read again what i wrote. unless you're intentionally trying to harm your mother, you aren't doing anything wrong according to the bill. do you think it's should be ok to intentionally try to harm your mother?
another one who can't read.Stupid anti-vaxxers can't talk to their moms.
you people act like this happened. it was something white phantom made up to gather angry folks with pitchforks. who says this scenario will ever come to the court? you think that sexual predator is gonna call the police? and even if it comes to court, who says the court won't look at context? and who says this isn't how the law is written in most civilized countries, because we shouldn't allow death threats.
You know what happens in GB without this bill?
nothing happened. he was suspected of hate crime but was released without charge. cry some more over nothing.
Idk, if police coming to someone house, scaring and arresting them for speaking their mind is "nothing".
Well yes and no. There might be treaties and such that may allow for one country to extradite a citizen of another country to face trail in the first country for crimes committed there. It is a lengthy process that can result in a hard no for various reasons.
If the EU is good at one thing it is writing laws. (I don't always agree with them but on a whole they are a net positive). It is not easy wrangling over two dozen countries with a napoleon complex, very different cultures, wants, needs and levels of economic development and get them to agree on anything.
what's your point? i don't see how this bill gives more room for the police to arrest you for just speaking your mind. the bill requires you to have intent to harm someone.
How in your opinion police can guess someones intent? Unless there is malicious conspiracy, intent is always assumed based on actions. It gives judge interpretative freedom, and police more tools to harrass people with "wrong" opinion, which is increasing in GB, not decreasing. And its increasing despite the goverment being theoreticaly in favor of free speech.
who said guess? the court can't guess, they need to prove it. do you even know how this bill changes things? do you know it makes it easier for police to "harrass people with 'wrong' opinion"?
Intent is internal tought. Can court read minds?
Patterns. We know for a fact (I send you two links, I can send more if you want), that police already harasses people with "wrong" opinions, with little to none legal basis to do it.
"Don't say you views publicly and you will be left alone". Yeah I agree, as someone from the post-communist country, this is how most people act and it's fine.
do you know how many laws take into account the intent? if you kill someone, it's a big difference if you did it on purpose or by accident. deciding what is what is what courts are for. don't try to act like this is something new in judicial processes.
i asked if you knew that the bill made it easier for the police to harrass. you haven't showed that.
if your views are so bad that they cause people harm and you know it and want it, yeah, shut the fuck up.
Yes, but they are not metaphisical creatures, but human beings. They take on the accord circumstances, other evidence and make guess about the intent. Sometimes, it may shock you, courts are wrongfuly convict people, not to mentions assuming wrong intent.
I did. Police need to base their actions on the law. Giving them law to with such broad statements as "misinformation", gives them basis to search, arrest, collect evidence.
That's what i'm saying, they should emigrate. Idk why someone would like to live with a country with people like you, although i wish ingsoc project good luck.
and? this is not something new so why do you act like it is?
no you haven't shown what the law was BEFORE this bill. you must compare the law before and after to show it is easier. just as with the intent, you fail to understand that just because something is mentioned in this bill doesn't mean it wasn't that way before too.
i don't live in the uk. which country do you live in where it's considered okay to threaten and harm people online?
You acted like intent was some kind of fact that can be proven, when it is assumption based circumstances.
No, I don't. Previous law isn't repealed, so new law give police more tools, not less. lol.
Inciting violence was already banned. I don't agree with someones views being "harmful" or "offensive" are equal to raiding someones house, scaring his children and couple, invading their privacy and potentialy costing them work and bank account. One is subjective dissatifaction, and second is objective potentialy traumatisng and life ruining harm.
it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. again, this is not something new but you act like it is. give up.
how much do i need to spell it out for you? how do you know it gives the police more tools if you don't know what the old laws say? you're just assuming with no evidence. you're just guessing. this is NOT how courts "guess", to refer to the thing about intent.
so why you crying about the new bill when this was happening before the bill according to you? either way, the bill requires intent to harm. that thing you don't get.
I agree that some malicious compliance would bring more attention to how idiotic the whole thing is. The OSA is like a 3000 page document. You could lie about a post or news article and OfCom would believe you if it was convincing enough. If enough people started doing that it would completely hamstring their enforcement and give them more unwanted attention.From what I understand OfCom has been heavily defunded under the tories so how much they will be able to police the net when they already can't do the tasks they already had.
If you are from the UK and want to really hit the Tories where it hurts I'd suggest filing OfCom complaints about untruths on the newswebsites of the rightwing media (Think the Sun, The Telegraph, The Financial Times etc.) They where especially happy to publish clear untruths about the EU. (Something about bendy bananas vaguely comes to mind.) Hey It's illegal now
Also helps if you can catch large Tory donors and politicians lying on the internet and report that.
There is no better way to hit a political party than to limit the way they raise funds and gather votes.
Well yes and no. There might be treaties and such that may allow for one country to extradite a citizen of another country to face trail in the first country for crimes committed there. It is a lengthy process that can result in a hard no for various reasons.
But if that fails economic, military and soft power come into play. All of which the UK is lacking on since Brexit. Soft power has been squandered by the dozen Tory leaders over the last decade (trying to crash the world into an economic crises is not appreciated by other leaders). Economic, the UK needs the other countries more then they need the UK as their reliance on imports has heavily increased and they don't have the backing of the EU anymore to give their words weight and militarily they can't do shit because the US and EU will get really mad and show the UK how much the UK needs them economically.
If the EU is good at one thing it is writing laws. (I don't always agree with them but on a whole they are a net positive). It is not easy wrangling over two dozen countries with a napoleon complex, very different cultures, wants, needs and levels of economic development and get them to agree on anything.
