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

Staying ahead of censors in 2025

forum.torproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 349 posts

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#291

Post by onraglanroad »

sanskritical wrote: post #288
onraglanroad wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you knew the details and chose to misrepresent the situation. We don't have SWAT teams in the UK. She'd have been sent a letter telling her to appear in court on a certain date. If you feel the need to lie continually, you shouldn't really consider yourself a Christian.

I didn't misrepresent the situation it all. It is exactly as I described. 11 armed people is a functional equivalent of a SWAT team. My statement was hyperbolic. If you serve someone a court summons for a bullshit charge it is a threat of violence against their person. And the charge was bullshit. And the threat of violence was followed up with force. I'm not lying. I'm also not Christian at all! Never claimed to be.

Sorry, mixed you up with someone else in this thread.

I don't believe that 11 armed people turned up to arrest her. I've never heard of such a thing.

Edit: ok, I'm going to assume you had no idea that UK police officers are not routinely armed. Armed officers are specifically trained and only deployed when the suspect is thought to be armed. Most of those were probably IT to check computers and devices.

She pled guilty to the charge on the advice of her lawyer.

Edit 2: actually the more I read on this the less I believe. An initial contact by the police would be 2 police officers, they would knock at the door and ask to speak to you. How did they get a warrant to get in? Is this all completely bullshit?

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#292

Post by Defletter »

instig007 wrote: post #228
Defletter wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeaaaah, the Communications Act 2003 is not fit for purpose in the modern information age where [seemingly] the vast majority of conversation is taking place in digital spaces. Sidenote, I do think it's amusing how, prior to the Online Safety Act 2023, it was an offence to Cunningham's Law someone (posting a knowingly-false statement online to annoy someone into correcting you). That said, I'm more or less ambivalent…

> being gratuitously abhorrent and should have known better. This is an incredibly stupid take, and I would vote for a legislation to penalise incredibly stupid ones before gratuitously abhorrent, and more harshly so. It would be gloriously wonderful, too.

Cool beans

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#293

Post by Defletter »

naasking wrote: post #192
Defletter wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that it is really difficult to define what hate speech is It can be, but free speech types like to pretend it's nigh impossible. The UK has had modern hate-speech laws (for want of a better term) since the Public Order Act 1986, which made it an offence to stir up or incite racial hatred. Amendments in 2006 and 2008 expanded that to religious and homophobic hatred respectively. This exists in stark c…

> which made it an offence to stir up or incite racial hatred. If you point out that one racial demographic is responsible for more crimes than another, would that run afoul of the statute? If not, what if you additionally point out that the reason these crimes were committed is likely because that behaviour is normalized in their culture? This seems like it would definitely run afoul of the statute, and if this logi…

Do you have any examples of people being prosecuted for hate speech by stating nothing but dry facts?

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#294

Post by sanskritical »

daveguy wrote: post #290
sanskritical wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so it is about him being Christian and not Asian.

Nope. It's about him being vocally biased and claiming his purpose in media is specific to an agenda. That agenda is specifically not journalism. So yeah... Really doesn't have anything to do with the motives you are falsely attributing to me. Might want to read your own sources before you start flinging accusations. You can try to twist my words however you want, but it seems your usual targets are much more easily…

> and claiming his purpose in media is specific to an agenda.

This is literally every single media outlet's owners, so he's at least more honest than the rest of them.

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#295

Post by like_any_other »

fasbiner wrote: post #43
earthnail wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d much rather get arrested in Britain than Russia or Iran. And I certainly wouldn’t put the UK in the same bucket as Russia and Iran. Not even close. Hate speech is a problem. If it wasn’t, why are Russia and China spending so much on troll farms? It’s a direct attack on a democracy’s ability to form consensus. I don’t think we’ve found the right, effective way to deal with this problem yet, but I applaud any democ…

So to be clear, your sole expectation of a liberal democracy is that it have a better judicial system than Russia or Iran. And beyond that, you applaud any democratic country's efforts to reign in speech by arresting their own citizens in order to combat foreign influence operations? And the fulcrum of this argument is that we believe that Russia and China have uniquely pernicious influence operations and there are n…

> in order to combat foreign influence operations?

They don't have to be foreign - domestic prohibited leafleting suffices: Samuel Melia: Far-right activist jailed after sticker campaign - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#296

Post by naasking »

Defletter wrote: post #293
naasking wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which made it an offence to stir up or incite racial hatred. If you point out that one racial demographic is responsible for more crimes than another, would that run afoul of the statute? If not, what if you additionally point out that the reason these crimes were committed is likely because that behaviour is normalized in their culture? This seems like it would definitely run afoul of the statute, and if this logi…

Do you have any examples of people being prosecuted for hate speech by stating nothing but dry facts?

Does the law explicitly specify that dry facts would be excluded? Or is it sufficiently broad that dry facts could be included if some over-zealous bureaucrats get it in their head that some speech or people are problematic?

I am interested in the letter of the law, because that's what matters, not how it's being applied while the winds are blowing in a particular direction.

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#297

Post by like_any_other »

ben_w wrote: post #81
throwfaraway135 wrote: post #17

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

Much as I take a dim view of the laws and politics of England & Wales*, those numbers include "indecent" and "obscene" messages, i.e. dick picks could be mixed up in these totals. I suspect the actual number of un-asked-for dick picks sent each year is significantly (multiple orders of magnitude) higher than that, while also suspecting that most of those pics don't lead to arrests and what people are arrested for is…

> those numbers include "indecent" and "obscene" messages

Should we be worried that the government doesn't even bother to track how many people are arrested/jailed/convicted of non-true-threat/sexual harassment speech?

Well surely then one of the many NGOs fighting tyranny is trying to keep track of the numbers, right?

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#298

Post by lukan »

graemep wrote: post #261
naasking wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I think part of the absurdity being pointed out is that "just standing there with you…

> bviously 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. The case I know of all involve individuals. Apart from silent prayer, a woman was arrested for holding up a sign saying that coercion was a crime and offering to talk to anyone who wanted to. Is that intimidati…

"Apart from silent prayer, a woman was arrested for holding up a sign saying that coercion was a crime and offering to talk to anyone who wanted to. Is that intimidating?"

Depends on the context. Body language etc. But the main context is probably they were gathering in a place where it is forbidden to gather. Not arrested for praying or holding up signs.

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#299

Post by Defletter »

4bpp wrote: post #174
Defletter wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that it is really difficult to define what hate speech is It can be, but free speech types like to pretend it's nigh impossible. The UK has had modern hate-speech laws (for want of a better term) since the Public Order Act 1986, which made it an offence to stir up or incite racial hatred. Amendments in 2006 and 2008 expanded that to religious and homophobic hatred respectively. This exists in stark c…

> freeze peach Do you not think that trying to malign your opposition by putting a comical misspelling in their mouths is a bit infantile as a rhetorical tactic? The same thing being done to you would look something like an insinuation that what is being banned is "hurting someone's widdle fee-fees"; surely the discussion here would not benefit if everyone stooped down to that level.

> surely the discussion here would not benefit if everyone stooped down to that level.

Oh we were already at that level by that time: the comment mine responds to makes the claim that "it is really difficult to define what hate speech is" (untrue); that "more often than not it's used as a cudgel to silence the opposition" (unsubstantiated); and claims that the UK government's intentions match that of Iran and Russia (untrue).

For some reason, so many people seem to tolerate outright disinformation but draw the line at mild childishness. It's bewildering.

Re: Staying ahead of censors in 2025

#300

Post by immibis »

llmslave2 wrote: post #271
immibis wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's correct. Have you tried reporting them to the police? If they're in the UK, they can be prosecuted.

No I haven't tried reporting them to the police because A) it's not illegal speech and B) I'm not a loser

Uh, it is illegal. That's why people get arrested and convicted for it.
Post reply on HN