Discussion

Main Board| Accommodation Wanted| Accommodation Offered
Start a new discussion on this board

Let your next career move come to you.

Freedom of speech

Hateful Ex-Rozzer -v- The Thought Police 

So one can still advertise the fact that one is a twot on the internet.

"In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society."

Presumably this is of great relief to some of the more habitual throbbers on here.

(I don't disagree with the learned judge FAOD)

But see the scottow case where she has just been convicted and the judge included the words "we should teach our children to be kind" in the reasoning. I mean that guy does not seem super intellectually adept but can I even say that now? Is it a crime to be unkind about dim judges? Maybe this is his rationale.

PP seems a tad hot under the collar about this.

Not sure why copper is being 'hateful' - he's just explaining that not everyone has been taken in by the lunatic trans-lobby.

wish we would tbh

life would be better for many people if internet meanies walked a little bit more in fear

my understanding of that vase has always been that it was a bit more than being mean, but I have not studied it in depth

The trans lobby shout too loud. Not everyone is going to like you or approve of what you're saying, but if there's no threat of physical violence, just someone disagreeing with you, then jog on ffs. How much did this all cost?!

It's not contrarianism. Laz thinks there should be absolutely no criminal sanctions for things he might conceivably do himself (ie death by dangerous driving) and that people should be locked up forever for anything he doesn't like.

its just plain old hypocrisy  

Linda’s right it’s not contrarianism. What she did ought plainly be illegal. If someone really disagrees with that, I’m happy to irritate them.

Without a judgement it isn't clear how the Communications Act 2003 was applied.

For example, were the messages indecent under (1) (a),  or were they judged to be false under (2) (a) or persistent under (2) (c) ?

****************************************

127 Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42))

stardust14 Feb 20 14:41

The trans lobby shout too loud. Not everyone is going to like you or approve of what you're saying, but if there's no threat of physical violence, just someone disagreeing with you, then jog on ffs. How much did this all cost?!

-------------------

Literally shaking right now.

ANY DISAGREEMENT WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE TRANS LOBBY, NO MATTER HOW SLIGHT, NO MATTER THE SUBJECT, IS LITERALLY ULTRA VIOLENCE.

Your fawning adoration WILL be given, one way or the other. SUBMIT.

I'm not hot under the collar about it.

I was just representing both sides as having an indefensible position.  But as a matter of fact you don't have read much of Harry Miller's output to realise that he is not a nice man who appears to be terribly exercised about matters which need not concern him at all.

All of that is true, and as you say both sides have objectively indefensible positions.  HM is certainly not a nice man.  Equally elements of the trans lobby will not tolerate any criticism and are very aggressive about that.  Not enough live and let live IMO these days.

The legal test for hate speech or the criminal law surely must be higher than that (and indeed is and this decision confirms that).

I have been called some bad things over the years (at least as bad as the things Scottow called Hayden/others) and I do not think it is cool to be criminalising people for that. Apart from anything else it is literally not possible to stop humans from being horrible because it is kind of our usp.

you really just have to put up or shut up to a large extent and if no one is threatening to hurt you i don't think the police should be anywhere near it. I don't think I can think of an exception to that general rule. 

Join the discussion

Login Register