EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: splin on April 14, 2019, 02:01:03 am
-
The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act came into force two days ago with provisions including "create an offence of obtaining or viewing terrorist material over the internet. Incredibly, you only have to do this once!
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/stricter-laws-to-tackle-terrorism-come-into-force (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/stricter-laws-to-tackle-terrorism-come-into-force)
And from https://www.cps.gov.uk/terrorism (https://www.cps.gov.uk/terrorism)
Section 3 updates the offence in section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 of obtaining information likely to be useful to a terrorist to cover terrorist material that is just viewed or streamed over the internet, rather than downloaded to form a permanent record;
How far reaching is this? Train timetables may be useful to a terrorist and God help you if you use Google Earth! :scared:
There are exemptions for academics and journalists. It seems that there are some defences including where a person "did not know, and had no reason to believe" the material contained terrorist propaganda. That's great but you have to argue that in court, assuming you can afford a lawyer and by that time could have lost your job, marriage, home, run up considerable debts to fight the case and had your children taken into care.
Even if you win you may find yourself unemployable in many professions in these paranoid times. If you managed to prove in court that you were the uwitting victim of a poisoned website or a hacker with malevalent intent or the like then perhaps you could get your police record purged - I don't know I'm not a lawyer. But suppose you stumbled across a prescribed site by accident? You might win your case by persuading the court that you have an impeccable background, are a member of the 'right' golf club, have no motive and suffer from 'old people and technology' ineptitude. But getting off by pleading you made a mistake may well leave you in the position of someone not convicted because the case was not proven - at least in the minds of potential employers.
Of course I doubt that the police have the resources to be chasing (for long) 'respectible middle-class' citizens who happened to hit a website of interest once or even twice with no other suspicious activities but what if you happen to be a young male muslim with a curious mind?
How many even know of this part of the act? I don't recall seeing it in UK news. They did give a fair bit of coverage of another provision - specifically "An individual found to have entered or remained in a designated area, unless for a legitimate reason such as being there involuntarily, could face up to 10 years in prison." Brexit dominates the news of course so much news doesn't get much airing.
This seems to me to be an ill thought out law with significant potential for miscarriages of justice. I assume here's a good chance that most MPs in parliamant, who approved the law, have not had many personnal dealings with the police and legal system and assume that common sense will prevail. Perhaps it does mostly but there have been many reports of cases that leave you speechless or shaking your head and muttering "I just don't believe it!".
-
Mmmm, this is why requiring common sense in order to make the line between a law is broken and a law isn't is very much a bad idea. Why have laws at all if all you're gonna do is say, well we can decide on our own opinions if you're guilty or not, don't worry, we're the government, why would we ever take advantage of our populous to do something as crazy as push political and personal agendas?
What is useful to a terrorist? Socks are useful for a terrorist, they stop you getting a rash on your feet and ruining your shoes. Does that mean I go to prison if I want to buy socks? What is especially worrying is that common sense in the UK's judicial and law enforcement system is in woefully short supply. I don't live in the UK, so of course I am going to have the foreigner's perspective, but the pure fact that 2 year old case like Markus Meechan's was allowed to happen says a lot to me, and I've not seen it as an isolated incident.
-
That seems dangerous to make it illegal to read something, and what counts as "read"? If you click a link and it takes you to some forbidden page are they going to claim you were reading it?
-
1984 was not an instruction manual... |O
-
1984 was not an instruction manual... |O
Tell that to China with their mass survaillance and people rating system. ::)
-
Section 3 updates the offence in section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 of obtaining information likely to be useful to a terrorist to cover terrorist material that is just viewed or streamed over the internet, rather than downloaded to form a permanent record;
Well, it seems downloading was already illegal since 2000 so there was like 19 years of forewarning.
I will not pretend to find such things coming from the UK surprising.
-
Just make sure to use a good VPN all the time.
-
Just make sure to use a good VPN all the time.
A VPN can be intervened or controlled by the State if in their jurisdiction. In secret so you don't even know it is happening.
VPN connections to other jurisdictions can be made illegal.
Spyware can be installed in target computers.
More alarmingly the public seem to support any and all measures that have the ostensible aim of fighting terrorism.
I also find it amusing that measures used in China are always condemned and shortly later the same measures are justified when used by a western country. If they do it is because they are evil but if we do it it is justified.
-
All true.
But better to use a VPN than nothing.
-
Terrorism and child porn makes people see red and agree to anything.
The Swedish police used to have an anti child porn blacklist that ISPs could use voluntarily to block certain domain names. Didn't take long before someone tried adding websites like thepiratebay.org but after that ISPs thankfully dropped it. The list also leaked, so to the extent there were any child porn on those sites the police effectively provided all the pedos with a map of where to find it. Anyone who knows anything about the internet realise that you can't get rid of child porn by blocking certain websites. Rather than censoring they should hunt down the people who commit the crimes and put them in jail, the abuse won't stop just because it becomes censored. Even so, they tried to do the same thing in EU, one of the Swedish EU commissioners even got the nickname Cencilia in Germany. Thankfully it got shot down, and none of it has taken root yet (in the EU), but these kind of dangerous proposals keep popping up everywhere.
It's been going on for a long time. This was an Australian anti censorship campaign from 10 years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goEEbsEDEM4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goEEbsEDEM4)
-
This is where how the citizenry treat The Constitution of a nation matters.
Constitution of the USA, First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Elsewhere, their Constitution or their Basic law (as the name may differ) may have similar clauses, but unless it is respected as The Constitution of that nation, it may as well be toilet paper.
So far in the USA, while the Constitution is certainly under attack by some, but we in the USA is holding if only weakly. Isn't there something similar in UK law that some can appeal to so as to overturn such government overreach?
-
That's worrying.
I have seen footage of all sorts of things in the past but I don't know whether they are real or not.
They might as well include drama as well and video games.
If someone was to talk to me about starting a new society and it involves murder (like that ChristChurch shooting) then I know better to ignore it and walk away.
-
obtaining information likely to be useful to a terrorist
I know how to operate just about any firearm I may come across.
Crap, I'm a terrorist.
It would appear the contents of my brain are illegal. Gotta love this country. We'll gloss over the instructions for making firearms from scratch, they're just icing..
-
Just think happy thoughts and only watch BBC and on the radio stick to the BBC. You won't unintentionally break any laws and if you do at least you won't be the only one.
Also stop using the internet, it's probably going to get you in trouble.
-
Elsewhere, their Constitution or their Basic law (as the name may differ) may have similar clauses, but unless it is respected as The Constitution of that nation, it may as well be toilet paper.
So far in the USA, while the Constitution is certainly under attack by some, but we in the USA is holding if only weakly. Isn't there something similar in UK law that some can appeal to so as to overturn such government overreach?
The UK doesn't have a constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom) iirc but the European Court of Human Rights have jurisdiction in all European countries, with the exception of Belarus, the Vatican and Kazakhstan. While the European Convention on Human Rights covers freedom of speech it doesn't mention the Internet. I doubt the US constitution does either. I'm sure that if internet existed when those documents were written they would have covered net neutrality and a free internet.
-
Every time in history has had its hysteria and its ghosts and the demons of today might be the angels of tomorrow.
Witches, black magic, being Catholic, being Jewish, Being Muslim, being communist, being capitalist, being homosexual, being against homosexuals, child sex, wife beating, ... every time in history had its hysteria and everyone tried to be more against whatever it was than the next guy because that was the only way to signal your virtue and escape suspicion. Everybody expects the Spanish Inquisition and wants to be ready.
- I think those people should spend the rest of their lives in prison
- Oh, you are too soft, I think they should be put too death
- Only that? I would torture them and then put them to death.
- Well I would torture them and put them to death and then put them in jail...
And so on.
A few generations later everybody agrees it was a gross overreaction and sometimes it is recognized that the issue was totally made up.
Every generation knows it is 100% right in how it sees things and all previous generations were wrong.
Behind every shadow and every curtain we look to discover the demons that torment our thoughts but they are only in our heads.
-
This makes China's great firewall look sane, you just don't get to see what they don't want you to see ... instead of playing a guessing game and getting into trouble when you make the wrong choice.
Lets get to the brass tacks here, if you read the NZ nutter manifesto in Britain will the cops come knocking now?
-
lol, how does this effect pyrotechnics and chemistry hobbies? :'(
-
lol, how does this effect pyrotechnics and chemistry hobbies? :'(
Guilty of a terrorism offence unless you can prove to the satisfaction of the police and if they charge you, a court, that you're not interested in any of this dangerous knowledge for terrorist purposes.
Horribly worded, over-reaching, heavy-handed act which just keeps getting more and more dangerous.
-
lol, how does this effect pyrotechnics and chemistry hobbies? :'(
They have practically banned pyrotechnics here now, you need an expensive licence to fire even the smallest fireworks. The general public thinks that if you do chemistry at home yo're either a terrorist or trying to make drugs.
-
lol, british chemical industry will take a HIT in like 15-30 years when all the old chemists that actually like doing chemistry die off. Going to have less skills, less enthusiasm and less creativity (these things won't happen in university or in a company very often). :palm:
Ever notice how quite a bit of the best engineers and techs (particularly creative ones) at least have or had some stuff in their homes and practiced it on a armature level in their youth (and possibly up into the career youth)? I know some older guys burn out eventually but even they have a bit of gear in the basement usually.
You typically don't decide to be a chemist as a child unless you have a chemistry set/lab and know how fun it can be.
-
yeah, but nothing to hide, nothing to fear and all that other BS the muppets who want everything banned spout...
-
lol, how does this effect pyrotechnics and chemistry hobbies? :'(
They have practically banned pyrotechnics here now, you need an expensive licence to fire even the smallest fireworks. The general public thinks that if you do chemistry at home yo're either a terrorist or trying to make drugs.
apis, if you want to see fireworks, come to my neighborhood on January 1st or July 4th. It is like WW3, but it is awesome, (open invitation)! :-+ :popcorn:
However, didn't UK make a law a few years ago to make it illegal to carrying a knife of any sort (if you are carving wood, better watch out), and didn't UK make a law about hate speech and then arrest the guy called Count Dacula for making a joke in a video on YT with his (or was it his girlfriend's) dog for that new hate speech law?
This type of thing happens to some extent in localities and some cities in the US as well, but to try to make it a federal law would not fly (because of the constitution). If some of the people are arrested for some of these, what I call "virtue signalling" laws, they could probably carry it to the higher courts and get it dropped, again, if you can afford the lawyers fees.
I have high hopes that I will see a lot of this type group think and mob mentality stuff die down before I die, but that time is getting shorter and shorter. Maybe cooler heads will prevail...
My 2 cents...
-
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/353/136/471.jpg)
-
lol, how does this effect pyrotechnics and chemistry hobbies? :'(
They have practically banned pyrotechnics here now, you need an expensive licence to fire even the smallest fireworks. The general public thinks that if you do chemistry at home yo're either a terrorist or trying to make drugs.
and thats why we don't have more smart people working on anti cancer drugs and such :--
-
And of course there's the usual problem with anything of this nature, nearly anyone who is truly a threat will be clever enough to get the information without getting caught. Use a stolen computer from a public wifi network, use a computer in a public library, hack a neighbor's wifi in an apartment complex, etc. It's likely to snare a lot of innocent people in the process too, since the definition of "terrorist material" is so broad and does not require any proof of intent.
Another thing that has long bothered me is that terrorism is in the same sort of class as things like shark attacks, incidents that are very dramatic but actually very rare, not even making the list of top 100 things likely to kill you. Humans in general utterly fail at risk analysis. A person will be afraid to fly on an airliner because it might crash but they'll drive down the highway while browsing facebook on their smartphone. :palm:
-
lol, how does this effect pyrotechnics and chemistry hobbies? :'(
That's worse than terrorism. You shall not do chemistry. Not to say take screwdriver in your hand.
https://twitter.com/MPSRegentsPark/status/974645778558980096/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E974645778558980096&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F29224%2Fheres-what-london-police-recovered-weapons-sweep-paul-bois
(https://twitter.com/MPSRegentsPark/status/974645778558980096/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E974645778558980096&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F29224%2Fheres-what-london-police-recovered-weapons-sweep-paul-bois)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/uk-new-law-now-illegal-to-view-terrorist-material-online/?action=dlattach;attach=705687;image)
-
thats things you might take away from like a 1 year old :-\'
man their fuckin strapped with fiskars and klien !!! so if your a heavy weight gangster you need like a knippex?
so like thats the english equivalent of a .38 special. A glock 9 is like https://chadstoolbox.com/90-25-40-knipex-pipe-cutter/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwtMvlBRDmARIsAEoQ8zTgAllI56gyH6iD4aGNyvGXfkoi5brV32aQN-N3bq5_1VxoyWAMy0caAmVKEALw_wcB (gotta sell alot of crack and do lots of muggings for that baby)
how do you tweet that shit with a strait face? its like trumps drunkposts.
-
(https://berlingske.bmcdn.dk/media/cache/resolve/image_x_large/image/90/902192/1947429-hans-cehic-fra-middelfart-havde-to-hobbyknive-liggende-i-sin-bil-som-holdt-parkeret-uden-for-et-diskotek.jpg)
Prison for 19 year old with hobby knife
The High Court in Odense today tightened the verdict for the 19-year-old Haris Cehic, who had forgotten two hobby knives in his car. The young man has to go to prison for seven days, settled the court. Otherwise, the district court had initially fined him a fine of DKK 3,000.
...
The police were also on site and during a routine search the two hobby knives found his car. According to Haris Cehic it was knives that he had forgotten after work.
https://www.tv2fyn.dk/artikel/faengsel-til-19-arig-med-hobbykniv (https://www.tv2fyn.dk/artikel/faengsel-til-19-arig-med-hobbykniv)
They changed it back to a fine again, but still, don't bring a pocket knife if you're going to Denmark.
-
It's a whole lot of theater. The public demands security and the authorities deliver fake security in the form of theater because the alternative is "doing nothing" which is unacceptable, so they "do something".
It's not only security. Bureaucrats need to justify their existence so they just create problems for the public. In Spain you apply for, say, a building permit and the first reply is denying it because they think that is what justifies their jobs. Later you insist adding a few more forms and documents and they grant it but they have made it clear who is in charge and that they are there and in control.
When terrorism or other emergency happens the last thing a government wants is to be seen as "doing nothing" so they have to "do something" even if that something is totally unrelated or even has negative effects.
-
It's a whole lot of theater. The public demands security and the authorities deliver fake security in the form of theater because the alternative is "doing nothing" which is unacceptable, so they "do something".
That's a perfect description of TSA's operation in this country. They may has have a troop of monkeys operating the security check points.
-
What if I am "caught" carrying around a large Maglite at night like this one:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZiQ2qON.jpg)
They could argue with it being metal, weighty and long that it can be used as a weapon and I can get smaller brighter led lights.
lol, how does this effect pyrotechnics and chemistry hobbies? :'(
That's worse than terrorism. You shall not do chemistry. Not to say take screwdriver in your hand.
https://twitter.com/MPSRegentsPark/status/974645778558980096/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E974645778558980096&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F29224%2Fheres-what-london-police-recovered-weapons-sweep-paul-bois
(https://twitter.com/MPSRegentsPark/status/974645778558980096/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E974645778558980096&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F29224%2Fheres-what-london-police-recovered-weapons-sweep-paul-bois)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/uk-new-law-now-illegal-to-view-terrorist-material-online/?action=dlattach;attach=705687;image)
I carry those things around in my coat pocket and bags apart from the hand file for work.
-
What if I am "caught" carrying around a large Maglite at night like this one:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZiQ2qON.jpg)
They could argue with it being metal, weighty and long that it can be used as a weapon and I can get smaller brighter led lights.
lol, how does this effect pyrotechnics and chemistry hobbies? :'(
That's worse than terrorism. You shall not do chemistry. Not to say take screwdriver in your hand.
https://twitter.com/MPSRegentsPark/status/974645778558980096/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E974645778558980096&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F29224%2Fheres-what-london-police-recovered-weapons-sweep-paul-bois
(https://twitter.com/MPSRegentsPark/status/974645778558980096/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E974645778558980096&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F29224%2Fheres-what-london-police-recovered-weapons-sweep-paul-bois)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/uk-new-law-now-illegal-to-view-terrorist-material-online/?action=dlattach;attach=705687;image)
I carry those things around in my coat pocket and bags apart from the hand file for work.
I had it in a car... Once, 15 years ago, I was stopped in Italy by police on routine traffic check. Policeman found it and shown it to me with a WTF look.
He had the same one on his hip... After a "what is this ?" I said "the lamp, like the one you have.."
After pointing it out for me that it's a big ass metal torch I replied that it's exactly why I have it. It has big batteries that last long and is robust so it can survive in car being kicked around. He laughed and shrugged saying "true...", handed me lamp an wished good trip.
I guess today that would happen differently..
-
I had a boss once who was from Germany and she kind of freaked out one day when I was in the office I was trying to remove some tape that was holding a cable and whipped out my little Leatherman keychain multi-tool and used the knife to cut off the tape. She was astonished that I would carry a "weapon" in the office. To this day I cannot really comprehend that reaction and have a really difficult time understanding how someone could view a piddly little 2" utility knife as a weapon rather than a tool. Especially someone who has a sharp pointed pair of 6" scissors on their desk. I've carried a pocket knife since I was around 12, and given the need for a weapon I'm not sure a little knife like that would even cross my mind, more likely I'd grab the nearest heavy object instead as it would be more effective.
-
too many contractors. no one does things themselves, gonna need a contractor to butter bread for you. :'(
oh man, it needs to be cleaned with ACETONE. We better contract a skilled chemist. Avoid the paint section in home depot because the DEA is going to throw you in jail for 50 years.
The kinda thing like lets bring in a contractor to fasten one screw
if you do things yourself you end up having dexterity, spacial awareness, planning capabilities, knowhow and tools. i guess upper management is really in the clouds.............. (not to mention the 90th floor).
someone might nick my armani suit....... ::)
main hazard of tools around the office: lubricant getting on clothing thats about 50-2000 times more expensive then necessary. Look out hamburger! machine oils going to one up you!!1
those are the people that end up getting amputations because of shoe strings in machinery (cough every mall.. ok a bit of a stretch) or end up losing pets to elevators. Not to mention old people getting stuck zippers. How about splinters? Those tweezers on swiss army knives sure are useful... better yet lets go to the ER........ :-DD
The number one hazard of this behavior is that kids are not going to know how to do anything and you will need an absurd amount of specialization to get 'certified' to do certain things (i am looking at you 2000 hour HVAC license). Let's slow down human progress even more with useless narrow specifications, you know so we spend our time fighting bureaucracy rather then natural dangers. Chemistry is up there, all the good chemists from the 70's were doing a bit more dangerous then usual activities when they were kids.. even in high school. Electronics too.. magazine trying to take mains projects out of circulation (how about demystification and enhanced education then banning)... or good engineers that build systems rather then playing with building blocks *cough* arduino *cough*
You had 'rocket boys' back in the 50's.. they wanted a colony on mars by 1980. Saltpetre from the pharmacy, local machine shop making rocket nozzles for you... Now you got people hiding small amounts of chemicals under sheds to make a pop rocket and cowering in fear when ever a siren is heard. Maybe I am romanticizing it a bit, but try talking to a old farmer some time.
Then those kids made a few bangers, blew up a few rockets and it got boring, so they started to study things like complex differential equations relating to nozzles (seeing a fireball over and over gets old.. most people are not like Colin Furze on youtube)... they got good.. and we got good shit because of it. Having a little lab used to be considered nerdy... now its practically 'gangster culture'. Oh man, are you BREAKING BAD because you want to make your own circuit board? God forbid you want to do home gold plating............................ on some chemistry forums its 'cool' to get away with owning a lab after a police visit. Please, spare me the bullshit.
Also, notice how everything older is kinda.. in most cases.. better built and higher quality. It's not just engineering progress, when people actually DID STUFF and interacted with nature they kinda got an idea of what is a bad idea. When you are sitting in an office behind some CAD all day you kinda lose track of realism. Yep mate that wall thickness looks good mate the yield strength is this that (then when you look at it, your like what the fuck).
-
People have been carrying around a small knife since the stone age because it's pretty darn useful. There's a huge difference between a knife that's designed as a tool and a weapon, and everything can be used as a weapon, or as the Hackney Police put it: "a 'butter knife' in the chest will kill as surely as a bayonet".
-
European Convention on Human Rights covers freedom of speech
No way in hell anything produced in Europe would be even remotely as clear-cut as "Congress shall make now law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press".
Surely there are provisions left for fighting terrorism.
lol, british chemical industry will take a HIT in like 15-30 years when all the old chemists that actually like doing chemistry die off. Going to have less skills, less enthusiasm and less creativity (these things won't happen in university or in a company very often).
Nothing that free movement of labor can't solve.
ACETONE
That's actually a terrorist material, if you know how to apply it ;)
These items were found during a #WeaponSweep
These are rookie weapons, behold stuff that actually kills people.
(https://i.imgur.com/kGhl9F7.png)
-
you know those middle easterners sure killed lots of romans with terrorist rocks
oddly enough I heard that around castles in antiquity they would send parties out to scavenge and secure stones useful for siege weapons lo, so they have more difficulty finding ammo for trebuchets. I assume of a large diameter.
-
I hope you were being sarcastic about the freedom of movement of labor thing. I am talking about kids messing around to get passionate about something. Usually the best people have a child hood interest. You grow up with a mom and dad that think a 2 inch knife is a military assault weapon and you will want to become a banker or something, not research chemist, rocket scientist, materials engineer, miner...
It's not like suddenly you are gonna turn 18 or whatever and decide "yea im moving to foreign country ______(denmark?, i assume its kinda free, compared to england) and gonna mess around with some rockets and get a degree in aerospace engineer!!. It's kind of a gradual indoctrination. You know, usually you have some cousin or uncle that does a bigger then average 4th of july party with some special materials when your 5 and you kinda start asking some questions, reading the pop literature then you get serious...
-
ACETONE
That's actually a terrorist material, if you know how to apply it ;)
They could just throw acid in people's faces which seems to be happening a lot in the UK from last year.
-
ACETONE
That's actually a terrorist material, if you know how to apply it ;)
They could just throw acid in people's faces which seems to be happening a lot in the UK from last year.
just wait till they figure out you can break apart cement tiles on the street to get lethal projectiles!!! or progress to 'war club' technology!
(https://cmkt-image-prd.global.ssl.fastly.net/0.1.0/ps/1048724/300/200/m1/fpnw/wm0/caveman-with-a-club_-.jpg?1456993327&s=e8aeb183bc51b326e354cf8a1b00e3c2)
Do we want to get these fellas proficient with slings made of old underwear??
hey if you rip that safety padding off of something you can probably shove it down someones throat to suffocate them! this is all absurd. they will literary end up getting 'biblical' on your ass with city construction materials! how about jobs instead of more police and more gangs? Most of those big gangs/mafias started because the law was getting out of hand and people wanted to feel safe.
It's all stupid because this type of legislation is going to get circumvented by the next most primitive technology (those unemployed crooks will think about this problem WAY MORE then some 9-5 burned out office worker legislator). Getting guns off the street from shady characters is one thing. but pliers???? TOO FAR.
hey but look on the bright side England, your road crews might actually fix pot holes and cracked sidewalks when people start getting murdered with loose asphalt and concrete! grow some nuts please. for the sake of the human race.
I am waiting for safety forests that can't be used to make poison, clubs, bows, snares or garrotes.
wasent there a whole english comic book series about this kinda thing happening, with some kind of judge on a motor cycle or something???
-
European Convention on Human Rights covers freedom of speech
No way in hell anything produced in Europe would be even remotely as clear-cut as "Congress shall make now law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press".
I find it pretty clear-cut (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights) to be honest:
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
Surely there are provisions left for fighting terrorism.
Naturally: ::)
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
I'd be surprise if the US didn't have similar fine print somewhere though.
In the end it comes down to if we respect the law or not. As Rick Law put it:
This is where how the citizenry treat The Constitution of a nation matters.
(...)
Elsewhere, their Constitution or their Basic law (as the name may differ) may have similar clauses, but unless it is respected as The Constitution of that nation, it may as well be toilet paper.
-
It's all stupid because this type of legislation is going to get circumvented by the next most primitive technology (those unemployed crooks will think about this problem WAY MORE then some 9-5 burned out office worker legislator). Getting guns off the street from shady characters is one thing. but pliers???? TOO FAR.
Yeah. You can limit the amount of guns in circulation since they only really have a single purpose. But common tools like knifes, pliers and screwdrivers (knitting needles :scared:)? not a chance. Every kitchen has a set of pretty scary knifes designed to slice meat.
-
ACETONE
That's actually a terrorist material, if you know how to apply it ;)
They could just throw acid in people's faces which seems to be happening a lot in the UK from last year.
just wait till they figure out you can break apart cement tiles on the street to get lethal projectiles!!! or progress to 'war club' technology!
(https://cmkt-image-prd.global.ssl.fastly.net/0.1.0/ps/1048724/300/200/m1/fpnw/wm0/caveman-with-a-club_-.jpg?1456993327&s=e8aeb183bc51b326e354cf8a1b00e3c2)
Do we want to get these fellas proficient with slings made of old underwear??
hey if you rip that safety padding off of something you can probably shove it down someones throat to suffocate them! this is all absurd. they will literary end up getting 'biblical' on your ass with city construction materials!
Damn.... By posting the above 'information likely to be of use to a terrorist' you've just put this website off-limits to all UK readers. By posting this I've provided proof that I've viewed this material so I'll likely be going down for a few years. :palm:
On a positive note it will give my voltage references time to stabilise...
-
These kinds of laws have been created since the dawn of time. It's one of those laws that is applied when there's a pile of circumstantial evidence but not enough hard evidence.
We have laws on the books against slung shots, which is a rock or a steel ball tied to a string, and the only reason is because it was at one time a weapon used by enemies of the state. In india it is illegal to posses a handkerchief with a coin tied in it, for the same reason. If someone were to be discovered possessing these materials, they would only be prosecuted if there was significant circumstantial evidence.
... like if they were the wrong race! :-DD
-
No way in hell anything produced in Europe would be even remotely as clear-cut as "Congress shall make now law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press".
Surely there are provisions left for fighting terrorism.
Laws are fine but it is how they are interpreted and applied that matters. In America juries and judges routinely interpret the laws in ways that are inconsistent with their literal meaning. Illegal wiretappings, torture, racism, all have been condoned by the courts.
OTOH, it is true that freedom of expression is interpreted wider in America than in Europe although, also, only up to a point and if they want they will get you on flimsy excuses of "terrorism" or whatever.
I agree that in Europe, in general, "freedom of expression is more limited than in America, no matter what the law says. If you say something unpopular they will get you on grounds of "inciting hatred" or something of the sort.
In Spain it is getting to the point of being ridiculous. You can attack conservative values without limits but those who try to defend them are routinely silence, even by authorities who do not have the authority to do so and are acting "ultra vires". For instance, a conservative organization, HazteOir (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/HazteOir.org) (means "let your voice be heard") charters buses with conservative messages painted on the sides. Routinely local authorities will forbid it from circulating even though those local authorities do not have the leagl authority to do so and can only report to a judge and only a judge can stop the bus. But local authorities everywhere forbid the buses from circulating and are supported by mobs of leftists who deface the buses and attack the people in them. The position of the authorities is that the buses are "provoking" the response.
Yeah, they can appeal to the EU court. Good luck with that.
In Spain it is against the law to speak well of the Franco dictatorship or to defend it in any way. It has gotten to the point of being ridiculous, not least because the official story of that time is very distant from what happened in reality. I lived those years and have read much history of those years and yet I have to put up with people who were born yesterday telling me what "really" happened. There is one legal version of history and what I lived is illegal to express.
I suppose it is the same in Germany with respect to the Nazi regime but I see a huge difference. In Germany it is illegal to deny things that are considered by all historians to have happened. In Spain nobody is denying what happened, only putting it in context.
Spanish culture has no tradition of respecting unpopular points of view. I try to explain to people that popular speech does not need protection and it is unpopular speech which needs to be protected by the government. Spanish people do not understand the concept and, no matter what the law may say, there is very little protection of free speech in Spain.
-
The UK population is approximately 5% Muslim. (Source (https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/muslimpopulationintheuk/))
If the authorities want to use this law to go after young radicalised Muslims before they get in deep enough to commit other serious offences, you can expect to see a LOT of ethnically native Brits being investigated under it as statistical cover so the authorities aren't accused of racial or religious profiling.
-
Freedom of expression exist so we can criticise those in power (e.g. whistleblowers) and have a constructive public debate without fear of retribution. It doesn't mean that anything goes. Many countries doesn't allow e.g. child pornography, libel or hate speech. The First Amendment doesn't protect libel in the USA either. Hate speech is just a form of libel against a minority so I don't understand why anyone would think that's more of a problem than libel laws.
Reporters without borders rank many European countries in the top and most EU countries are ranked better than the US.
https://rsf.org/en/ranking
-
Well if you put water inside any strong container, seal it off and bring it to a boil it results in a an explosion powerful enough to knock down brick walls.
So should we jail anyone who has water?
-
.
-
Tell that to China with their mass survaillance and people rating system. ::)
Well that exist in Europe to. In Germany called "Schufa" and in Austria are different Rating Agency bee used for.
but the European Court of Human Rights have jurisdiction in all European countries
in theory... sure!
This makes China's great firewall look sane
the difference between China and Europe is in China you know the block the half of the Internet in Europe the do the same but claim to have an open and free Internet. :clap:
use a computer in a public library
who you have to register with your ID.
don't bring a pocket knife if you're going to Denmark.
perfect another country on my List I will never Visit (again). ;D It seem Russia and the eastern European Country are the safest in Europe. :-\
Walk around with my 400ml Pepperspray? Nobody care about. :popcorn:
What if I am "caught" carrying around a large Maglite at night like this one
You won maybe a night on a Place where you get monitored 24/7. :=\
In Germany it is illegal to deny things that are considered by all historians to have happened.
Well it depend how you say what happened back then. If you say like me you are not sure when the Building got into the final stage we can see now its not violate directly the law. The Americans lied so often that we cant be sure that what the claimed back then wasn a lie. :-DD
The UK population is approximately 5% Muslim.
It seem enough Power to dicdate the life of the rest. Pork get Banned, more and more cruel slouthert Animal get sell as Hallal,...
Hate speech
Well the definition what it is or not depend on the Country and Person. When a Religion Group say all Jewish People must die its not hate speech for them. If you say in Saudi Arabia there are other religion and someone try to concert the can (and maybe will) be executed. :rant: so...
-
Laws like this tend to be used in the worst way possible. And the people it will be used against will be innocent as far as the original intent that law is concerned.
-
Reporters without borders rank many European countries in the top and most EU countries are ranked better than the US. https://rsf.org/en/ranking
I have to question that report. It may be representative of reporters and established news organizations but "freedom of expression" does not only cover their freedom but that of the entire population.
Spanish reporters may have their own experience and point of view but I can guarantee freedom of expression for the entire population is better protected in the USA than in Spain. In Spain extreme right expressions will get you shut down PDQ, by the authorities and by "uncontrolled individuals" while the authorities look the other way.
The fact that reporters have an easier time in Spain does not detract from that. Yes, reporters can report whatever they want (usually what their organization wants) but a political party or other organization is not as protected as they would be in America.
-
lol, how does this effect pyrotechnics and chemistry hobbies? :'(
They have practically banned pyrotechnics here now, you need an expensive licence to fire even the smallest fireworks. The general public thinks that if you do chemistry at home yo're either a terrorist or trying to make drugs.
The real reson for that was some immigrant Allhua Ahkbar people and some neoliberal Millenia Hipster kids who didnt understand that fireworks are supposed to be launched upwards not side ways as duly reported by MSM for past 3 years. Else govt would have banned fireworks decades ago argues people , and as usual there is some truth to that. The license to fireworks is around 9500sek. But for the sake of animals protection (i know i had a cat who was shit scared of fireworks) im for the ban, kind of swatting 3 flies in one smack.
Besides that it seams UK is going down the drain! BREXT!
Youtube: They have and still do remove videos of ISIS chopping heads, i see this as a criminal act as its a removal of
evidence of a crime.
-
lol, how does this effect pyrotechnics and chemistry hobbies? :'(
They have practically banned pyrotechnics here now, you need an expensive licence to fire even the smallest fireworks. The general public thinks that if you do chemistry at home yo're either a terrorist or trying to make drugs.
The real reson for that was some immigrant Allhua Ahkbar people and some neoliberal Millenia Hipster kids who didnt understand that fireworks are supposed to be launched upwards not side ways as duly reported by MSM for past 3 years. Else govt would have banned fireworks decades ago argues people , and as usual there is some truth to that. The license to fireworks is around 9500sek. But for the sake of animals protection (i know i had a cat who was shit scared of fireworks) im for the ban, kind of swatting 3 flies in one smack
See, you want the ban for your pet, yet you blame it on immigrants and hipsters? :-//
Yes there have been some fear mongering in media about rockets being launched horizontally. But that have been happening as long as I can remember, long before any mena refugees or hipsters. When I was a kid people used to blow up postboxes with firecrackers, or scare old ladies by putting a firecracker outside the door and then ringing the doorbell, etc. Everyone knew you shouldn't be at the town square during new years eve since some "cool" kids would fire rockets horizontally at you. Every now and then someone got hurt. First they banned firecrackers and now rockets.
I'm convinced the real reason is that a lot of people like you don't want their pets to get scared (or themselves), and there's also been concern about environmental pollution (heavy metals). And that is fair enough. My mother stays home every new years eve worrying that her house will burn down because of a stray rocket. ::)
So, for the most part, some people just don't like it(tm), never have. Maybe it's for the best, but I'm still a bit sad about it. I always loved pyrotechnics as a kid, there was something magical about it, and future kids will never get to experience that.
-
Survaillance for everyone. And the "NO-ZONES" GO grows by the social parasites
Ban the guns for everyone. And the social parasites have from guns until grenades ,while the worker people are unprotected.
Welfare state for everyone. And the social parasites recieve all the subsidies,besides they rob to worker people who pay their subsidies.
From the policeman prosecuted for hurting to three of the five assaulters at own house ,after receiving a beating. The fiscal request 20 years of jail by the policeman and 5 years of jail by assaulters ,besides of the Civil Responsabilities of the 300.000 € by the policeman for injurying the assaulters.
Passing by the squats who take up illegally houses, for more INRI, they kick out an older couple from own house. Until the Herds Allah's who raped and robbed.
It will arrive time ,that we shall have to defend creating militias and Death Squad if politicians follow with the actual ideas ( Future = Mad Max).
-
Reporters without borders rank many European countries in the top and most EU countries are ranked better than the US. https://rsf.org/en/ranking (https://rsf.org/en/ranking)
I have to question that report. It may be representative of reporters and established news organizations but "freedom of expression" does not only cover their freedom but that of the entire population.
Spanish reporters may have their own experience and point of view but I can guarantee freedom of expression for the entire population is better protected in the USA than in Spain. In Spain extreme right expressions will get you shut down PDQ, by the authorities and by "uncontrolled individuals" while the authorities look the other way.
The fact that reporters have an easier time in Spain does not detract from that. Yes, reporters can report whatever they want (usually what their organization wants) but a political party or other organization is not as protected as they would be in America.
How about these then:
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2018 (https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2018)
https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index (https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index)
https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new (https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new)
The last one from Cato is a bit wonky though, since it combines something they call "economic freedom" with "human freedom". :-//
-
I am not going to spend much time reading and analyzing reports which are not even specific about freedom of expression which is what we are talking about here.
The fact is that in Spain the authorities suppress speech in circumstances I cannot imagine happening in America. I have given examples and can give plenty more if you want them. I have never heard of such a thing in America. If you have examples then let's see them.
-
Let's try to keep some manners and respect. OK?
Bus stopped in Madrid because of its message: https://www.elespanol.com/espana/politica/20170228/197230853_0.html (https://www.elespanol.com/espana/politica/20170228/197230853_0.html)
In Barcelona they have been fined for "inciting hatred" https://www.eldiario.es/catalunya/activistas-HazteOir-Diagonal-Barcelona-esloganes_0_874213069.html (https://www.eldiario.es/catalunya/activistas-HazteOir-Diagonal-Barcelona-esloganes_0_874213069.html)
In Valencia the police detained them and removed the messages displayed on the bus. https://www.valenciabonita.es/2019/03/05/autobus-hazteoir-valencia/ (https://www.valenciabonita.es/2019/03/05/autobus-hazteoir-valencia/)
Spanish Government says all apology of Franco regime is forbiden by law: https://www.europapress.es/nacional/noticia-gobierno-avisa-ley-prohibe-toda-exaltacion-franquismo-inminencia-20-20181116154938.html (https://www.europapress.es/nacional/noticia-gobierno-avisa-ley-prohibe-toda-exaltacion-franquismo-inminencia-20-20181116154938.html)
One more; https://www.elplural.com/autonomias/andalucia/la-junta-condena-la-exaltacion-del-franquismo-en-el-entierro-de-utrera-molina_102630102 (https://www.elplural.com/autonomias/andalucia/la-junta-condena-la-exaltacion-del-franquismo-en-el-entierro-de-utrera-molina_102630102)
I could go on and on.
The fact is that there is nothing like that in America, Not even close.
-
That is rather bizarre from my perspective. One of the things I run into in my RC airplane hobby is the fact that in Germany and maybe other places it's illegal to display a swastika. This results in models of German WWII aircraft missing that or having it altered, leaving the plane looking incomplete and not authentic. It's a bit stupid I think to sweep history under the rug or revise it in the present. For it to be illegal to make the model look the way the real one looked is dumb.
-
I have lived in America for a quite some years and have never seen anything like that. If it happens as often as in Spain then I am sure you can give us some samples of the authorities preventing the expression of speech it does not condone. I can give many more examples of how bad the situation is in Spain. (Culturally we still have not accepted the concept that speech we find objectionable must still be protected.) Many political candidates need police escort because they are threatened.
Let us see similar cases in America of the authorities favoring one ideology over another.
-
One of the things I run into in my RC airplane hobby is the fact that in Germany and maybe other places it's illegal to display a swastika. This results in models of German WWII aircraft missing that
Well on an Plane who should look historic its no problem to put a swastika on it. Trust me if you could watch German Speaking TV your would see 24/7 on different Channel some Nazi Stuff. Even the TV Channel who claim to be Austrian show and speak Nazi stuff every time. :-X
-
Freedom of expression exist so we can criticise those in power (e.g. whistleblowers) and have a constructive public debate without fear of retribution. It doesn't mean that anything goes. Many countries doesn't allow e.g. child pornography, libel or hate speech. The First Amendment doesn't protect libel in the USA either. Hate speech is just a form of libel against a minority so I don't understand why anyone would think that's more of a problem than libel laws.
Reporters without borders rank many European countries in the top and most EU countries are ranked better than the US.
https://rsf.org/en/ranking (https://rsf.org/en/ranking)
[RL: BOLD added to quote ]
In the USA, hate speech and libel are very different legally speaking. Hate speech is covered by the First Amendment where as The Supreme court had upheld libel cases thereby making libel an exception to free speech.
The US Supreme court on multiple occasion reaffirmed that the First Amendment protects even hate speech. There are many references to that but this one is rather recent and it was decided unanimously:
Washington post, June 19, 2017, Article:"Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/)
Another supporting document from Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States)
On the other hand, libel has specific legal meaning and Libel laws has been "tested" in the Supreme court in the sense that it had upheld libel cases but less clear cut lines.
Definition (from Cornell University Law Library)
Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.
reference here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel)
I said "less clear cut" because libel against a public official has a different threshold than libel again common people (1964, New York Times v. Sullivan). To clarify: if I am a public figure and sue someone for libeling me, I must prove "actual malice" committed by that someone; whereas, if I am not a public figure, I don't have to prove malice.
Notice I used public official in reference to the ruling in the prior paragraph, and use public figure for the rest of the paragraph. I am not a lawyer but I read a lot. From all my readings, public figures considered they have the same burden of proof, but it has to my knowledge not been court-tested that they do need to prove malice .
reference here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law)
-
Freedom of expression exist so we can criticise those in power (e.g. whistleblowers) and have a constructive public debate without fear of retribution. It doesn't mean that anything goes. Many countries doesn't allow e.g. child pornography, libel or hate speech. The First Amendment doesn't protect libel in the USA either. Hate speech is just a form of libel against a minority so I don't understand why anyone would think that's more of a problem than libel laws.
Reporters without borders rank many European countries in the top and most EU countries are ranked better than the US.
https://rsf.org/en/ranking (https://rsf.org/en/ranking)
[RL: BOLD added to quote ]
In the USA, hate speech and libel are very different legally speaking. Hate speech is covered by the First Amendment where as The Supreme court had upheld libel cases thereby making libel an exception to free speech.
The US Supreme court on multiple occasion reaffirmed that the First Amendment protects even hate speech. There are many references to that but this one is rather recent and it was decided unanimously:
Washington post, June 19, 2017, Article:"Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/)
Another supporting document from Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States)
On the other hand, libel has specific legal meaning and Libel laws has been "tested" in the Supreme court in the sense that it had upheld libel cases but less clear cut lines.
Definition (from Cornell University Law Library)
Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.
reference here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel)
I didn't mean to say hate speech is not allowed in the US, I meant it constituted a similar kind of exception to free speech as libel does (and that there are exceptions to free speech everywhere, also in the US). Replace 'person' with 'persecuted minority' in that definition from Cornell and you sort of get what most hate speech laws cover (in other countries than the US).
Since everyone seems okay with libel being an exception I don't really understand why some people object to an exception for hate speech. One can argue whether it is necessary and if it does any good in the end, but it isn't a serious limitation to free speech. It doesn't prevent us from having a constructive public debate, expose corruption and wrongdoing or criticise those in power (which anti-libel laws arguably might), etc.
-
Freedom of expression exist so we can criticise those in power (e.g. whistleblowers) and have a constructive public debate without fear of retribution. It doesn't mean that anything goes. Many countries doesn't allow e.g. child pornography, libel or hate speech. The First Amendment doesn't protect libel in the USA either. Hate speech is just a form of libel against a minority so I don't understand why anyone would think that's more of a problem than libel laws.
the problem with "hate speech" is that it is a made up word that can mean just about anything you want it to mean
-
The other thing is libel leaves you free to express your opinion, hate speech from what I've read absolutely does not.
-
(https://berlingske.bmcdn.dk/media/cache/resolve/image_x_large/image/90/902192/1947429-hans-cehic-fra-middelfart-havde-to-hobbyknive-liggende-i-sin-bil-som-holdt-parkeret-uden-for-et-diskotek.jpg)
Prison for 19 year old with hobby knife
The High Court in Odense today tightened the verdict for the 19-year-old Haris Cehic, who had forgotten two hobby knives in his car. The young man has to go to prison for seven days, settled the court. Otherwise, the district court had initially fined him a fine of DKK 3,000.
...
The police were also on site and during a routine search the two hobby knives found his car. According to Haris Cehic it was knives that he had forgotten after work.
https://www.tv2fyn.dk/artikel/faengsel-til-19-arig-med-hobbykniv (https://www.tv2fyn.dk/artikel/faengsel-til-19-arig-med-hobbykniv)
They changed it back to a fine again, but still, don't bring a pocket knife if you're going to Denmark.
that was 10 years ago when the judges were trying to make a point that they did not like the politicians interfering with
their job by making laws with minimum sentences
-
Freedom of expression exist so we can criticise those in power (e.g. whistleblowers) and have a constructive public debate without fear of retribution. It doesn't mean that anything goes. Many countries doesn't allow e.g. child pornography, libel or hate speech. The First Amendment doesn't protect libel in the USA either. Hate speech is just a form of libel against a minority so I don't understand why anyone would think that's more of a problem than libel laws.
the problem with "hate speech" is that it is a made up word that can mean just about anything you want it to mean
No sure what you mean. All words are made up. If there is some law that prohibits hate speech it's meaning is well defined in the law and by the praxis of the courts.
In a discussion on the internet it is problematic that it might be considered a vague and undefined term and people might be talking about different things. But here we were talking about how freedom of speech were somehow much more limited in the EU than in the US so the legal definitions seems like the most relevant.
The other thing is libel leaves you free to express your opinion, hate speech from what I've read absolutely does not.
Not if that opinion is libellous.
-
Freedom of expression exist so we can criticise those in power (e.g. whistleblowers) and have a constructive public debate without fear of retribution. It doesn't mean that anything goes. Many countries doesn't allow e.g. child pornography, libel or hate speech. The First Amendment doesn't protect libel in the USA either. Hate speech is just a form of libel against a minority so I don't understand why anyone would think that's more of a problem than libel laws.
the problem with "hate speech" is that it is a made up word that can mean just about anything you want it to mean
No sure what you mean. All words are made up. If there is some law that prohibits hate speech it's meaning is well defined in the law and by the praxis of the courts.
In a discussion on the internet it is problematic that it might be considered a vague and undefined term and people might be talking about different things. But here we were talking about how freedom of speech were somehow much more limited in the EU than in the US so the legal definitions seems like the most relevant.
The other thing is libel leaves you free to express your opinion, hate speech from what I've read absolutely does not.
Not if that opinion is libellous.
Even if it's "libellous". Your opinion is not libel.
-
that was 10 years ago when the judges were trying to make a point that they did not like the politicians interfering with
their job by making laws with minimum sentences
Wasn't the problem that the knife law had recently been restricted? As I wrote before, they changed the sentence back to a fine again but the conclusion was that it was illegal to have one of those snap-off blade knifes in the car, no?
-
Even if it's "libellous". Your opinion is not libel.
I'm no lawyer but I would be surprised if appending "in my opinion" is going to make a difference. "Xxx is a paedophile and molested yyy, zzz and thirty other children, in my opinion that is." If you gonna publish that I would recommend you make sure you can back it up with evidence first.
I'm most familiar with the Swedish law and it only prohibits threatening or expressing contempt for certain minorities, i.e. agitating. It does not prevent an objective and constructive discussion or statements made in private. So people are basically free to express their opinion.
-
that was 10 years ago when the judges were trying to make a point that they did not like the politicians interfering with
their job by making laws with minimum sentences
Wasn't the problem that the knife law had recently been restricted? As I wrote before, they changed the sentence back to a fine again but the conclusion was that it was illegal to have one of those snap-off blade knifes in the car, no?
recently 10 years ago, the politicians were signaling "tough on crime" by making a minimum prison time for carrying a knife without a valid reason, so the courts protested that they couldn't use common
sense but had to give a minimum sentence by doing it in the most ridicules cases
-
Why doesn't the local big bro branch just shut down or block the servers that supply this terro material,
so the little people can't click on by accident, and giggle at it over too many beers,
inadvertently getting themselves into supposed 'illegal viewing' come imperial entanglements
Perhaps the online enforcement crowd tracking (or paycheck perving) all the p0rn and child pedo floggers, and spam and scam vending sites, for YEARS on end
can lend a hand :popcorn:
Maybe they'll do better at hunting down this milder hate/ terro material instead... :clap:
:palm:
-
...
...
I didn't mean to say hate speech is not allowed in the US, I meant it constituted a similar kind of exception to free speech as libel does (and that there are exceptions to free speech everywhere, also in the US). Replace 'person' with 'persecuted minority' in that definition from Cornell and you sort of get what most hate speech laws cover (in other countries than the US).
Since everyone seems okay with libel being an exception I don't really understand why some people object to an exception for hate speech. One can argue whether it is necessary and if it does any good in the end, but it isn't a serious limitation to free speech. It doesn't prevent us from having a constructive public debate, expose corruption and wrongdoing or criticise those in power (which anti-libel laws arguably might), etc.
[RL bold added]
re: "Since everyone seems okay with libel being an exception [,] I don't really understand why some people object to an exception for hate speech."
Injury (harm, damage) vs Expression (of idea)
Per US Supreme Court ruling, hate speech is an expression of a view point (an idea). Limiting it is a "view point discrimination" which is prohibited. [ Switching to my opinion instead of per court ruling ] The key word in the Cornell Law Library definition of libel is injury, libel is an act intended to cause injury. Hate speech may make someone feel bad, but feeling is not quantifiable or provable. So, you cannot possibly show in court that actual damage was done by said speech.
Per Cornell Law definition, libel is a form of defamation, it helps to also look at legal definition of defamation (again from Cornell Law Library):
"To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation)
re:view point & view point discrimiation -- Quoting the US Supreme Court:
"JUSTICE KENNEDY, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN, agreed that 15 U. S. C. §1052(a) constitutes viewpoint discrimination, concluding: (a) With few narrow exceptions, a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 828–829. The test for viewpoint discrimination is whether—within the relevant subject category—the government has singled out a subset of messages for disfavor based on the views expressed. Here, the disparagement clause identifies the relevant subject as “persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols,” §1052(a); and within that category... ... ..."
Source of quote is this Supreme Court paper: "SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MATAL, INTERIM DIRECTOR, UNITED STATESPATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE v. TAM"
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf)
-
Even if it's "libellous". Your opinion is not libel.
I'm no lawyer but I would be surprised if appending "in my opinion" is going to make a difference. "Xxx is a paedophile and molested yyy, zzz and thirty other children, in my opinion that is." If you gonna publish that I would recommend you make sure you can back it up with evidence first.
I'm most familiar with the Swedish law and it only prohibits threatening or expressing contempt for certain minorities, i.e. agitating. It does not prevent an objective and constructive discussion or statements made in private. So people are basically free to express their opinion.
Right. Just adding "in my opinion", or publishing under an opinion section, is not a defense to libel. The thing is that the burden of proof as noted above is different for individuals and public facing people. Politicians, celebrities, media companies, people you might expect others to be aware of you don't need to prove they intended malice, it just doesn't matter. The reach of their words is great enough that they need to be sure they were right before saying anything. A recent example would be some high school kids were reported as being racists and provoking minorities. Didn't happen and most of the outlets are being sued for it. For individuals with no real reach you need to prove malice. The statements need to be published. The entity claiming libel needs to prove the statement was untrue, which isn't always easy either. Another recent-ish example of this is elon musk calling one man working to save kids in the cave system a pedo. The guy supposedly sued for libel but that'd be a tough thing to prove. You could present a criminal record with no pedophilia charges but otherwise... :-// For individuals there typically need to be damages also.
Comparing libel to hate speech laws some countries have isn't 1:1, a more apt comparison is to our slander laws... This is typically just speech. So to prove it you'd want witnesses, maybe a recording of the conversation(if legal). I THINK you always have to prove damages as well but I'm not sure.
Here you can, and we usually believe you should be able to, say anything you'd like outside of trying to cause physical harm to people. If you suddenly start yelling a bunch of racist obscenities at a group and the group attacks you there could be reduced charges for those individuals. If someone calls you an asshole you can not hit them and claim they provoked you. Well you could but it wouldn't work out for you. Telling people to attack someone is illegal, trying to make people fight you is illegal, a call to action that can cause bodily harm is illegal. If you're just saying things, even hateful/racist things, it's legally ok. Plenty of examples of racists, white/black/brown/whatever, all over the place recently and older saying vile things here and reasonable people just walk away from them.
-
Why doesn't the local big bro branch just shut down or block the servers that supply this terro material,
so the little people can't click on by accident, and giggle at it over too many beers,
inadvertently getting themselves into supposed 'illegal viewing' come imperial entanglements
That's been tried but has its own big problems including blocking all sorts of legitimate sites caught by filters that are too wide or simplistic (eg. the UK seaside town of Scunthorpe), or requiring the authorities having to create and maintain (or pay a third party) a database of prescribed sites. False positives and negatives are still a problem and generate lots of embarrasing press for the authorities when they inevitably get it wrong.
Much cheaper and easier to say that "if we have reason to investigate you then we will decide post-facto if the site(s) you visited were illegal". But that leaves everybody in the position where they can't be certain which sites are legal until sufficient case law/precedences have been set in court.** Not that that matters to the vast majority of UK citizens who will likely have no idea the new law exists anyway.
Eventually cases will arise which get lots of publicity and people will become aware, but until then it is very convenient for the authorities to have this law available as a reason to 'neutralise' suspected terrorists with no other real evidence other than they looked at some website that can be deemed to be dodgy. Problem is that whilst Parliament's intentions may have been perectly reasonable, the law ends up being interpreted by someone who may be poorly equipped to do so, or worse. Great if the suspect is genuinely a threat but terrible if the victim was guilty of "wearing a loud shirt", or "possesion of curly hair and thick lips" - from a parody of the UK police's Special Patrol groups activities, 'Not the 9 o'clock News' (Griff Rees Jones and Rowan Atkinson) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chOtJdiBZR4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chOtJdiBZR4)
Eevblog is clearly a dangerous site providing all sorts of subversive advice on using VPNs and encryption to avoid tracking and detailed information on the design of sophisticated electronic timers and radio links, core technologies for bomb triggering devices. Similarly all Maker and Arduino sites.
[EDIT] And as for Wikipeadia - expect little mercy if your curiosity caused you to visit any of the extensive array of pages providing detailed information on the history and chemistry of explosives/shells/weapon systems etc.
Any sites providing detailed information on flight sytems in modern commercial airlines are clearly a godsend for terrorists lokking for ways to bring down a jet. That's all UK readers of the "Lion Air crash: Jakarta Boeing 737 'had prior instrument error'" thread b****ered then. :scared:
** Much like UK tax law whereby the HMRC won't tell you your tax liabilty for any situation that's slightly out of the ordinary but will only advise you to get your own advice (elsewhere) but reserve the right to accept your tax returns for many years, but may at some point rule against you having potentially run up huge liabilites in the meantime because you didn't know the relevant tax rules, and more importantly neither did anyone else including HMRC, until they decide to adopt a postion which may be contrary to accepted practice or popular opinion, or even their own earlier advice. At that point you either pay up or go to court who will then establish the law. This applies to other offences of course, but HMRC's postion on deliberately allowing 'invalid' tax claims, in their full knowledge, to continue for years before acting retrospectively seem to be particulary cycnical.
And no I haven't been in this situation but it has been in the news recently with many high profile cases. Some of these cases elicit little sympathy for blatent tax avoidence, but others seem extremely unfair. The point is that not knowing the law is no defence - even when nobody else knows the law either, until a judge makes a rule.
Do youselves a favour and unplug your intermet - except there's probably some other legal requirement to maintain a connection at all times where reasonably possible to ensure the authoroties can monitor you easily and comprehensivly. Or perhaps to not deny burglars' basic human rights including the ability to minimise their stress levels by being able to quickly value your assets to decide which ones to nick.Cynical? Moi? >:D
-
the problem with "hate speech" is that it is a made up word that can mean just about anything you want it to mean
Exactly. Witness the example I gave where saying "if you have a penis you are a boy, if you have a vagina you are a girl" has been considered "hate speech" against transsexuals in Spain and the message silenced by the authorities.
Once you give the authorities the power to judge what is hate speech and you have a culture of imposition rather than dialogue that is the end of free speech in any meaningful way.
-
I didn't mean to say hate speech is not allowed in the US, I meant it constituted a similar kind of exception to free speech as libel does (and that there are exceptions to free speech everywhere, also in the US). Replace 'person' with 'persecuted minority' in that definition from Cornell and you sort of get what most hate speech laws cover (in other countries than the US).
Since everyone seems okay with libel being an exception I don't really understand why some people object to an exception for hate speech. One can argue whether it is necessary and if it does any good in the end, but it isn't a serious limitation to free speech. It doesn't prevent us from having a constructive public debate, expose corruption and wrongdoing or criticise those in power (which anti-libel laws arguably might), etc.
I am of the opinion that different countries have different laws according to their culture, customs, traditions, etc. and they are entitled to that. I do not like the attitude I see often declaring that "this is the way it should be" anywhere and everywhere. I am ready to defend the right of the USA, UK, Spain or China to have their own laws without outside interference. I do not like the moral superiority of those who think things should be the way they think they should be and everyone else is wrong.
Freedom of expression has its limits everywhere but they are different. And it not only comes down to what the law says but how the judiciary enforces (or does not enforce) those laws. There have been laws against cussing until recently but they were not enforced.
"Hate speech" as contrasted with libel and slander are entirely different things. Libel and slander are, generally speaking, civil matters and so are totally outside my relation with the State. If someone causes me damages with deeds or with words I can sue for damages. It has nothing to do with "free speech" being restricted by the State. It really helps to understand these basic things.
If there are jurisdictions which make libel or slander criminal matters then, IMHO, that is seriously wrong.
If I say the restaurant on the corner of Main Street uses cat meat instead of duck they can sue me for damages if they are so inclined but the State sending me to jail for that would be wrong.
Freedom of speech is supposed mainly to cover ideas, including political ideas. Its purpose is to protect the individual against the power of the state, very specially when the individual criticizes the State or its officials.
In Spain there have been cases of persons being fined for exposing wrongdoing. I am reminded of a woman who took a photo of the local police car badly parked and sent the photo to her friends in Facebook. The local chief of police found out and she was seriously fined. That is seriously effed up. Link (https://www.lavanguardia.com/local/valencia/20150814/54434858655/multa-800-euros-fotografiar-coche-de-policia-mal-aparcado.html)
Commercial speech, like advertising, is more subject to restrictions (cannot advertise tobacco, etc).
I am not taking any position on where the limits should be because it is very dependent on country and culture. But, as a matter of fact, laws are generally more permissive in America (varies by state) than in Europe (varies by country).
-
Is there some legal loophole for unfortunate viewers to lay blame on Windows 10 and whatever the latest turbo charged glacial speed Mac OS is? :-//
Seeing as how the 'forced upgrade' unfortunate viewers are no longer in control of their computers and browsers anymore,
let the OS developers and CEOs rock up to court and wear the terro viewing charges and consequences.
------------------
FWIW + AFAICT: Linux based browsing seems to continue behaving ok so far,
but no shortage of stupid, sub childish ads to deal with |O that must be created by medicated ex-ice using coffeeholic numbskulls
working for clickbait commissions, under lock and key in a fourth world insane asylum :palm:
-
I didn't mean to say hate speech is not allowed in the US, I meant it constituted a similar kind of exception to free speech as libel does (and that there are exceptions to free speech everywhere, also in the US). Replace 'person' with 'persecuted minority' in that definition from Cornell and you sort of get what most hate speech laws cover (in other countries than the US).
Since everyone seems okay with libel being an exception I don't really understand why some people object to an exception for hate speech. One can argue whether it is necessary and if it does any good in the end, but it isn't a serious limitation to free speech. It doesn't prevent us from having a constructive public debate, expose corruption and wrongdoing or criticise those in power (which anti-libel laws arguably might), etc.
I am of the opinion that different countries have different laws according to their culture, customs, traditions, etc. and they are entitled to that. I do not like the attitude I see often declaring that "this is the way it should be" anywhere and everywhere. I am ready to defend the right of the USA, UK, Spain or China to have their own laws without outside interference. I do not like the moral superiority of those who think things should be the way they think they should be and everyone else is wrong.
Freedom of expression has its limits everywhere but they are different. And it not only comes down to what the law says but how the judiciary enforces (or does not enforce) those laws. There have been laws against cussing until recently but they were not enforced.
"Hate speech" as contrasted with libel and slander are entirely different things. Libel and slander are, generally speaking, civil matters and so are totally outside my relation with the State. If someone causes me damages with deeds or with words I can sue for damages. It has nothing to do with "free speech" being restricted by the State. It really helps to understand these basic things.
If there are jurisdictions which make libel or slander criminal matters then, IMHO, that is seriously wrong.
If I say the restaurant on the corner of Main Street uses cat meat instead of duck they can sue me for damages if they are so inclined but the State sending me to jail for that would be wrong.
Freedom of speech is supposed mainly to cover ideas, including political ideas. Its purpose is to protect the individual against the power of the state, very specially when the individual criticizes the State or its officials.
In Spain there have been cases of persons being fined for exposing wrongdoing. I am reminded of a woman who took a photo of the local police car badly parked and sent the photo to her friends in Facebook. The local chief of police found out and she was seriously fined. That is seriously effed up. Link (https://www.lavanguardia.com/local/valencia/20150814/54434858655/multa-800-euros-fotografiar-coche-de-policia-mal-aparcado.html)
Commercial speech, like advertising, is more subject to restrictions (cannot advertise tobacco, etc).
I am not taking any position on where the limits should be because it is very dependent on country and culture. But, as a matter of fact, laws are generally more permissive in America (varies by state) than in Europe (varies by country).
Yes, in the case of libel and slander, there is no federal laws that will jail you if convicted. It is simply a civil case. There is a division in the laws in the US between civil and judicial law, if anyone watched the OJ trials, then that is an example of a judicial case (murder) and a civil case (damages), where there were both in the case of OJ Simpson.
The US states are another story, as the states have the right to make their own laws. There are many, many laws from different states that are on the books that are weird, silly and questionable that can date back to the early days of the country. The states can make laws, but if there is a challenge to a law that might be unconstitutional, this will get bumped up to the federal courts to decide the constitutionality of any specific law that is used to jail someone. In the case of free speech, in 1942, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling that free speech included all kinds of speech, as well as hate speech. The reason that the term "hate speech" can't be used in law is because of the problem of who decides what hate speech is. The term is nebulus and should never be used in legal terms due to it's inherent emotional response. IMO, hate speech is not just racial in nature, but could be political or personal as well. If anyone is thinking narrowly that hate speech is only along the lines of racial then, think again.
But, this is the US and I agree with Soldar that every country is different and I do not wish to place my viewpoint on any other society than the US. We in the US have a constitution in which our laws are compared against and, I for one, do not want the constitution changed easily unless there is very provocative and intense reasoning and scrupulous study to ensure that it doesn't come back and bite us citizens later on down the road. That is why it is very difficult to change the US constitution in the slightest way.
-
Another recent-ish example of this is elon musk calling one man working to save kids in the cave system a pedo. The guy supposedly sued for libel but that'd be a tough thing to prove. You could present a criminal record with no pedophilia charges but otherwise... :-//
Wow
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/04/elon-musk-claims-diver-in-thai-cave-rescue-is-child-rapist-without-evidence (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/04/elon-musk-claims-diver-in-thai-cave-rescue-is-child-rapist-without-evidence)
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46693736 (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46693736)
:popcorn:
Here you can, and we usually believe you should be able to, say anything you'd like outside of trying to cause physical harm to people.
But threatening and agitating against a persecuted minority does cause physical harm. It's enough to trigger unstable individuals to commit murder, and it could even incite a violent mob.
"Hate speech" as contrasted with libel and slander are entirely different things. Libel and slander are, generally speaking, civil matters and so are totally outside my relation with the State. If someone causes me damages with deeds or with words I can sue for damages. It has nothing to do with "free speech" being restricted by the State. It really helps to understand these basic things.
I disagree, libel has everything to do with free speech. We have free speech so we can criticise officials and politicians without fear of retribution. But if you make claims you can't back up in a court you could get sued for libel, so you might keep your mouth shut instead. That definitely has a chilling effect.
For example, you might have some proof official X is taking bribes, but you're not sure it is enough that it would hold up in court so you choose to not publish it. But publishing it would definitely have been in the public interest.
In contrast, saying minority Y are parasites and should be exterminated isn't really something that benefits public discussion, so prohibiting it isn't a big issue.
But, this is the US and I agree with Soldar that every country is different and I do not wish to place my viewpoint on any other society than the US. We in the US have a constitution in which our laws are compared against and, I for one, do not want the constitution changed easily unless there is very provocative and intense reasoning and scrupulous study to ensure that it doesn't come back and bite us citizens later on down the road. That is why it is very difficult to change the US constitution in the slightest way.
Yes, and it's the same here. My argument is only that we don't have a significant problem with free speech in western Europe (in most of the EU) compared to the US, as someone claimed. Free speech is guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights which is law in all EU countries and it takes priority over national law. So even if e.g. the UK doesn't have free speech guaranteed by their national laws (I have no idea if they do or not, I would guess they do in some way or another), as long as they are still members of the EU they do have that right according to the ECHR. But in the end, it depends on if the country and its people respects the law or not. If not it might as well be toilet paper, as someone said.
-
Yes, and it's the same here. My argument is only that we don't have a significant problem with free speech in western Europe (in most of the EU) compared to the US, as someone claimed. Free speech is guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights which is law in all EU countries and it takes priority over national law. So even if e.g. the UK doesn't have free speech guaranteed by their national laws (I have no idea if they do or not, I would guess they do in some way or another), as long as they are still members of the EU they do have that right according to the ECHR. But in the end, it depends on if the country and its people respects the law or not. If not it might as well be toilet paper, as someone said.
It is not my intention to argue with you or contradict you, just to point out other possible points of view. If you say we don't have a problem you would have to define "problem" because they don't have a problem in China either.
Laws are all well and good but it is their implementation in practice that counts.
According to law a young, black man in America has the same rights as anyone else. In practice does anyone think that he can expect that equality in his interaction with police?
The European Courts are all very well on paper but, as the Chinese saying goes, the mountains are high and the emperor is far away (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tian_gao,_Huangdi_yuan). That describes Spain perfectly.
In Spain not only do we have messed up laws in the books, that is the least of it, we have a totally dysfunctional judicial system and that is the worst part. It is a bad joke. It is worse than useless. Now, where will you go to assert your rights and seek redress when you have been wronged?
A Spanish political party put up a banner saying "We are going to change Spain" and were forced to take it down because it did not respect the law that says when you can start a political campaign. Link (https://www.lasexta.com/noticias/nacional/elecciones-generales/ciudadanos-tendra-que-retirar-la-lona-que-colgo-contra-pedro-sanchez-video_201904065ca8efa00cf243c3ff50149d.html) This is beyond ridiculous.
The fact is that the laws as written are a small part of reality. How they are applied in practice and the mentality of the people enforcing them are even more important.
Do not think Spain is like Sweden. It is not. Just like Greece is not like the UK and like Alabama is not like California or Mississippi is not like Massachusetts. On paper they might be subject to similar laws and political organization. In practice Spain is deep in shithole territory. Don't get me started.
-
ACETONE
That's actually a terrorist material, if you know how to apply it ;)
They could just throw acid in people's faces which seems to be happening a lot in the UK from last year.
There are more interesting applications of chemistry than throwing stuff at people but I won't say more because you would go to jail :P
I find it pretty clear-cut (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights) to be honest:
Ahem,
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. ...
That's already fishy because why on Earth would I have a right to freedom and not freedom? I suspect some trickery, but sure enough, it gets better
duties and responsibilities
I don't think these two words appear anywhere in American constitution other than in reference to government bodies and officials.
formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties ... necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
I wonder if this list is exclusive? :-DD
Exactly the essence of eurosocialism. Trying to centrally plan and formalize everything and reduce life to following a flowchart.
I'd be surprise if the US didn't have similar fine print somewhere though.
It doesn't. The constitution says exactly this: legislature will not limit freedom of speech. The whole Bill of Rights fits on one page.
Figuring out details is left to the judiciary, which so far proved itself better at maintaining sanity than the sort of fools, crooks and crackpot ideologues that make it into democratic parliaments. See how this thread started ;)