Hundreds charged with online 'speech crimes' under 'Orwellian' crackdown

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/15/hundreds-charged-speech-crimes-jd-vance-warns-civil-liberty/

by jbboehr • 1 year ago

11 5 1 year ago

telegraph.co.uk

nkurz• 1 year ago

https://archive.is/mO3N6

hermitcrab• 1 year ago

it doesn't seem that long ago that the Telegraph was a proper newspaper.

like_any_other• 1 year ago

This offence banned disinformation that could cause “non-trivial psychological or physical harm”. .. “The problem with trying to criminalise ‘disinformation’ is that it empowers the state to decide what is and isn’t true.”

The other problem is how slanted the law is, even as written. "We didn't come to Britain - Britain came to us", "Diversity built Britain" and "Britain has always been diverse" [1], and other such phrases crafted to delegitimize British nationhood are never "hate", nor do they cause "harm".

But "Britons Built Britain", "It's OK to be white", and "We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066" are cited as "hate" [2].

If you argue for immigration, you can be as loose with your facts and as fiery with your rhetoric as you like. But argue against it, and you better not make a single error [3], and keep your phrasing as dry as possible, or you'll end up behind bars.

[1] Or the more insidious portrayal of historical Britain as ahistorically diverse behind the shield of fiction, even when that element of an otherwise fictional story is clearly intended to portray a real place: "Piers Wenger [BBC head of drama] said failing to update the classics with diverse characters would be a dereliction of duty" - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/24/bbc-drama-boss-d...

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51zn2l33r9o

[3] Even if that "error" is extremely reasonable and plausible inference, such as claiming a terrorist found with an Al Qaeda manual is Muslim: https://news.sky.com/story/southport-stabbings-suspect-faces...

jalapenos• 1 year ago

Exactly right, the goal is to provide the current regime with the power to imprison dissidents, so that there may be less of them.

The thing that's eluded me is how the current regime can be. The only plausible explanation to how they think and behave is simply that they really want the English to be, in England, the same as the aborigines in Australia, minus the welfare. That's the only logical outcome of their attitude, so we must presume that's their goal.

What's not clear is what does the ruling class get out of this? Most of them are English themselves, and they can't believe their descendants will retain power in such a demographic situation (they can observe the lot of minorities in the homelands of the people who are immigrating).

So what do they get out of it? It's so surreal and bizarre. Like a slow motion group suicide.

cc101• 1 year ago

It seems to me that many online influencers shamelessly cause harm in their pursuit of profit. Example: I recently saw an online ad that in an alarmed voice urged alzheimer's patients to never drink cold water. Distracting attention from what treatments are available and giving false hope causes people actual and emotional harm and ought to be criminal. It's only a matter of time before laws are past to punish such behavior as criminally harmful. To my mind how to craft those laws to reduce the amount of harm they cause is the core issue.

Hundreds charged with online 'speech crimes' under 'Orwellian' crackdown

Related Stories