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.
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.
I did not, in any way, intend that to sound like that here in the U.S. lies the real world. Worded it horribly, sorry. Thanks.
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.
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.
In jail for exercising their free speech rights?
They have every right to believe what they want, and express that belief in public, and that is what they do. I may no agree with them, but the last thing I want to see is a government deciding what speech is ok and what isn't.
Free speech was never intended to defend the rights of those who say what others approve of, or those who quietly express their beliefs in out of the way corners. If the most offensive, in your face speech is not protected, then we may as well not claim to have free speech.
(and no laws against yelling fire in a theater are not relevant, nor are laws against fraudulent claims, this is clearly an expression of their opinion)
protecting the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humor, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it ; ).
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
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.........
and there you have your dilemma.
one of the consequences of free speech is that you get arses like the Westboro church.
speaking as UK citizen, I envy the ability of the USA legal system to say 'we hate what they're saying, but there is a bigger principle at stake here'.
the only other alternative is for someone somewhere to be in charge of deciding when the line has been crossed.
-westboro 'god hates gays'
-pro life 'murderer' signs outside abortion clinics
-islamist 'death to those who insult Islam'
-atheist 'islam is stupid'
-some guy 'some celebrity is fat and ugly'
for any place that you are willing to draw the line, I'll find some offensive speech that sits just above or below your line. The next person in the room won't quite agree with you on where the line has to go.
who decides which person goes to jail?
the Westboro baptist church, is actually something to be proud of. Not because it is hateful, but because it is allowed to be hateful.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
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
I still read it, but when I do read one of its articles and go 'wtf' it does indeed usually have Orlowski's name attached.
I read The Inquirer too. High degree of overlap but different perspectives, writing styles and focus.
True.
But one has to question whether their right to freedom of speech would be substantially harmed if they were restricted from using such hateful speech specifically to cause direct upset to people, and whether that right should be balanced against other rights such as, for example, the right of the family to have a dignified funeral ceremony for a loved one.
As a freedom of speech advocate, finding I'm obliged to support organisations like Westboro causes me issues.
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.
Yeah, then when we're done with them, we can sic the lawyer lynch mob on anyone else who offends The People and their Servants in the People's Paradise..or at least those voters with attributes on their 'social victimhood' lists. Gotta love 'social justice.'
Attack their free speech and you attack your own, along with everyone elses. Once holes are punched the guarantee is meaningless. WBC is a laughable joke. The fact you're offended by them is truly pathetic.
..."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!
While I agree that harm extends past the physical, the below needs to be addressed:
(or you work in a "right-to-work" state)
The definition of "right-to-work" is a state which does not have a law requiring employers to either fire non-union employees or deduct union dues from their paycheck and remit them to a union if a union organizes at their place of business.
You are confusing "right-to-work" with "at-will" employment, a confusion which unions are more than happy to continue perpetuating.
there actually isn't a law against yelling fire in a crowded theater. info here
...
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.
Both issues can be talked about at once. I do not believe anyone is a spineless crybaby for suggesting such a thing. Are you a spineless crybaby for disagreeing with them and then posting about it?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Yeah, that was the point. I'd almost include that quote, but figured it would make the joke too obvious.
The main point (which probably now won't be seen by anyone) is that it doesn't matter what the guidelines are, people can still be prosecuted for "offensive" posts online. That I could be prosecuted for my post is an abomination. Well, except that I'm basically anonymous and they can't find me based on my posts here...
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!