|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 23, 2024 11:58:37 GMT
There is a lot of crap talked about it, but I've been listening to these barristers who explain the crux of the way it works. The subject is about trying to make online use safe, i.e. so people who use the internet don't get harmed. These words safe and harm have long legal definitions, so bear this in mind. Harm is broadly defined as anything that is either physical or psychological. So you would think that's fine. In principle you only get convicted if you intended to cause harm. All criminal offences must have intent, and intent means doing something which the harmful consequences are clear to yourself and you did it under your own free will, i.e. not because someone was holding a gun to your head (duress as it is known).
Now having explained it, you would think logically this is all good and is not censorship per se. A point about a new act is the act is deliberately left vague so the various judges can work out what constitutes harm, what can be easily foreseen to be likely to cause harm and so on. There is also another big limitation to it where it has to be untrue, and the person who communicated it must have reasonably known it was untrue, but there isa bit of the due diligence here too where if you knew it was likely to cause great harm if untrue then it is reasonable for you to check before broadcasting it. So they could get you for intending to cause harm by omission too. You see the general idea. They can not convict if you reasonably believed something to be correct and it was not. It might have been above your head, e.g. a comment on stocks and shares which you could not have easily understood the level of complexity to assess the harm. That's the innocent mistake.
Anyway having said all of this and having noted this is entirely sensible and reasonable, there is one other aspect that throws the whole thing into chaos. This is that broadcast organisations are exempt. An organisation must be set up in such a way that it is not all under the control of one individual, i.e. say it has a board of trustees or some formal management structure. This is aimed at your ITV, BBC etc. Under the definition I suppose it could also include charities and NGOs too. It's just the implication of this exception is the government (Labour + Conservative) are fine with these organisations causing their users harm.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 23, 2024 12:29:23 GMT
There is a lot of crap talked about it, but I've been listening to these barristers who explain the crux of the way it works. The subject is about trying to make online use safe, i.e. so people who use the internet don't get harmed. These words safe and harm have long legal definitions, so bear this in mind. Harm is broadly defined as anything that is either physical or psychological. So you would think that's fine. In principle you only get convicted if you intended to cause harm. All criminal offences must have intent, and intent means doing something which the harmful consequences are clear to yourself and you did it under your own free will, i.e. not because someone was holding a gun to your head (duress as it is known).
Now having explained it, you would think logically this is all good and is not censorship per se. A point about a new act is the act is deliberately left vague so the various judges can work out what constitutes harm, what can be easily foreseen to be likely to cause harm and so on. There is also another big limitation to it where it has to be untrue, and the person who communicated it must have reasonably known it was untrue, but there isa bit of the due diligence here too where if you knew it was likely to cause great harm if untrue then it is reasonable for you to check before broadcasting it. So they could get you for intending to cause harm by omission too. You see the general idea. They can not convict if you reasonably believed something to be correct and it was not. It might have been above your head, e.g. a comment on stocks and shares which you could not have easily understood the level of complexity to assess the harm. That's the innocent mistake.
Anyway having said all of this and having noted this is entirely sensible and reasonable, there is one other aspect that throws the whole thing into chaos. This is that broadcast organisations are exempt. An organisation must be set up in such a way that it is not all under the control of one individual, i.e. say it has a board of trustees or some formal management structure. This is aimed at your ITV, BBC etc. Under the definition I suppose it could also include charities and NGOs too. It's just the implication of this exception is the government (Labour + Conservative) are fine with these organisations causing their users harm.
Is intent always necessary. I thought the race relations worked on the principle of likely to stir up racial hatred whether that was intended or not. |
|
|
|
Post by wassock on Aug 23, 2024 14:30:58 GMT
There is a lot of crap talked about it, but I've been listening to these barristers who explain the crux of the way it works. The subject is about trying to make online use safe, i.e. so people who use the internet don't get harmed. These words safe and harm have long legal definitions, so bear this in mind. Harm is broadly defined as anything that is either physical or psychological. So you would think that's fine. In principle you only get convicted if you intended to cause harm. All criminal offences must have intent, and intent means doing something which the harmful consequences are clear to yourself and you did it under your own free will, i.e. not because someone was holding a gun to your head (duress as it is known).
Now having explained it, you would think logically this is all good and is not censorship per se. A point about a new act is the act is deliberately left vague so the various judges can work out what constitutes harm, what can be easily foreseen to be likely to cause harm and so on. There is also another big limitation to it where it has to be untrue, and the person who communicated it must have reasonably known it was untrue, but there isa bit of the due diligence here too where if you knew it was likely to cause great harm if untrue then it is reasonable for you to check before broadcasting it. So they could get you for intending to cause harm by omission too. You see the general idea. They can not convict if you reasonably believed something to be correct and it was not. It might have been above your head, e.g. a comment on stocks and shares which you could not have easily understood the level of complexity to assess the harm. That's the innocent mistake.
Anyway having said all of this and having noted this is entirely sensible and reasonable, there is one other aspect that throws the whole thing into chaos. This is that broadcast organisations are exempt. An organisation must be set up in such a way that it is not all under the control of one individual, i.e. say it has a board of trustees or some formal management structure. This is aimed at your ITV, BBC etc. Under the definition I suppose it could also include charities and NGOs too. It's just the implication of this exception is the government (Labour + Conservative) are fine with these organisations causing their users harm.
It's defining harm. So for example, if someone keeps posting trans is normal etc.. and some feel psychological harmed because they feel it's all lies etc.. then would that transgender supporter be prosecuted? So is it simply a case of prosecuting the public into accepting the government's propaganda, narrative and agenda? I think we know the answer to that. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 23, 2024 15:56:49 GMT
Yes. But having looked at it, it seems more a case of restricting what we can see in the first place.
Just be thankful for the dark web.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 23, 2024 16:01:42 GMT
Yes. But having looked at it, it seems more a case of restricting what we can see in the first place. Just be thankful for the dark web. Yes, and it will get even darker. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 23, 2024 17:55:46 GMT
There is a lot of crap talked about it, but I've been listening to these barristers who explain the crux of the way it works. The subject is about trying to make online use safe, i.e. so people who use the internet don't get harmed. These words safe and harm have long legal definitions, so bear this in mind. Harm is broadly defined as anything that is either physical or psychological. A step into absurdity Physical harm would limit it to incitement to violence (already a crime)
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 23, 2024 21:43:55 GMT
There is a lot of crap talked about it, but I've been listening to these barristers who explain the crux of the way it works. The subject is about trying to make online use safe, i.e. so people who use the internet don't get harmed. These words safe and harm have long legal definitions, so bear this in mind. Harm is broadly defined as anything that is either physical or psychological. So you would think that's fine. In principle you only get convicted if you intended to cause harm. All criminal offences must have intent, and intent means doing something which the harmful consequences are clear to yourself and you did it under your own free will, i.e. not because someone was holding a gun to your head (duress as it is known).
Now having explained it, you would think logically this is all good and is not censorship per se. A point about a new act is the act is deliberately left vague so the various judges can work out what constitutes harm, what can be easily foreseen to be likely to cause harm and so on. There is also another big limitation to it where it has to be untrue, and the person who communicated it must have reasonably known it was untrue, but there isa bit of the due diligence here too where if you knew it was likely to cause great harm if untrue then it is reasonable for you to check before broadcasting it. So they could get you for intending to cause harm by omission too. You see the general idea. They can not convict if you reasonably believed something to be correct and it was not. It might have been above your head, e.g. a comment on stocks and shares which you could not have easily understood the level of complexity to assess the harm. That's the innocent mistake.
Anyway having said all of this and having noted this is entirely sensible and reasonable, there is one other aspect that throws the whole thing into chaos. This is that broadcast organisations are exempt. An organisation must be set up in such a way that it is not all under the control of one individual, i.e. say it has a board of trustees or some formal management structure. This is aimed at your ITV, BBC etc. Under the definition I suppose it could also include charities and NGOs too. It's just the implication of this exception is the government (Labour + Conservative) are fine with these organisations causing their users harm.
Is intent always necessary. I thought the race relations worked on the principle of likely to stir up racial hatred whether that was intended or not. This particular law is a crime so intent is always necessary. I think the thing you refer to is a summary charge, which means all that has to be proved is you did it, but it is not as serious, as per a magistrates court. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 23, 2024 21:55:38 GMT
There is a lot of crap talked about it, but I've been listening to these barristers who explain the crux of the way it works. The subject is about trying to make online use safe, i.e. so people who use the internet don't get harmed. These words safe and harm have long legal definitions, so bear this in mind. Harm is broadly defined as anything that is either physical or psychological. So you would think that's fine. In principle you only get convicted if you intended to cause harm. All criminal offences must have intent, and intent means doing something which the harmful consequences are clear to yourself and you did it under your own free will, i.e. not because someone was holding a gun to your head (duress as it is known).
Now having explained it, you would think logically this is all good and is not censorship per se. A point about a new act is the act is deliberately left vague so the various judges can work out what constitutes harm, what can be easily foreseen to be likely to cause harm and so on. There is also another big limitation to it where it has to be untrue, and the person who communicated it must have reasonably known it was untrue, but there isa bit of the due diligence here too where if you knew it was likely to cause great harm if untrue then it is reasonable for you to check before broadcasting it. So they could get you for intending to cause harm by omission too. You see the general idea. They can not convict if you reasonably believed something to be correct and it was not. It might have been above your head, e.g. a comment on stocks and shares which you could not have easily understood the level of complexity to assess the harm. That's the innocent mistake.
Anyway having said all of this and having noted this is entirely sensible and reasonable, there is one other aspect that throws the whole thing into chaos. This is that broadcast organisations are exempt. An organisation must be set up in such a way that it is not all under the control of one individual, i.e. say it has a board of trustees or some formal management structure. This is aimed at your ITV, BBC etc. Under the definition I suppose it could also include charities and NGOs too. It's just the implication of this exception is the government (Labour + Conservative) are fine with these organisations causing their users harm.
It's defining harm. So for example, if someone keeps posting trans is normal etc.. and some feel psychological harmed because they feel it's all lies etc.. then would that transgender supporter be prosecuted? So is it simply a case of prosecuting the public into accepting the government's propaganda, narrative and agenda? I think we know the answer to that. In your case it would be unlikely to be an offence because it has to be obvious to the person that whatever they say is likely to cause harm. I mean to give you an example, there are many quack doctors online who sell fake remedies. If one turned out to cause serious medical problems then that would be a a certain case of an offence. There are some right jerks in this country and even worse abroad. Another one which I felt was dodgy was where people make videos to brainwash people and others encourage people to commit suicide. A professional brainwasher knows exactly what they are doing, but before this law they were untouchable, so the bastards multiplied. This is what happens when you have some sort of loophole in the law where people can legally cause great harm to others. They all discover it and start doing it, and I guess not being the police department we would perhaps not realise how many of these cases have cropped up. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 23, 2024 21:59:21 GMT
There is a lot of crap talked about it, but I've been listening to these barristers who explain the crux of the way it works. The subject is about trying to make online use safe, i.e. so people who use the internet don't get harmed. These words safe and harm have long legal definitions, so bear this in mind. Harm is broadly defined as anything that is either physical or psychological. A step into absurdity Physical harm would limit it to incitement to violence (already a crime)
Trust me, there are people who could literally drive you insane. It's a dark art, but it is deadly. It's often the work of a psychopath. They manipulate people as part of their nature, but are hard to detect. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 23, 2024 23:06:17 GMT
A step into absurdity Physical harm would limit it to incitement to violence (already a crime)
Trust me, there are people who could literally drive you insane. It's a dark art, but it is deadly. It's often the work of a psychopath. They manipulate people as part of their nature, but are hard to detect. You are talking about real aspects of personal reality that can't be turned into law. law has the concept of harassment, which is as far as it can logically go. It is important that law is logical / objective. If you start delving into that area with law you will end up with witch trials and witch finders. |
|
|
|
Post by wassock on Aug 23, 2024 23:24:58 GMT
It's defining harm. So for example, if someone keeps posting trans is normal etc.. and some feel psychological harmed because they feel it's all lies etc.. then would that transgender supporter be prosecuted? So is it simply a case of prosecuting the public into accepting the government's propaganda, narrative and agenda? I think we know the answer to that. In your case it would be unlikely to be an offence because it has to be obvious to the person that whatever they say is likely to cause harm. I mean to give you an example, there are many quack doctors online who sell fake remedies. If one turned out to cause serious medical problems then that would be a a certain case of an offence. There are some right jerks in this country and even worse abroad. Another one which I felt was dodgy was where people make videos to brainwash people and others encourage people to commit suicide. A professional brainwasher knows exactly what they are doing, but before this law they were untouchable, so the bastards multiplied. This is what happens when you have some sort of loophole in the law where people can legally cause great harm to others. They all discover it and start doing it, and I guess not being the police department we would perhaps not realise how many of these cases have cropped up. Basically put, if you say anything against the government's narrative of accepting trans and asylum seekers, it will be deemed psychological hate, the judge will rule that and you will be locked up. So trying to define harm is what the government deem it to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 24, 2024 1:17:29 GMT
In your case it would be unlikely to be an offence because it has to be obvious to the person that whatever they say is likely to cause harm. I mean to give you an example, there are many quack doctors online who sell fake remedies. If one turned out to cause serious medical problems then that would be a a certain case of an offence. There are some right jerks in this country and even worse abroad. Another one which I felt was dodgy was where people make videos to brainwash people and others encourage people to commit suicide. A professional brainwasher knows exactly what they are doing, but before this law they were untouchable, so the bastards multiplied. This is what happens when you have some sort of loophole in the law where people can legally cause great harm to others. They all discover it and start doing it, and I guess not being the police department we would perhaps not realise how many of these cases have cropped up. Basically put, if you say anything against the government's narrative of accepting trans and asylum seekers, it will be deemed psychological hate, the judge will rule that and you will be locked up. So trying to define harm is what the government deem it to be. You still have freedom of expression. You can always appeal on a point of law. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 24, 2024 1:20:06 GMT
Trust me, there are people who could literally drive you insane. It's a dark art, but it is deadly. It's often the work of a psychopath. They manipulate people as part of their nature, but are hard to detect. You are talking about real aspects of personal reality that can't be turned into law. law has the concept of harassment, which is as far as it can logically go. It is important that law is logical / objective. If you start delving into that area with law you will end up with witch trials and witch finders. I was not. I was thinking about some of the people who developed an online presence and were master manipulators, like the type who run cults. I am objective. you see I know some of the tricks where many do not. I can spot them. It's all about control. |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Aug 24, 2024 6:17:48 GMT
In your case it would be unlikely to be an offence because it has to be obvious to the person that whatever they say is likely to cause harm. I mean to give you an example, there are many quack doctors online who sell fake remedies. If one turned out to cause serious medical problems then that would be a a certain case of an offence. There are some right jerks in this country and even worse abroad. Another one which I felt was dodgy was where people make videos to brainwash people and others encourage people to commit suicide. A professional brainwasher knows exactly what they are doing, but before this law they were untouchable, so the bastards multiplied. This is what happens when you have some sort of loophole in the law where people can legally cause great harm to others. They all discover it and start doing it, and I guess not being the police department we would perhaps not realise how many of these cases have cropped up. Basically put, if you say anything against the government's narrative of accepting trans and asylum seekers, it will be deemed psychological hate, the judge will rule that and you will be locked up. So trying to define harm is what the government deem it to be. The United Nations, which also housed Hamas operatives, are ordering the UK to crack down on fundamental human rights. We are living under tyranny and it will rapidly get even worse before people can react.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 24, 2024 7:36:47 GMT
Once this starts to effect the freedom of speech for the lefties they'll soon put pay to it, Starmer and Labour are thinking all this censorship is to close down right wing politics, what they haven't worked out yet (because they are on the slow side) that it will be a two way street, any censorship laws will apply to EVERYONE, it will also effect the freedom of speech for the lefties, and as we know the lefties hate being silenced.
|
|
