Hasn't the UK had a culture of surveillance (the famous CCTV cameras) and arresting people over online wrongthink for quite some time though? Who inspired who?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-com...
https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/new-hampshire-police-a...
https://www.fire.org/news/lawsuit-ex-cop-sues-after-spending...
"Stirring up racial hatred", even merely possessing material that could do so, is a crime in the UK: https://www.thelawpages.com/criminal-offence/Possessing-raci...
Burning the Koran is also illegal: https://spectator.com/article/england-now-has-a-blasphemy-la...
Viewing "far-right propaganda" carries a 15 year jail sentence: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-rudd-v...
True factual statements such as "young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs" come with a nearly 1-year jail term: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce328p9330eo
Note that most of the time, articles are happy to omit actual quotes, instead parroting the prosecution's description of the speech in question, using vague terms such as "racially aggravated comments" or "inciting racial hatred":
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rq8r4jdgno
“We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066” is accurate: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/white-briton...
Burning the Koran is not a statement of fact, so it cannot be disinformation.
"young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs" is also accurate (though the precise number is contentious, mostly because the police turned a blind eye, or even actively aided the gangs): https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/britains-grooming-gang-scandal-rep...
So can you be more specific in what you were referring to as being "disinformation"?
British =/= Briton
And English most certainly =/= Briton.
No more than English == Iroquois
Accurate as in someone said it? Centuries ago, people were worried that if the number of horses increased at the current rate, we would be waist-deep in horse manure.
And you admit yourself that the "precise number is contentious".
"Someone" being a population expert. Of course, "if we do nothing about it" is implied - if nothing could be done, why even bring it up? But of course you know this, and stretching a best estimate prediction by an expert to somehow qualify as "disinformation" is not arguing in good faith.
> And you admit yourself that the "precise number is contentious".
The man jailed did not state any number, and was not in jail for getting the number wrong, so that objection is irrelevant. I only add the caveat to avoid an argument about the number that the source cited.
The slogan doesn't even mean anything. Who's "we"?
The post I replied to claimed "The UK wrongthink arrests were for stuff like calling for a building full of people to be burned down". That example shows this is clearly not the case, and entirely non-violent speech [0] is criminal. That you personally agree with that prosecution is irrelevant.
> "merely possessing materials designed to Stirring up racial hatred" - Presumably you're okay with someone stirring up racial hatred?
What does it matter what I agree with? It doesn't stop being censorship, or a counterexample to the parent post's claim, if I agree with it.
> "Viewing "far-right propaganda" carries a 15 year jail sentence:" - No it doesn't, that's just an MP trying to get votes.
After reading the text of the law [1], you are correct - it only applies to material "useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". My mistake for believing the word of the UK Home Secretary about the law she was pushing.
> ""young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs" ". Where does it say anything about a jail term?
I apologize, I should have better organized the citations. [2] only talks about the conviction, the jail sentence is reported in [3]: Jailing him for 10 months and two weeks, Judge Nicholas Barker said it was clear that Heggie had wanted his offensive comments about the Muslim faith "to be read and heard by many".
[0] Yes, speech, not "vandalism" or other charge related to the stickers themselves, not their content - the conviction was literally for "stirring up racial hatred", and the average sticker promoting a nightclub or dance class, even if technically illegal, does not come with a 2 year jail term: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58 (it says 2000, but includes amendments from 2019)
Viewing far right propaganda does not carry a 15 year jail sentence, though conservative politician Rudd wished it did: your own article (did you even read it)
If a person presenting or directing the performance is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred, it is a defence for him to prove—
(a) that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the performance would involve the use of the offending words or behaviour, or
(b) that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the offending words or behaviour were threatening, abusive or insulting, or
(c) that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the circumstances in which the performance would be given would be such that racial hatred would be likely to be stirred up.
I suspect that most people with first hand knowledge have simply given up trying to contribute to HN threads about the UK. There is plenty of legitimate criticism to be made of the UK, but here (as you can see from the title) the discourse has degraded to such an extent that the mythically awful UK is held responsible even for bad laws passed by American legislature.
It's sad that people don't see what's so obviously happening in the uk. Censorship is alive and well in the uk, and there are plans afoot to further the control of the online world.
We know there is censorship.
We do not like the censorship.
Americans fund the censorship.
Americans pass laws for censorship.
Americans fund censorship overseas.
UK passes law for censorship.
Americans - See it's the UK fault.
That is the part we are discussing.
The UK was an amazing leader on liberty in the days when absolute monarchies were the assumed default government, but their free speech standards are a long way from exemplary in modern times.
Nah. Slavery in the south was enforced by massive amount of forced groupthink. They called themselves pro-freedom btw. See, limitations on slavery represented taking away freedom in their minds. And that conception stayed.
And anyway, USA is far from actual freedom including freedom of speech. It does not even rank that well in international comparisons. It is just strong in calling itself free or freedom minded. And huge bulk of that we are freedom rhetorics is from authoritarian fascists