RugbyRebels

Is anyone else uncomfortable with making tweeting offensive things a crime. By all means criminalise things that incite hatred or violence, but offensiveness as a crime? To me it's too subjective.

I don't quite understand why Tom Moore was made into a national hero. Yes, his story is remarkable, and very noteworthy and commendable, but I can't help but feel that part of why he has been made into such a national symbol is because he is ex-forces.

Also, I couldn't find out what the anonymous perp tweeted from any British news source. It seems to be censored. It's in the public interest to know what the 'offensive message' is in my opinion, so we can judge the impact if any on free speech.

edit: found an article on this subject
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is- ... he-police-

Zhivago wrote:Is anyone else uncomfortable with making tweeting offensive things a crime. By all means criminalise things that incite hatred or violence, but offensiveness as a crime? To me it's too subjective.

I don't quite understand why Tom Moore was made into a national hero. Yes, his story is remarkable, and very noteworthy and commendable, but I can't help but feel that part of why he has been made into such a national symbol is because he is ex-forces.

Also, I couldn't find out what the anonymous perp tweeted from any British news source. It seems to be censored. It's in the public interest to know what the 'offensive message' is in my opinion, so we can judge the impact if any on free speech.

I suspect the view of Captain Sir Tom Moore is what it is due to the unusual times we live in. Would anyone have cared less if not for covid and if not for the fact he was raising money for the NHS? Most people of his generation served in the forces, but the sight of an elderly man trying to do something particle obviously touched a nerve (helped by widespread media coverage).

As for trolling; these people are mostly pathetic losers. I kind of agree that being offensive shouldn’t be a criminal act, but equally at what point does it stop being rudeness and start to become harassment?

Whilst the actual tweet isn’t available, it was apparently menacing.

Of this is the case, and the court case will no doubt decide that, then it’s not unreasonable to take action. There is a significant difference between being offensive and threatening someone.

The tweet is in the article it's not complimentary of your guys (hence millwall supporters getting upset)

Mo one will be charged for 8 years of abusing James mcclean (including abusive millwall supporters)


Agree if it wasn't for covid itd be a non event

Nothing frankie Boyle says offends me, I'm sure some people want him in prison

Sandydragon wrote:Whilst the actual tweet isn’t available, it was apparently menacing.

Of this is the case, and the court case will no doubt decide that, then it’s not unreasonable to take action. There is a significant difference between being offensive and threatening someone.

"The only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella, buuuuurn."

Not arguing about it being offensive. But it's the internet, I mean, people should not take the internet so seriously. It's not real life.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Is anyone else uncomfortable with making tweeting offensive things a crime. By all means criminalise things that incite hatred or violence, but offensiveness as a crime? To me it's too subjective.

I don't quite understand why Tom Moore was made into a national hero. Yes, his story is remarkable, and very noteworthy and commendable, but I can't help but feel that part of why he has been made into such a national symbol is because he is ex-forces.

Also, I couldn't find out what the anonymous perp tweeted from any British news source. It seems to be censored. It's in the public interest to know what the 'offensive message' is in my opinion, so we can judge the impact if any on free speech.

I suspect the view of Captain Sir Tom Moore is what it is due to the unusual times we live in. Would anyone have cared less if not for covid and if not for the fact he was raising money for the NHS? Most people of his generation served in the forces, but the sight of an elderly man trying to do something particle obviously touched a nerve (helped by widespread media coverage).

As for trolling; these people are mostly pathetic losers. I kind of agree that being offensive shouldn’t be a criminal act, but equally at what point does it stop being rudeness and start to become harassment?

For me the message would have to itself be targetted at someone in order for it to be harassment, not just the content pertaining to an individual.

In Netherlands it's not always so free either, just for comparison. For example a few years back someone was prosecuted for Lèse-majesté for saying 'fuck the king' (in Dutch).

Are they talking about prosecuting someone so retarded they can't spell dead? I suppose it's our standard practice to fill jails with morons, plus ca change and all that

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Whilst the actual tweet isn’t available, it was apparently menacing.

Of this is the case, and the court case will no doubt decide that, then it’s not unreasonable to take action. There is a significant difference between being offensive and threatening someone.

"The only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella, buuuuurn."

Not arguing about it being offensive. But it's the internet, I mean, people should not take the internet so seriously. It's not real life.

Disagree. Real people use the internet to communicate. It is real life even if often real names are obscured. Pretending that it isn’t real life is a justification for behaviour that people wouldn’t use in a face to face scenario.

paddy no 11 wrote:The tweet is in the article it's not complimentary of your guys (hence millwall supporters getting upset)

Mo one will be charged for 8 years of abusing James mcclean (including abusive millwall supporters)


Agree if it wasn't for covid itd be a non event

The link was t there when I originally responded to the article.

Offensive, yes.
Moronic, undoubtedly.
Criminal, no.

I use the pub test. If someone shouted this in a pub would someone take offence. Probably. They might get thrown out but it’s unlikely the police would get called just for the words spoken.

That article was helpful for context, but aside from that utterly absurd.

In any case, the idea that the internet is some Wild West now is patently untrue. The law and Big Tech’s own policies are already far too restrictive. A 2017 Times investigation found that nine people a day were being arrested for offensive posts. And Silicon Valley, lest we forget, recently deplatformed a sitting president on spurious grounds.

The idea that bIG tEcH's policies are far too restrictive is risible - quite apart from the idea that Trump getting banned wasn't overdue and entirely his own fault (and deplatformed?! Christ alight, I *wish* it was possible to silence the cunt), just ask anybody who had the nerve to be a woman with an opinion on the internet exactly how much action was taken for the rape threats, death threats, and abuse they receive, either by BIG TECH or by the police.

Unfortunately the silly arrest of the Captain Tom defamer has played right into common spurious argument where right wingers claim that people are so offended and "you can't say anything without somebody being offended nowadays", implying that offence means pearl-clutching and hurt feelings rather than genuine harm through someone being offensive.

It is a nonsense arrest and to use the law to protect the reputation of Captain Tom is a symptom of the same ludicrous populism that has infested Britain over the last decade or so. However, there are things which are said on the internet which should result in the sayer going up in front of a judge. The Spectator chirps about "nine people a day being arrested" which sounds Orwellian unless you a) remember that there's 3 billion active accounts in the world on Facebook alone (suggesting that 0.0001% of the internet-active people are arrested per year, if we assume that it's a completely separate 9 people arrested each day and also assume that this statistic hasn't been pulled from the usual place statistics come from) or b) you have actually read 1984. I'd imagine those 9 arrests are due to the likes of child porn, snuff, terrorism, stalking and threatening behaviour, (not to mention those arrested in repressive regimes like Russia and China for being less than enthusiastic about the government), rather than being mildly discourteous towards a dead soldier.

tl;dr - Yes, this arrest is daft. But to suggest that there is too much regulation on what one can say is dafter still. This one-off nonsense should not colour people's view on internet regulation - the plural of anecdote is not data and one swallow doesn't make a porn star.

Puja

Puja wrote:That article was helpful for context, but aside from that utterly absurd.

In any case, the idea that the internet is some Wild West now is patently untrue. The law and Big Tech’s own policies are already far too restrictive. A 2017 Times investigation found that nine people a day were being arrested for offensive posts. And Silicon Valley, lest we forget, recently deplatformed a sitting president on spurious grounds.

The idea that bIG tEcH's policies are far too restrictive is risible - quite apart from the idea that Trump getting banned wasn't overdue and entirely his own fault (and deplatformed?! Christ alight, I *wish* it was possible to silence the cunt), just ask anybody who had the nerve to be a woman with an opinion on the internet exactly how much action was taken for the rape threats, death threats, and abuse they receive, either by BIG TECH or by the police.

Unfortunately the silly arrest of the Captain Tom defamer has played right into common spurious argument where right wingers claim that people are so offended and "you can't say anything without somebody being offended nowadays", implying that offence means pearl-clutching and hurt feelings rather than genuine harm through someone being offensive.

It is a nonsense arrest and to use the law to protect the reputation of Captain Tom is a symptom of the same ludicrous populism that has infested Britain over the last decade or so. However, there are things which are said on the internet which should result in the sayer going up in front of a judge. The Spectator chirps about "nine people a day being arrested" which sounds Orwellian unless you a) remember that there's 3 billion active accounts in the world on Facebook alone (suggesting that 0.0001% of the internet-active people are arrested per year, if we assume that it's a completely separate 9 people arrested each day and also assume that this statistic hasn't been pulled from the usual place statistics come from) or b) you have actually read 1984. I'd imagine those 9 arrests are due to the likes of child porn, snuff, terrorism, stalking and threatening behaviour, (not to mention those arrested in repressive regimes like Russia and China for being less than enthusiastic about the government), rather than being mildly discourteous towards a dead soldier.

tl;dr - Yes, this arrest is daft. But to suggest that there is too much regulation on what one can say is dafter still. This one-off nonsense should not colour people's view on internet regulation - the plural of anecdote is not data and one swallow doesn't make a porn star.

Puja

Clearly one swallow can make a porn star, a complaint born out by many victims of revenge porn

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:That article was helpful for context, but aside from that utterly absurd.

In any case, the idea that the internet is some Wild West now is patently untrue. The law and Big Tech’s own policies are already far too restrictive. A 2017 Times investigation found that nine people a day were being arrested for offensive posts. And Silicon Valley, lest we forget, recently deplatformed a sitting president on spurious grounds.

The idea that bIG tEcH's policies are far too restrictive is risible - quite apart from the idea that Trump getting banned wasn't overdue and entirely his own fault (and deplatformed?! Christ alight, I *wish* it was possible to silence the cunt), just ask anybody who had the nerve to be a woman with an opinion on the internet exactly how much action was taken for the rape threats, death threats, and abuse they receive, either by BIG TECH or by the police.

Unfortunately the silly arrest of the Captain Tom defamer has played right into common spurious argument where right wingers claim that people are so offended and "you can't say anything without somebody being offended nowadays", implying that offence means pearl-clutching and hurt feelings rather than genuine harm through someone being offensive.

It is a nonsense arrest and to use the law to protect the reputation of Captain Tom is a symptom of the same ludicrous populism that has infested Britain over the last decade or so. However, there are things which are said on the internet which should result in the sayer going up in front of a judge. The Spectator chirps about "nine people a day being arrested" which sounds Orwellian unless you a) remember that there's 3 billion active accounts in the world on Facebook alone (suggesting that 0.0001% of the internet-active people are arrested per year, if we assume that it's a completely separate 9 people arrested each day and also assume that this statistic hasn't been pulled from the usual place statistics come from) or b) you have actually read 1984. I'd imagine those 9 arrests are due to the likes of child porn, snuff, terrorism, stalking and threatening behaviour, (not to mention those arrested in repressive regimes like Russia and China for being less than enthusiastic about the government), rather than being mildly discourteous towards a dead soldier.

tl;dr - Yes, this arrest is daft. But to suggest that there is too much regulation on what one can say is dafter still. This one-off nonsense should not colour people's view on internet regulation - the plural of anecdote is not data and one swallow doesn't make a porn star.

Puja

Clearly one swallow can make a porn star, a complaint born out by many victims of revenge porn

An excellent example of one of the many things where biG TeCh apparently has no ability to regulate and the police are entirely uninterested.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:That article was helpful for context, but aside from that utterly absurd.



The idea that bIG tEcH's policies are far too restrictive is risible - quite apart from the idea that Trump getting banned wasn't overdue and entirely his own fault (and deplatformed?! Christ alight, I *wish* it was possible to silence the cunt), just ask anybody who had the nerve to be a woman with an opinion on the internet exactly how much action was taken for the rape threats, death threats, and abuse they receive, either by BIG TECH or by the police.

Unfortunately the silly arrest of the Captain Tom defamer has played right into common spurious argument where right wingers claim that people are so offended and "you can't say anything without somebody being offended nowadays", implying that offence means pearl-clutching and hurt feelings rather than genuine harm through someone being offensive.

It is a nonsense arrest and to use the law to protect the reputation of Captain Tom is a symptom of the same ludicrous populism that has infested Britain over the last decade or so. However, there are things which are said on the internet which should result in the sayer going up in front of a judge. The Spectator chirps about "nine people a day being arrested" which sounds Orwellian unless you a) remember that there's 3 billion active accounts in the world on Facebook alone (suggesting that 0.0001% of the internet-active people are arrested per year, if we assume that it's a completely separate 9 people arrested each day and also assume that this statistic hasn't been pulled from the usual place statistics come from) or b) you have actually read 1984. I'd imagine those 9 arrests are due to the likes of child porn, snuff, terrorism, stalking and threatening behaviour, (not to mention those arrested in repressive regimes like Russia and China for being less than enthusiastic about the government), rather than being mildly discourteous towards a dead soldier.

tl;dr - Yes, this arrest is daft. But to suggest that there is too much regulation on what one can say is dafter still. This one-off nonsense should not colour people's view on internet regulation - the plural of anecdote is not data and one swallow doesn't make a porn star.

Puja

Clearly one swallow can make a porn star, a complaint born out by many victims of revenge porn

An excellent example of one of the many things where biG TeCh apparently has no ability to regulate and the police are entirely uninterested.

Puja

And that nobody has an especially good idea about how to correct. My own preference of saying the big tech firms are publishers and as ever publish and be damned isn't an idea without negative consequences

Excellent news overnight with the death of Rush Limbaugh, #just sayin'

Digby wrote:Excellent news overnight with the death of Rush Limbaugh, #just sayin'

I won’t wish anyone dead because I disagree with them. The fact he can no longer broadcast his vile filth is a positive, although I have no doubt someone equally disgusting will replace him.

Puja wrote:That article was helpful for context, but aside from that utterly absurd.

In any case, the idea that the internet is some Wild West now is patently untrue. The law and Big Tech’s own policies are already far too restrictive. A 2017 Times investigation found that nine people a day were being arrested for offensive posts. And Silicon Valley, lest we forget, recently deplatformed a sitting president on spurious grounds.

The idea that bIG tEcH's policies are far too restrictive is risible - quite apart from the idea that Trump getting banned wasn't overdue and entirely his own fault (and deplatformed?! Christ alight, I *wish* it was possible to silence the cunt), just ask anybody who had the nerve to be a woman with an opinion on the internet exactly how much action was taken for the rape threats, death threats, and abuse they receive, either by BIG TECH or by the police.

Unfortunately the silly arrest of the Captain Tom defamer has played right into common spurious argument where right wingers claim that people are so offended and "you can't say anything without somebody being offended nowadays", implying that offence means pearl-clutching and hurt feelings rather than genuine harm through someone being offensive.

It is a nonsense arrest and to use the law to protect the reputation of Captain Tom is a symptom of the same ludicrous populism that has infested Britain over the last decade or so. However, there are things which are said on the internet which should result in the sayer going up in front of a judge. The Spectator chirps about "nine people a day being arrested" which sounds Orwellian unless you a) remember that there's 3 billion active accounts in the world on Facebook alone (suggesting that 0.0001% of the internet-active people are arrested per year, if we assume that it's a completely separate 9 people arrested each day and also assume that this statistic hasn't been pulled from the usual place statistics come from) or b) you have actually read 1984. I'd imagine those 9 arrests are due to the likes of child porn, snuff, terrorism, stalking and threatening behaviour, (not to mention those arrested in repressive regimes like Russia and China for being less than enthusiastic about the government), rather than being mildly discourteous towards a dead soldier.

tl;dr - Yes, this arrest is daft. But to suggest that there is too much regulation on what one can say is dafter still. This one-off nonsense should not colour people's view on internet regulation - the plural of anecdote is not data and one swallow doesn't make a porn star.

Puja

Owen Farrell is the new Messiah, you'll never take me alive

Puja wrote:That article was helpful for context, but aside from that utterly absurd.

In any case, the idea that the internet is some Wild West now is patently untrue. The law and Big Tech’s own policies are already far too restrictive. A 2017 Times investigation found that nine people a day were being arrested for offensive posts. And Silicon Valley, lest we forget, recently deplatformed a sitting president on spurious grounds.

The idea that bIG tEcH's policies are far too restrictive is risible - quite apart from the idea that Trump getting banned wasn't overdue and entirely his own fault (and deplatformed?! Christ alight, I *wish* it was possible to silence the cunt), just ask anybody who had the nerve to be a woman with an opinion on the internet exactly how much action was taken for the rape threats, death threats, and abuse they receive, either by BIG TECH or by the police.

Unfortunately the silly arrest of the Captain Tom defamer has played right into common spurious argument where right wingers claim that people are so offended and "you can't say anything without somebody being offended nowadays", implying that offence means pearl-clutching and hurt feelings rather than genuine harm through someone being offensive.

It is a nonsense arrest and to use the law to protect the reputation of Captain Tom is a symptom of the same ludicrous populism that has infested Britain over the last decade or so. However, there are things which are said on the internet which should result in the sayer going up in front of a judge. The Spectator chirps about "nine people a day being arrested" which sounds Orwellian unless you a) remember that there's 3 billion active accounts in the world on Facebook alone (suggesting that 0.0001% of the internet-active people are arrested per year, if we assume that it's a completely separate 9 people arrested each day and also assume that this statistic hasn't been pulled from the usual place statistics come from) or b) you have actually read 1984. I'd imagine those 9 arrests are due to the likes of child porn, snuff, terrorism, stalking and threatening behaviour, (not to mention those arrested in repressive regimes like Russia and China for being less than enthusiastic about the government), rather than being mildly discourteous towards a dead soldier.

tl;dr - Yes, this arrest is daft. But to suggest that there is too much regulation on what one can say is dafter still. This one-off nonsense should not colour people's view on internet regulation - the plural of anecdote is not data and one swallow doesn't make a porn star.

Puja

The whole saga over the Trump ban from Twitter was just ludicrous. The argument become one of how dare Twitter silence the Presidents freedom of speech rather than an individual, anyone, acting responsibly online and inside the terms and conditions they sign up to when creating an account.

Clearly there's a case for a breakup of big tech, though the various national governments aren't exactly acting in unison. I suppose the Aussies are having a look at doing something, sort of, maybe. But that's different to Trump whining about them enforcing T&Cs

Tump of course in reality pandered to big tech because they told him Obama had been really mean to them but not with a strong man like Trump they'd be able to strive for survival if he'd just help them because he's so great, and then still had the chutzpah to complain