Slashdot Mirror
Chilling Guidelines Issued For UK Communications Act Enforcement
From El Reg comes word that interim guidelines have been issued for prosecutions under the UK Communications Act that have landed a few folks in jail for offensive speech: "Keir Starmer QC published this morning his interim guidelines for crown prosecutors that demanded a more measured approach to tackling trolling on the Internet. ... 'A prosecution is unlikely to be in the public interest if the communication is swiftly removed, blocked, not intended for a wide audience or not obviously beyond what could conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in a diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression. The interim guidelines thus protect the individual from threats or targeted harassment while protecting the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it.'"
Do they get a new trial?
The guidelines are that people should be a bit more liberal in what they accept - not the scariest thing that the UK government has ever proposed.
If these laws were applied to the real world here in the U.S., maybe we could finally put the assholes from Westboro church in jail.
Like the television? If you don't like it . . . . CHANGE THE CHANNEL!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They are trying to outline "common sense" from what I've read thus far. We don't get freedom of speech as a constitution right in the UK; but if we can't take the piss out of someone, then take it and dish out more back, what's the point?
Being a sarcastic bell-end is a must! Ludicrous threats for violence too, and if my train is cancelled again I'm going to find the head of south western rail and stick the first 4 coaches of the 7:50 London service up his arse.
These guidelines are not chilling: they are the opposite. Following the introduction of these guidelines, many knee-jerk prosecutions will not take place, whereas previously they would have taken place.
Whoever wrote the Slashdot headline is entirely wrong.
"If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
If anything the intent appears to be to reduce the chilling effect of the existing guidelines. It might not go far enough, but it still seems like a step in the right direction.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
This is exactly what we wanted - a common sense approach to Twitter messages. Though I am not a twitterer myself, the fact a guy can have his life ruined by posting a joke tweet is exactly what this is about, NOT being knee-jerk, as they have been in the past. In other words his is a *good thing*. 'Measured' in this context means to apply more common sense to these situations.
It's easy to balance a scale when you can change the weight of on one side. Then again, it's easy to unbalance it in your favor too.
And that's why a bunch of people a few centuries ago decided that was a bad idea, split from their former country, and decided that freedom of expression need be kept protected. And they were right. Because some three hundred years later the same bullshit is happening.
I can easily imagine the members of the parliament hanging by their necks in a row. I wish someone would help get rid of the vermin infesting the various palaces. Kate and Billy-boy, sliced groin to neck with their entrails hanging out. And I think that we should start a new sport, fucking up the filth. Every time you see a cop, stab 'em. They deserve it. I hope they all get killed in ghastly accidents. While on the topic, I wouldn't morn if more members of the armed forces were shot and killed. They are basically mercenaries yes? Killing people for pay. And they are the worst sort, protecting the capitalist state and enforcing it on others.
Now for some jokes:
Another British soldier has been killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan. That'll teach him for playing on hardcore.
12 shot dead at "soldier readiness station". Well, they weren't ready for that were they?
Anyone got some better ones?
Anyway, I just head a knock at the door, I'll post this and then I'll be right back...
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
Are they chilling in that they will cause the idiots prosecuting to chill the fuck out?
It's "chilling" that the actual law goes so much further than this, and that these guidelines that appear sensible to /.ers need to be made explicit to law enforcement.
This is just the latest occasion when I have wished that /. editors would, you know, do some editing. The story is interesting; the attempt by the submitter to spin it as evidence of a particular viewpoint adds nothing.
All legal jurisdictions are having to come to terms with the fact that groups of people in social networks now have the ability to publish (mis)information on a scale that was previously limited to mainstream media outlets. This effort from the UK authorities is (in my opinion) a reasonably balanced one, that does a good job of extending the existing British consensus on where the line should be drawn between free speech and criminal irresponsibility into the modern era.
For a European government those guidelines seem pretty liberal.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
'course you could try to have a jury of your peers convict him for it, but you'll get nowhere.
Whereas a jury of your peers would agree WBC should be shoved in the slammer.
(PS you'd need standing. Unless you're a member of WBC you don't. And they already sue people for getting irate over their trolling, so no change there).
If you say something that offends someone it's the prosecutor's discretion whether or not you're charged,but if he does bring them you'll still be convicted because the law still stands. You're granted permission to say unpopular things by the government, and a government official decides what's unpopular, and he can get convictions for ridiculous things.
The prosecutor is only asked to consider whether it's "likely to be in the public interest" to bring charges. Thank God prosecutors in western nations have no history of bringing politically-motivated charges, charging disfavored people on whim or request or for political advantage with trumped-up offenses, otherwise this setup would be an open invitation to the worst kinds of abuse.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
See title for the reason I finally stopped visiting the site.
The Register used to be an interesting read when it was IT with a semi-'Private Eye' feel. It now reads like 'The Sun', which is bad enough, but Orlowski's constant extreme pro-copyright biased (shill?) crap was the last straw.
Or you plead guilty rather than go to court.
Yeah, real scary. Having to face your fellow man...
It's "chilling" that the actual law goes so much further than this,
So, it's chilling as in not at all.
The law might be chilling, but the guidlines, as claimed buy TFH are not.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Anything shy of changing the LAWS themselves, is chilling.
The laws are chilling....selective enforcement...maybe a little less, but who's to say when the next one in charge comes in, they go the other way and try to over prosecute and stretch the laws even more?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
When's the last time britain contributed anything of note to the arts and sciences? Isaac Newton? That was a long fucking time ago.
We invented Pop idol and the X-factor ... oh wait you may have a point
The actual guidelines are online at http://www.cps.gov.uk/consultations/social_media_consultation.html
And the law says that the jury has to choose if the law has actually been broken.
Hell, you merkins have "Fighting words", which are decided by the jury as to whether they apply.
OJ was aquitted because the jury decided the case wasn't proven.
Someone claiming that they were emotionally traumatised HAS to prove that they HAVE been mentally traumatised. If they haven't, or seem to have been faking it, then there was no crime.
Really, you're all a bunch of spinless crybabies.
If you're REALLY worried about it, what the hell are you doing about the wiretap laws in your country? Fic your own fucking country rather than whine about others.
Chilling? I think the submitter fails the goddam Turing test.
"highly reasonable" I would say. Which, come to think of it, is kind of chilling, seeing as it's the UK government being reasonable.
A very, very small step in roughly the right direction.
no taxation without representation!
lol.. I'm an american anglophile, but I have to admit I don't appreciate their bringing "reality TV" to the masses. I'll pass on that tradition.. well, that and eel pie.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
If you can't say something nice then don't say anything at all..... else you go to jail law.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but calling me names will land you in jail.
I'm rubber you're glue, what ever you say bounces off me and locks you in jail.
Yeah ok..
Or maybe we shouldn't make offending these hairtrigger, insecure people a criminal offense in the first place. 'Offending feelings/beliefs' should NEVER be a crime in a free society. Once feelings/consensus matter more than the facts and the truth, the society will fall once it gets too difficult for individuals within it to acknowledge reality when making decisions. The fear and risk of artificially imposed legal reprisals from insecure masses/governments/organizations would be too great.
Western society is suffering from this now, and it shows. Passive aggressive behavior dynamics will be the killer of us all.
..."not obviously beyond what could conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in a diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression"
Is there anything that is obviously beyond what could conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in a diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression? I can't think of anything.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If only damaging assault is harm:
Are you harmed if I take your car?
No. You merely have to go and buy another one or do without.
Are you harmed if I slag you off to your boss?
No.
Even if he then sacks you when he believes what I say?
No. Your boss may have done so, but if he had reason to believe (or you work in a "right-to-work" state), you have nothing.
Are you harmed if I take pictures of you through your bedroom window? Your wife? Your children?
No.
Are you harmed if you're a child whose pictures in sex scenes are distributed?
No.
Are you harmed if you're a child and have consentual sex with me?
No.
Are you harmed if China is a totalitarian state?
No.
Are you harmed if the banks get a bailout?
No.
Define harm.
Because harm doesn't just mean "physically assaulted".
I'm not in the USA, so the terms are not common.
And the article fails to mention the major problem being section 5 of the public order act (where it is illegal to "insult" someone).
The House of Lords have voted to reform the law