181–190 of 349 posts
It seems to me that what you are allowed to say in the US is very dependent on how much the person you are saying it about is able to spend on lawyers, for instance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol. How about "praying silently outside of an abortion clinic"? - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gze361j7xo How about calling a natal male a "he" - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arre... Or perhaps: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/graham... OBVIOUSLY there is a difference between Russia and the UK, obviously Russia is…
Ok, there's some context missing from those summaries though, no? In the first case it's not just "arrested for praying" it's "arrested for being in an exclusion zone specifically designated to try and stop you harassing people undertaking a lawful activity". They would have been arrested regardless of activity, it's effectively a restraining order and describing it as "for praying" is nonsense. In the second case, i…
I think part of the absurdity being pointed out is that "just standing there with your eyes closed and silently praying" is considered "harassment" at all. It just stretches the meaning of the word part the point where it seems meaningful.
Edit: I think this ultimately becomes a Sorites paradox. Obviously a whole mob of people gathered around an abortion clinic and silently praying while you're trying to enter is intimidating and should qualify as harassment, but one person doing that clearly is not. There is no point at which the number of people become "a mob" though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a very serious and bold accusation you make there. It's so serious, that you should really back it up with some evidence or at least some foundation. Got any?
What kind of evidence would you take? If it’s someone from the project openly saying what I imply, there obviously isn’t any. But if you are looking for evidence that the project took a politically biased turn to one side of the aisle, I’m sure you’ll find a lot on your own. And from there you can understand why there isn’t a single mention of what’s happening in the UK. In this very thread you can find lots of comme…
I totally agree these comments contain discussion of controversial cases, but your claim is surprising to the point of being unbelievable without any kind of support.
To give the most optimistic take: Perhaps in your country, one political party is much more pro-censorship than another, so an anti-censorship stance seems aligned against that party? That’s believable; it happens in many countries (probably including mine; it can be hard to tell, since pro-censorship is a very common stance here).
Considering the staggering number of arrest for online/offensive communications in England & Wales, we should add Britain to the list of Russia and Iran 2017: ~5,500 arrests 2019: ~7,734 arrests 2023: ~12,183 arrests
>2023: ~12,183 arrests These numbers are for _all_ arrests under the Malicious Communications Act in that year. So while that category includes arrests for tweets, it also includes all arrests for any offensive communications via an internet-enabled device. So it'd include arrests for domestic abuse where at least one component of the abuse was through WhatsApp. Similarly, it can include just about any arrest where t…
ETA:
> So it'd include arrests for domestic abuse where at least one component of the abuse was through WhatsApp.
Are you absolutely sure of this? It sounded good on the first read, but I’m very skeptical now. It seems to me that the arrest is going to be for battery, even if the charges filed later include the WhatsApp messages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am german and live here, but am not aware of such rulings. Please provide sources.
Because this thread started in a discussion about the United Kingdom, I think it is relevant to cite how this exact scenario did happen in the United Kingdom. https://www.facebook.com/piersmorganuncensored/videos/elizab... Elizabeth Kinney was arrested for a homophobic slur used privately in a text message to a third party -- not even a public comment -- against a man who physically beat her. The man served no jail t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What you cannot do is calling for violence against them. This is blatantly disingenuous. The Public Order Act 1986, Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 all criminalize "insulting" and "abusive" words, or any public display of literature that is "insulting" or "abusive" -- much more than calls for violence: > A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words…
>> What you cannot do is calling for violence against them. > This is blatantly disingenuous. The Public Order Act 1986 ... ... criminalize "insulting" and "abusive" words ... Do you know what i find disingenuous here, you hooked me with the words i quoted above so i went to the legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64 And the thing to stand out was the change of meaning when the full quote is provid…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> What you cannot do is calling for violence against them. > This is blatantly disingenuous. The Public Order Act 1986 ... ... criminalize "insulting" and "abusive" words ... Do you know what i find disingenuous here, you hooked me with the words i quoted above so i went to the legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64 And the thing to stand out was the change of meaning when the full quote is provid…
The statute says "or" and an a) b) c) bullet point listing in a statute also means "or". Maybe you are unfamiliar with boolean logic, but I was listing the relevant lines of the statute which allow someone who did not call for violence to be prosecuted, and the standard interpretation used by prosecutors to prosecute people for non-violent, non-threatening, insulting speech. What about Elizabeth Kinney, arrested for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because this thread started in a discussion about the United Kingdom, I think it is relevant to cite how this exact scenario did happen in the United Kingdom. https://www.facebook.com/piersmorganuncensored/videos/elizab... Elizabeth Kinney was arrested for a homophobic slur used privately in a text message to a third party -- not even a public comment -- against a man who physically beat her. The man served no jail t…
Do you have a credible source?
Daily Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15302729/Assault-vi...
The Sun: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37356128/mum-convicted-hate-cr...
MSN: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/crime/general/terrified-and-naked-...
Inkl: https://www.inkl.com/news/terrified-and-naked-mum-of-four-ar...
Revolver News: https://revolver.news/2025/12/uk-mother-arrested-faced-10-ye...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The statute says "or" and an a) b) c) bullet point listing in a statute also means "or". Maybe you are unfamiliar with boolean logic, but I was listing the relevant lines of the statute which allow someone who did not call for violence to be prosecuted, and the standard interpretation used by prosecutors to prosecute people for non-violent, non-threatening, insulting speech. What about Elizabeth Kinney, arrested for…
I googled it and couldn't find anything credible about this. At this point, I don't believe it actually happened the way it is being discussed.
At this point, assertions such as these are a form of ad hominem fallacy against half of society. You are discrediting the multitude of sources who have covered this story because of the nature of the speaker while no hardline liberal outlets have covered this story at all and presented a counterargument. If you want to have an alternative narrative, you need to link a major outlet showing her to be a liar. The case has been presented to the public. You don't like the people presenting the case. That doesn't invalidate the case. You must, at this point, present a member of your team making a reasonable, evidenced based deconstruction of her claims. The fact that there isn't any coverage from your side at all of this incredibly well televised and written embarrassment for the legitimacy of crown prosecutors speaks volumes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>2023: ~12,183 arrests These numbers are for _all_ arrests under the Malicious Communications Act in that year. So while that category includes arrests for tweets, it also includes all arrests for any offensive communications via an internet-enabled device. So it'd include arrests for domestic abuse where at least one component of the abuse was through WhatsApp. Similarly, it can include just about any arrest where t…
The point is, communications should not be surveilled at all by the state. It shouldn't matter that the Internet is sometimes used to commit crimes, the bigger issue is that the vast majority of non-criminal traffic is subject to snooping.