So the UK is now China it seems. What a shining light for democracy and justice. There is no way this will be abused by petty little tyrant minister right?
[flagged]
UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s
61–70 of 75 posts
Re: UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
She called for hotels housing immigrants to be burned in the middle of a riot. Hotels suspected of housing immigrants were, in fact, burned during the course of that riot. She clearly understood that her actions were wrong, and went on to try to cover her tracks and "play the mental health card". The appeal judgment is very clear and is worth reading: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Con... Th…
If you're rights are contingent on circumstance, they're not rights. I don't see anything there encouraging a riot. There is no call to action. We should know this isn't enough to convict, since a Labour councillor who called for far-right activists' throats to be cut at an anti-racism rally [0], actually inciting violence, was cleared of wrong doing. From the article, you'll notice politicians calling out situation:…
I agree, both should have been charged. Only one was. You could argue that the MP is making the greater offence as he/she is in a position of authority.
Re: UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're rights are contingent on circumstance, they're not rights. I don't see anything there encouraging a riot. There is no call to action. We should know this isn't enough to convict, since a Labour councillor who called for far-right activists' throats to be cut at an anti-racism rally [0], actually inciting violence, was cleared of wrong doing. From the article, you'll notice politicians calling out situation:…
I agree, both should have been charged. Only one was. You could argue that the MP is making the greater offence as he/she is in a position of authority.
There's a lot of misinformation being spread about this, but it's worth sticking to the facts.
And, in fact, both were charged and both were prosecuted.
Connolly admitted guilt but appealed against her sentence. This appeal was denied for the reasons given in the judgment above.
Jones was unanimously found not guilty by a jury at trial.
Re: UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s
#64Good
Too bad your internet access is not restricted.
Re: UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, no, not that Europe. You were of course talking about the Europe with Spain (oh wait, La Liga has a cloudflare kill switch). You were of course talking about the Europe with Italy (oh wait, the Piracy Shield). You were of course talking about the Europe with Turkyie (oh wait, ...
Ok go on finish your sentence.
I shouldn't need to - if it doesn't foundationally offend you that Spain has endorsed a private entity with the ability to routinely turn off part of the Internet for their own private convenience then fundamentally we have a different view about how this whole thing should work.
Re: UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, no, not that Europe. You were of course talking about the Europe with Spain (oh wait, La Liga has a cloudflare kill switch). You were of course talking about the Europe with Italy (oh wait, the Piracy Shield). You were of course talking about the Europe with Turkyie (oh wait, ...
"Oh wait, I cannot download porn, stolen software, and stolen media". Censorship! /s
That definitionally is censorship, whether you think its effects are just or not.
Re: UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s
#67So now consider that the same government want to extend voting rights to 16 year olds. So you can vote but you can't control the media you use to learn about who you're potentially voting for. There is something not quite right about that.
Catch-22. They want to censor and not let you learn about the opposite opposition restricting your vote to the current opposition at the same time pissing you off from voting for the current opposition for restricting your rights to learn about the opposite opposition.
Re: UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, both should have been charged. Only one was. You could argue that the MP is making the greater offence as he/she is in a position of authority.
There's a lot of misinformation being spread about this, but it's worth sticking to the facts. And, in fact, both were charged and both were prosecuted. Connolly admitted guilt but appealed against her sentence. This appeal was denied for the reasons given in the judgment above. Jones was unanimously found not guilty by a jury at trial.
Thanks for the info. What disturbs me most is the polarization and increasing intolerance of different/opposing ideas and opinions. I'm referring to "slit their throats" kinds of reactions and "set [it] on fire". There's no "lets agree to disagree and meet half way". No compromise. That's seen as weak.
Re: UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s
#69Re: UK MPs give ministers powers to restrict Internet for under 18s
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UK already arrests more than 1,000 a month people for online "hate speech". Higher than the official numbers for China, whatever those are worth. They'll probably reach the unofficial, real number soon enough. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...
Can you give some examples of the speech the UK arrests people for?
Here's an article from right after the original one that I posted giving 12 examples. https://web.archive.org/web/20250903165214/https://www.teleg...
Some of these people are certainly not saying kind things, and are saying things that I object to. That being said, objectionable speech is the only kind of speech that needs robust legal protection. A democratic society cannot endure under a regime that can, at the discretion of any given officer, decide you have said something objectionable and are now subject to the law.