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

The UK government has blocked IPs

police.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 107 posts

Re: The UK government has blocked IPs

#91

Post by BoredPositron »

_heimdall wrote: post #90
BoredPositron wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws are difficult to understand? Is it the first one you've read? Oh no you haven't read it... because the one we are talking about is pretty straight cut. Sorry but you are really not commenting in good faith here. It's just straw man argument after straw man argument. It's just liberté and nothing else for you I guess.

For the average person, yes laws are absolutely difficult to understand. We wouldn't need to involve lawyers nearly as often if laws were easy to understand and the process, defined by laws, was clear. It isn't just about liberté for me. The law in discussion here may be pretty straight cut with regards to understanding what's on the page, but not with understanding what power the government is actually granted or wh…

Oh stop the straw man arguments ask 10 people on the street about traffic laws and you get the same results for what you are fishing now. Ofc everyone will know that a Red Light means stop but than there are more obscure ones like the "Move Over" law in the US which even varies between states.

Re: The UK government has blocked IPs

#92

Post by BoredPositron »

_heimdall wrote: post #89
BoredPositron wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Dismissing others opinions by rolling them up into some faceless group of guys and refusing to discuss or consider your views is helpful to no one. You haven't get explained how speech online itself hurts anyone, I'd be interested to hear how that might work. I only brought up the US because you specifically referenced voting and separation of powers. I can only vote in the US so my context is limited, and the separa…

You're not even voicing an opinion. You're "just asking questions." Online hate speech isn't just words on a screen; it can seriously mess people up mentally and emotionally. That's why we've got laws like the Network Enforcement Act in Germany and the EU's Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online. These aren't for show – they're there because hate speech can lead to real-world violence and discrimination. If you're so curious, look up the studies on how online harassment affects mental health. But let's be real, you're probably not interested in facts, just in stirring up trouble. Well, I'm not biting. The laws are there, the research is there, and people's lived experiences are there. Deal with it.

Re: The UK government has blocked IPs

#93

Post by _heimdall »

BoredPositron wrote: post #91
_heimdall wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the average person, yes laws are absolutely difficult to understand. We wouldn't need to involve lawyers nearly as often if laws were easy to understand and the process, defined by laws, was clear. It isn't just about liberté for me. The law in discussion here may be pretty straight cut with regards to understanding what's on the page, but not with understanding what power the government is actually granted or wh…

Oh stop the straw man arguments ask 10 people on the street about traffic laws and you get the same results for what you are fishing now. Ofc everyone will know that a Red Light means stop but than there are more obscure ones like the "Move Over" law in the US which even varies between states.

How is this a straw mab argument? I'm not saying poll any random 10 people on what they currently know of laws already on the book, I'd expect that to end poorly.

With regards to this specific law being clear and understandable by those who must follow it, I'm proposing that asking 10 of those people to read it and they wouldn't agree what the law means and when it will be enforced. I don't see that being a straw man, though I could very well be missing something there.

Re: The UK government has blocked IPs

#94

Post by _heimdall »

BoredPositron wrote: post #92
_heimdall wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dismissing others opinions by rolling them up into some faceless group of guys and refusing to discuss or consider your views is helpful to no one. You haven't get explained how speech online itself hurts anyone, I'd be interested to hear how that might work. I only brought up the US because you specifically referenced voting and separation of powers. I can only vote in the US so my context is limited, and the separa…

You're not even voicing an opinion. You're "just asking questions." Online hate speech isn't just words on a screen; it can seriously mess people up mentally and emotionally. That's why we've got laws like the Network Enforcement Act in Germany and the EU's Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online. These aren't for show – they're there because hate speech can lead to real-world violence and discrimina…

I understand that we have different opinions on the risk of speech, there's nothing wrong with that. But how do you see my comments here as not voicing an opinion? I pretty clearly raised my view that speech itself can't cause harm and shouldn't be regulated, though that actions taken by people should be.

Re: The UK government has blocked IPs

#95

Post by BoredPositron »

_heimdall wrote: post #93
BoredPositron wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh stop the straw man arguments ask 10 people on the street about traffic laws and you get the same results for what you are fishing now. Ofc everyone will know that a Red Light means stop but than there are more obscure ones like the "Move Over" law in the US which even varies between states.

How is this a straw mab argument? I'm not saying poll any random 10 people on what they currently know of laws already on the book, I'd expect that to end poorly. With regards to this specific law being clear and understandable by those who must follow it, I'm proposing that asking 10 of those people to read it and they wouldn't agree what the law means and when it will be enforced. I don't see that being a straw man…

Because if you give traffic laws to 10 random people on the street to read they might understand the gist of it but not every detail.

Re: The UK government has blocked IPs

#96

Post by BoredPositron »

_heimdall wrote: post #94
BoredPositron wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not even voicing an opinion. You're "just asking questions." Online hate speech isn't just words on a screen; it can seriously mess people up mentally and emotionally. That's why we've got laws like the Network Enforcement Act in Germany and the EU's Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online. These aren't for show – they're there because hate speech can lead to real-world violence and discrimina…

I understand that we have different opinions on the risk of speech, there's nothing wrong with that. But how do you see my comments here as not voicing an opinion? I pretty clearly raised my view that speech itself can't cause harm and shouldn't be regulated, though that actions taken by people should be.

Okay, you are clearly missing the context of what we’re discussing in this thread.

Here’s a primer:

- The UK has experienced racial riots over the past few weeks.

- There was a mass murder in the last weeks.

- During these racial riots, someone "identified" an immigrant as the attacker, which turned out to be misinformation and incited a manhunt.

- This individual was apprehended.

- 4chan went full "fr33d0m" and launched a DDoS attack against the police website.

- In response, the UK police blocked international IPs to mitigate this attack.

The law is clear-cut: it defines illegal hate speech as public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group, defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin.

This is the situation we’re discussing. Your stance may be that you believe the woman had the right to lie and incite violence, but that still violates the specific law we're addressing, and my initial comment was directed at this particular issue, this law. You might not agree with the law and may argue that saying "Kill all illegal immigrants." or "Kill this specific immigrant." is acceptable online or even offline. While Elon might be on board with that perspective, I’m glad the governing bodies of the UK and EU are not. It's the libertè thing again...

Re: The UK government has blocked IPs

#97

Post by _heimdall »

BoredPositron wrote: post #95
_heimdall wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this a straw mab argument? I'm not saying poll any random 10 people on what they currently know of laws already on the book, I'd expect that to end poorly. With regards to this specific law being clear and understandable by those who must follow it, I'm proposing that asking 10 of those people to read it and they wouldn't agree what the law means and when it will be enforced. I don't see that being a straw man…

Because if you give traffic laws to 10 random people on the street to read they might understand the gist of it but not every detail.

Okay we may be getting to the cote of where we disagree, regardless of free speech issues.

Do you not see it as a problem for the average person to be unable to understand the laws they are meant to follow?

For me, that's a real problem. In the example of traffic laws, either the laws are important to keep us safe on the road and the fact that people can't understand the laws as written puts us all at risk. Alternatively, if we're happy enough with road safety despite the fact that people can't understand traffic laws then the laws aren't serving a purpose and aren't needed. On top of that, people will be at risk of being fined or imprisoned for breaking laws that they didn't realize they broke, even when they took the time to read and try to understand the laws.

Re: The UK government has blocked IPs

#98

Post by 23B1 »

BoredPositron wrote: post #96
_heimdall wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that we have different opinions on the risk of speech, there's nothing wrong with that. But how do you see my comments here as not voicing an opinion? I pretty clearly raised my view that speech itself can't cause harm and shouldn't be regulated, though that actions taken by people should be.

Okay, you are clearly missing the context of what we’re discussing in this thread. Here’s a primer: - The UK has experienced racial riots over the past few weeks. - There was a mass murder in the last weeks. - During these racial riots, someone "identified" an immigrant as the attacker, which turned out to be misinformation and incited a manhunt. - This individual was apprehended. - 4chan went full "fr33d0m" and laun…

The "clear cut" of the law you cited is anything but. The definition of hatred, for example, is not only insufficient for a just law, but can be – and is – reasonably stretched to encompass anything the current regime doesn't like.

Re: The UK government has blocked IPs

#99

Post by BoredPositron »

23B1 wrote: post #98
BoredPositron wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, you are clearly missing the context of what we’re discussing in this thread. Here’s a primer: - The UK has experienced racial riots over the past few weeks. - There was a mass murder in the last weeks. - During these racial riots, someone "identified" an immigrant as the attacker, which turned out to be misinformation and incited a manhunt. - This individual was apprehended. - 4chan went full "fr33d0m" and laun…

The "clear cut" of the law you cited is anything but. The definition of hatred, for example, is not only insufficient for a just law, but can be – and is – reasonably stretched to encompass anything the current regime doesn't like.

That's why there is a division of powers but I am not gonna try to explain that to a person who tries to haggle about the meaning of words while calling a freshly elected democratic government a regime. That would just be silly. lmao

Re: The UK government has blocked IPs

#100

Post by _heimdall »

BoredPositron wrote: post #96
_heimdall wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that we have different opinions on the risk of speech, there's nothing wrong with that. But how do you see my comments here as not voicing an opinion? I pretty clearly raised my view that speech itself can't cause harm and shouldn't be regulated, though that actions taken by people should be.

Okay, you are clearly missing the context of what we’re discussing in this thread. Here’s a primer: - The UK has experienced racial riots over the past few weeks. - There was a mass murder in the last weeks. - During these racial riots, someone "identified" an immigrant as the attacker, which turned out to be misinformation and incited a manhunt. - This individual was apprehended. - 4chan went full "fr33d0m" and laun…

> The law is clear-cut: it defines illegal hate speech as public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group, defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin.

The law isn't clear though. The Verge had a write up [1] on Section 127 a couple years ago that does a good job of pointing out where that specific law is vague. Other hate speech laws in the UK have similar issues.

The law is clear in defining what power it is granting to authorities and what classifications can be used to deem speech illegal. It is very unclear on how it will be decided that speech has crossed that line. Functionally what this means is that judges are given the sole authority to decide when speech crosses the line and citizens have no way of knowing what that determination will be.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offens...

Post reply on HN