I support the safety act, but this on top will be so disappointing. The most harmed are already being kept safe without this.
UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16
461–470 of 499 posts
Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16
#462Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're conflating legitimate criticism with incitement. The police record suggest the opposite. Take the example *Bernadette Spofforth, 55*, she shared false information that the attacker was an asylum seeker, adding "If this is true, all hell will break loose." (not false btw) Deleted it, apologized. She still got arrested, held 36 hours, and then *released without charge because of insufficient evidence*. No call f…
> You're conflating legitimate criticism with incitement. You should tell the right wingers that. Here's some of the right-wing sources I found when searching Ground News for some articles about Lucy Connolly, the woman who publicly advocating for the burning down of hotels housing asylum seekers: - "British Mother Jailed for Tweet: ‘I Was Starmer’s Political Prisoner’" (The European Conservative) ( https://europeanc…
I actually do too, the issue is that in today’s wacko world the defense of Free Speech which in the early 2000s was a domain of the left/center-left, now has been abandonded due to the notion of “hate-speech” and opportunistically taken by the right (even tho many like MAGA will drop it the moment it stops being politically convenient i.e expulsion of students being critical of Israel actions).
A lot of those are propaganda peddlers who would drop the charade the moment someone on their political opposite side finds themselves in the same position (they keep crying about statements of Palestine and anti-semitism). I agree that they are stupid in their defense of Lucy Connely who literally and unrepentably pushed to “burn the asylum centers”, and that they are willfully conflating the issue to further their agenda.
The issue is both you and the retarded conservatives uses the situation to push their agendas, and as a counterpoint while they have media empires the left-wing political side also has media conglomerates pushing their ideas (BBC having a center-left slant).
No, the issue is going to fix itself with free speech, when no side is persecuted and better quality and rational discourse can arise and not be censored or overtaken by the extremes. Currently the only sane takes on many issues like immigration, economy or free speech exist only in the internet ghettos hidden from the larger public.
Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany does not protect free speech the way the US does. You're free to voice any opinion, but the exact wordings in which you are allowed to do it are restricted. You are allowed to say "I hate Merz" but not "Merz is a piece of garbage". I'm not saying this is good, but it's not recent and it does not prevent free communication of ideas.
As we have seen, it is very easy to declare certain beliefs beyond contestation and any disagreement with them as insulting/inciting hate/etc. That's why freedom of speech must entail the freedom to say things people find offensive, or there's no free communication of ideas at all. The state and ruling elites will determine that there is a set of proscribed ideas and a set of approved ideas and yours fall into the wr…
This is generally the mainstream take on it. These laws are not generally seen as good. However, if dictatorship comes back, the law is meaningless, so what a dictator would use a law for is a moot point.
As for whether it's ingrained in German culture, quite possibly! These laws originate from the 1500s.
Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16
#464Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. The success of even one such prosecution means that the second someone in government wants someone out of the way, they can efficiently be imprisoned for anything rising to the level of... "offensive."
"offensive" actually has a relatively solid definition based on how judges have ruled on it in the past. This includes hate-mongering against protected characteristics, which I see a lot of from the USA right now.
You're loving this.
Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16
#465Earlier quoted context omitted.
As we have seen, it is very easy to declare certain beliefs beyond contestation and any disagreement with them as insulting/inciting hate/etc. That's why freedom of speech must entail the freedom to say things people find offensive, or there's no free communication of ideas at all. The state and ruling elites will determine that there is a set of proscribed ideas and a set of approved ideas and yours fall into the wr…
This is generally the mainstream take on it. These laws are not generally seen as good. However, if dictatorship comes back, the law is meaningless, so what a dictator would use a law for is a moot point. As for whether it's ingrained in German culture, quite possibly! These laws originate from the 1500s.
Dictators, despite the name, cannot do whatever they want. That’s even moreso the case with long democratic or republican histories and in large modern states with enormous political machineries. They require backing from large swaths of the population and have to subvert the existing institutions to their will, which requires a delicate hand.
Already having a legal infrastructure and social expectation that offensive speech is criminal is an enormous help to dictators.
Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16
#466Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're conflating legitimate criticism with incitement. You should tell the right wingers that. Here's some of the right-wing sources I found when searching Ground News for some articles about Lucy Connolly, the woman who publicly advocating for the burning down of hotels housing asylum seekers: - "British Mother Jailed for Tweet: ‘I Was Starmer’s Political Prisoner’" (The European Conservative) ( https://europeanc…
I actually do too, the issue is that in today’s wacko world the defense of Free Speech which in the early 2000s was a domain of the left/center-left, now has been abandonded due to the notion of “hate-speech” and opportunistically taken by the right (even tho many like MAGA will drop it the moment it stops being politically convenient i.e expulsion of students being critical of Israel actions). A lot of those are pro…
> which in the early 2000s was a domain of the left/center-left
Could you elaborate on that? I'm aware of the Lib Dems championing changes to the law to remove restrictions on "insulting" speech, but even so, they're not left/centre left. There's a joke that they're just yellow tories.
> now has been abandonded due to the notion of “hate-speech”
That's untrue. Stirring up or inciting racial hatred was made an offence by the Public Order Act 1986. And while it's true that stirring up religious hatred and homophobic hatred were added to that in 2006 and 2008 respectively, this did not invent the notion of hate speech. Lord Sumption, who was on our Supreme Court, said that the traditional line in English law was between words that merely outrage and words that would cause a breach of the peace amongst reasonable people (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=END98dJwpCg&t=1306s). Stirring up racial, religious, or homophobic hatred would seem to conform to that.
> BBC having a center-left slant
That's also untrue. The BBC participated in the pillorying of Corbyn; the BBC gave JK Rowling a Russel Prize for her anti-trans manifesto (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55350905); the whole debacle with the "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women" article (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4buJMMiwcg); the BBC downplaying Gaza (eg: killed vs died, not allowing the term "genocide", demanding anyone critical of Israel to ritualistically condemn Hamas, etc); the BBC preventing pro-Palestinian audience members for Question Time (https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2025/10/03/bb...). And speaking of Question Time, how many times has Farage (or other Reformer) been a panellist now? And this is just the stuff I've personally witnessed and noted down. The BBC is establishment media through and through: the BBC is not suddenly centre left because there's gay people in Eastenders.
Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually do too, the issue is that in today’s wacko world the defense of Free Speech which in the early 2000s was a domain of the left/center-left, now has been abandonded due to the notion of “hate-speech” and opportunistically taken by the right (even tho many like MAGA will drop it the moment it stops being politically convenient i.e expulsion of students being critical of Israel actions). A lot of those are pro…
> which in the early 2000s was a domain of the left/center-left Could you elaborate on that? I'm aware of the Lib Dems championing changes to the law to remove restrictions on "insulting" speech, but even so, they're not left/centre left. There's a joke that they're just yellow tories. > now has been abandonded due to the notion of “hate-speech” That's untrue. Stirring up or inciting racial hatred was made an offence…
> the BBC gave JK Rowling a Russel Prize for her anti-trans manifesto
It wasn't an "anti-trans manifesto", but a thoughtful explanation of her reasons for speaking out on the sex and gender issue, where she discusses her concerns for women's rights and safety, the well-being of vulnerable children, and how important it is to be allowed to speak freely on this topic. Plenty of people on the left (and centre-left) agree with her too.
As with all her work, it was very well written, which the article you linked rightly acknowledges.
Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16
#468Earlier quoted context omitted.
> which in the early 2000s was a domain of the left/center-left Could you elaborate on that? I'm aware of the Lib Dems championing changes to the law to remove restrictions on "insulting" speech, but even so, they're not left/centre left. There's a joke that they're just yellow tories. > now has been abandonded due to the notion of “hate-speech” That's untrue. Stirring up or inciting racial hatred was made an offence…
> the BBC gave JK Rowling a Russel Prize for her anti-trans manifesto It wasn't an "anti-trans manifesto", but a thoughtful explanation of her reasons for speaking out on the sex and gender issue, where she discusses her concerns for women's rights and safety, the well-being of vulnerable children, and how important it is to be allowed to speak freely on this topic. Plenty of people on the left (and centre-left) agre…
Oh hello, welcome to this 18-comment deep thread. This is the second time now that I've mentioned JK Rowling's transphobia and had a randomer show up and comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37058027). You, like them, also only speak about JKR on your profile. How curious.
Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16
#469Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the BBC gave JK Rowling a Russel Prize for her anti-trans manifesto It wasn't an "anti-trans manifesto", but a thoughtful explanation of her reasons for speaking out on the sex and gender issue, where she discusses her concerns for women's rights and safety, the well-being of vulnerable children, and how important it is to be allowed to speak freely on this topic. Plenty of people on the left (and centre-left) agre…
Oh hello, welcome to this 18-comment deep thread. This is the second time now that I've mentioned JK Rowling's transphobia and had a randomer show up and comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37058027 ). You, like them, also only speak about JKR on your profile. How curious.
All that link shows is you have a long-running habit of disparaging outspoken feminists.
Re: UK House of Lords attempting to ban use of VPNs by anyone under 16
#470Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh hello, welcome to this 18-comment deep thread. This is the second time now that I've mentioned JK Rowling's transphobia and had a randomer show up and comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37058027 ). You, like them, also only speak about JKR on your profile. How curious.
All that link shows is you have a long-running habit of disparaging outspoken feminists.
It's shows that JKR, a billionaire, has an army of sleeper accounts willing to jump at any mention of her nakedly virulent transphobia. Second-wave feminists would deplore her bio-essentialism. She is an anti-feminist.