| > From a procedural standpoint, that is democracy. Actually, that is democracy, full stop! Elected representatives vote new laws, and people react according to their interest. with a pinch of smark, I dare to add: 1. civilised people know that a compromise between personal freedom and societal good has to be defined; discussions have been going for ages concerning where the limit should be, not about whether it should exist. 2. you don't need to be that smart to realize that private remote communications did hardly exist before modern technology; as such, bashing any such law as if was infringing on human rights is ridiculous at best. |
| |
| ▲ | GJim 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > the European approach to free speech (especially as it's handled in the UK) is incredibly alarming and off-putting. We do have free speech in Blighty thank you very much. Unlike the current situation in the USA, where speaking out to, or disagreeing with, the president will get you removed from positions of authority (and/or confronting armed police). If you haven't already gathered, such bogus claims of free speech restrictions in other countries are distracting you from the reality of what is happening in your own country. | | |
| ▲ | Sleaker 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Unlike the current situation in the USA, where speaking out to, or disagreeing with, the president will get you removed from positions of authority (and/or confronting armed police). Not quite sure what you're referring to here, you can speak out all you want on political matters in the US. -Especially- in the context of criticizing the president. | | |
| ▲ | jdcasale 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | For what it's worth, I have lived in, and currently spend a lot of time in, both places. You're both very obviously wrong. There is a serious problem in the US. There is also a serious (though different) problem in the UK. The problem in the US is the chilling effect of the vindictiveness and lawlessness of the current regime. I will not elaborate on this because it's too complicated to communicate effectively in a forum post. The problem in the UK is a set of vaguely and arbitrarily specified-and-enforced laws that enable the criminalization of 'grossly offensive" speech. There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a 'grossly offensive' communication -- all enforcement is arbitrary and thus can be abused. Whether is it actually abused in any widespread fashion is irrelevant. - Communications Act 2003 (Section 127): Makes it an offense to send messages via public electronic networks (internet, phone, social media) that are "grossly offensive," indecent, obscene, or menacing, or to cause annoyance/anxiety. - Malicious Communications Act 1988 (Section 1): Applies to sending letters or electronic communications with the purpose of causing distress or anxiety, containing indecent or grossly offensive content. | | |
| ▲ | Sleaker 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm still not quite sure how UK law impacts the US. I was hoping for explicit examples of someone actually being removed from power because they were critical of the president. I think that would be pretty big news and the closest I have heard was one of the ex-military standing congresspeople being threatened with reduced military benefits, or legal action, but not actually anyone being removed from a position. | | |
| ▲ | jdcasale 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | There have been a host of civil servants purged from a litany of federal services for this reason. You don't have to look very hard to find them. Example: https://www.npr.org/2025/09/10/g-s1-87947/fbi-lawsuit-firing.... Another (higher profile) example are the baseless threats of criminal indictments against Jerome Powell -- it is impossible to argue that these threats have been made for any reason other than that he, as a nonpartisan official, defied the president's demands to execute his duties as fed chair in such a way (that is, poorly) so as to put a temporary thumb on the scale for the current admin. The more important question, I think, is how many folk in explicitly nonpartisan functions are choosing not to break step with the current admin for fear of some sort of (likely professional) reprisal. I'm not alleging that they're disappearing dissenters or anything that inflammatory, but it would be intellectually dishonest to contend that there isn't a long, well-documented trail of malfeasance here. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | pif 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > "Private remote communications" like sending a letter have been around forever. Yes, but it was never more private than the law decided for. Any judge could lawfully have the police tear the envelope apart and read the contents during an investigations. In this sense, the only private communication that ever existed was from mouth to ear. Today's technology enables actual privacy any anonimity online, and any good and bad deeds can be hidden behind the screen, and nobody should be offended, nor surprised, that civilised societies may want to have a say in the matter. | | |
| ▲ | themgt an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, but it was never more private than the law decided for. Any judge could lawfully have the police tear the envelope apart and read the contents during an investigations This is more like a judge ordering phone book providers not to list a phone number for a public organization known to engage in criminal activity. It would be prima facie unconstitutional in America, while the police opening a suspect's envelope can be an authorized legal search. | |
| ▲ | CGMthrowaway 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Yes, but it was never more private than the law decided for. Any judge could lawfully have the police tear the envelope apart and read the contents during an investigations. In this sense, the only private communication that ever existed was from mouth to ear. Good point, if regrettable. Even unlicensed encryption/ciphers have been made illegal by governments as wide ranging as Italy (15th c), France (16th c), Britain (18th c) and the US (WWI) |
|
|
