P&R&controversies things you might like to know

[OverIt]

A Russian 83 year old lady says exactly what she thinks of Russia of today:

View: https://youtu.be/h_LMdoCuSRM?si=SwOEpv01w4QwfWG1

When everyone else is the problem, maybe you are the problem? Same way if a guy sees all women as a problem, the problem is probably with the guy.

 

[SirJames]

And yet, if everyone else is crazy then the sane man appears to be the crazy one.

 

[Couchpotato]

Police investigate virtual sex assault on girl's avatar

The incident in a virtual world reportedly left the under-16-year-old traumatised.

www.bbc.com

The impact of the attack on the girl's avatar was said to be heightened because of the immersive nature of the VR experience.

According to an unnamed senior officer familiar with the matter who spoke to the paper the victim, under 16 at the time, suffered psychological trauma "similar to that of someone who has been physically raped".

But in criminal law, rape and sexual assault require there to have been physical contact.

Some argue that legal changes may be necessary to ensure that those responsible for sexually motivated attacks on avatars in virtual worlds can be prosecuted and punished effectively.

But others suggest there may be existing laws, for example against the creation of synthetic child abuse images, which could be used as the basis of prosecutions in virtual world cases.

 

[dteowner]

What game is she playing where her avatar can get assaulted? I'm sure I'll get accused of blaming the victim by someone not interested in considering the bigger picture. Where are the parents that let her play such a game or tinker in this particular VR space or whatever the appropriate parlance would be? This is not to absolve the creeps doing the "attack" but it seems fairly simple to turn the game off if something like this happens, wouldn't you think? I, for one, wouldn't participate in that particular virtual universe if that was going on--doesn't seem like much fun.

 

[Redglyph]

I'm surprised the BBC publishes something so ridiculous, honestly. They should have left it at the Daily Mail, which is more specialized in sensationalism.

Besides, it's nothing new. People have been aggressed online since online existed. All you have to do is disconnect.

 

[Couchpotato]

I don't know given the current political climate in England that article isn't silly. As you can fined or arrested for anything you say or post. Bascually thought police.

 

[JDR13]

I've never heard England described that way.

 

[Couchpotato]

UK Man Arrested For ‘Malicious Communications’ After Posting Meme Mocking the Transgender Flag | Brad Polumbo

According to the BBC, the man was arrested for “malicious communications,” while another man who recorded the incident was arrested for supposedly “obstructing an arrest.”

fee.org

I am not a lawyer, but in the U.K., expressing negative opinions about elected officials, or anyone else for that matter, is generally protected as a part of freedom of expression. However, there are some legal constraints that can affect what you say on social media or elsewhere:

1. Malicious Communications Act 1988: This law makes it an offence to send a communication with the intent to cause distress or anxiety, which includes electronic communications like those on social media. So, if you sent a threatening or abusive message to an elected official, you could potentially be prosecuted under this law.
2. Public Order Act 1986: This act makes it a crime to use threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour, or to display any written material which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, with the intent of stirring up racial hatred or where such actions are likely to stir up racial hatred.
3. Communications Act 2003: Section 127 of this act criminalizes the sending of a message via a public electronic communications network which is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character.
4. Defamation: If you make a false statement about an elected official (or anyone) that damages their reputation, you could be sued for libel. Remember, the truth is typically a defence to a libel claim, but the process of defending such a claim can be costly and time-consuming.
5. Terrorism Act 2006: Encouraging terrorism or disseminating terrorist publications is a criminal offence.
6. Harassment: Persistently targeting an individual could also be considered harassment.

It's important to note that while these laws can apply to statements made on social media, they're not exclusively about online communications and could apply to statements made anywhere. As with any legal issue, if you are concerned about specific statements or actions, it's always a good idea to consult with a solicitor or other legal professional familiar with U.K. law.

Arrests for offensive Facebook posts are increasing in London

625 arrests were made for alleged section 127 offences in 2010

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Couchpotato]

Just search on google and there's thousands of other articles over the last ten years.

Some are downright laughable.

 

[JDR13]

You can find the same kind of stories in America.

 

[Couchpotato]

It all comes down to two different views of 'freedom'.

In the US, for example, freedoms are considered to be fundamental and limitless. Any limit to freedom is a restriction on that freedom and, therefore, a reduction in it.

But in the UK an older country with a much longer history of rule for example, a freedom without limit is tyranny, it's an anarchy of the strongest. In simplistic terms for example, freedom to do as you want also allows you freedom to take my property and kill me or enslave me.

Instead, they believe that true freedom requires limits, you are free to do what you please within these commonly agreed limits. These limits are often called fairness or decency.

Basically agreed limits of acceptable content by societal standards. Perhaps at heart, they hold that the freedom to quiet enjoyment of your life is the most important freedom.

 

[JDR13]

@Pladio What does thou sayest about these vile accusations?

 

[Pladio]

I'm not an expert on UK or US law to be honest Also, although I live in the UK and have done so for 17 years almost, I am from Belgium.

My views are that in every single country in the world, there are limits to free speech. They are just different and have certain patterns.

For example, the whole defamation/libel point :

Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries, due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication. Further, some jurisdictions, most notably England and Wales, place the burden of proof on the defendant rather than the plaintiff.

Overall, the US has much more egregious laws against terrorism (I believe) that almost completely remove the person's right to a trial (i.e. Guantanamo Bay).

In the UK, there were several months of discussions and trials as to whether one British citizen could come back from Iraq after supporting ISIS. The US would have probably just locked her up if they thought she had any useful information.

@Couchpotato said:

Instead, they believe that true freedom requires limits, you are free to do what you please within these commonly agreed limits. These limits are often called fairness or decency.

That's the case in the US too. Not all speech is protected and there are exceptions. The main question is where the line is drawn, not per sé whether there is a line in the first place.

The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[8]

The Supreme Court has established a complex framework for determining which types of false statements are unprotected.[19] There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about. First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.[20] Second, knowingly making a false statement of fact can sometimes be punished. Libel and slander laws fall under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.[21] Lastly, some implicit statements of fact—those that have a "false factual connotation"—can also fall under this exception.[22][23]

So, technically, lying in the US is unprotected by the First Amendment, but only in rare cases.

To both @Couchpotato and @JDR13 's points. You can google arrests in both the UK and the US and you will find them. I would presume, without doing any research, that the amount of arrests due to speech has much increased since 9/11.

Note: All quotes not from people here are from Wikipedia so should be easily found by just copy/pasting into Google.

 

[Couchpotato]

Court says even passive members of Jan. 6 mob can be convicted of disorderly conduct

The decision is a victory for the Justice Department on one of the most common charges lodged against Jan. 6 defendants.

www.politico.com

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that Jan. 6 defendants can be found culpable of “disorderly” or “disruptive” conduct inside the Capitol even if they weren’t personally violent or destructive.

The decision is a victory for the Justice Department in cases against hundreds of defendants charged with misdemeanor counts of disorderly and disruptive conduct, one of the staple charges that has been applied to nearly every member of the mob that entered the halls of Congress.

A three-judge panel unanimously ruled that members of the mob must be judged on the circumstances of the day — which includes their awareness of the chaos happening around them.

“A lone hiker on a mountaintop can sing at the top of his lungs without disturbing a soul; a patron in a library cannot,” the panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in an 18-page opinion authored by Judge Karen Henderson, an appointee of George H.W. Bush. “It is entirely appropriate to clap and cheer when a keynote speaker steps to the podium but to do so once the room has fallen quiet and he has begun to speak would ordinarily be disruptive. Thus, in determining whether an act is disorderly, the act cannot be divorced from the circumstances in which it takes place.”

“Even passive, quiet and nonviolent conduct can be disorderly,” Henderson added, citing Supreme Court precedent that held sit-ins or protests that block traffic can be disorderly.

My opinion is that entire legal ruling is bullshit.

 

[SveNitoR]

Court says even passive members of Jan. 6 mob can be convicted of disorderly conduct

The decision is a victory for the Justice Department on one of the most common charges lodged against Jan. 6 defendants.

www.politico.com

My opinion is that entire legal ruling is bullshit.

Why do you think it is a bad ruling? I don't understand nuances of American law (or even Swedish law for that matter), but were they not knowingly breaking laws by entering the buildings the way they did?

 

[Couchpotato]

Why do you think it is a bad ruling? I don't understand nuances of American law (or even Swedish law for that matter), but were they not knowingly breaking laws by entering the buildings the way they did?

It's not just about entering a building the ruling says anyone involved in the riot/protest who didn't even get violent, basically those who just participated peacefully are criminals.

I've read the ruling and not just the articles opinion on it.

 

[SveNitoR]

It's not just about entering a building the ruling says anyone involved in the riot/protest who didn't even get violent, basically those who just participated peacefully are criminals.

I've read the ruling and not just the articles opinion on it.

So it's not only the people who entered the building who got sentenced? Also people just standing outside?

 

[Pladio]

Looks to me like anyone who entered the building.

I understand the concept although I am not sure it's a good ruling to apply generically to law as things should be seen a bit more holistically.

Many people at the protest were probably just following along without any malice.

 

[JDR13]

Anyone who was inside probably deserves to be prosecuted. You have to be pretty stupid to enter a capitol during a riot.

 

[bkrueger]

It's not just about entering a building the ruling says anyone involved in the riot/protest who didn't even get violent, basically those who just participated peacefully are criminals.

I've read the ruling and not just the articles opinion on it.

It depends on whether they supported the criminal acts by their presence. If you accompany criminals when they rob a bank and wait outside for them, you will probably also be prosecuted...