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

Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 192 posts

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#111

Post by pcrh »

landl0rd wrote: post #105
pcrh wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> inalienable rights The UK doesn't follow the American declaration of independence... In UK law such "inalienable rights" are found within the Human Rights Act, 1998 [0], itself based largely on the European Convention on Human Rights [1]. Both are famously disparaged by the political right. [0] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents [1] https://coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/home

That's basically irrelevant from where I stand. I don't subscribe to the idea that everything is relative. That we should "respect different choices". The point of an inalienable right is that it's intrinsic according to our basic values. The british failing to respect that doesn't change it.

You would have to point out where the current law in the UK is unjust.

The current law surrounding "inalienable rights" in the UK is based on the ECHR that I linked to.

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#112

Post by dzhiurgis »

sherr wrote: post #10
account-5 wrote: post #5

Pretty sure the police aren't enacting the laws they are obligated to enforce, the government is the ones doing that.

Yes, bad laws that are open to interpretation, perhaps as designed. But the police have a lot of discretion and it's much easier to go after someone for an obnoxious tweet or supposed offense than it is to go after real crimes. We always hear "lessons will be learned" after the fact, again and again, but they don't seem to be.

> much easier to go after someone for an obnoxious tweet

How far do they go? Will they subpeona twitter if you have pseudonym and track down your ip address? How about tor and vpn, will they actually go thru four letter agencies to track you down?

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#113

Post by burnt-resistor »

landl0rd wrote: post #51
chairmansteve wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The laws may be different but the result is identical. JD Vance should look at the bible he likes to tout. "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"

Vance isn't running policy. He is the vice president. Many people are arrested every day. Some are for justified reasons and some are not. "The result is identical." Intent and rationale matter.

[flagged]

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#114

Post by burnt-resistor »

mig39 wrote: post #76
cobbzilla wrote: post #74

The thing that boggles my mind most is the UK libel laws where stating a true, verifiable fact can be illegal if it makes the subject look bad. Someone tell me I’ve got that wrong.

No, this is incorrect, and a quick google search would verify that. Where did you get that idea? Truth is a _defence_ against libel.

Who decides which facts and truth are "correct"? The same arbiters of what is and isn't "antisemitic" is who simply because speech criticizes IDF or Likud propaganda and/or genocide.

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#115

Post by alephnerd »

pcrh wrote: post #109
alephnerd wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would not if there wasn't proof that there was actual planning. That said, you would most likely be monitored by local and state law enforcement. A similar case happened in Central Illinois a couple years ago, where threats were posted but arrests were not made until the threats moved to actual action.

In this case, the threats did move to action....

The person making the threat needs to be linked to the one taking the action (either via direct or indirect participation).

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#116

Post by chrismcb »

KaiserPro wrote: post #66

The article is out by a factor of 10, from the data I can find its 900 arrests in 2 years. The problem is that this act is also the way to prosecute death threats. In the UK its generally frowned on to send threats of violence. Given that we also have a much lower homicide rate, I'd say thats a fair exchange. even if the act causes aberrations. The article would be more convincing if it talked about the pub order act…

So you think you have a lower homicide rate because you can procedure death threats? Is there really a correlation? That is how often did someone follow-up on a death threat? And how much does arresting people who threaten, reduce homicide? It is illegal to send death threats in the US as well

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#118

Post by anonymousiam »

cobbzilla wrote: post #74

The thing that boggles my mind most is the UK libel laws where stating a true, verifiable fact can be illegal if it makes the subject look bad. Someone tell me I’ve got that wrong.

In the UK, you don't even need to speak to be arrested.

https://reason.com/2024/10/17/british-man-convicted-of-crimi...

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#119

Post by pcrh »

alephnerd wrote: post #115
pcrh wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, the threats did move to action....

The person making the threat needs to be linked to the one taking the action (either via direct or indirect participation).

In this case, she was found guilty of "sending a communication threatening death or serious harm".

>Sweeney wrote: "It’s absolutely ridiculous. Don’t protect the mosque. Blow the mosque up with the adults in it."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6x105wgz5o

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#120

Post by erxam »

landl0rd wrote: post #105
pcrh wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> inalienable rights The UK doesn't follow the American declaration of independence... In UK law such "inalienable rights" are found within the Human Rights Act, 1998 [0], itself based largely on the European Convention on Human Rights [1]. Both are famously disparaged by the political right. [0] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents [1] https://coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/home

That's basically irrelevant from where I stand. I don't subscribe to the idea that everything is relative. That we should "respect different choices". The point of an inalienable right is that it's intrinsic according to our basic values. The british failing to respect that doesn't change it.

There is no such thing as an unalienable right or as a human right.

Rights are simply the expression of the interests of certain classes at a certain point in time.

That said, I struggle to find "free speech" a compelling inalienable right when it's what has directly led to the disaster befalling the Americas in this very moment. Especially since the American conception of "free speech" isn't just to be able to express oneself, but to actually have one's words be accepted no matter what.

Post reply on HN