Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems sending a message or posting or sharing content online that a person knows to not be true is now a criminal offence under the new online safety act. So……. 1. How can it be proven that the person posting/sharing content, knew it wasn’t true? 2. Does believing something that is widely acknowledged as not being true, but sharing that belief now get you into trouble? For example people that share flat earth stuff 3. Politicians of all parties lie all the time and their lies are published online, although not usually by themselves. So if a media outlet publishes a politicians statement, knowing it’s not true, who goes to court? The journalist? The owner of the media? Or the politician? Or nobody because they can just say they thought it was true and can’t be proven otherwise? " It replaces this one, so old news The Malicious Communications Act 1988 is a UK law that makes it an offense to send or deliver certain types of threatening or offensive messages. Specifically, it targets communications that are indecent, grossly offensive, or threatening, or that contain false information known to be false by the sender. The act aims to protect individuals from harassment and distress caused by malicious communications. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems sending a message or posting or sharing content online that a person knows to not be true is now a criminal offence under the new online safety act. So……. 1. How can it be proven that the person posting/sharing content, knew it wasn’t true? 2. Does believing something that is widely acknowledged as not being true, but sharing that belief now get you into trouble? For example people that share flat earth stuff 3. Politicians of all parties lie all the time and their lies are published online, although not usually by themselves. So if a media outlet publishes a politicians statement, knowing it’s not true, who goes to court? The journalist? The owner of the media? Or the politician? Or nobody because they can just say they thought it was true and can’t be proven otherwise? It replaces this one, so old news The Malicious Communications Act 1988 is a UK law that makes it an offense to send or deliver certain types of threatening or offensive messages. Specifically, it targets communications that are indecent, grossly offensive, or threatening, or that contain false information known to be false by the sender. The act aims to protect individuals from harassment and distress caused by malicious communications. " The 2003 communications act is the one that replaced the 1988 malicious communications act. That was an authoritarian dick move by Blair. The original malicious communications act was written for postal messages where someone sending offensive messages targeted at an individual. Tony Blair expanded that law blindly to digital communications which made it illegal to post anything offensive on the internet. And today thousands of people face legal action every year because of what they posted on the internet. OP, which part of the online safety act says it's illegal to share lies? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems sending a message or posting or sharing content online that a person knows to not be true is now a criminal offence under the new online safety act. So……. 1. How can it be proven that the person posting/sharing content, knew it wasn’t true? 2. Does believing something that is widely acknowledged as not being true, but sharing that belief now get you into trouble? For example people that share flat earth stuff 3. Politicians of all parties lie all the time and their lies are published online, although not usually by themselves. So if a media outlet publishes a politicians statement, knowing it’s not true, who goes to court? The journalist? The owner of the media? Or the politician? Or nobody because they can just say they thought it was true and can’t be proven otherwise? It replaces this one, so old news The Malicious Communications Act 1988 is a UK law that makes it an offense to send or deliver certain types of threatening or offensive messages. Specifically, it targets communications that are indecent, grossly offensive, or threatening, or that contain false information known to be false by the sender. The act aims to protect individuals from harassment and distress caused by malicious communications. The 2003 communications act is the one that replaced the 1988 malicious communications act. That was an authoritarian dick move by Blair. The original malicious communications act was written for postal messages where someone sending offensive messages targeted at an individual. Tony Blair expanded that law blindly to digital communications which made it illegal to post anything offensive on the internet. And today thousands of people face legal action every year because of what they posted on the internet. OP, which part of the online safety act says it's illegal to share lies?" I believe it’s section 179 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I believe it’s section 179" Thank you, it does seem to be the case that you can't send lies. There are a couple of extra conditions that the person should know it's false and there must be an intent to cause psychological or physical harm to the recipient with those lies. Both are very hard to prove either ways. So basically just another day of politicians hiding more authoritarian laws within a wider framework and passing them hoping that no one would notice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" OP, which part of the online safety act says it's illegal to share lies?" Section: 一百七十九 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As usual it starts with the “safety” of children and then “safety” will be expanded to protect us all from “harmful opinions” which will be anything that Labour doesn’t agree with. If the government isn’t working just blame the electorate for criticising it. Still it’s all creating a boom for VPN and age verification providers. I imagine it took most 14 year olds about ten minutes to work their way around the controls." I wonder who might have bought stocks in vpn companies or signed up to their affiliate schemes and splattered those links all over the net under an alias. And as for blaming the people criticising the government, they are doing better than that, they’re putting together an elite team of police to find them and silence them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I wonder who might have bought stocks in vpn companies or signed up to their affiliate schemes and splattered those links all over the net under an alias. And as for blaming the people criticising the government, they are doing better than that, they’re putting together an elite team of police to find them and silence them. " Don't stress yourself,it'll be AI that tracks you down not an elite policeman lol If you're that worried maybe you shouldn't be using the internet so much to spread negativity  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I wonder who might have bought stocks in vpn companies or signed up to their affiliate schemes and splattered those links all over the net under an alias. And as for blaming the people criticising the government, they are doing better than that, they’re putting together an elite team of police to find them and silence them. Don't stress yourself,it'll be AI that tracks you down not an elite policeman lol If you're that worried maybe you shouldn't be using the internet so much to spread negativity "Won’t be AI knocking on doors or putting the cuffs on, but yes I’m sure computers with be doing the grunt work. As for being worried…. If you think staying silent is the answer to an authoritarian government infringing on freedom of speech, fuck knows where we will end up. Something like North Korea perhaps? The former East Germany? Will you be keeping your opinions to yourself if they go against a government policy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One thing they can’t criminalise stupid ." They have done a great job of politicising it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I wonder who might have bought stocks in vpn companies or signed up to their affiliate schemes and splattered those links all over the net under an alias. And as for blaming the people criticising the government, they are doing better than that, they’re putting together an elite team of police to find them and silence them. Don't stress yourself,it'll be AI that tracks you down not an elite policeman lol If you're that worried maybe you shouldn't be using the internet so much to spread negativity
Won’t be AI knocking on doors or putting the cuffs on, but yes I’m sure computers with be doing the grunt work.
As for being worried…. If you think staying silent is the answer to an authoritarian government infringing on freedom of speech, fuck knows where we will end up. Something like North Korea perhaps? The former East Germany?
Will you be keeping your opinions to yourself if they go against a government policy? ". There's no law against expressing an opinion against government policy. In fact you can express your opinion about pretty much anything without fear of repercussions. There is and has been for quite some time a law against spreading deliberate misinformation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems sending a message or posting or sharing content online that a person knows to not be true is now a criminal offence under the new online safety act. So……. 1. How can it be proven that the person posting/sharing content, knew it wasn’t true? 2. Does believing something that is widely acknowledged as not being true, but sharing that belief now get you into trouble? For example people that share flat earth stuff 3. Politicians of all parties lie all the time and their lies are published online, although not usually by themselves. So if a media outlet publishes a politicians statement, knowing it’s not true, who goes to court? The journalist? The owner of the media? Or the politician? Or nobody because they can just say they thought it was true and can’t be proven otherwise? " So does that mean all Nigerian emails will be true from now on? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm fact those supporting the withdrawal of the UK from the ECHR should know that freedom of expression is mainly legalisated through the ECHR Maybe a ploy of reform to remove these rights as much as to supposedly stop immigration " In the UK, freedom of expression is primarily covered by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, ensuring that the right to freedom of expression is protected. Leaving the ECHR wouldn’t change its content, only revising it would do that. So even if the government removed the UK, the human rights act would still draw content from the ECHR But on that topic, I’m pretty sure Greece, Poland, Germany and The Netherlands are also under the ECHR and yet they seem to be able to remove illegal migrants, something this and the previous government said wasn’t possible. It clearly is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm fact those supporting the withdrawal of the UK from the ECHR should know that freedom of expression is mainly legalisated through the ECHR Maybe a ploy of reform to remove these rights as much as to supposedly stop immigration In the UK, freedom of expression is primarily covered by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, ensuring that the right to freedom of expression is protected. Leaving the ECHR wouldn’t change its content, only revising it would do that. So even if the government removed the UK, the human rights act would still draw content from the ECHR But on that topic, I’m pretty sure Greece, Poland, Germany and The Netherlands are also under the ECHR and yet they seem to be able to remove illegal migrants, something this and the previous government said wasn’t possible. It clearly is. " So what should I be worried about then ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm fact those supporting the withdrawal of the UK from the ECHR should know that freedom of expression is mainly legalisated through the ECHR Maybe a ploy of reform to remove these rights as much as to supposedly stop immigration In the UK, freedom of expression is primarily covered by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, ensuring that the right to freedom of expression is protected. Leaving the ECHR wouldn’t change its content, only revising it would do that. So even if the government removed the UK, the human rights act would still draw content from the ECHR But on that topic, I’m pretty sure Greece, Poland, Germany and The Netherlands are also under the ECHR and yet they seem to be able to remove illegal migrants, something this and the previous government said wasn’t possible. It clearly is. So what should I be worried about then ?" You tell me, you’re the one who mentioned the ECHR. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm fact those supporting the withdrawal of the UK from the ECHR should know that freedom of expression is mainly legalisated through the ECHR Maybe a ploy of reform to remove these rights as much as to supposedly stop immigration In the UK, freedom of expression is primarily covered by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, ensuring that the right to freedom of expression is protected. Leaving the ECHR wouldn’t change its content, only revising it would do that. So even if the government removed the UK, the human rights act would still draw content from the ECHR But on that topic, I’m pretty sure Greece, Poland, Germany and The Netherlands are also under the ECHR and yet they seem to be able to remove illegal migrants, something this and the previous government said wasn’t possible. It clearly is. So what should I be worried about then ? You tell me, you’re the one who mentioned the ECHR. " You started the post, what should I be concerned about the online safety act ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm fact those supporting the withdrawal of the UK from the ECHR should know that freedom of expression is mainly legalisated through the ECHR Maybe a ploy of reform to remove these rights as much as to supposedly stop immigration In the UK, freedom of expression is primarily covered by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, ensuring that the right to freedom of expression is protected. Leaving the ECHR wouldn’t change its content, only revising it would do that. So even if the government removed the UK, the human rights act would still draw content from the ECHR But on that topic, I’m pretty sure Greece, Poland, Germany and The Netherlands are also under the ECHR and yet they seem to be able to remove illegal migrants, something this and the previous government said wasn’t possible. It clearly is. So what should I be worried about then ? You tell me, you’re the one who mentioned the ECHR. You started the post, what should I be concerned about the online safety act ?" Your post was about the ECHR not the online safety act. So unless you mean the human rights act gives a fundamental right to lie online, I’m not sure how it relates to the OP. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm fact those supporting the withdrawal of the UK from the ECHR should know that freedom of expression is mainly legalisated through the ECHR Maybe a ploy of reform to remove these rights as much as to supposedly stop immigration In the UK, freedom of expression is primarily covered by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, ensuring that the right to freedom of expression is protected. Leaving the ECHR wouldn’t change its content, only revising it would do that. So even if the government removed the UK, the human rights act would still draw content from the ECHR But on that topic, I’m pretty sure Greece, Poland, Germany and The Netherlands are also under the ECHR and yet they seem to be able to remove illegal migrants, something this and the previous government said wasn’t possible. It clearly is. So what should I be worried about then ? You tell me, you’re the one who mentioned the ECHR. You started the post, what should I be concerned about the online safety act ? Your post was about the ECHR not the online safety act. So unless you mean the human rights act gives a fundamental right to lie online, I’m not sure how it relates to the OP. " My post about the ECHR was to illustrate that I have freedom of speech in contrast to other claims so all related. Again you started the post about the online safety act so please tell me which part I shoild be concerned about ? You also said " As for being worried…. If you think staying silent is the answer to an authoritarian government infringing on freedom of speech, fuck knows where we will end up. Something like North Korea perhaps? The former East Germany? Will you be keeping your opinions to yourself if they go against a government policy? " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm fact those supporting the withdrawal of the UK from the ECHR should know that freedom of expression is mainly legalisated through the ECHR Maybe a ploy of reform to remove these rights as much as to supposedly stop immigration " Have you read the ECHR article 10 about freedom of speech? It does absolutely nothing to protect freedom of speech. It only creates an illusion of doing so. The devil is in the details. There is a list of exceptions to freedom of speech. Now, I am not completely against having exceptions as long as these exceptions are well defined and have a good justification. The American first amendment has exceptions but are really well defined and the courts usually lean more towards freedom of speech in cases which are hard to judge. But look at ECHR's list of exceptions: -protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or -public safety -prevent disorder or crime -protect health or morals -protect the rights and reputations of other people -prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence maintain the authority and impartiality of judges Did you see the one about protecting "morals"? Tomorrow, we could have a theocracy that bans any criticism of a religion for "moral reasons" and ECHR will do nothing about it. European politicians are in general very good at doing this - passing laws which are a high level might look fine but you dig into the details, you will realise that they are getting away with a lot more than they said in the headlines. The 2003 communications act, the Online safety bill pretend like just another bill to "protect" you while taking away your right to speech. The ECHR pretends like they are protecting your freedom of speech but not really doing much in practice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm fact those supporting the withdrawal of the UK from the ECHR should know that freedom of expression is mainly legalisated through the ECHR Maybe a ploy of reform to remove these rights as much as to supposedly stop immigration In the UK, freedom of expression is primarily covered by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, ensuring that the right to freedom of expression is protected. Leaving the ECHR wouldn’t change its content, only revising it would do that. So even if the government removed the UK, the human rights act would still draw content from the ECHR But on that topic, I’m pretty sure Greece, Poland, Germany and The Netherlands are also under the ECHR and yet they seem to be able to remove illegal migrants, something this and the previous government said wasn’t possible. It clearly is. So what should I be worried about then ? You tell me, you’re the one who mentioned the ECHR. You started the post, what should I be concerned about the online safety act ? Your post was about the ECHR not the online safety act. So unless you mean the human rights act gives a fundamental right to lie online, I’m not sure how it relates to the OP. My post about the ECHR was to illustrate that I have freedom of speech in contrast to other claims so all related. Again you started the post about the online safety act so please tell me which part I shoild be concerned about ? You also said " As for being worried…. If you think staying silent is the answer to an authoritarian government infringing on freedom of speech, fuck knows where we will end up. Something like North Korea perhaps? The former East Germany? Will you be keeping your opinions to yourself if they go against a government policy? "" Where did I say you should be concerned? My OP quite obviously is pointing out the futility of the clause/section of the act as it’s all but impossible to enforce unless people incriminate themselves | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Where did I say you should be concerned? " Will you be keeping your opinions "to yourself if they go against a government policy?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Where did I say you should be concerned? Will you be keeping your opinions "to yourself if they go against a government policy?" " Vainly searching for the words “you should be concerned” but can’t see them. Wanna try again? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, GB news still has a license " 🤣🤣👌 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, GB news still has a license " GB News now the most watched news channel in the UK ahead of both BBC News and Sky News. I’m surprised that endless Leftist ranting of the “GB News….haha….their orl thik” variety seems to have made absolutely no difference. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"65% increase in people in prison for “Public Order Offences” since Labour came to power. " Watch out for blue lights lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That act actually works I have actually used it aganist someone , so some of you which might say bad things about another person which the bad things may possibly be untrue on here to someone else you know and you think you are flying under the radar,think again because if anyone has a reasonable suspicion that they are being targeted , they can inform law enforcement and they WILL investigate. " I'm pretty sure "law enforcement" have better things to do than cure hurt feelings .. but hey .... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That act actually works I have actually used it aganist someone , so some of you which might say bad things about another person which the bad things may possibly be untrue on here to someone else you know and you think you are flying under the radar,think again because if anyone has a reasonable suspicion that they are being targeted , they can inform law enforcement and they WILL investigate. " So, if someone on FAB said I was an ugly, old timewaster. Will the Police immediately investigate the timewaster bit as the rest is just someone's opinion. Liz.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
