thin line. many people got sent to jail in England for celebrating too enthusiastically online during the anti-immigrant riots. the internet today isn’t the same as the internet 15 years ago
the rules aren’t because the mods care very much. the rules are so than the website doesn’t get taken down and/or the owners/maintainers aren’t subject to serious legal penalties
thin line. many people got sent to jail in England for celebrating too enthusiastically online during the anti-immigrant riots.
The only thing I ever saw about people online being sent to jail were these two .
Parlour, of Seacroft, Leeds, who called for an attack on a hotel housing refugees and asylum seekers on Facebook, became the first person to be jailed for stirring up racial hatred during the disorder.
Kay was convicted after he used social media to call for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set alight.
So if you consider that ‘too enthusiastic’ I uh… have a different definition of that.
I don’t speak German, but it sounds like what happened is that a lawyer pointed out that liking that post could be illegal under new laws, and is trying to get it struck down. So yes ‘could’ is carrying a lot of weight in this case.
And to be clear I’m as left as possible and anti-authoritarian, I just fail to see how being a massive racist and calling for people to be killed (and how to hide your identity, in posts following it) and then forwarding those messages to the police is somehow a Big Brother situation.
there were 6 arrests for social media crimes, including the one for the woman who actually kicked off the protests by sharing a fake name about the kid who attacked the concert
but that’s beyond the point. let’s look at the comment for Kay, one that you mentioned, that caught a sentence of 38 months
“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care… If that makes me racist, so be it”
that’s the portion that says he “called for hotels to be set alight”
see, to my interpretation he was saying “i would not care if they set fire to the hotels”. in the US, this would be very strongly covered under free speech. why? because it’s an opinion. in the US you can say “I believe that [xyz] should happen” and that is a belief. an opinion- something that cannot be censored. in the UK, not so much. but even in the US, you could be held legally responsible in some way depending on the interpretation of the law
and likewise, the platform hosting that controversial speech can face legal consequences. from serious fines to potentially even criminal charges depending on the enthusiasm of the government. (governments that are getting progressively more authoritarian and trigger-happy the world over)
the point I was trying to convey is that a website like this instance of Lemmy or any other must follow rules in order to stay out of legal hot water. how can you fault them for that?
if you believe this is not the correct thing to do, then you can pay money to host a website and then you can put your ass in front of the ringer to handle potential legal consequences for not doing your part to stop it. i don’t fault the mods in the slightest.
just for reference though, let’s compare and contrast the comment that got Kay arrested and put in jail and then some comments in this thread
a lot of comments in this thread are being deleted, let me see if i can catch some before they are deleted
“This bit of news does not bother me at all”
“I mean, I thought we were gonna eat the rich, but this will do.”
“this will probably lead to the increased militarisation [sic] of ceo security teams. People can start going after their family”
using the same level of scrutiny, each one of these comments could justify a sentence in the ballpark of 38 months like what happened with Kay
this is what i mean. the internet today is changing and social media admins need to change with the times or the hammer of the law can screw them. users here spamming about mod abuse do not fully understand
He also said “every man and his dog should smash [the] f*** out of Britannia hotel (in Leeds)”, then he took his posts and:
After being warned by another Twitter user that he could be jailed, Kay tweeted: “I can categorically tell you now, I will not be arrested by Northants Police.”
During the posts, Kay said he was a Reform voter, accused police of two-tier policing and told someone who said the screenshot and posts could land him in jail that they were delusional.
He also copied Northamptonshire Police into one of the messages after being warned he could face court action by another user.
He didn’t just go to jail for a couple posts, he made a bunch of them and then after being warned they were illegal forwarded them to the police.
This guy is a dangerous if moronic racist, and really only has himself to blame.
You’re talking about being ‘silenced’ as if it’s being done by some monolithic organization; it’s not a government action, they can make whatever rules they want. You are free to make your own instance with your own rules.
using the same level of scrutiny, each one of these comments could justify a sentence in the ballpark of 38 months like what happened with Kay
That is an assertion that I highly doubt and I while at first glance your comment seems well enough thought out, I actually don’t see a lot to support the assertions made.
governments that are getting progressively more authoritarian and trigger-happy the world over
this is what i mean. the internet today is changing and social media admins need to change with the times or the hammer of the law can screw them.
You are advocating for literally “Obeying in advance” to authoritarian regimes on a left leaning decentralized social media network.
Name a lemmy instance that was taken down because people expressed happiness at corporate shill executions. Heck, name any shut down by a government entity for anything.
But all inaction against evil leads to a worse world. Therefore all action against evil has a greater chance of making a better world than doing nothing.
Being happy and calling for it are different
thin line. many people got sent to jail in England for celebrating too enthusiastically online during the anti-immigrant riots. the internet today isn’t the same as the internet 15 years ago
the rules aren’t because the mods care very much. the rules are so than the website doesn’t get taken down and/or the owners/maintainers aren’t subject to serious legal penalties
The only thing I ever saw about people online being sent to jail were these two .
So if you consider that ‘too enthusiastic’ I uh… have a different definition of that.
Depends on where you live. There’s a very similar case in Germany from 2 years ago compared to what’s going on now.
In Germany a cop was murdered and someone posted on Facebook: “Not a single second of silence for these creatures.”
The courts have ruled that even “liking” a comment/post like that could be a crime.
https://winfuture.de/news,131418.html
I don’t speak German, but it sounds like what happened is that a lawyer pointed out that liking that post could be illegal under new laws, and is trying to get it struck down. So yes ‘could’ is carrying a lot of weight in this case.
And to be clear I’m as left as possible and anti-authoritarian, I just fail to see how being a massive racist and calling for people to be killed (and how to hide your identity, in posts following it) and then forwarding those messages to the police is somehow a Big Brother situation.
there were 6 arrests for social media crimes, including the one for the woman who actually kicked off the protests by sharing a fake name about the kid who attacked the concert
but that’s beyond the point. let’s look at the comment for Kay, one that you mentioned, that caught a sentence of 38 months
that’s the portion that says he “called for hotels to be set alight”
see, to my interpretation he was saying “i would not care if they set fire to the hotels”. in the US, this would be very strongly covered under free speech. why? because it’s an opinion. in the US you can say “I believe that [xyz] should happen” and that is a belief. an opinion- something that cannot be censored. in the UK, not so much. but even in the US, you could be held legally responsible in some way depending on the interpretation of the law
and likewise, the platform hosting that controversial speech can face legal consequences. from serious fines to potentially even criminal charges depending on the enthusiasm of the government. (governments that are getting progressively more authoritarian and trigger-happy the world over)
the point I was trying to convey is that a website like this instance of Lemmy or any other must follow rules in order to stay out of legal hot water. how can you fault them for that?
if you believe this is not the correct thing to do, then you can pay money to host a website and then you can put your ass in front of the ringer to handle potential legal consequences for not doing your part to stop it. i don’t fault the mods in the slightest.
just for reference though, let’s compare and contrast the comment that got Kay arrested and put in jail and then some comments in this thread
a lot of comments in this thread are being deleted, let me see if i can catch some before they are deleted
using the same level of scrutiny, each one of these comments could justify a sentence in the ballpark of 38 months like what happened with Kay
this is what i mean. the internet today is changing and social media admins need to change with the times or the hammer of the law can screw them. users here spamming about mod abuse do not fully understand
He also said “every man and his dog should smash [the] f*** out of Britannia hotel (in Leeds)”, then he took his posts and:
He didn’t just go to jail for a couple posts, he made a bunch of them and then after being warned they were illegal forwarded them to the police.
This guy is a dangerous if moronic racist, and really only has himself to blame.
You’re talking about being ‘silenced’ as if it’s being done by some monolithic organization; it’s not a government action, they can make whatever rules they want. You are free to make your own instance with your own rules.
That is an assertion that I highly doubt and I while at first glance your comment seems well enough thought out, I actually don’t see a lot to support the assertions made.
You are advocating for literally “Obeying in advance” to authoritarian regimes on a left leaning decentralized social media network.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/obeying-in-advance
You’re making a good case for free speech absolutism.
Name a lemmy instance that was taken down because people expressed happiness at corporate shill executions. Heck, name any shut down by a government entity for anything.
Spare me, they’re being way more liberal with comments on Bluesky and they are far bigger than Lemmy.
You and the mods just want to protect rich people from group consensus about them being terrible.
Your paranoia about a slippery slop to violence is very transparent.
Bluesky has
betterlawyers.England stands only with authoritarian governments with wrong think.
Being happy and celebrating are not so different.
Enjoying action against evil is not wrong.
But it may violate the TOS here.
Not all TOS are good, or lead to a better world.
Not all action against evil leads to a better world.
But all inaction against evil leads to a worse world. Therefore all action against evil has a greater chance of making a better world than doing nothing.
That doesn’t follow.
Evil often takes action against another evil, and the result is often a worse world. See: Bibi vs Hamas.
It flows, you just don’t comprehend because you’re happy with “organizing” and “awareness.” Which, gestures widely is not working.
Goodbye
This one did.
No, they didn’t. UHC will reject claims tomorrow just as they did yesterday.
Removed by mod
Smile and BAN. Better keep you cams covered physically