Post by steppenwolf on Aug 13, 2024 7:05:26 GMT
Starmer seems to have decided that people should be prosecuted for posting "misinformation" - which does slightly open the flood gates to malicious prosecution of people who post stuff that he doesn't like. He's also apparently thinking of approving the APPG definition of "islamophobia" which defines it as a "racist" attack on "muslimness" - which sounds like it was drafted by a 5 year old. Nevertheless this opens up the door to prosecuting people for criticising the religion of islam.
He's also reconsidering the censoring of "legal but harmful" content. It's slightly reminiscent of the police investigating people for "non-crime hate incidents" - i.e. things that are not illegal but that someone has deemed to exhibit "hate". "Legal but harmful" attempst to catch people saying things that are perfectly legal (and accurate/true) but someone doesn't think they should be said because they may cause some people to react badly. So, I imagine, if someone tweeted that a terrorist attack was perpetrated by a muslim, they could be prosecuted even if the statement is accurate if, say, the tweet is deemed to have started a riot.
Starmer is opening a very big can of worms here. It occurs to me that the Koran itself would breach most of these new laws (on every page), but obviously it would get an exemption (!). Of course.
I'm wondering if the mods have any advice for would-be posters on how not to fall foul of this latest Starmer nonsense.
He's also reconsidering the censoring of "legal but harmful" content. It's slightly reminiscent of the police investigating people for "non-crime hate incidents" - i.e. things that are not illegal but that someone has deemed to exhibit "hate". "Legal but harmful" attempst to catch people saying things that are perfectly legal (and accurate/true) but someone doesn't think they should be said because they may cause some people to react badly. So, I imagine, if someone tweeted that a terrorist attack was perpetrated by a muslim, they could be prosecuted even if the statement is accurate if, say, the tweet is deemed to have started a riot.
Starmer is opening a very big can of worms here. It occurs to me that the Koran itself would breach most of these new laws (on every page), but obviously it would get an exemption (!). Of course.
I'm wondering if the mods have any advice for would-be posters on how not to fall foul of this latest Starmer nonsense.
