|
| ▲ | dang a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Please don't feed flamewars. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html |
|
| ▲ | mwigdahl a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This man didn't even have to speak to be arrested. Wrongthink and an appearance of praying was enough: https://reason.com/2024/10/17/british-man-convicted-of-crimi... |
| |
| ▲ | OJFord a day ago | parent [-] | | That's quite a sensationalist piece. You're allowed to object to abortions and protest against them, the point of that law is just that you can't do it around an extant abortion clinic, distressing and putting people off using it, since they are currently legal. | | |
| ▲ | otterley a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, that looks like a time/place/manner restriction, not a content-based restriction. In the U.S., at least, the latter is heavily scrutinized as a potential First Amendment violation, while the former tend to be treated with greater deference to the state. | |
| ▲ | ecshafer a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | So you are allowed to object to abortions and protest then in any designated free speech zone with a proper free speech license. Simple as! Can I tell someone not to drink outside of a bar? | | |
| ▲ | OJFord a day ago | parent | next [-] | | In certain public spaces? Yeah! Probably a hell of a lot fewer of them in the UK than many countries though, including your land of the free. | |
| ▲ | otterley a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is just an argument ad absurdum. Please be real. | |
| ▲ | HeatrayEnjoyer a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Most bars have signs saying not to leave with an alcoholic drink. | | |
| ▲ | otterley a day ago | parent [-] | | Especially in the USA, where alcohol laws are much more stringent than in the UK. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 5040 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Thousands of people are being detained and questioned for sending messages that cause “annoyance”, “inconvenience” or “anxiety” to others via the internet, telephone or mail. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr... |
| |
| ▲ | otterley a day ago | parent [-] | | That doesn't sound like mere "speaking your mind." They appear to be targeting harassment. | | |
| ▲ | gjsman-1000 a day ago | parent [-] | | Nope; they aren't. They arrested a grandmother for praying silently outside an abortion clinic. They arrested a high schooler for saying a cop looked a bit like a lesbian. There are no shortage of stupid examples of their tyranny; even Keir Starmer was squirming a bit when Vance called him out on it. | | |
| ▲ | otterley a day ago | parent [-] | | What happened after the arrests? Regarding the abortion clinic case, those aren't content restrictions. Even time/place/manner restrictions that apply to speech are routinely upheld in the U.S. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | gosub100 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "a couple were arrested over complaints they made about their daughter's primary school, which included comments on WhatsApp. Maxie Allen and his partner Rosalind Levine, from Borehamwood, told The Times they were held for 11 hours on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications, and causing a nuisance on school property." https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9dj1zlvxglo Got any evidence to support why you disregard what people say? If you need a place where everyone agrees with you, there are plenty of echo chambers for you. |
| |
| ▲ | otterley a day ago | parent [-] | | This story doesn't support the claim that "speaking your mind is illegal in the UK." The couple in question were investigated, not charged. There's nothing wrong with investigating a possible crime (harassment in this case), finding there's no evidence, and dropping it. > Got any evidence to support why you disregard what people say? Uh, what? Supporting the things you claim is the burden of the claimant. It's not the other's burden to dispute an unsupported claim. These are the ordinary ground rules of debate that you should have learned in school. |
|
|
| ▲ | brigandish a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| From [1]: > Data from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), obtained by The Telegraph under a Freedom of Information request, reveals that 292 people have been charged with communications offences under the new regime. This includes 23 prosecutions for sending a “false communication”… > The offence replaces a lesser-known provision in the Communications Act 2003, Section 127(2), which criminalised “false messages” that caused “needless anxiety”. Unlike its predecessor, however, the new offence carries a potential prison sentence of up to 51 weeks, a fine, or both – a significant increase on the previous six-month maximum sentence.… > In one high-profile case, Dimitrie Stoica was jailed for three months for falsely claiming in a TikTok livestream that he was “running for his life” from rioters in Derby. Stoica, who had 700 followers, later admitted his claim was a joke, but was convicted under the Act and fined £154. [1] https://freespeechunion.org/hundreds-charged-with-online-spe... |
| |
| ▲ | otterley a day ago | parent [-] | | Knowingly and intentionally sending false information or harassing people doesn't seem like the same thing as merely "speaking your mind." |
|
|
| ▲ | dingdongbong a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
