Free Speech Now Banned (UK) - Mass Surveillance - Online Safety Act 17/03/2025

[Aaron p]

So now the UK government has taken another step in the name of prevention of the exploitation of young people and terrorism and essentially banned free speech. 

You can now go to jail in the UK if the authorities *think* you did something online to cause someone distress. Next their going to be asking for our papers at every checkpoint..

Also no consequences for licensed media outlets (BBC, court reports etc.) even if their misinformation. 

Edited March 19 by Aaron p

[something_else]

The list of things that become potential criminal offences to do online all seem pretty reasonable to me:

• encouraging or assisting serious self-harm

• cyberflashing

• sending false information intended to cause non-trivial harm

• threatening communications

• intimate image abuse

• epilepsy trolling

I certainly would not say that banning any of these is hindering your free speech.

Also the main purpose of the act is to force companies to moderate content on their sites better.

[Aaron p]

@something_else yeah obviously they are trying to do good as with most legislative movements...but how would you feel if I said that I was now going to monitor ALL your online conversations? 

[something_else]

4 minutes ago, Aaron p said:

@something_else yeah obviously they are trying to do good as with most legislative movements...but how would you feel if I said that I was now going to monitor ALL your online conversations? 

Most major governments already monitor a significant amount of online communication. 

[Aaron p]

Yeah, of suspected terrorists...

If they already monitored everything and not much is changing...why bring out an entire new piece of legislation 

[something_else]

22 minutes ago, Aaron p said:

why bring out an entire new piece of legislation

To protect people, mainly.

I promise you that your life will not even change in the slightest after this legislation has been introduced.

[Aaron p]

34 minutes ago, something_else said:

To protect people, mainly.

I promise you that your life will not even change in the slightest after this legislation has been introduced.

Why don't they just educate parents on how to install child protection programs...would it not be more logical to promote a highly contained, carefully thought out, widespread media campaign educating EVERYONE on how to be aware of the dangers online and how to protect themselves and their children from becoming perpetrators...rather than targeting the dumbest (often most mentally challenged young people) who have simply not been informed...and doing some kind of covert attack at the last minute on uninformed, mentally underdeveloped young people, destroying their lives and thinking that this is somehow better. Then expecting this to what...help them? And what about young people who don't know what cyber flashing is. And we all know what people of all ages get up to. What about them...the cops seem to like arresting kids. This particular area of government failure and dumbassery infuriates me. GTG mediate 

Edited March 19 by Aaron p

[something_else]

2 hours ago, Aaron p said:

Why don't they just educate parents on how to install child protection programs...would it not be more logical to promote a highly contained, carefully thought out, widespread media campaign educating EVERYONE on how to be aware of the dangers online and how to protect themselves and their children from becoming perpetrators...rather than targeting the dumbest (often most mentally challenged young people) who have simply not been informed...and doing some kind of covert attack at the last minute on uninformed, mentally underdeveloped young people, destroying their lives and thinking that this is somehow better. Then expecting this to what...help them? And what about young people who don't know what cyber flashing is. And we all know what people of all ages get up to. What about them...the cops seem to like arresting kids. This particular area of government failure and dumbassery infuriates me.

I think you're overthinking this

[Aaron p]

17 minutes ago, something_else said:

I think you're overthinking this

3 hours ago, something_else said:

 

I think your unfamiliar with this area of law enforcement 

[carterfelder]

6 hours ago, something_else said:

The list of things that become potential criminal offences to do online all seem pretty reasonable to me:

• encouraging or assisting serious self-harm

• cyberflashing

• sending false information intended to cause non-trivial harm

• threatening communications

• intimate image abuse

• epilepsy trolling

I certainly would not say that banning any of these is hindering your free speech.

Also the main purpose of the act is to force companies to moderate content on their sites better.

That is all quite vague. It's not specific enough. What constitutes "intimate images?" What kind of communication is "threatening?" Does someone's hurt feelings count? If trolling is teasing, are comedians allowed to troll on stage, or "troll" people on a video-sharing site? Does a man flashing his chest or upper thighs count as cyber-flashing?

[Basman]

The UK doesn't have freedom of speech but freedom of expression technically, which is just a more broad definition.

The UDHR recognizes that freedom of speech has limitations and need to be restricted.

Quote

Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". 

The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals".[2]

Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, blasphemy and perjury. 

Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

This law aims to curbs online harassment and abuse by regulating social media providers to better safeguard users, which is a good thing on paper in the absence of any kind of regulation. I do agree however that the stipulations around what is considered harmful is too vague currently. In practice it could result in social media platforms over censoring stuff to cover their asses but that is already kind of the case, with people self-censor to avoid getting flagged by saying stuff like "unaliving" instead of died/suicide.

The UK still scores higher on freedom of expression than the US according to the Global Expression report (33th VS 88th).

https://www.globalexpressionreport.org/

[Aaron p]

14 hours ago, Basman said:

The UK doesn't have freedom of speech but freedom of expression technically, which is just a more broad definition.

The UDHR recognizes that freedom of speech has limitations and need to be restricted.

This law aims to curbs online harassment and abuse by regulating social media providers to better safeguard users, which is a good thing on paper in the absence of any kind of regulation. I do agree however that the stipulations around what is considered harmful is too vague currently. In practice it could result in social media platforms over censoring stuff to cover their asses but that is already kind of the case, with people self-censor to avoid getting flagged by saying stuff like "unaliving" instead of died/suicide.

The UK still scores higher on freedom of expression than the US according to the Global Expression report (33th VS 88th).

https://www.globalexpressionreport.org/

There are subtle dynamics in this whole area that target young people and forces them through lengthy and heavy processes forcing them to represent the worst kinds of people. On certain levels of this general area of law enforcement, there is massive massive damage being done. And it's being done to young people who have been coerced into being labeled as perps. These processes are extremely damaging. It kind of competes well with the witch trials. I personally think making uninformed youngsters live as r's and p's ranks highly in the most dumbass moves mankind has ever made. And continues to do so. 

Edited March 21 by Aaron p