More legal risk is introduced to cyberspace as online abuse is now being treated more seriously in the UK.
The rules officially put online abuse on the same level as offline hate crimes – defined as an action motivated by hostility or prejudice – like shouting abuse at someone face-to-face.
While I'm not racist, sexist, or any kind of hater, I do think it's going to be a lot more risky to be a UK citizen who posts under their real identity on social media. The question of whether free speech matters is not likely in my opinion to be decided by legal mechanisms. Free speech will be defended by and decided by technical mechanisms most likely. This means if there is a way for people to figure out how to post pseudo-anonymously or anonymously then free speech will exist until there is a way to prevent people from having any anonymity or pseudo-anonymity.
Supporters of free speech will have to support anonymity. Supporters of enforcement of criminalized hate speech ultimately will have to turn against any form of anonymity.
Looks like the UK is well on it's way to creating a "opinion police." One of the reasons free speech is important is because it lets the hate come out in the open where it can be seen and addressed.
Institutionalizing any kind of censorship will push the less mainstream viewpoints underground! Not good!
So if you say something which meets and conforms with public opinion of 2017 but in 2022 is no longer in fashion then what happens to you when everything you say is stored forever to be reviewed by an ever changing community defined standard?
Am I the only person who can see a serious problem with that? We literally do not know what we are saying or what is the right or wrong thing to say for all time. Also social media encourages people to post without thinking of the consequences by the design of the UI. So if you say your opinion and your opinion is subjectively determined to be abusive then you take that punishment?
Social media is like a spy agency's wet dream come true. All information is stored and searchable.
That Is Nice By Govt. Nice Information Thankyou
another great post by u dana your words are deepiest truth
A lot of people each year loose their life because of what people post or try to post and hide their identity . Once we can crack down on it , it will occur less and less and in the future
How do people lose their life directly from a post? Are you saying words can kill?
Words can have an influence on people's minds . For example if a person is already having a lot on their minds or even if someone is trying to convince them to do something through words , it can have a great impact . I've seen it happen in person , someone's girlfriend supporting a guy to take his life , all through words
actually looks like you are just bringing up a story which was in the media lately and which was a complete hoax (a PsyOp) exactly with the aim to crack down on free speech:
https://steemit.com/news/@lavater/michelle-carter-case-is-fake-news-hoax-psyop-freemasonic-attack-on-1st-amendment
words cannot kill a person. serious mental health issues can.
if a girlfriend tells me to kill myself why should I do it? I would send her packing.
in any case it was an absurdist case to start cracking down on the 1st amendment, the truth is hateful for them and thats what ultimately they want to ban.
it was all laid out by David Cameron at the UN. see what they consider as "hate"?
No this is not even recent , it was back in high school . Couple years ago . Just because you wouldn't do something doesn't mean someone else wouldn't either , and you don't have to have a mental illness in any case for this either
The problem is any unit of information can be reinterpreted as "hate speech". If someone sends a cat photo to someone else and the receiver perceives it as hate speech then the community will get to determine if it really is hate speech and the sender gets punished based on the subjective interpretation of the community.
Obscenity is not clearly defined and neither is hate speech. You could send what you thought was an innocuous message and maybe at the time you sent it the community perceived it as innocuous, but what about in a few years when the interpretation of your message is different and community standards have changed?
You still get punished for having send something obscene even if during the time you sent it it was innocuous? The community determines what is and isn't obscene according to an always changing standard. Hate speech has lists of words and phrases in some database, combined with how some people feel at some time about what you said? So feelings ultimately govern whether or not you get punished?
This could have an unintended chilling effect. How do any of us know whether or not something we post today will not be hate speech tomorrow? What about young people who will have no way to even understand what is and isn't considered obscene or offensive? Most people have said a lot of hateful stuff when young without even understanding it was hateful.
What if the gf sends nothing more than an emoji of a person shooting themselves? Do we police emojis?
Freemasons don't have anything to do with it. Also if speech is to be policed then thoughts are next. So how do you know for sure your thoughts will always conform to public mandate?
Body language and looks can have an influence on people's minds. If someone sends a picture to someone else then it can influence their mind. Should the picture be considered contraband and the sender punished if the receiver does something irrational?
If the answer is no then why are words different from photos? If we follow the logic consistently then a picture, body language, even micro expressions like emojis are speech which can influence minds. Memes are in any form which can contain information, so to police memes is going to be very difficult and to police memes only in text form is unfair.
No I totally agree with your statements , I was just giving an example where I saw it happen , but you're right , "our thoughts" could be next . They can't police everything
But they will try to police everything and that is the problem. There is no limit to what the general public wants to police. The more the general public knows about itself the more behaviors it will justify policing. The only limit to what can be policed are that which can be justified and that which is technically enabled.
Shouldn't they be more interested in preventing future terrorist attacks?
Just saying.
Thought experiment, if all brains are monitored then is it possible for crime and terrorism to exist?