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

UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

bsky.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 298 posts

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#141

Post by 1234letshaveatw »

omnicognate wrote: post #90
Yeul wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not American and I find the English legal system hilarious. In practically all countries a bunch of smart people got together in the 19th century to write a constitution but the British thought that they were above such petty concerns.

Profound legal analysis there. The United States' experiences with its written constitution don't give me any reason to think one would be a good idea in the UK.

I know right? Just look at all the wrongthink in the US being bandied about

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#142

Post by GeoAtreides »

rmccue wrote: post #101
Yeul wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not American and I find the English legal system hilarious. In practically all countries a bunch of smart people got together in the 19th century to write a constitution but the British thought that they were above such petty concerns.

The UK has a constitution, it's just not written in a single place. Many (most?) western societies have a similar concept for civil and criminal law with common law jurisdictions, where precedent is used rather than an explicit, exhaustive legal code. Effectively, the UK's constitution is to written constitutions as common law is to civil law.

I will argue that the UK doesn't have a Constitution and that's because of this one thing: No parliament can bind a future parliament. A Constitution is exactly this: a contract binding all future Parliaments to a specific set of axioms that must be respected.

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#143

Post by dgroshev »

dustincoates wrote: post #5

Without passing judgment on the act, this is incredibly misleading. I found the source of the original quotes[0], and they are taken quite out of context. From the article: >First, we are told, the relevant secretary of state (Michelle Donelan) expressed “concern” that the legislation might whack sites such as Amazon instead of Pornhub. In response, officials explained that the regulation in question was “not primari…

It's a misleading quote from a misleading article. It's remarkable how the article never mentions that the Act was passed by the Tories, blaming "civil servants" for it. The author did frame the Act very differently back in 2023 when it was passed [0]:

> It is high time the government took action, by which I do not mean passing the Online Safety Bill, an approach that is like putting a new filter in the opium pipe.

[0]: https://archive.ph/TCnTf

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#144

Post by xienze »

darrenf wrote: post #97
nxm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is happening in Britain is people are being actually arrested for “offensive” speech, which is of course subjective, subject to abuse, and open to totalitarian oppression. This is why the First Amendment in the US constitution is so important

Arrests are up, but sentences are down — i.e. fewer convictions/criminal records https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/select-communications-off... > there are several reasons why an arrest may not result in a sentence, such as out-of-court resolutions, but said the “most common is “evidential difficulties””, specifically that the victim does not support taking further action. As mentioned at the top of the above docume…

> Arrests are up, but sentences are down — i.e. fewer convictions/criminal records

Well that’s certainly a relief! People are only being _arrested_ for """offensive""" speech, not convicted!

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#145

Post by extraisland »

khalic wrote: post #99
extraisland wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really get annoyed when someone suggests this (it not your fault). You are believing what you are told at school about how Politics works. Many of us understand this is unrealistic. Here is an incomplete list of reasons why I would never get involved directly in politics: 1. It takes literally decades to get a political party off the ground without major backing. All the new parties that you hear of are bankrolled…

Sorry for your past, happy you got out of it. 1. Listen, yes it’s very hard work, but it’s this or be squeezed until there’s nothing else. And when people start having famines we’ll have a new French Revolution, millions will die, and this will require a lot more energy than doing changes today. 2. Will do, I don’t know enough on that subject to have an opinion on that. But unjust, unmovable systems, like monarchies…

> Sorry for your past, happy you got out of it.

Thanks.

> Listen, yes it’s very hard work, but it’s this or be squeezed until there’s nothing else. And when people start having famines we’ll have a new French Revolution, millions will die, and this will require a lot more energy than doing changes today.

All parties that you would have heard of, will have major backing from a number of wealthy donors. You also have to have the right people involved. Not everyone should be engaged in politics directly.

I am not under the delusion that I can fix the country. I can't even master the mess in my spare room. The best I can do is try to help my family, friends and community.

As for violent conflict. Many people think there is going to be some sort of violent conflict coming to the UK. David Betz has several interviews on YouTube on the subject. I've emailed him personally (about something unrelated) and he is a serious person. I don't know whether he is right or not and only time will tell.

> Will do, I don’t know enough on that subject to have an opinion on that. But unjust, unmovable systems, like monarchies (wink) have been toppled in the past. Even recently.

The monarchy isn't the problem.

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#146

Post by GeoAtreides »

crinkly wrote: post #58
mcjiggerlog wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There oddly seems to be a concerted effort online to paint the UK as some kind of failing police state recently. This narrative seems to have really taken off with some Americans, who now seem completely convinced that the UK government is some kind of totalitarian oppressor who are snatching people off the streets. Meanwhile, Brits just look on at this narrative wondering what the hell they're talking about. Look, I…

If it was a police state, JD Vance wouldn’t be getting it on his holiday here from protesters and video vans driving around and being refused service in a pub. It could end up that way but we’re not there yet. If we do get there we tend to make the French look like amateur protestors (look up poll tax riots). I’m less worried about a police state than a corporate dystopia. The attendee list at Trump’s inauguration wo…

If it WASN'T a police state, 500 people wouldn't have been arrested for holding up a sign.

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#147

Post by zimpenfish »

nrawe wrote: post #87
nxm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is happening in Britain is people are being actually arrested for “offensive” speech, which is of course subjective, subject to abuse, and open to totalitarian oppression. This is why the First Amendment in the US constitution is so important

I'm happy to be wrong, but I don't believe that's correct. There have been some people arrested for inciting violence via social media during the Southport riots. There is also Tommy Robinson/Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who has been remanded in custody for contempt of court for continuing to libel an immigrant even after his claims were proven to be false. And by contempt of court, he literally has produced a movie contin…

> its not particularly different to other groups like environmental activists that commit criminal acts being proscribed

I can't find any on [0] - do you have examples?

[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror...

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#148

Post by KaiserPro »

moomin wrote: post #92
nrawe wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy to be wrong, but I don't believe that's correct. There have been some people arrested for inciting violence via social media during the Southport riots. There is also Tommy Robinson/Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who has been remanded in custody for contempt of court for continuing to libel an immigrant even after his claims were proven to be false. And by contempt of court, he literally has produced a movie contin…

Vandalism and destruction of property is a shockingly low bar. The suffragettes threw an axe at the king and no-one said they should be a proscribed organisation.

> no-one said they should be a proscribed organisation.

That wasn't a thing back then, not really

https://www.londonmuseum.org.uk/collections/v/object-453005/...

Arrested for "obstructing a policeman"

All of the suffragettes that were caught were normally caused with vandalism

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#149

Post by jjgreen »

mcjiggerlog wrote: post #40
dustincoates wrote: post #5

Without passing judgment on the act, this is incredibly misleading. I found the source of the original quotes[0], and they are taken quite out of context. From the article: >First, we are told, the relevant secretary of state (Michelle Donelan) expressed “concern” that the legislation might whack sites such as Amazon instead of Pornhub. In response, officials explained that the regulation in question was “not primari…

There oddly seems to be a concerted effort online to paint the UK as some kind of failing police state recently. This narrative seems to have really taken off with some Americans, who now seem completely convinced that the UK government is some kind of totalitarian oppressor who are snatching people off the streets. Meanwhile, Brits just look on at this narrative wondering what the hell they're talking about. Look, I…

This country where 80-year old vicars are arrested for holding up a small piece of paper expressing support for a non-violent proscribed organisation? Everything is fine citizen, move along...

Re: UK government states that 'safety' act is about influence over public discourse

#150

Post by zimpenfish »

nrawe wrote: post #134
Xelbair wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, I've been visiting Britain as a tourist for years(since more than 10 years ago) - mostly to visit my friends who live there. Each time i come there it's worse than previous trip, and your whole infrastructure feels oppressive. Constant reminders to be vigilant because something bad might happen(train and metro jingles come to mind) - implying a terrorist attack. Constant reminders that you're watched by cameras…

As a Brit, I'd agree that it's not ideal. However, the characterisation of terrorist scare in the 2000's, is somewhat off. Over the course of the last two decades, there have been numerous terrorist attacks, most notably 7/9, which have led to increased vigilance and securitisation. So while travelling in Hungary, Croatia, or Italy over the last few years I've noted the difference, I also appreciate that each country…

> Over the course of the last two decades, there have been numerous terrorist attacks

And don't forget the 3-4 decades before that where terrorist attacks were just a fact of life in the UK.

Post reply on HN