Right, but that's not a free speach issue. I can critise a public officials handling of a situation, or disagree with a policy, or publicly protest a law, and not go to prison.
I cannot be wantonly offensive about a minister just because I don't like them, up to including threatening behaviour.
Have you ever sent anyone a message that later turned out to be false?[1] Do you have £50k on hand to defend yourself against the accusation that you knew it to be false when you sent it? Perhaps you'd rather spend 18 months on remand in the meantime, just to be sure you don't send anything else that might also be false, while we prepare your trial (which may or may not collapse due to a complete lack of evidence).
You seem to have overlooked the clause 179.1.C. If I send a death threat to someone, or I incite violence by spreading misinformation (like happened in Southport) there are consequences.
That's what it covers, not a random tweet that says "I think the sky is actually green".
There are people facing genuine harassment, death threat, rape threat every day; that's what the law protects against.
If you were to dox me, threaten mine and my families life repeatedly, spread lies about me that convince other people to do the same, then that would be closer to the definition of _reasonable_ psychological harm.
We can see that scenario playing out for people right now, some of whom actually come to harm because of it.
Look at some of the hate directed at MP Jess Philips on Twitter recently based on downright lies, and the mob that stirred up as a result, as an example.
Section 127 is problematic and should be updated for the internet age, but it’s disingenuous to imply that any “indecent, obscene or menacing” tweet will send you to jail.
In particular, the European Convention of Human Rights article 10 guarantees freedom of expression and overrules both of those acts: “This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”
So really S127 and the MCA cover extreme cases of harassment or abuse. Where it’s a problem is what makes something “grossly” offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing; the interpretation is down to the layers of magistrates and judges overseeing each case.
Again, the ECHR’s freedom of expression takes precedence. Good news! You can still post bad takes and disinformation online!
But you can’t abuse people with it. For example sending a hate mob on someone, defamation, swatting etc. (which are also covered by other acts).
And again, S127 is problematic because it doesn’t clearly define a line, it leaves it up to the courts on a case-by-case basis. Much of British common law is like that though.
I think you're grossly underestimating the CPSs ability to misinterpret legislation when it's convenient. On convictions:
> ECHR’s freedom of expression takes precedence
It takes 5 years on average to exhaust domestic remedies. Then another 3 years (on average) for the ECHR to hear your case. Needless to say, you can't afford it anyway.
I’m not underestimating, I said it was a problem several times, and also said it should be changed.
Codifying it wouldn’t help it being abused though, and the US court system also has such problems, it takes time to prove that a right is being breached and a lot is down to the judge.
Also, there are strict limits to how long you can be fined or imprisoned under S127. The majority of cases result in small fines.
But none of this is related to your opinion. So you are still free to state your opinion.
Insult, defamation, misinformation and hate should not be given the protection under the umbrella of free speech.
"Allow the use of cookies from Meta on this browser?
We use cookies and similar technologies to help provide and improve content on
. We also use them to provide a safer experience by using information we receive from cookies on and off Meta Quest, and to provide and improve Meta Products for people who have an account.
•
Essential cookies: These cookies are required to use Meta Products and are necessary for our sites to work as intended.
•
Cookies from other companies: We use these cookies to show you ads off of Meta Products and to provide features like maps and videos on Meta Products. These cookies are optional.
You have control over the optional cookies we use. Learn more about cookies and how we use them, and review or change your choices at any time in our
.
"
Hah definitely now, tho we’ll see how things play out.
I really hate how poisoned the well has become on this topic, there’s definitely elitism and exclusion that should be systematically addressed in hiring. I’d support programs promoting cheaper and universally-accessible paths to getting skilled jobs (e.g. accepting projects/certs/etc or offering literal job training) as long as they were open to anyone regardless of protected characteristics. You shouldn’t need to mainline an ivy-league path your entire childhood to have a chance at being hired at Google. I think such programs would be far less controversial and produce real value for real people.
This is similar to a popular game we used to play in recess (or sometimes during class) in high school, when IT rooms first started to become a thing. The idea was to start on a random article and try to reach pages of famous historical political figures by clicking as few links as possible, or by being the fastest.
Encouraging talented people from underrepresented or marginalised groups to apply, for example through DEI programs, will help find the best candidates to ensure safe and efficient operation.
