Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The UK government has blocked IPs

police.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–107 of 107 posts

Re: The UK government has blocked IPs

#101

Post by BoredPositron »

_heimdall wrote: post #100
BoredPositron wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, you are clearly missing the context of what we’re discussing in this thread. Here’s a primer: - The UK has experienced racial riots over the past few weeks. - There was a mass murder in the last weeks. - During these racial riots, someone "identified" an immigrant as the attacker, which turned out to be misinformation and incited a manhunt. - This individual was apprehended. - 4chan went full "fr33d0m" and laun…

> The law is clear-cut: it defines illegal hate speech as public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group, defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin. The law isn't clear though. The Verge had a write up [1] on Section 127 a couple years ago that does a good job of pointing out where that specific law is vague. Other hat…

And if we had a time machine and went back to 2022 I would agree with you. Section 127 got repealed in 2023 and got updated with a more comprehensive version see [1] and you know what they will probably define it even more if there are other ambiguities. Like it should be and like I said before. I am seriously questioning your intentions now, it's clearly not in good faith anymore.

[1] https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/blog/the-online-safety-act-202...

Re: The UK government has blocked IPs

#102

Post by crtasm »

katzinsky wrote: post #88
zimpenfish wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a 55 year old women was arrested for posting inaccurate information to social media Well, it's not simply "posting inaccurate information", it's "publishing written material to stir up racial hatred" (which it clearly was) and "false communications" (technically true because her information was completely wrong.)

Regardless of the content, unless it's a death threat, I don't think going after old ladies is a great way to calm people down.

Maybe look at it this way: they're going after people because of what they're posting, not their age or gender.

also 55 isn't old! but I realise I may be closer to it than you are.

Re: The UK government has blocked IPs

#103

Post by 23B1 »

BoredPositron wrote: post #99
23B1 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "clear cut" of the law you cited is anything but. The definition of hatred, for example, is not only insufficient for a just law, but can be – and is – reasonably stretched to encompass anything the current regime doesn't like.

That's why there is a division of powers but I am not gonna try to explain that to a person who tries to haggle about the meaning of words while calling a freshly elected democratic government a regime. That would just be silly. lmao

A freshly elected democratic government can still be called a regime. Very normal use of the word.

Re: The UK government has blocked IPs

#104

Post by _heimdall »

BoredPositron wrote: post #101
_heimdall wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The law is clear-cut: it defines illegal hate speech as public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group, defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin. The law isn't clear though. The Verge had a write up [1] on Section 127 a couple years ago that does a good job of pointing out where that specific law is vague. Other hat…

And if we had a time machine and went back to 2022 I would agree with you. Section 127 got repealed in 2023 and got updated with a more comprehensive version see [1] and you know what they will probably define it even more if there are other ambiguities. Like it should be and like I said before. I am seriously questioning your intentions now, it's clearly not in good faith anymore. [1] https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/b…

I missed that the UK extended that law, thanks for the link.

I still see a lot of fray area there left up to a judge's interpretation after the fact.

> 1. send a message; > 2. conveying information that they know to be false; > 3. at the time of sending it they intend the message to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience (i.e. someone who is likely to read it, whether originally or after someone has shared it); and > 4. they have no reasonable excuse for sending the message

(1) seems totally fine, no gray area there. The last three points are all only known by the person being charged with the crime. It is extremely difficult to prove intent , or what the person knew at the moment of sending a message.

Short of the person confessing, prosecutors would be left with having to find evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt what the person knew at the time and the intent behind a message. My argument there is that realistically this will lead to either no convictions or convictions based on circumstantial evidence and a judge's opinion of what the person knew and intended.

The qualifications listed for threats have similar gray area, I won't copy them here for brevity.

To the citizen, this means anything they say related to a topic protected by these laws may be legal or illegal, they will never know unless a judge is asked to decide. Two reasonable judges could interpret a person's message and intent differently, meaning that the law is too unclear to be enforced fairly on the public.

Re: The UK government has blocked IPs

#105

Post by BoredPositron »

23B1 wrote: post #103
BoredPositron wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why there is a division of powers but I am not gonna try to explain that to a person who tries to haggle about the meaning of words while calling a freshly elected democratic government a regime. That would just be silly. lmao

A freshly elected democratic government can still be called a regime. Very normal use of the word.

Sure thing it's just weird asf.

Re: The UK government has blocked IPs

#106

Post by BoredPositron »

_heimdall wrote: post #104
BoredPositron wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if we had a time machine and went back to 2022 I would agree with you. Section 127 got repealed in 2023 and got updated with a more comprehensive version see [1] and you know what they will probably define it even more if there are other ambiguities. Like it should be and like I said before. I am seriously questioning your intentions now, it's clearly not in good faith anymore. [1] https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/b…

I missed that the UK extended that law, thanks for the link. I still see a lot of fray area there left up to a judge's interpretation after the fact. > 1. send a message; > 2. conveying information that they know to be false; > 3. at the time of sending it they intend the message to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience (i.e. someone who is likely to read it, whether originally or afte…

"The Kingdom of Conscience will be exactly as it is now. Moralists don't really have beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded. Centrism isn't change -- not even incremental change. It is control. Over yourself and the world. Exercise it. Look up at the sky. Ask yourself: is there something sinister in moralism? And then answer: no. God is in his heaven. Everything is normal on Earth."
Post reply on HN