> A law exists in the UK about using public communications networks to send grossly offensive or indecent communications.
Why? Why is this any of the government's business?
Why? Why is this any of the government's business?
As to why the behaviour needs legislating: because the British social contract required it, because in British society they're willing to trade the right to say grossly offensive things to people, for protection against hearing grossly offensive things. Lots of reasons, it's fine for them, you don't often hear clamour to repeal the law, they don't have the same issue with it that you do. So who are you to tell Brits that they shouldn't have a law?
Why make all of this up? Just so you can call someone a meddling busybody for having an opinion in a thread that you're also posting an opinion in?
Ultimately it's a question of consent and the social contract. My answer, which you're critical of here, is that ultimately the government have consent of the people to enforce this law and therefore it's the government's business. It's consented by the Brits, there is not democratic clamour to rewrite that law, and it's not for other countries to impose their values here. I hope you don't think I'm being pedantic, I'm just trying to answer the question that was put to me; why, in the UK, is this a regulated behaviour
I doubt it represents British society's desire. It's more likely a case of "when you're a hammer everything looks like a nail". MPs feel that their job is to always legislate. Let's not forget that since the 90s raves have been illegal in the UK.
Would you rather pay them to do nothing at all, or maybe adopt the US model where they spend a year of their term campaigning on the public's dime?
Probably most people in Iran agree with the laws that gay people should be executed.
Based on your "social contract" theory, that's just fine? I mean, who are you to tell the Iranians that they shouldn't have a law? Right?
UK is democratic and the elected reps' body is sovereign over law.
An Iranian cannot stand for election in her region on the platform of: I am going to repeal "Islamic" law.
A person can stand for election in the UK saying: vote for me and we'll repeat the 2003 Communications Act.
I don't think that you didn't know this, so I don't understand why you asked it really
Sorry, no.
What other institution would do this instead of the government? Because having no form of regulation is in my opinion not viable.
Just think of it for a second. No regulation is a double edge knife. Yes, maybe it would make for a less repressive society, but you would be opening ways for any sort of expression, not only those that don't bother you directly but also those that do. So lacking a better option, the government fills this gap.
If that is not acceptable to you, you should come up with alternatives other than unlimited freedom.
Yep, I get all kinds of really mean things said to me. Sometimes I even get upset by them.
I don't feel a need to arrest and jail the people saying those mean things.
What, precisely, do you mean here?
So we don't like repression, so we use repression? That doesn't make sense.
The way to counter speech that promotes ideologies you think are bad is with more speech that explains why those ideologies are bad ones. Or even just reminds people that those ideologies are bad ones. It isn't to adopt the same techniques that those bad ideologies use.
> What other institution would do this instead of the government?
The obvious other way of regulating speech that some people find offensive or indecent is people's freedom of choice in social interaction. Don't interact with people who say things you find offensive or indecent. If the offensive or indecent things are in tweets, don't follow them on Twitter.
> having no form of regulation is in my opinion not viable.
There is no such thing as "no form of regulation". People already regulate their social interactions with other people. Adding government micromanagement on top of that does not really add any value. It just adds more ways for the government to mess with people.
The idea underlying government regulation of speech seems to be that people should be protected from things that they might find offensive or indecent, because people are delicate snowflakes that can be damaged by such things and they aren't capable of just dealing with them using the normal tools of social interaction. For mature adults that idea is laughable. Part of being a mature adult is understanding that there are lots of things in the world that are not the way you would like them to be and dealing with it, and not invoking Higher Authority every time you don't like something.
Why doesn't it? I can see the irony of course but that doesn't automatically explain it. If the boundaries of a tolerant society are clearly defined, any form of repression towards emergent intolerant ideologies outside the scope of such society are valid and won't jeopardize it because of such scope.
> The way to counter speech that promotes ideologies you think are bad is with more speech that explains why those ideologies are bad ones.
That process is viable long term but not enough to protect people that might be in iminent danger, today, from groups like neo-nazis, racists or anti-lgbtq+. Society must account for that and protect those in iminent danger.
> Don't interact with people who say things you find offensive or indecent.
What about persecution? People that you try to get away from but will go out of their way to hurt you? That is again not enough, and if government resorts only to that it will expose vulnerable groups to hazard.
> There is no such thing as "no form of regulation". People already regulate their social interactions with other people. Adding government micromanagement on top of that does not really add any value. It just adds more ways for the government to mess with people.
That works on a micro-social scale, but not on a global scale, which is the kind of isonomy that is required for a functioning society. Government individuals can and have abused power, but I think those are two different issues, one being the scope of government action and the second power misuse and mismanagement. The later can happen even without a wider form of the former through corrupt operations. That is, even if we limit the scope of operation, if we don't elect good officials, they can still abuse power beyond this limited scope of action.
> damaged by such things and they aren't capable of just dealing with them using the normal tools of social interaction. For mature adults that idea is laughable.
That is a superiority fallacy that only distracts from the issue. Is *everyone* complaining about this a snowflake? Isn't there a slight possibility they might have some form os substance to their claims? If there is a small chance somebody is in distress we have to make sure we take this seriously. Sure you understand as a mature adult like yourself we are not talking about isolated incidents but actions that can be taken by society as a whole.
Our system of common law already does that. As I noted in response to another poster downthread, assault is already a crime, and shouting abuse at a particular person is assault if that person can reasonably believe that they are in danger of actual harm from the shouter. But that is not what the person who was arrested in the subject article was doing. He was not threatening, or even talking to, any particular person.
> people that might be in iminent danger, today, from groups like neo-nazis, racists or anti-lgbtq+
Whatever "imminent danger" exists is not from tweets. And conflating a tweet with the kind of "imminent danger" that actually harms people is exactly the kind of muddying of the "boundaries of a tolerant society" that makes the problem worse, not better.
> What about persecution?
The man who got arrested in the subject article was not persecuting anybody.
> Government individuals can and have abused power, but I think those are two different issues, one being the scope of government action and the second power misuse and mismanagement.
Expanding the scope of government power also expands the scope of possible misuse and mismanagement. So the two are connected.
> Isn't there a slight possibility they might have some form os substance to their claims?
Saying that you are offended by someone's tweet is one thing; of course you can and should say that. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm advocating for--combating offensive speech with more speech.
But calling the police because you are offended by someone's tweet is very different. Now you're not fighting speech with more speech; you're fighting speech with persecution. Which is exactly the sort of thing you claim to be against.
> we are not talking about isolated incidents but actions that can be taken by society as a whole.
Um, what? The tweet that got this man arrested was an isolated incident. He's not "society as a whole". He's just one person who tweeted something.
In fact, what "society as a whole" does, on your preferred model, is far more like persecution and "imminent danger" than what this man did. The guy tweets something you find offensive, so you bring down the massive power of the government on him? For a tweet? Where is your sense of proportion? Why can't you just say "that was offensive" and leave it at that, and save the massive power of the government for the cases where there is actual harm? Wasting all that power on a guy that just tweets something makes it harder to focus that power on the cases where people actually are harmed, which is where you say it needs to be used.
The specific arrest case blinds any sensible attempt to have a mature conversation over this subject.
In my honest opinion, the bloke who is obviously not a snowflake, that posted a frigging swastika made from lbgtq+ flags should just suck it as a real man and just go to jail without complaining like a wimp, otherwise he would be himself a snowflake and wouldn't be posting that. (Or have I got that wrong? I am not quite sure anymore).
In any case, adults should be behaving more like adults and realise their actions have consequences other than not having Christmas presents.
Have you got complaints? Good, we live in a democratic society. Just vote better next time. Just enjoy it while it lasts because that is the very thing that is just gone the moment that so called minor tweet repost swastika gets in effect.
And sorry for any inconvenience. Hope I didn't upset you.
In other words, you're perfectly ok with persecuting some people, so it's not persecution you have a problem with, just persecution of people you feel shouldn't be persecuted. Got it.
> adults should be behaving more like adults and realise their actions have consequences other than not having Christmas presents.
Certainly. I have already said, multiple times now in this thread (though not all in response to you), that this bloke should certainly expect consequences such as other people saying how much of an asshole he is. But that doesn't mean he should go to jail.
> Just enjoy it while it lasts because that is the very thing that is just gone the moment that so called minor tweet repost swastika gets in effect.
So you honestly think that if this guy isn't arrested and jailed for his tweet, it's the start of a slippery slope to a new Nazi society? You appear to be ignorant of how the actual Nazis came to power. Hint: it wasn't by saying things that were offensive and having people just shrug and go about their business and not arresting them.
The UK's elected parliament is free to repeal or amend the law at any time - it has chosen not to.
If this is a matter that concerns the electorate, they can ask their MP to raise the point in parliament.
Shouting abuse at someone in public can see the law involved, and that is the same if the public space is online.
Ok, so why is it the government's business if you are grossly offensive or indecent in person? Why can't the normal tools people always use in social interaction handle this?
> Shouting abuse at someone in public
Is not what the person who was arrested in this case was doing. His tweet was not directed at any particular person.
The law does recognize assault as a crime, and shouting abuse at someone in public can rise to the level of assault if the person being shouted at could reasonably believe that the shouter was threatening actual harm. But the crime in this case is not speech; the shouting isn't a crime because it is expressing an offensive opinion. It's a crime because it's a threat of actual harm.