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 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

 

[Scruples]

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.

Taking the extreme opposite example is a lost cause. Freedom and freedom of speech are meant as freedoms, within limits. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. When I watch interactions between the police and 'members of the public', I think the UK is better.

No, our society is not walking anywhere it doesn't want to go. If a government move towards a more restrictive position that the majority of the electrorate don't like, it will not last long. Before long a new party will appear which will satisfy the people with its pledges and end up in power.
That is the voice of the people at work.

Just as the people voted out the Tories (which was a mistake, in my view) so they would remove any government that attempted sweeping changes to our democracy.

 

[MikeJhn]

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.

And we still pay people to have children.

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.

I find the above offensive (anti-Semitism) in that "Israels state sponsored violence" has always been in defence, I can't think of a single instance where the Israelis started a conflict.

 

[Chris152]

I find the above offensive (anti-Semitism) in that "Israels state sponsored violence" has always been in defence, I can't think of a single instance where the Israelis started a conflict.

It's still violence, whether you consider it offensive or defensive.

 

[Blackswanwood]

I find the above offensive (anti-Semitism) in that "Israels state sponsored violence" has always been in defence, I can't think of a single instance where the Israelis started a conflict.

Criticising or not agreeing with the policies or actions of Israel is not antisemitic. It would be antisemitic to deny the right of Israel to exist or to use slurs or tropes about Jews to reference Israel.

Getting back to the point of this thread, just because someone finds something offensive doesn’t mean it will contravene the Online Safety Act.

 

[mudman]

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.

You caught nothing. I started to reply but decided that I really can't be bothered to interact with your tedious essays that rely on factual cherry picking so just left it with how I see you.
You can't expose as many 'facts' in your faux pseudo-intellectual condescending. manner as much as you want. Your facts may be how things should be but it is apparent from what actually happens that that isn't the case and a 'message' had been sent. No, I and no one else on this forum can prove it, but it is apparent that that is happening and a two tier justice system has evolved in this country.
Please carry on in your own little world but spare us the essays.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

You caught nothing. I started to reply but decided that I really can't be bothered to interact with your tedious essays that rely on factual cherry picking so just left it with how I see you.
You can't expose as many 'facts' in your faux pseudo-intellectual condescending. manner as much as you want. Your facts may be how things should be but it is apparent from what actually happens that that isn't the case and a 'message' had been sent. No, I and no one else on this forum can prove it, but it is apparent that that is happening and a two tier justice system has evolved in this country.
Please carry on in your own little world but spare us the essays.

Wait, what?

Here's how it works:

Man commits crime on Monday.
Man is arrested and charged on Tuesday.
Sentencing Guidance is amended on Wednesday.
*
*
Man pleads guilty and appears in court for sentencing at a later date...


Which Sentencing Guidance do you think is used by the judge?
Mondays?
Or Wednesdays?

So yeah, for all the research you did to attempt to "link" government to "harsher sentencing", you forgot to look at the process by which Sentencing Guidance is actually used. Which negates any "link".

Also, logic dictates that when a strong spotlight is shone on *the judiciary* and *judicial processes* - the effect is that *the judiciary* is far more careful to do things in an as-above-board, transparent, professional, diligent and as fair a way as is possible. Everything else is just tin-hattery

 

[mudman]

Wait, what?

Here's how it works:

Man commits crime on Monday.
Man is arrested and charged on Tuesday.
Sentencing Guidance is amended on Wednesday.
*
*
Man pleads guilty and appears in court for sentencing at a later date...


Which Sentencing Guidance do you think is used by the judge?
Mondays?
Or Wednesdays?

So yeah, for all the research you did to attempt to "link" government to "harsher sentencing", you forgot to look at the process by which Sentencing Guidance is actually used. Which negates any "link".

Also, logic dictates that when a strong spotlight is shone on *the judiciary* and *judicial processes* - the effect is that *the judiciary* is far more careful to do things in an as-above-board, transparent, professional, diligent and as fair a way as is possible. Everything else is just tin-hattery

Oh for feck sake. All this because you couldn't see my point?
Go back and re-read it. Then you might realise that:

1. You said that the government had no influence on the sentencing guidelines as they were set by the judiciary.

2. I then showed that they do have an influence as they have quite a big say about who sits on the body that sets them.

That was all. I didn't say that any pressure was brought to bare to give harsh sentences as a lesson. I just showed you to be wrong with this statement:

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.

You just don't like being wrong and will argue the toss forever.

 

[ey_tony]

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

Given that Trump's inauguration is just about upon us, I've no doubt that the internet forums accessible to UK surfers will be full of anti-Trump rhetoric. To Trump supporters, much of it vile.

Should British people who post such hate filled anti-Trump rhetoric be prosecuted to the same level of vilification if those posts meet the same criteria of generating hate much as they did over the events which took place in Southport and elsewhere after the child killings?

Curiously the date of the opening of the trial of the perpetrator chosen just happens to coincide with Trump's inauguration....talk about the government/judiciary choosing a day on which to bury bad news...only the most blind of observers would not see that the establishment are using Trump's inauguration to deflect attention from the trial.
I also note that legal threats have been made against anyone even commenting on the trial on social media.

George Orwell's '1984' is quite apt today...

 

[Scruples]

And we still pay people to have children.


I find the above offensive (anti-Semitism) in that "Israels state sponsored violence" has always been in defence, I can't think of a single instance where the Israelis started a conflict.

I disagree. Israel has, since its establishment in its new state territory, strived to expand by using settlers to push beyond its set boundaries while turning a blind eye; the end justifies the means, right? The world knows and recognises that; Israel has been condemned by the UN and other global assemblies. Israel puts pressure on other countries to supress criticism of the illegal activities.

 

[ey_tony]

Taking the extreme opposite example is a lost cause. Freedom and freedom of speech are meant as freedoms, within limits. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. When I watch interactions between the police and 'members of the public', I think the UK is better.

No, our society is not walking anywhere it doesn't want to go. If a government move towards a more restrictive position that the majority of the electrorate don't like, it will not last long. Before long a new party will appear which will satisfy the people with its pledges and end up in power.
That is the voice of the people at work.

Just as the people voted out the Tories (which was a mistake, in my view) so they would remove any government that attempted sweeping changes to our democracy.

The only thing I'll agree with is your point about voting out the Tories. That was a huge mistake which people are beginning to realise and pay for.

However we saw an example of government totalitarianism with the hastily implemented prosecutions and silencing of criticism on social media after the events surrounding the Southport child killings and that the government had barely been voted it so it was clear that contingency plans were already afoot to deal with such events before the Labour government had even been elected.

Make no mistake, I neither condone nor support the violence that we saw after the child killings nor the online incitement to violence but it was clear that the police/establishment covered up the facts which contributed to the violence that followed. They used the ploy that the perpetrator was born in the UK so it couldn't have been terror related. Sadly just because a goat is born in a stable, it doesn't make it a horse and terrorism doesn't necessarily mean that the perpetrators were born elsewhere.

Journalists and ordinary people are now receiving visits from the police for something they said online or in print based on nonsense non-crime hate incidents....that's reminiscent of Cold War East Germany's STASI so to claim that we live in a society that supports freedom of speech unfortunately doesn't ring true and I've no doubt that things will only be even more restricted if government's get their way.

 

[Sachakins]

No, our society is not walking anywhere it doesn't want to go. If a government move towards a more restrictive position that the majority of the electrorate don't like, it will not last long. Before long a new party will appear which will satisfy the people with its pledges and end up in power.
That is the voice of the people at work.

Idealistic view, it's the government that calls an election, not the people.
A government with a large majority can easily push through measures to restrict freedoms during their term. Meaning it would be up to five years before you get chance to vote them out. In that time your freedoms have been eroded and significant damage done.