The shining example of British democracy

[petrus4]

In an example of the UK government's passionate defense of liberty, Amber Rudd is trying to get legislation created, which would criminalise the viewing of any material online which she considers to be "far Right" or associated with terrorism; with the penalty for viewing such material, being 15 years' imprisonment.  For context, that's almost as long as people were traditionally imprisoned for murder.

I've commented here in the past, about what a sick parody of anything remotely resembling a free society Britain has become over the last quarter century, but even I am surprised by this.  I genuinely have to wonder how far the public there are going to allow things to go, before they attempt to do anything about it.

I'm also curious about the psychological process that produces mentalities like that of Amber Rudd.  I can only assume that in some way or another, she has been subjected to severe psychological trauma, since to me advocating this kind of authoritarianism, is not remotely indicative of normal human psychology.  To me, this is a desperately unhappy human being, who is equally desperate to ensure that everyone else is as unhappy as she is.

[ArMaP]

That's from October 2017, do you know if that law was changed or if it didn't pass the idea stage?

I'm also curious about the psychological process that produces mentalities like that of Amber Rudd.  I can only assume that in some way or another, she has been subjected to severe psychological trauma, since to me advocating this kind of authoritarianism, is not remotely indicative of normal human psychology.  To me, this is a desperately unhappy human being, who is equally desperate to ensure that everyone else is as unhappy as she is.

To me looks more like someone that isn't capable of doing her job and blames everything else.

[petrus4]

That's from October 2017, do you know if that law was changed or if it didn't pass the idea stage?
To me looks more like someone that isn't capable of doing her job and blames everything else.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43037899

The above story is dated from Febuary.  It doesn't say anything about whether the legislation passed, but apparently she's now trying to implement some sort of artificially intelligent filter for flagging "extremist" content.

[ArMaP]

If they are using a different approach (software that analyses video content) I see two possibilities:
1 - Someone in the company that makes the software is related to her or her party;
2 - They decided not to go ahead with the proposed change of the terrorism law.

Both possibilities may be true.

[zorgon]

Not only that...

How posting on Facebook could send you to jail


s your last post on Facebook going to land you in jail?

It might do if it ruins a criminal trial. And the government is now looking for evidence of whether new laws are needed to stop it happening.

The Attorney General, the government's top law officer, is asking judges, police and victims' groups for examples of where posts, chat and tweets have compromised a trial.

So how can a post on social media cause such damage? And what can you do to protect yourself? Well, it's all down to whether you say something that would influence a jury.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41274961

[zorgon]

British Police Just Imprisoned A Man For Posting Mean Things About Muslims On Facebook

A man who posted what authorities deemed "hateful" things about Muslims on Facebook is facing eight counts more than a year in prison in Sussex, a coastal county in southeast England, United Kingdom.

"The charges brought in this case are extremely serious and were only brought against four people in England and Wales during 2016," said Sussex Police Hate Crime Sergeant Peter Allan (because apparently "Hate Crime Sergeant" is a real, taxpayer-funded, paid position in 2017 Great Britain). "Nigel Pelham used Facebook to express some truly offensive views, with no understanding of how serious his actions were."

The Orwellian officer continued, threatening anyone and everyone who dared to express a racist, offensive, or even cheeky opinion on their own personal social media accounts:

Many people see social media as a harmless and sometimes faceless place to air their opinions, however I hope this shows we will not tolerate this type of behaviour and will act when someone reports their concern about what someone is posting...

I hope the sentence handed down by the court on Friday acts as a deterrent to others and sends a reassuring message to those who may be directly targeted or are more widely affected by people's use of social media to spread messages of fear and hate.

I encourage people who witness such content, to report it to the provider of the social media platform, but such reports can also be made to us online.

This man used Facebook to express his hatred for muslims & has gone to prison #WeStandTogether against hate crimes https://t.co/Bo7OCDADKu

— Sussex Police (@sussex_police) June 20, 2017

https://www.dailywire.com/news/17807/british-police-just-imprisoned-man-posting-mean-joshua-yasmeh

[zorgon]

Arrests for offensive Facebook and Twitter posts soar in London
625 arrests were made for alleged section 127 offences in 2010

The number of people being arrested for "online crimes of speech" have increased dramatically in London.

While arrests for aggressive, threatening or hateful speech on social media declined between 2010 and 2013, the numbers rose last year.

According to the Register, a total of 2,500 Londoners have been arrested over the past five years for allegedly sending "offensive" messages via social media. In 2015, 857 people were detained, up 37 per cent increase since 2010.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html

[zorgon]

Not only in the UK

Here in the USA too

7 People Who Were Arrested Because Of Something They Wrote On Facebook

Many people exercise poor judgement on Facebook, a site where Freedom of Speech may no longer apply.
Recently, young Facebook users who have posted controversial status messages have ended up in jail.

Sometimes the messages they typed were actually offensive. Other times they were jokes gone terribly wrong. One teen was even arrested for posting violent rap lyrics.

Most of the time, the Facebook offenders are impulsive. They type before they think, and lately they've had to pay serious consequences.

http://www.businessinsider.com/people-arrested-for-facebook-posts-2013-7

[zorgon]

Jailed for a Facebook post: how US police target critics with arrest and prosecution

obert Peralta's life was derailed by a single Facebook comment.

When the San Franciscan saw a well-known local activist had posted about being "choked" and "slammed" by a sheriff's deputy at city hall, Peralta fired off a short response: "Wow, brother they wanna hit our general. It's time to strike back. Let's burn this motherfriger's house down."

Peralta, a 35-year-old activist and musician, didn't think twice about the 23 January Facebook thread until two months later, when he learned that police had issued a warrant for his arrest – accusing him of threatening to kill law enforcement.

"Why waste all of the county's money on this?" said Peralta, who turned himself in and was booked into jail, despite having no criminal record. "You're going to take me to jail ... for Facebook?"

Peralta's felony criminal case is part of what civil rights campaigners say is a disturbing trend of police and prosecutors targeting activists for social media posts, arresting users over innocuous political messages that constitute free speech.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-comments-arrest-prosecution

[zorgon]

THIS is why Facebook, Google Yahoo Etc is forcing you to use your REAL NAME, so they can; "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"

People forget that FREEDOM of SPEECH is NOT free. It comes with responsibilities, limitations and consequences

People forget that very few countries even have a freedom of speech law

People forget that Facebook and other forums are owned and operated by PRIVATE companies and as such are NOT OBLIGATED to give you a freedom of speech platform and can edit or delete anything they wish (ATS is very good at that )

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction. The term "freedom of expression" is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "for respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.

Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." The idea of the "offense principle" is also used in the justification of speech limitations, describing the restriction on forms of expression deemed offensive to society, considering factors such as extent, duration, motives of the speaker, and ease with which it could be avoided.

With the evolution of the digital age, application of the freedom of speech becomes more controversial as new means of communication and restrictions arise, for example the Golden Shield Project, an initiative by Chinese government's Ministry of Public Security that filters potentially unfavorable data from foreign countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

[petrus4]

People forget that FREEDOM of SPEECH is NOT free. It comes with responsibilities, limitations and consequences

People forget that very few countries even have a freedom of speech law

I also need to remember that it is something which most people fundamentally do not want; or perhaps more accurately, don't believe they need.  I can remember reading somewhere that the War of Independence was apparently fought by less than 5% of the total American population of the time.

Solar Aquarian natives consist of around 10% of the overall human population; and it is apparently our ethical responsibility to be martyred by the psychopaths, so that the other 90% can enjoy a level of freedom which they consciously do not want, and do not appreciate our attempts to obtain.