed was sarcasm.

This is what I said:

Somewhat amusing that you berate people for applying a caveat to free speech, and then immediately go on to say you think it's sensible to have a caveat to free speech.

Why can't I call for violence, why are you trying to silence me and take my freedom of speech? We'll end up in a N.Korean dictatorship if we can't call for violence to prevent it.
(To be clear this is sarcasm in case it was not obvious)

I never said this was ironic? I can't find where I said anything was ironic (although I haven't checked all my posts)
'Somewhat amusing that you berate people for applying a caveat to free speech, and then immediately go on to say you think it's sensible to have a caveat to free speech. '

This is sarcasm (Definition: the use of remarks that clearly mean the opposite of what they say, made in order to hurt someone's feelings or to criticize something in a humorous way: ) Note the 'or criticize something in a humorous way'.

'Why can't I call for violence, why are you trying to silence me and take my freedom of speech? We'll end up in a N.Korean dictatorship if we can't call for violence to prevent it.
(To be clear this is sarcasm in case it was not obvious)'

You have said that you don't want free speech, that it is nonsense, but now you seem to be saying that it is okay so long as there are consequences but maybe not inappropriate consequences. So, are you in favour of free speech or not?

You missed a word in my post - 'absolute'. There are many people calling for 'absolute free speech' including Elon Musk, the worlds richest man and
owner of one of the biggest social media sites with the ability to manipulate what is said and what is seen by millions upon millions of people.

Do you agree that inciting violence shouldn't be allowed in free speech? Because if you do then you fall into applying caveats which is no difference to what I'm saying, we just have different caveats.


For clarity https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sarcasm

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

There are many examples where political pressure had a massive effect on sentencing.

Also he Home Sec sets guidelines for college of policing. The idea they are totally separate is naive and ignores a large amount of evidence.

Evidence:

"Enemy of the People" - when Judiciary stood up against a standing government's agenda.

(In reality, the truth was that the Judiciary were the "enemy of a sitting government that would break the law in pursuit of an extremist agenda")

I disagree about the "political pressure" = ""effect on sentencing"".

In reality, all that happens is that the spotlight is shone on a particular case and that results in media coverage - which in turn forces the Judiciary to act in as fair and dispassionate and appropriate manner that is possible.
It just gives the false appearance of bringing an effect to the sentencing. To say it has an effect (ie - an unfair and detrimental effect to the convicted) is an over-stretch of your knowledge and exposure to the legal system. Guided by your "choice" of media. Nothing more, nothing less.


Also, providing "guidelines" to the College of Policing - which are open source and public record - is not an interference to Policing or over-stepping authority. Guidelines are not rules and they are not binding, and they absolutely certainly cannot coerce Policing to step outside the boundaries of the law, the legal system, the legislation, and the historical norms of sentencing guidelines. It is definitely true to say that some offences are "pursued" more than others, depending upon the prevailing circumstances - but this does not translate into the Police acting as an arm of an ideological agenda of a sitting government - this is again utter lies and baloney. All you have to do is think - Drink Drive campaigns and the "LINK" with Christmas Season. Sentencing "guidance" for Drink Driving might even be harsher during December - deliberately - as a "deterrent" - and thus sentencing guidelines have ever been used thusly. It doesn't imply a link between "government pressure" and "harsher sentencing" - all that this implies is a link between "media spotlight coverage" and "objectively unprejudicial" sentencing. When the spotlight shines - the Judiciary need to BE SEEN to be acting in an objective and unbiased way as possible. Everything else is just spin. Some people actually fall for that spin.

 

[mudman]

Well, he did suggest you read the text of the HRA or the ECHR - have you done that? I'm sure it'd take some time and effort.

.
Edited as I thought you were talking to me when you were talking to BBTex so removed my reply.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Okay lets look at this:

1. The Sentencing Act 2020 states that:


2. Who creates the Sentencing Guidelines? Well, it is the Sentencing Council, provision for which was created by the The Sentencing Guidelines Council (Supplementary Provisions) Order 2004. There's not a lot in that order but one interesting thing to note is that:


3. Who appoints the members?
The Lord Chancellor appoints non-judicial members after an open competition
The Lord Chief Justice appoints judicial members with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor

So, the judiciary have to take the sentencing guidelines into account when sentencing, it is possible for government ministers to remove any member if the member deems him/her unfit. The Lord Chancellor, a government appointment, appoints some non-judicial members and has a say in who the judicial members are.

So, my contention is that the government have the tools at their disposal to interfere and influence sentencing by the judiciary.

Does the timeline for any of ^this process^ conform to the speed of convictions last year of those that entered a plea of guilty for online communications offences?
In other words "Can Starmer lock people up for thought crimes?"

The answer is, of course, a big fat no.

Government set The Principles. (Actually, Parliament do, but we'll bypass that notion...)
Policing is under the auspices of *The Principles* that have previously been set and published. Not the government. The link is indirect to ensure separation of all three arms.
Likewise, the UK Judiciary is compliant with The Principles set in the past by Parliament. They are not beholden to government "reaching in" and setting those Principles aside or changing those Principles markedly out of kilter from previous Principles. The link is indirect to ensure and protect the separation of the legal processes.

 

[Sachakins]

No, this is an out and out lie.

The government of the day does not and cannot interfere with "severe sentencing". It cannot. Sentencing is specifically controlled by the Judiciary. Current Sentencing Guidance is edited and amended ONLY by the Judiciary.

Correct about sentencing guidelines, but it does appear that the sentences drift upwards to maximum when government highlight a concern of a specific interest.

 

[JimJay]

You haven't got children in the digital age then.

If people can't act responsibly in creating or adequately safeguarding their children, then frankly they have no business having any. "Feckless parenting" takes more forms than just uncontrolled sprogging on bennies, and "the digital age" is no reason for expecting the rest of society to shoulder the burden for you.

 

[mudman]

This is what I said:



I never said this was ironic? I can't find where I said anything was ironic (although I haven't checked all my posts)
'Somewhat amusing that you berate people for applying a caveat to free speech, and then immediately go on to say you think it's sensible to have a caveat to free speech. '

Here you go it is here: https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/threads/online-safety-act.150930/post-1789790

This is sarcasm (Definition: the use of remarks that clearly mean the opposite of what they say, made in order to hurt someone's feelings or to criticize something in a humorous way: ) Note the 'or criticize something in a humorous way'.

It is derived from the Greek for 'tearing of the flesh'. My old English teacher said that the main difference between irony and sarcasm is the intent with sarcasm intending to wound or offend.

'Why can't I call for violence, why are you trying to silence me and take my freedom of speech? We'll end up in a N.Korean dictatorship if we can't call for violence to prevent it.
(To be clear this is sarcasm in case it was not obvious)'


You missed a word in my post - 'absolute'. There are many people calling for 'absolute free speech' including Elon Musk, the worlds richest man and
owner of one of the biggest social media sites with the ability to manipulate what is said and what is seen by millions upon millions of people.

Do you agree that inciting violence shouldn't be allowed in free speech? Because if you do then you fall into applying caveats which is no difference to what I'm saying, we just have different caveats.


For clarity https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sarcasm

The use of incitement to violence is a bit of a specious argument. As a society, we all agree that violence is wrong (unless state sponsored of course). The corollary isn't saying that you mustn't talk about incitement but that you mustn't incite others to commit violence. You can say that that is a restriction of free speech but you are trying to use the argument to support your position that free speech as a whole should be limited. What you and others here seems to want is the ability to restrict freedom of speech to outlaw the expression of opinions without considering the intent. If the sharpening of chisels in such a way as to purposely create a rounded bevel were to be made illegal, then your logic would extend to expressing the desire to create a rounded bevel becoming an indictable offense. It is the implementation of pre-crime without the pre-cogs.

 

[mudman]

Does the timeline for any of ^this process^ conform to the speed of convictions last year of those that entered a plea of guilty for online communications offences?
In other words "Can Starmer lock people up for thought crimes?"

The answer is, of course, a big fat no.

Government set The Principles. (Actually, Parliament do, but we'll bypass that notion...)
Policing is under the auspices of *The Principles* that have previously been set and published. Not the government. The link is indirect to ensure separation of all three arms.
Likewise, the UK Judiciary is compliant with The Principles set in the past by Parliament. They are not beholden to government "reaching in" and setting those Principles aside or changing those Principles markedly out of kilter from previous Principles. The link is indirect to ensure and protect the separation of the legal processes.

You seem to live in an ideal world but I fear that in reality you are a naïve idealist.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The UK may appear largely compliant with a doctrine separating parliament from the judiciary.

This is overly simplistic - judges are human, albeit selected with regard for a reputation evidencing high levels of integrity and competence.

In discharging responsibilities, the judiciary will inevitably have regard for external pressures. This may be media reporting, commonly held political views and priorities, and even the "carrot" of personal advancement to the more senior or titled.

In their day to day actions the judiciary seem substantially independent of immediate external pressure - although the very swift response to the riots could have been a sensible prioritisation given public order implications, or the result of political pressure.

 

[Agent_zed]

It is derived from the Greek for 'tearing of the flesh'. My old English teacher said that the main difference between irony and sarcasm is the intent with sarcasm intending to wound or offend.

Maybe your old English teacher should read the Cambridge Dictionary definition then so he has the correct up to date definition.

Ah yeah I did say

I understood exactly what Delaney was saying and he clearly contradicted himself by adding a caveat that he's happy with, whilst denying someone else to have a caveat that they agree with. Clearly you did not understand the irony of such a statement.

Again according to Cambridge Dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony) 'a situation in which something which was intended to have a particular result has the opposite or a very different result:' So yes, under that definition I would class that as ironic.

Are we happy now with the use of Sarcastic and Ironic as per the Cambridge Dictionary definitions?

The use of incitement to violence is a bit of a specious argument. As a society, we all agree that violence is wrong (unless state sponsored of course). The corollary isn't saying that you mustn't talk about incitement but that you mustn't incite others to commit violence. You can say that that is a restriction of free speech but you are trying to use the argument to support your position that free speech as a whole should be limited. What you and others here seems to want is the ability to restrict freedom of speech to outlaw the expression of opinions without considering the intent. If the sharpening of chisels in such a way as to purposely create a rounded bevel were to be made illegal, then your logic would extend to expressing the desire to create a rounded bevel becoming an indictable offense. It is the implementation of pre-crime without the pre-cogs.

Do 'we all agree'? That's a bit presumptuous, isn't it? There are plenty of people calling for violence either directly or very thinly veiled as standing up for their rights, I'm assuming they don't agree.

But let's pretend we all agree - Why do we all agree? Because it is already in place and we don't like change? Perhaps it is in place because there was a time when it wasn't in place when it was causing a problem to society, so governments added it to law to limit that problem. You've just picked this point in time and decided that there should be no further change. There is always change and rules need to change accordingly. Our entire social landscape has changed beyond most of our imaginations in the 1990's onward, yet the laws have not.

At the moment there is nothing to stop people going online and spreading lies about people and events. Sometimes this gets people hurt or killed or affects their lives in profound ways. Is it ok for a group of kids to all express their dislike for a classmate by spreading lies and verbally abusing them? As long as they don't call for violence then surely that's ok? Is it ok for Elon Musk to accuse poll workers of stuffing ballot boxes with no evidence whatsoever, so those people get death threats and have to leave their homes? Is it ok to amplify lies about some random innocent guy https://www.mediaite.com/fake-news/...onspiracy-theorists-and-elon-musk-speaks-out/ Or lies about Fauci - https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/th...-18-million-house-appears-completely-made-up/