News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by mort96 on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @05:07PM (#33794057)
If I was talking about someone arrested for speaking against the monarchy on Twitter, I wouldn't talk about that as someone being "arrested for a tweet", maybe I would talk about someone being "arrested for tweeting critically about the monarchy" or just "arrested for being critical of the monarchy". If one thinks the speech in question should be legal, you'd think one would mention the kind of speech, not just the medium.

As it is, we can't judge for ourselves whether the arrest is warranted or not, which is kind of a big deal when the arrest is used by robswc to illustrate how the UK is approaching authoritarianism.

Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by karatinversion on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @05:37PM (#33794374)
An example discussed earlier this year on HN: Joseph Kelly tweeted

> the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella, buuuuurn

in relation to Tom Moore’s death. He deleted the tweet after 20 minutes. He was convicted of grossly offensive communications under the Communications Act, and was sentenced to 18 month’s probation and 150 hours of unpaid work.

Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by skorpeon87 on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @06:38PM (#33794946)
That's certainly crass, but it shouldn't be illegal to say.

If people don't want to support their country's military and servicemen, that should be their business; it's a legitimate political position to take. Not least because all British soldiers are volunteers, and most of what British soldiers have been doing for the past generation is tagging along with American imperial military adventurism.

Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by robswc on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @06:14PM (#33794737)
>I wouldn't talk about that as someone being "arrested for a tweet"

When the reasons are "being critical of the monarchy" or "causing anxiety" I think "for a tweet" can only make things look less ridiculous, lol.

Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by jolmg on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @07:13PM (#33795211)
> If one thinks the speech in question should be legal, you'd think one would mention the kind of speech, not just the medium.

Fundamentally, all speech should be legal, barring very special circumstances. That's freedom of expression.