Online Safety Act

[mudman]

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



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?



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/

So are you saying that there are people in our society (let's keep it to our society here in this country) that feel that violence is right? I suppose there might be but I would bet that the majority believe it to be wrong. There may be a significant number that like violence, but I bet the majority of even those know that it is wrong.
I think you are arguing for argument's sake and are trying to have the last word but you are also still trying to outlaw thoughts and speech when the problem is the actions. If a bunch of kids are doing as you say, then that is bullying, it is an activity that goes counter to another's wellbeing, the fact that they made use of various media as part of their campaign of bullying is not the issue, it is the bullying that is the issue. It is the bullying that needs addressing. Say we ban them from accessing social media and have dedicated police teams to monitor and prosecute people that use hurty words to bully online. Do you think we can then sit back and pat ourselves on the back as since they can no longer spread these lies online that the problem is fixed? Of course not, they will resort to paper written notes, verbal insults, physical attacks, plus any of the other tactics that I'm sure a lot of us had experience of before the internet. You cannot fix problems by suppression of speech and expression and if you try, you will fail.

 

[martin45]

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).

I absolutely disagree with this!

Was Hitler's state sponsored violence OK? Was Stalin's state sponsored violence OK? Is Israels state sponsored violence OK?

Don't presume to speak for me or "everyone" about state sponsored violence.

 

[ey_tony]

Perhaps we should ban all hurty words or combinations of them so that no one could ever feel hurt or offended on the internet or elsewhere for that matter!

Freedom of speech in a democracy allows one to hold opinions good or bad which others may agree or disagree with...that is the essence of freedom of speech/expression and it's up to everyone in society who disagrees with certain opinions to make their feelings known. It's society which should dictate what is offensive and what is not acceptable and make it known. ..once you introduce intervention in the form of government authoritarian laws you no longer have freedom of speech. Instead you have a form of pseudo-free speech which is not the same and once it starts then the oppression begins.

Freedom of speech of course does not entitle or give anyone the right for anyone to incite racial hatred or any other form of prejudice or violence toward other groups but we should be entitled to express our opinions without fear of reprisals from an authoritarian government.

Many in our society are being sleep-walked, whether they want to acknowledge it or not into the dystopian world of Orwell's 1984.

 

[mudman]

I absolutely disagree with this!

Was Hitler's state sponsored violence OK? Was Stalin's state sponsored violence OK? Is Israels state sponsored violence OK?

Don't presume to speak for me or "everyone" about state sponsored violence.

Looks like a nerve has been touched.
I should have said 'state sanctioned violence' and it was a bit tongue in cheek. It is a bit different and includes such things as death penalties, forceful removal of protestors from highways although it could include the prosecution of wars. There would of course be many that would object to the state initiating violence against individuals or states. You are perfectly free to object if you wish. I'm sure there were many that objected to Britain declaring war on Germany and you can happily count yourself amongst the ranks of the just and righteous.

 

[Sachakins]

But what about those that do get attacked for spreading lies,only to find out later it wasn't lies.

 

[Chris152]

I suppose the ideal of those in favour of unfettered free speech is that reason and evidence will sort the wheat from the chaff, truth from lie, right from wrong, virtue from sin (or whatever). However, this isn't the Oxford debating society, it's the internet. Great swathes of the population don't have the skills and understanding to make those distinctions and are all too easily (mis)led, so limits have to be put on how much malignant claptrap can be said/ written.

Musk/ Welsh refugee charity workers, just one of seemingly endless examples:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78xdxzyxm2o

 

[Ollie78]

I think we need to remember the extremely privilaged position from which we are currently having this debate.

We are allowed at present to freely discuss any subject. We have until recently been able to live and work anywhere in Europe, we can marry whoever we like, same sex, different sex, we can even pretend to be the opposite sex. No one is oppressing anyone ( in general ). We can have any job we want if we get the right skills/ qualifications. We can all vote, have access to education, health services etc

This position is only something we have been able to enjoy for a relatively short period. Not long ago in the grand scheme of things, many of us would have been punished horribly as heretics for disagreeing with the church ( especially me ), most of us would have been serfs who could not speak up against the tyranny of the local baron.
Women got the vote in 1928, homosexuality was only made legal in 1967.

I think it is easy to become complacent when we live in what only 100 years ago would be veiwed as an impossible utopia.

This is one of the reasons some of us are worried that things like the online safety act are a step towards authoritarianism.
It is not in isolation either, there are other worrying signs, such as the very concept of "non crime hate incidents" , police manpower being used to investigate people for having an opinion on twitter, arresting a girl for posting a rap lyric in tribute to her friend who died, the behaviour of the government during covid etc etc.

Each small freedom reduction is a step in the wrong direction. I think it is important to be vigilant.

It does not take long for a country to change completely, look at Iran for example.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

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

Lol. I sent a big fat bear trap. And I caught one.

What if I told you that it is the sentencing guidelines that are in effect *at the time of the crime* that are the guidelines that are used after a trial conviction or a guilty plea, to set the sentence.
(Similarly with trials of offences and updates of criminal legislation - it is the offence legislation that is extant at the point of commuting the offence that is used for a trial.)

Even if guidelines are updated after an event, the updated guidelines are not the guidelines that are used for sentencing. It is the guidelines that were extant at the time of the offence that are used by the Judge to decide sentence.

Please feel free to criticise my "idealism" some more. I'll just provide the facts.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

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

It doesn't "appear" this to me.
It might "appear" this to people who are told that this is how it "appears" by their media