Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service in UK

https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-sentenced-grossly-offensive-tweet-tom-moore-joseph-kelly

317 364 4 years ago

hunglee2• 4 years ago

Interesting case: drunken tweet to a small follower count, deleted after 20 minutes, leading to prosecution and conviction. The Online Safety Bill which is due to be passed, with further empower institutions to police 'harmful messages'. I guess ideological conformity is a good thing for stable society?

onion2k3• 4 years ago

I guess ideological conformity is a good thing for stable society?

I don't think this is about "ideological conformity". No one is stopping you thinking, or saying, whatever you want at any time. The problem is when you use a platform to broadcast that message to a wider audience, especially one like Twitter that will show your posts to people who don't follow you.

mantas• 4 years ago

That's like prosecuting for saying wrong stuff out in a street because someone may have heard our and friends' chat.

conradfr2• 4 years ago

No one is stopping you (...) saying, whatever you want at any time.

Well it seems this law actually does that.

candiodari2• 4 years ago

The problem is that that is never, ever, where it stops. There's always people that society suddenly decides are "really important", usually the most dumb-witted, cruel abusers you can come up with.

And of course, the rules don't apply to them. Just look at the president of France, if you want to see a particularly bad fuckup. He, and his wife, have confessed, publicly, on TV, repeatedly to having a paedophilic relationship, where she abused her job to fuck children (she was even cheating on her husband doing it). He was 15, she was 40 years old at the time. Not only have they not been sued (in France, both would be punished)

Needless to say, a whole bunch of people were sued for stating this during the campaign, as well as for a bunch of other negative things they said about him.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Macron#Personal_life

ashtonkem2• 4 years ago

No one is stopping you thinking, or saying, whatever you want at any time.

They literally arrested and prosecuted someone for an off color joke. This is as straightforward a case of “them” stopping you from saying what ever you want at any time as it gets.

gmac• 4 years ago

I assume your question is ironic. This case looks like an appalling over-reaction by an increasingly authoritarian state.

cm2187• 4 years ago

It’s also disturbing that the police complains it is not given the means to combat knife crime but thinks it is a good use of their resource to police politeness on twitter.

dazc• 4 years ago

The police like to chase easy targets and social media offers up lots of opportunities to prove how well they are doing their job.

The only people who are scared of the police in the UK are middle class, normally law abiding citizens. One minor slip-up and they will be on you like a ton of bricks.

tored6• 4 years ago

What is typical for organization like police is that they prioritize things that gets the best statistics in a spreadsheet, not the best result for society.

hnlmorg• 4 years ago

Are the police really motivated by this? Or are specific senior figures who are in they public eye and thus don’t want their “reputation” shamed on social media the real individuals pushing for these kinds of legislation?

I’d wager most police officers couldn’t give a rats arse what someone posts online given the barrage of verbal abuse they likely get each day. They would much rather see the streets safer.

tonyedgecombe7• 4 years ago

The fact he was drunk doesn't really have much to do with it. It wouldn't be an excuse for running somebody down in his car or stabbing someone and shouldn't be here.

VBprogrammer• 4 years ago

Drunk in charge of a communications device is hardly on the same scale as driving a vehicle. One is likely to cause actual bodily harm. The other is most likely to result in minor embarrassment, except in a few wild outlier cases.

rndgermandude• 4 years ago

It actually might be an excuse to some degree. Diminished capacity is considered in many jurisdictions, and defendants who can demonstrate diminished capacity at the time of the offense can often get lesser sentences.

HL33tibCe7• 4 years ago

This is fucking mental

moss2• 4 years ago

What the fuck.

cjrp3• 4 years ago

That seems like an incredibly low-bar for what's considered "grossly offensive". Then again, the worst stuff is made by anonymous accounts and the police probably aren't going to trace those.

basisword• 4 years ago

I’m generally in favour of some limits on speech. I don’t think you should be able to tweet racist messages for example. It’s obviously very complicated and something people are going to argue a lot about. BUT this case has made me change my opinion. Things much worse than this are tweeted every day and this is the one that gets prosecuted. It’s blatantly politically motivated (‘national hero’, British soldier etc) and in terms of awful things people tweet…it’s not actually that bad. Suddenly I find myself agreeing with the people arguing these restrictions are a slippery slope.

cjrp3• 4 years ago

I think racist comments, for example, would already be covered under the Public Order Act 1986

bloak• 4 years ago

It looks like they might be. This seems to be the relevant part of the Act:

(1) A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.

--------

However, it looks as though you might get away with saying some very nasty racist things in public if you were careful with your vocabulary, tone of voice and so on.

Is there any protection for people with Tourette's or mentally ill people, I wonder?

londgine• 4 years ago

I never understood why "slippery slope" was listed among other logical fallacies. It is exactly the opposite.

tonyedgecombe7• 4 years ago

When the UK brought in laws around lockdowns and handling covid people here were complaining that it was a slippery slope and the government would never give up those restrictions yet they did exactly that and those laws are no longer in play.

In that case the slippery slope argument was a fallacy.

wepple• 4 years ago

Slippery slope isn’t automatically a fallacy. It’s a fallacy if you don’t articulate why A would lead to B.

The government using an anti-CSAM filter to further restrict, say, copyright infringements has precedent, so could be a valid slippery slope.

The idea people pushed that marriage equality would lead to people being able to legally marry their animals was fallacious because nobody could articulate a logical jump from same sec couples to interspecies.

singlow• 4 years ago

Look, if you stop considering slippery slope to be a fallacy, next thing you'll start making straw men arguments.

roenxi3• 4 years ago

It is a bit of a tricky one; there are a lot of valid and reasonable arguments in the same mental area as slippery slopes.

But the argument that must be rejected is "this is a step in the direction of X, therefore it is equivalent to supporting X", which is a common argument and a bad one. Arguments in that form should be rejected.

trashtester3• 4 years ago

A "slippery slope" argument that something is dangerous is, imho, similar to use a corellation to argue that there is a direct causal link between two observations. Neither are sufficient to prove such claims. But, both _may_, depending on other information, be evidence supporting the claims, even if they do not prove the claim outright.

In other words, slippery slope areguments (like correlation arguments) are fallacies if they are claimed as definitive proofs for a claim being made, but are not fallacies if used as supporting evidence for a claim or if arguing that the claim should be considered a possibility that may need to be considered or investigated.

In bayesian reasoning, both can be used as evidence for some claim, that creates a new set of (posterior) probabilities for a set of mutually exclusive claims based on a set of prior probabilities.

For instance, lets say you are concerned that some president may end up as a dictator. In a democracy, the prior probability may be relatively small. Then, lets assume the country abolishes term grants more power to the president in some time of emergency. In that case, one could argue using a sliding slope argument that the risk that the posterior probability of the president ending up as a dictator had increased after being granted more powers.

goto11• 4 years ago

Logical fallacies are only fallacies when they are presented as if the conclusion follows by logical necessity from the argument, as in a mathematical proof.

Often "logical fallacy" is taking to mean "bad argument", but that not necessarily the case. A slippery slope argument can be a reasonable and valid argument, it is only a fallacy when presented as if A by logical necessity leads to B. But most debate arguments does not claim to be logical proofs in the first case. "Anytime A have been done in the past it has inevitably lead to B, therefore it will happen again". This might be a very good argument, but it is just not a logical proof that A will always and inevitably lead to B.

GauntletWizard• 4 years ago

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, and not a rhetorical one. Logic and rhetoric follow different rules. Logic is purely binary - If I say "Burgers are unhealthy", and you can find one example that fits the definition of a hamburger that is made of plants and not full of fats, you have disproven my logic. Rhetorically, though, the point will stand as most burgers are "sometimes food".

One great way of thinking about it in modern terms is thus: Rhetoric is Bayesian. You're operating on probabilities. There's a ton of things that are likely to happen but not guaranteed. There's a ton of questions to which there is a large field of possibilities, and one action can cause opposite effects in different cases.

One of the best examples in modern times is "Appeal to authority:" This Doctor say X is true, therefore X must be true. Even large groups of doctors have gotten important things wrong[1]. Thus, a logical fallacy - X says Y is enough to create a predicate as the beginning of a chain of logic, but it is not "Proof" within a logical chain. "X says Y. X is a Doctor. Therefore Y" is fallacious logic. Nonetheless, you should listen to doctors, because rhetorically they probably know what they're talking about on medical issues.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

whiddershins• 4 years ago

Scot Adams. Full stop.

naoqj• 4 years ago

If you are in favour of limits on speech then you should not have a problem with this. Everything is offensive to someone. We should all go to prison!

Aeolun• 4 years ago

It’s more that it should be clearly defined what counts as ‘limits on speech’.

“Nazi glorification” is fairly specific. “Grossly offensive” is not.

If nobody is aware that it’s prosecutable that you are happy someone is dead (a perfectly valid opinion), then you shouldn’t prosecute people for it.

jeffalyanak• 4 years ago

Just like how speed limits necessitate the arrest of everyone who drives.

matthewmacleod• 4 years ago

Almost literally every person is "in favour of limits on speech" to some extent, so this kind of reductionism contributes nothing (and I'd argue generally makes the signal-to-noise ratio even worse).

There are huge numbers of interesting questions around how we treat freedom of speech in a civilised society. What restrictions can we collectively accept? How do we ensure that individual rights to speech are protected? How do we protect people from harassment or abuse, and how does this balance against the fundamental right to be offensive? Discussion about these is way more interesting than hot takes about how we're all going to prison for being mean on Twitter. And worst of all it detracts from the serious conversation to be had about how grossly inappropriate the reaction in this specific case is.

alickz• 4 years ago

By that logic if you are in favour of actionable threats being illegal you should have no problem with this. It's just speech after all.

I'm also in favour of limits on speech, but I draw the line at threats and sustained harassment. I don't think the tweet in the article rises to that level, and I don't think I'm a hypocrite for allowing that tweet but not allowing threats.

I do understand there are benefits to the all-or-nothing approach to free speech though.

tored6• 4 years ago

Speech laws also requires the court to make a judgement on the intent of the perpetrator, the exact same expression can either be legal or illegal depending on intent.

Barrin92• 4 years ago

Shooting someone can be illegal or legal based on the intent of the perpetrator, establishing the state of mind of someone accused of a crime isn't exactly a legal novelty

trashtester3• 4 years ago

The problem with banning things like "racism" is that words change meaning over time. Maybe some time in the future, any reference to "White Privlege" may be considered racist, for instance.

hwers• 4 years ago

Or that these days even people of color saying the n word is condemned, whereas just a few years ago (months?) it was sort of accepted.

Making that into a legal doctrine would be quite tricky.

mlindner• 4 years ago

Well "white privledge" IS racist. So that's already the case. Just some people don't consider it that way.

prmoustache2• 4 years ago

This is the reason justice system has the concept of prescription. You cannot be prosecuted for something that wasn´t deem unlawful in the past and even if there was already a law about it we can't condemn you if we failed to do so within a not distant past. It pretty much cover you in case meaning change over time.

namelessoracle• 4 years ago

The OK hand sign is racist now. There's rumbles of milk being racist.

The scary thing that should terrify everyone is we are going to come to a point where being called racist no longer matters or nobody cares, and then your gonna see REAL racism come back with a fury and force you wont like.

celdon25• 4 years ago

Maybe some time in the future, any reference to "White Privlege" may be considered racist, for instance.

Who says that's not already the case outside of the coastal cities?

NikolaNovak4• 4 years ago

>"I don’t think you should be able to tweet racist messages for example. "

Why not,and who gets to make the determination?

I'm an atheist, and having so many blasphemy and religion protection laws in liberal democracies misused (or rather, used exactly as they are truly intended) so horribly has really taught me what poorly defined restrictions on speech mean in the real world.

As for racist speech, I really truly believe that censoring does not ever serve its intended purpose. You are only breeding further resentment, driving the expression under ground,and giving people new reason to hate and feel oppressed.

TomGullen• 4 years ago

Racism is wrong and dangerous, and giving oxygen to it helps propagate and give validity to it.

Censoring it might keep the racists to their ugly selves, but that's OK with me.

Pyramus6• 4 years ago

As for racist speech, I really truly believe that censoring does not ever serve its intended purpose.

What is censoring for you?

I don't see a single Western democracy that is not "censoring" or restricting the rights of individuals to some extent. It's just to a different extent. E.g. the US has speed limits on highways, but Germany hasn't. You must not deny the holocaust in Germany, but you can do so in the US.

The argument that there is no grey area seems flawed to me. Instead, can we, as a society, discuss productively where we draw the line?

rootusrootus3• 4 years ago

There is merit to the idea of the 'paradox of intolerance.' If we tolerate someone explicitly being intolerant, what have we achieved except changed who is allowed to be intolerant?

helloworld112• 4 years ago

Aside from me absolutely being in favor of even offensive and racist speech out of general principles, you'd be surprised (or not) by how easily "racism" can be redefined to include all kinds of things that are very, very dubiously racist by any normal definition. There are extremely woke people who consider even questioning any of their arguments about race or class as a racist act. There are cases where a person making clear cut criticisms of islam as a religion is labeled racist because of its general association with the arabic world, and so forth. The list goes on.

The number of people and public figures I've seen labeled as so called fascists or racists when their own clearly stated postures are emphatically not racist by any rational notion is large. Once some authority gains the right to prohibit racist speech, it's very, very easy for their definition of racism to shift as well.

Out of many criticisms of the U.S. that the country deserves, its mostly rigid protection of free speech rights in a formal sense is one good thing, and it hasn't led to a hell of bigotry, or at least no more so than have weaker protections for free speech in other countries.

beaconstudios4• 4 years ago

Out of many criticisms of the U.S. that the country deserves, its mostly rigid protection of free speech rights in a formal sense is one good thing, and it hasn't led to a hell of bigotry, or at least no more so than have weaker protections for free speech in other countries.

Depends on how you measure it. The US has some pretty notable racial issues, even compared to other Anglosphere countries. I wouldn't put that down to freedom of speech laws, but it's also not a very good defense of those laws to say that it's affected the level of bigotry in the US.

ng122• 4 years ago

This is exactly why we need free speech. It's a pragmatic position. Of course I would like to live in a world where people don't spew vitriol. But for the reasons you outline that cannot happen except in an authoritarian society.

As an illustrative point both Russia and China have constitutionally protected freedom of speech. They just added enough caveats that it's worthless.

heavyset_go• 4 years ago

Out of many criticisms of the U.S. that the country deserves, its mostly rigid protection of free speech rights in a formal sense is one good thing, and it hasn't led to a hell of bigotry, or at least no more so than have weaker protections for free speech in other countries.

Yet you can't say "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" in public schools because the judiciary lost their minds at the idea of marijuana use and its illegality. There certainly is/was bigotry when it comes to marijuana, its users, and speech around it.

throwawaylinux2• 4 years ago

I have been called a racist for voicing my opposition to efforts to repeal constitutional prohibitions against racism. These lunatics somehow make up definitions that absolve themselves of their racism and condemn the anti-racists.

These racist maniacs would absolutely have me censored and punished for my views, and their putrid racist ideology is infecting academia, entertainment, "news", politics, and even the law. So no you certainly can't rely on "reasonableness" or the social standard of the day to bound the limits of speech.

chroma2• 4 years ago

I disagree with restrictions on speech for the following reason:

- If you limit what people are allowed to write or say, you are effectively limiting what others are allowed to read or hear.

- Censorship means delegating a censor.

- That censor would then be able to determine what I am allowed to read or hear. There is nobody I trust besides myself to do that. I definitely don't trust any government body to do that.

Also if you're going to enforce laws against racist speech dispassionately, you will ban every major religious text. The Torah, Bible, and Qur'an have parts that advocate for all kinds of racist, sexist, homophobic, and generally terrible behavior. The UK government doesn't try to censor these books, so it's obvious that their censorship laws are simply a way for law enforcement to persecute people they dislike.

autoexec6• 4 years ago

I disagree with restrictions on speech for the following reason:

I've never once met a true free speech absolutist. We accept restrictions on speech all the time. We restrict companies from outright lying about their products. We (sometimes) hold people accountable for lying under oath. We even compel certain speech by forcing companies to disclose ingredients and allergens. Even for government some material is justifiably classified and shouldn't be publicly shared. I should not be allowed to make direct calls for violence against others, phone in fake bomb threats, or yell "fire" in a theater.

There are good reasons to limit/place restrictions on speech. It's the same with every right we have. There will be instances that call for restriction. It falls on us to make sure that we preserve freedom as much as we can while still enacting sane restrictions.

Laws against racist speech do more harm than good. They hinder our efforts to understand and confront racism and they are so broadly defined that they are easily abused. That doesn't mean other restrictions on speech are't a good idea though.

listless2• 4 years ago

"You shouldn't be able to tweet racist messages"

This seems right on the surface, but the problem is that it's really hard to determine what a racist message is. For instance, if black people want to discuss their frustration with white people in honest language, it might sound pretty racist. But I'm not sure any of us would want to curtail that. FB had this exact problem not too long ago..

https://revealnews.org/article/how-activists-of-color-lose-b...

rubyist5eva• 4 years ago

if black people want to discuss their frustration with white people in honest language, it might sound pretty racist

Because it is.

tonguez3• 4 years ago

“I don’t think you should be able to tweet racist messages for example.”

we live in a world where saying “all lives matter” makes you adolf hitler 2.0. crime statistics are banned on twitter. if you say “its ok to be white” you will be called a nazi, and fired from your job. THAT’S racism.

f7ebc20c973• 4 years ago

The slope is slippery because, given enough time, lawyers are always be able to form a causal effect chain from human action A to undesirable outcome B.

krapp2• 4 years ago

This implies all such causal chains, regardless of their nature, will always be accepted as valid. If that were true, no lawyer would ever lose a case.

It's the same argument that people make when they say, because any word can be claimed to mean anything, any so-called hate speech crime can be used to make any arbitrary speech illegal, simply by labeling any form of speech "hate speech."

It's the 'perfectly spherical cow in a frictionless void' model of society that assumes societies are not made up of humans with brains already aware that people can lie and attempt to game the system, and that no one will ever be willing or able to correct flaws in the system. Even in the case of OP, I doubt the UK could take any arbitrary tweet and sentence someone under the same law.

That said, I think the laws in the UK in this regard are going too far - but a slippery slope implies an irreversible process. These laws exist because the people of the UK want them to. If they wanted otherwise, they could change the laws to reflect that. That isn't a slippery slope.

Msw242• 4 years ago

Slippery slopes aren't really a type of fallacy. Much in the same way that conspiracies are often real.

Outside of limited cases where speech can be linked to physical harm, it should be legal and unrestricted.

And companies should embrace the spirit of freedom of speech in choosing not to restrict it on their platforms. (Or they could be forced as common carriers)

erdos4d2• 4 years ago

I don’t think you should be able to tweet racist messages

I just got kicked off the main lemmy.ml server because I had the audacity to challenge the current Ukraine invasion and say that the Russians were fuck ups who broke what they touch (which I honestly believe, and I feel history backs me up on this). Was accused of being "a nasty racist" and instantly banned site wide. Was this right? I think not. Was I racist for this statement? Also, I think not. The Russians aren't even a race, so I just don't see it. Nevertheless, this is an example of the sort of free speech that is silenced by this attitude and I don't think the pro-Kremlin echo chamber in there is better off for it. Please be careful what you support, there are plenty of people out there who will use it for their own ends, regardless of how you meant it.

voidr2• 4 years ago

If you believe that people should be punished for being offensive, like making racist remarks, then I don't understand your issue here.

Just imagine if the deceased guy was your grandpa or someone you care about a lot, would you not feel hurt by that tweet?

jackweirdy• 4 years ago

The history of this law dates back to 1935, when it was designed to protect post office staff who ran telephone switchboards from being harassed by the public, and it that context, it makes sense. Of course in 21st century the law doesn't make sense as it isn't humans transmitting our messages any more

Some legal commentary about its previous use: http://barristerblogger.com/2018/03/24/its-time-to-change-th...

While there is certainly a slippery slope argument about the validity of restrictions on speech, that is not how I see this - this is legislative debt, and an argument in favour of deleting deprecated laws

xeromal• 4 years ago

Is it legislative debt if it is actively being used in a modern setting?

Not walking around with an ice cream cone in your back pocket is more what I think about when I think of legislative debt.

pwim• 4 years ago

The thing I’m most interested in isn’t in this article nor the source it cites: how was the tweet itself reported or discovered by the authorities in the first place?

topynate• 4 years ago

Same as usual – someone dobbed him in.

thyrox• 4 years ago

Have UK courts heard of the Streisand effect? I have a strong urge to search the said tweet to find what the hell did he say and I'm pretty sure it will be like the first or second result in google images if i had enough motivation for it.

conradfr2• 4 years ago

It's actually in the article.

prmoustache2• 4 years ago

The idea is not to hide the message but to condemn it and motivate people to not do that.

skilled• 4 years ago

Governments sure do make it hard to love them.

justin66• 4 years ago

It’s the nature of the average voter that they might whinge about their freedom of speech being infringed and, on another occasion, call for a guy like this to be punished, without appreciating the inconsistency.

tommek4077• 4 years ago

Stop setting up those user accounts with your real names. Pseudonyms are a thing in the net since forever.

tonyedgecombe7• 4 years ago

Or don't have a Twitter account if you can't control yourself after a drink.

throwaway6849362• 4 years ago

Can't believe I'm seeing this downvoted on HN. It's the absolute lowest common denominator of internet common sense.

cdot2• 4 years ago

This is part of why we have the first amendment. People should be allowed to express their opinions even if they're "grossly offensive".

nisegami• 4 years ago

Are you sure about the first amendment protects against speech that would be considered grossly offensive?

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

Manuel_D• 4 years ago

Absolutely, yes. The first amendment not only protects against offensive speech, but even hate speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

Havoc• 4 years ago

Feels like it is on the wrong side of balancing freedoms while keeping things in check.

Sure the tweet is terrible. But ruining someone’s career prospects for it levels bad?

Accacin• 4 years ago

I'm a bit confused who found this message that offensive? I have a brother who served in the British Army and I struggled to take offense at all. Just one guy with an opinion.

bjourne• 4 years ago

The day after his death, Kelly, 36, tweeted “the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella buuuuurn.”

This is nothing compared to what people tweeted the day after Margaret Thatcher died. You absolutely should not be prosecuted for that.

sacrosancty4• 4 years ago

Who is it even offensive to? The target is dead, so it's not him. If insulting dead people is a crime, how far back do you have to go to be safe?

xboxnolifes3• 4 years ago

I feel like I must have been corrupted by the internet or something if the tweet in question is considered "grossly offensive". It certainly isn't nice, but 18 months supervision and 150 hours of community service? I don't even know how to put my bafflement into words here.

MadSudaca4• 4 years ago

At first glance it may seem baffling, but if you see it from the “different culture different values” framework, you realize it’s just how people there want their society to conduct itself. It’s no different, from this perspective, to how baffling may seem cultures where burping loudly in the dinner table is not frowned upon, where people really value their personal space or not, and on and on.

xboxnolifes3• 4 years ago

It's not baffling to me that people don't like people who act this way. I don't like such comments either. What's baffling to me is the punishment given for it. Using the given parallel, I'm not familiar with a case where such punishment was given to someone who burped loudly at their dinner table (or some other social faux pas).

It seems currently and historically, such social norms and expectations have been primarily enforced through social shaming and avoidance, rarely government intervention. That's the baffling part to me.

xxpor• 4 years ago

I get the different values part, but even if I set aside the "as an American" free speech issues, 150 hours of community service seems WAY over what's necessary. That's nearly a month of full time work!

syrrim• 4 years ago

Similarly, some cultures today enjoy the practice of tossing homosexuals from rooves. Before you rush to condemn the practice, recall that they are from a different culture, with different values.

MiddleEndian• 4 years ago

In the US, I may get kicked out of a dinner for aggressive burping, and Twitter may ban me (and has banned me lol) for whatever reason they want. But nobody's facing legal penalties for it.

inglor_cz2• 4 years ago

I am from such a "different culture", and I hate criminalization of speech. Unfortunately, it is a minor topic in our politics and thus the status quo is likely to stay that way, not to mention that the EU where we are members wouldn't probably let us decriminalize hate speech; the winds in Brussels blow in the other direction.

The USA is protected by its Supreme Court and the fact that the Constitution is impossible to amend at this point, but if the younger cohort could vote for criminalization of unpopular speech, I suspect the proposition would actually win. Definitely so on many university campuses.

cortesoft• 4 years ago

It really depends on if you believe the majority can impose anything they want on a minority. Even if a majority of people in the UK want these rules, we can still argue whether a government has the right to enact that will of the people.

weego• 4 years ago

It's just standard 'edgy' anti-english diatribe from a Scot. It's really nothing I don't hear regularly either out in public or from friend-adjacent people here.

It's bad taste and trashy but that's kind of it.

The problem is exactly that it's not an unusual attitude to hear. The difference is who it was aimed at. So for me the real issue is that we're cherry picking when we apply a very vague and loosely applied law based on who said it to whom, and in my eyes it should be a valid case for the defense, and element of a judges decision for sentencing, of just how situational it is.

Making 'an example' of someone is not a basis for a societally-positive criminal justice system.

Apfel• 4 years ago

This is definitely a Celtic Vs Rangers thing rather than an England/Scotland one.

Unfortunately we in Glasgow are still dealing with this nonsense in 2022.

nradov• 4 years ago

The problem is exactly that the law shouldn't exist in the first place. Such laws violate the fundamental human right of free expression. Repeal the law and then you won't have to worry about uneven application.

ashtonkem2• 4 years ago

And in classic English fashion, they’ll start picking random Scots to make an example of, and make the problem worse still.

hermitdev• 4 years ago

I'm from the US, so please forgive my ignorance of UK law in this regard, but is this case special at all because the target of the insult was knighted (or whatever the correct term is)? Would it have been the same result if the target was a "random" non-knighted individual?

rglover2• 4 years ago

This is exactly why "hate speech" laws are so dangerous. It gives carte blanche to the government to go after anyone who says anything any one person (or the government itself) might find offensive.

oliwarner• 4 years ago

And we have a judiciary who can —still, for the moment— make and break statue based on their rulings via appeals and the Supreme Court. The government does not have carte blanche any more than a government already does. The last 2 years has shown us they're pretty much a law unto themselves.

I hope this case is appealled, and the law thoroughly weighed against human rights.

iotku• 4 years ago

Add the idea that has been floated over the years into making law enforcement officers a protected class as well and it's not a large leap to see how such seemingly well-intentioned things can be abused by the state.

Beldin• 4 years ago

This is exactly why "hate speech" laws are so dangerous.

If you think any single example of a law being applied in a manner that is technically defensible but (arguably) morally wrong should rule out an entire category of laws - you'd have no laws left.

My guess is that most laws are occasionally abused. The trick is to distinguish between those laws that invite it and those that don't.

recuter3• 4 years ago

Just wait until you find out about the "Hate Crime and Public Order Act" passed in Scotland.

causality0• 4 years ago

"Freedom to offend" is a core tenet of American freedom of speech. It is not at all present in the United Kingdom or for the most part continental Europe. You can be arrested for Tweeting something mean, for calling a police officer a rude name, for insulting a religious figure. Whether or not whatever it is the Europeans gained in exchange for giving up that right was worth it is up to you.

akhmatova• 4 years ago

18 months supervision and 150 hours of community service? I don't even know how to put my bafflement into words here.

This one of The Crown's protectors who is being disrespected. Now do you understand?

__turbobrew__• 4 years ago

Yea. Go onto certain 4chan boards and you inevitably see more offensive content within 30 seconds.

I’m always surprised that people in the UK put up with so many of these authoritarian nanny state and “think of the children” laws.

throwawaylinux2• 4 years ago

They have always been a subservient people who look up to authority figures -- their betters -- to take care of them and to tell them how they should go about their lives. And it's not "think of the children", it's "think of me".

dzhiurgis• 4 years ago

4chan is anonymous

Fake name on Twitter is immediate red flag

tailspin2019• 4 years ago

I agree. This sentencing and the implications of it are far more offensive to me than the tweet.

(Not taking away from the fact that the tweet is of course moronic and disgusting)

pixelbreaker• 4 years ago

regardless of arguments about free speech. Using drunkenness as an excuse for anything is pathetic.

nickt• 4 years ago

The Open Rights Group has statistics and a list of the more well-known prosecutions under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Communications_Act_200...

paxys• 4 years ago

Crickets from the usual crowd who would be crying "cancel culture!" on all TV and radio for weeks and calling for heads to roll had the tweet been about something other than a cause they support (military worship).

Governments and companies continue to get more and more empowered to do this stuff because people always show that it has never really been about freedom but rather pushing their own views.

pie_flavor• 4 years ago

Mostly because they spent all their time shouting about it when he was initially arrested. Why get worked up twice over the same issue? UK gonna UK.

nailer2• 4 years ago

I normally cry cancel culture and I find this awful despite not sympathizing with the man's views. Likewise I'm concerned about the impact of 'nuisance' laws in the UK on legitimate dissent despite finding most protestors to be annoying.

coolso2• 4 years ago

I think you may be looking for an issue where there is none on this one. While "the usual crowd" absolutely rightly believes in canceling the cancelers as pushback for anti-freedom policies like the cancel culture embraced by the left and progressives, I just Googled the guy's name and there's barely any news articles on it at all aside from a few tabloid-tech style sites like this one, starting a day or two ago. I'd chalk this one up to "most people have no idea this even happened".

elliekelly2• 4 years ago

While "the usual crowd" absolutely rightly believes in canceling the cancelers as pushback for anti-freedom policies like the cancel culture embraced by the left and progressives

Unironically canceling the cancelers to pushback against cancel culture? Maybe the horseshoe theory has some merit after all.

throwaway0x7E6• 4 years ago

because it didn't happen in the US. we've long since accepted that freedom of thought in Europe is a lost cause.

farmerstan• 4 years ago

What on earth would make you say this? There are plenty of people upset over this including myself and others that believe in free speech. This is unfortunately in the UK which doesn’t have the same protections as the US. This person would not have been found guilty in the US but the UK doesn’t have the same level of freedoms.

lambertsimnel• 4 years ago

I read the grand-parent comment as about the misrepresentation of free-speech in the media. Of course there are sincere and consistent free-speech supporters, but their cause is disproportionately used in the British media to favour opponents of other liberal/libertarian causes.

liquidise• 4 years ago

Disc: american commenting on uk legal matters.

people always show that it has never really been about freedom (emphasis mine)

Which people? They always act this way? It was never about freedom, for anyone? Who could possibly say this authoritatively?

I think the last ~5 years has put a bright light onto freedom of speech. It is a complicated topic with some surprisingly nuanced positions. Does it include the ability to say what you want wherever you want? Or without consequence? There are multiple vectors to it.

I consider myself a free speech advocate. But i have no military fetishism that you claim is one of the root causes for free speech support (a weird combo). I support free speech because... i think people speaking their mind freely is a net positive. That appears to be increasingly controversial these days. That's fine, more room for discussion.

agentdrtran• 4 years ago

The largest media outlets that beat the freedom of speech drum (fox, other right wing sites) never do so in response to people whose speech they don't like being silenced.

tonguez3• 4 years ago

“ > people always show that it has never really been about freedom (emphasis mine) Which people? They always act this way? It was never about freedom, for anyone? Who could possibly say this authoritatively?”

thanks for asking the tough questions

karaterobot• 4 years ago

I don't know about "crickets". This thread is full of people who think this is a bad move.

Personally, I'm of two minds about it: this isn't a "cancel culture" situation, because evidently he did break a law. He's not being shunned by society, he's just getting arrested for a crime — however ridiculous the crime may be.

The main argument against this sentence is that other people do the same thing all the time and don't get punished for it. That's not a strong defense. The other argument is that the law itself is inappropriately applied, which it probably is. But this guy wasn't engaged in civil disobedience, he was a drunken idiot who thought he could shoot his mouth off with impunity, and to his surprise he got caught in the system. He should appeal, and the law should be clarified, changed, or struck down, because it's being selectively applied and that's a bit scary. But, this isn't shocking, and the guy isn't a sympathetic hero.

systemvoltage• 4 years ago

I think this comment leaves a bad taste. It is dissing at partisanry where there isn't any. I personally know many republicans and democrats who have a staunch sense of free of speech. They all would be crying in unison.

The problem with your view is 1) It is unsubstantiated - where do you see "crickets from the usual crowd"? 2) It is exaggerated and playing into partisan tribalism of people. 3) Creates more division than helps, does not address anything really except teach toxicity.

You're flaming the fumes.

skippyboxedhero• 4 years ago

This is a partisan topic. The reason why this has happened is an old law that has been repurposed by the police to pursue these claims. In Scotland, which has a different govt to the UK on this issue, the hate speech laws are even more stringent (and the police even more aggressive in pursuing crimes on Twitter).

This is always going to be a controversial topic with too sides. That isn't apparent in the US because there are such strong protections on freedom. But that doesn't change the fact that there are some people who believe they should be removed: those people exist in every society, they are a majority in the place where this occurred, and they are a majority in many other countries.

Saying that someone is fanning the flames when they say they support freedom misunderstands the topic totally. There are people who believe free speech is weak and decadent, the First Minister of Scotland is a lawyer...these people are not crazies, they are people in govt today. And there aren't two sides to freedom, you are either for or against, there is no middle ground (I live in Scotland, the primary argument of people who want to supress freedom was your argument, word for word...my freedom is gone now).

ethanpailes• 4 years ago

If the national review doesn’t count as the usual crowd, I don't know who does.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-scottish-governmen...

rsynnott• 4 years ago

The National Review is very much on the respectable ideologically consistent side of the Usual Crowd (TM). (I mean, don't get me wrong, it's awful, but it largely has the courage of its convictions). Rest assured that, like, the Sun and Daily Mail and Spectator aren't going to be decrying this.

xanaxagoras• 4 years ago

I'm on the right, the far right even by HN standards. This response is either comically out of touch or disingenuous. Nobody in my circles is celebrating this, it has always been about freedom, and I have never encountered your straw man in real life or even on the dangerous alt-right forums where I was radicalized.

exolymph• 4 years ago

So you agree that cancel culture is bad, then? Delighted to hear it.

ruined• 4 years ago

now do the rest of them. we could revitalize public works

eunos• 4 years ago

Woah the infamous "Picking quarrels and provoking trouble" went global https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picking_quarrels_and_provoking...

And they said PRC lacks global influence and soft-power.

at_a_remove• 4 years ago

Presumably, the bobbies of the UK are hot on the trail of the people who Tweeted https://twitter.com/dataracer117/status/1272737061703790592 and will get those community services sentences on the schedule.

Death threats, after all, are worse than being glad someone is dead.

DoctorOW• 4 years ago

I like how to justify the "including verified accounts" it's defining "Harassment" to include a regular critique of her ideas but with a naughty swear word.

petercooper• 4 years ago

Another British case from this week: a man got 3 months in jail for being drunk on a plane. The judge acknowledged he wasn't violent or aggressive or even rude to anyone, but he did vomit: https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/drunk-p...

zone411• 4 years ago

In another UK case, a 19-year-old just got 6 weeks in jail for using a racist slur directed at a football (soccer) player in a tweet: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-60927111.

minimilian2• 4 years ago

What was the actual content of the tweet?

IncRnd4• 4 years ago

That's the thing. People often don't know the contents of these tweets, so we don't even know whether the accused actually said anything, let alone something that violated a law.

However, we are told that what was said was, "The spokesman said the tweet, which included Rashford's username, saw Price swear, use a racist slur and claim that his 'dead nan could have scored that.'"

recuter3• 4 years ago

I don't know about this one, but there was a teenager that quoted a snoop song on her instagram (not directed at anyone but rather in memory of her friend that died in a car crash) and got threatened with an ankle bracelet and a $1000 fine.

And this is before the rules got even more strict.

minimilian2• 4 years ago

Is my downvoted & dead sister so because she is false or because she spoke an unspeakable truth? Surely this cannot be one of those places where mentioning an offensive word (as distinct from using it) is considered offensive? @dang

wait_a_minute2• 4 years ago

Stop using Twitter. Build open decentralized alternatives that won't cooperate with speech police. Defund the useless bureaucrats who exist only to police speech. Fire them. Let them compete for their bread and wine like all of us who work for a living.

dymk• 4 years ago

Fancy new crypto and system design does not and cannot solve societal and cultural problems.

wait_a_minute2• 4 years ago

But they will solve speech-policing issues where some UK nanny politicians feel empowered to try to send people to prison over things like this.

AdrianB12• 4 years ago

It sounds great, except for the "decentralized alternative" part that sounds great, but there is nothing available soon enough.

mherdeg• 4 years ago

I'm a little surprised that the UK press is allowed to name Mr Kelly.

Once he has completed his punishment and appropriately paid for his crimes against society and the late Captain Moore, why will Mr Kelly still be newsworthy?

Won't he earn the right to have his crimes forgotten?

FeaturelessBug• 4 years ago

I'm an American so I don't know that my opinion has much importance here, but as someone who has never really believed in "cancel culture" and who regularly rolls their eyes at the self victimization of politicians and celebrities who advocate for hate against marginalized groups then act like they are being bullied when those same groups call them on it, this is definitely eye opening.

anikan_vader• 4 years ago

> Hundreds of UK citizens have been found guilty under Section 127, often for insulting, abusing, and harassing public figures like athletes, journalists, and MPs.

A good opportunity for the Americans among us to feel gratitude at our constitutional right to insult the dunderheads in both chambers of our congress!

It's times likes these that I like to reflect on how fortunate it was that the Sedition Act of 1798 was allowed to expire long before I was born.

digianarchist• 4 years ago

Good case for asylum in the United States if the guy feels like moving.

null0pointer• 4 years ago

I feel like we've got this totally backwards. If we're going to have laws around speech at all then it should protect the general public more than public figures. In fact some public figures, such as politicians, should be entirely exempt from protection. But we don't see it protecting the general public because those cases are never as high profile.

taxyz23• 4 years ago

This is why USA has First Amendment. Using the law to enforce subjective standards of niceness is the first step to political suppression.

paulpauper• 4 years ago

Funny how some people take 'freedom of speech' for granted or universal..nope...that is uniquely an American feature, still, even after centuries. Democracy does not mean free speech.

Synaesthesia• 4 years ago

The US only got freedom of speech in the 60's.

andrekandre• 4 years ago

the 1st amendment wasn't enacted in the 60s so there must be something i'm missing... can you clarify?

Traster• 4 years ago

There's something I find loathesome about this "Send a message" sentencing. What the judge has done is send a clear message, that he won't sentence you on the merits of the case but will sentence you to serve his own agenda. The only message this sends is that justice has failed. It's always completely transparent who exactly gets made an example of, and who gets off with a slap on the wrist. We'll spend months hunting down every rioter in the London riots throwing the book at them and putting up massive billboards in city centres trying to identify them, but when a prominent tory steal millions from the tax payer in dodgy PPE contracts? Well let's just write that off shall we. Because as we know, stealing some shoes from JD sports is much worse than stealing millions in the middle of a pandemic.

Terry_Roll• 4 years ago

One thing I have learnt is that anything bad reported in the so called british press that other countries do, goes on here in the uk as well.

Churchill summed it up best, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, which means people will be made examples of as and when needed.

FpUser• 4 years ago

"Churchill summed it up best, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

Looking at the cases it seems like "the needs of few" at the top outweigh the needs of many. So cut the BS Mr. Churchill

trelane• 4 years ago

I think the usual analogy in places where you "have" to hurt some people for some noble Higher Purpose is about omelets and breaking eggs.

travisgriggs3• 4 years ago

Churchill summed it up best, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

I’m disillusioned, discovering that it wasn’t Spock (Nemoy) uttering this as his dying words.

Did someone eventually tell Churchill that sometimes “the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many?” Or do I have to wait many years in the future to hear that sentiment?

standardUser2• 4 years ago

The entire concept of "setting an example" seems like a bit of fascism that has snuck its way into liberal democracy.

RobertoG• 4 years ago

Is that liberal democracy thing some time in the past when this kind of things didn't happen? what period would be that?

john_moscow• 4 years ago

Such things are indicative of the general zeitgeist in the society. If most people were hard workers, knowing how to count money and expected accountability, you would see more sentencing for embezzlement and nobody would care about some random dude's shitposting.

Sadly this isn't the case in the West anymore. Most people come from a rather meaningless and mind-numbing job, turn on the TV and expect to be entertained. And seeing your neighbor from a different political camp punched in the face is the oldest form of entertainment the humanity came up with. Look at many social justice programs now: "group X has been suffering historically, so let's now make group Y suffer in some other way to make it fair" as opposed to "let people from X and Y build shit together for the sake of prosperity".

This way will inevitably bring poverty, people will eventually wake up and start asking the right questions about the dropping quality of life and affordability of assets, but it can take decades more of arguing on who's shitpost was more offensive.

bruhvinston• 4 years ago

I wouldn't attribute it to fascism, because the concept works in any social group and was used throughout history. Even Mao said something like "Punish one, educate millions." I think the true conflict is about the dignity of the individual. Is it permissible to do a disproportionate amount of harm to one person to bring about consequences that further the goal? I'd say no. And that also includes bringing less than appropriate punishment.

bilbo0s• 4 years ago

has snuck its way into liberal democracy

Not that I disagree that setting an example is a part of liberal democracies, but at least in the US, we've been "setting examples" since forever. It's just that as a society we deem most of the people who the courts have historically used to "set an example" expendable.

teawrecks• 4 years ago

IANAL but it seems like "setting an example" is synonymous with "setting a precedent", which is a concept that seems fundamental to any legal system, even for civil cases. Companies press charges against every slight infringement on their trademarks because if they don't, they're implicitly setting a precedent that the behavior is ok. If you aren't actively setting precedents, then legally it's the same as saying, "we're ok with anyone and everyone doing this all the time." Doesn't matter what governmental structure you have, as a society, we set boundaries in order to define the world we want to live in.

ibejoeb• 4 years ago

I'd argue that "setting an example," or specific deterrence, has lessened in severity with the rise of liberal democracies. The notion is about as old as law itself. There was some pretty brutal stuff way back. Still have some big contemporary outliers like electrocution in some states in the US, but that's going away steadily.

Anyway, the notion of deterrence, in the United States, if you consider this a modern liberal democracy, is codified in the federal sentencing guidelines: https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2021-guidelines-manual/annot...

irrelevant technicality: I suppose setting an example could also be construed as general deterrence based on a instance of specific deterrence.

travisgriggs3• 4 years ago

There’s something I find holistically loathesome that a) other people read twitter at all, leading to b) it actually matters and has to fall under legal jurisdiction. If people moved on and quit reading twitter, this just wouldn’t matter.

MattRix2• 4 years ago

Twitter is quite different from most of other social networks out there. It’s much more immediate, which has a lot of benefits but also a lot of drawbacks.

You might not like it yourself, but surely you can see the appeal?

erdos4d2• 4 years ago

Nail on head. This is the best take on these cases I've yet seen and it expresses my own feelings perfectly.

dp-hackernews• 4 years ago

"Remember, that not he who gives ill language or a blow insults, but the principle which represents these things as insulting. When, therefore, anyone provokes you, be assured that it is your own opinion which provokes you." ~ Epictetus, Enchiridion

dekken_• 4 years ago

Words can only hurt you if you let them

tshaddox2• 4 years ago

I don't really understand your argument. It's one thing to disagree with the law itself, but in what way was this case not judged on its own merits, and what agenda was the judge serving? I hardly think "I'm sentencing you in accordance with the law so that people will see that if they break the law they will be sentenced in accordance with the law" counts as some person agenda. I see no indication that the judge said or believed that the person did not violate the law or did not deserve the sentence according to the law, but was being sentenced merely to serve as an example to other people.

SamBam2• 4 years ago

Except that the judge said specifically that he was sentencing him as a deterrence to show other people.

"The deterrence is really to show people that despite the steps you took to try and recall matters, as soon as you press the blue button that’s it. It’s important for other people to realise how quickly things can get out of control. You are a good example of that, not having many followers."

Jesus, 18 months supervision and 150 hours unpaid labor, for a tweet by an unknown Twitter user, who named no names, and who deleted his drunken tweet after 20 minutes.

Did the judge have minimum sentencing requirements? If not, this was absolutely discretionary and absolutely out of proportion to the "crime," and is only "justified" by the judge using him as an example.

OscarCunningham• 4 years ago

Given the date, it feels appropriate to point out that the same law also makes it illegal to send a message that you know to be false for the purpose of causing annoyance.

leach• 4 years ago

Breaking: man in UK jailed for thinking bad thoughts, "experts say the body language of the man clearly indicated he was thinking thoughts that go against public interest, the man has been apprehended and we hope to set an example for this kind of behavior"

I mean this is satire now but with the way things are going its not entirely ludicrous

mariodiana• 4 years ago

I believe after Margaret Thatcher died, "Ding-Dong, the Witch Is Dead" hit Number 1 on iTunes UK. Should everyone who purchased the song have been sentenced to community service, too?

sascha_sl• 4 years ago

Based on the severity of this tweet, the people who harass me on twitter would be getting life sentences.

blockwriter• 4 years ago

This is a disgusting policy.

freedomben• 4 years ago

In many ways, we haven't moved much beyond the middle ages where "make an example" was the standard operating principle. Sure we don't publicly hang or draw & quarter people in the square anymore (which I am glad for of course), but the basic underlying principle of "increase obedience by scaring people when they see what you did to person X" is still very much in use.

I really hope to see our justice system progress toward a system with a goal of reforming people rather than punishing people. Ostensibly that's what the purpose is already, but if you look at the output, it clearly isn't.

pphysch• 4 years ago

YouTube also removed a channel last week on direct orders from the UK Ministry of Defense, after it published a video prank involving the current Defense Secretary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vovan_and_Lexus#YouTube_ban

Who knows what sort of punishment those guys would have gotten if they were UK "citizens".

dmix• 4 years ago

I remember 8 years ago when the UK police started conducting night raids on houses like they were going after the Taliban, because the people tweeted something anti-muslim after a terrorist attack:

https://www.businessinsider.com/in-britain-police-arrest-twi...

standardUser2• 4 years ago

It wasn't a threat or a call to violence. It was just a sentiment, and one seemingly made in knowing jest (though I don't really get the context).

purplejacket• 4 years ago

Looks like UK could learn a thing or two from the United States based on this story. Damn, I never thought I'd see myself saying _that_ .

Aerroon• 4 years ago

This is yet another example that the United Kingdom does not have free speech. They've been doing this for years now.

smarri• 4 years ago

Interesting that the news article can freely print the exact same thing this guy did, and give the message a bigger audience that it had.

sreejithr• 4 years ago

I've been noticing how much I'm "self-censoring" nowadays. The whole "free world" concept is a lie. Even the "guardians of freedom" USA wants you to disclose all social media handles if I apply for a visa. That means whatever I say online is already getting profiled.

impalallama• 4 years ago

Reading that headline, I was thinking it might be like a specific graphic death threat against someone, or just some vile racial epithets but no its just the kinda edgy stuff you see all over social media. Upsetting that this is even a thing and sets a very bad precedent.

trhway• 4 years ago

To illustrate the effects of administrative suppression of free speech one can observe that Russian propaganda freely blossoms on the platforms where free speech is significantly administratively suppressed, ie. for example FB, Twitter, LinkedIn - the places where speech violating various "safe space" rules is handled by getting administratively deleted. Russian propaganda is a product of a free speech suppressed environment and easily thrives in such conditions. The rebuttals to Russian propaganda on those platforms gets reported by Russians as harassment and bullying and thus frequently gets deleted, and as a result the Russian propaganda stays there unchallenged or weakly challenged at best. One of the main point of Russian propaganda is rationalization and normalization of the actions of their fascist regime, and such rationalization/normalization naturally fits the "safe space" rules of those platforms, while denying "safe space" to that propaganda is one of the most important thing in fighting it, yet those platforms in many cases de-facto help Russian propaganda by allowing it to highjack the free speech suppression machinery on those platforms.

Compare that to for example HN and Reddit - the places where free speech has much less administrative suppression and where the speech is mostly moderated by the community. There is much less Russian propaganda in those environments because any time it appears it gets strong rebuttals which stay together with the propaganda. As a result anybody exposed to that propaganda here gets also exposed to the rebuttals, and that is naturally net loss to the propaganda, ie. the propaganda can't thrive in the environments where free speech isn't suppressed.

onemanstartup• 4 years ago

Why are you so obsessed over Russia? Why are you so eager to "explain" Russia on HN? Seems like you are wasting a lot of time.

2OEH8eoCRo02• 4 years ago

A bit steep but I like the idea of toxic individuals getting some fresh air and working with the community.

encryptluks2• 4 years ago

Funny, cause both political sides thinks the other base is toxic and so I guess when you are forced to take a train to a camp and do some outside work you won't mind so much.

2OEH8eoCRo02• 4 years ago

No. I just think there might be a nugget of merit to this idea.

da39a3ee• 4 years ago

Wow the examples of UK prosecutions under Section 127 of the Communications Act are an embarrassment: https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offens...

Most of them are just losers saying stupid offensive shit; clearly not worth giving the time of day let alone prosecuting. And one was someone who was understandably angry about the actions of foreign troops in Afghanistan; he has a right to express his anger.

whysocirius• 4 years ago

Is this some kind of April fool's joke?

vips7L• 4 years ago

150 hours is insane. In my area most non-profits will only give you 2-3 hours per volunteering shift and you'll be lucky to do that once per week.

jimmaswell• 4 years ago

"I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free" - for all our problems, these are still not hollow words. I wouldn't choose to live anywhere else.

baryphonic• 4 years ago

The deterrence is really to show people that despite the steps you took to try and recall matters, as soon as you press the blue button that’s it. It’s important for other people to realise how quickly things can get out of control. You are a good example of that, not having many followers.

I'm genuinely confused by what "get out of control" means. Violence? SWATing? Other people on the Internet may get mad?

quantum_state• 4 years ago

UK judges should be sanctioned for this outrageous act against freedom of speech!

siruncledrew• 4 years ago

The tweet is certainly bad taste and something that would be appalling if said out loud, however, this seems like a bit over-the-top judicial response to tweets.

Isn’t stuff like this why the ‘report’ function exists? Or couldn’t the gov just request a takedown / account suspension? Or the social pressure of responses to the tweet would create enough backlash…?

This just seems like an archaic way to patrol social media, which is basically a nebulous void.

On the other hand, I guess if you really need a lot more free public involvement in community service and picking up litter, then this law is the answer…

voidr2• 4 years ago

If I would have my way, I would allow all offensive speech, however if a society wants to be policed, I'd rather it be done by a court of the state and not by private companies because there is a higher chance of things being fair if it's done by the state and it's easier to hold courts to account than private companies.

Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service in UK

Related Stories