A follow-up poll on ESOC off topic controversial content

[fightinfrenchman]

I posted them literally in the other thread about this, but okay, whatever makes you happy.

viewtopic.php?f=314&t=19308&start=150#p418261

viewtopic.php?f=314&t=19308&start=150#p418262

[fightinfrenchman]

Yes there are.

Care to list them for me?

[fightinfrenchman]

@Goodspeed Okay, let's say hate speech doesn't exist on the forums anyway. Why not make a rule banning it if it won't affect conversations at all?

It is banned. If not explicitly, then implicitly. I haven't written the rules yet, but this is a nobrainer that everyone here knows about. We're not 4chan.

I disagree that everyone knows that, others have just said certain things are just "controversial opinions" and that banning them is censorship.

[RefluxSemantic]

Here's my take on this entire nonsense:

RefluxSemantic - bored and arguing semantics in this topic in a very refluxian way, should just not bother because doesn't care
Goodspeed - Someone told him he's leader now so he's making a show of power. Look, I'm the man in charge now, look at how open minded I am, look at how I'm going to bring change. Change won't happen
Fightinfrenchman - wants people that say anything he doesn't support banned. Wants the rules to be followed, even though his account should have been removed from all documentated history long ago if we were to follow those rules.
Amsel - wants socialists to die. Also secretly would prefer to be able to say racist stuff but doesn't.
Dolan - wants to call people faggots and niggers. Doesn't want others to call him a racist though.
Incog - stuck between himself (the freedom loving goodhearted hothead) and his kami persona (the loving, politically correct kind guy)
Ede - is an admin and wants to reform the boards because that's what admins do
zoom - wants to analyse things in an overly technical manner
callen - would preferably not analyse or discuss anything and just write poems/short stories

[Goodspeed]

@fightinfrenchman The amsel post was deleted, Dolan's contains no hate speech, and the rest is on discord?

[Cometk]

@RefluxSemantic

Pretty accurate but disagree on GS

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[Dolan]

@iNcog Well, hate speech laws are all over the place, depending on the country in question. For example, in the UK you could get fined or go to prison for "malicious communication".

Basically, if you post something online that a certain category of people consider offensive, they can report you to the police and you might get investigated.

There was a case last year in the Uk when this Catholic mom was called for investigation by the police for misgendering someone's kid on Twitter (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/0 ... itter-row/). So just because she called that kid a "he/son" in a Twitter post, instead of whatever the kid or kid's mom wanted, the UK police investigated her.
Found the Twit:


Apparently this is enough to get investigated by the police in the UK.

[fightinfrenchman]

@iNcog I mentioned in off topic, Goodspeed has said he's still formulating the rules

[Dolan]

Ah wait, there's an even more interesting case from the UK. Someone posted some rap lyrics on their instagram and she got sentenced to community order and fined.

A Merseyside woman was convicted under the Communications Act for posting rap lyrics on Instagram which were deemed 'racist', due to them including racially-charged language. Chelsea Russell had used lyrics from a Snap Dogg song as a tribute to a boy who died in a road accident. She was sentenced to an eight week community order, along with an eight-week curfew. She was also ordered to pay costs of £500 and an £85 victim surcharge.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/li ... s-14543694

Even though, all she did was quote rap lyrics by Snap Dogg.

Russell told the court that she copied the lyrics from a friend’s Instagram account, which were used by thousands of people to pay tribute to Frankie Murphy.

She said: “Young people across Liverpool use the word to greet each other. I listen to rap music and it’s in every single song.”

Russell, who was charged with sending a grossly offensive message by means of a public electronic communications network, was found guilty following a trial.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[chris1089]

Lots of the "conservative" party aren't conservative on liberty and freedom. That's the main reason why. Hence there is no significant opposition to the invasion of intersectional categories.

[deleted_user]

Lots of the "conservative" party aren't conservative on liberty and freedom. That's the main reason why. Hence there is no significant opposition to the invasion of intersectional categories.

Can you restate this with more clarity for me?

[gibson]

@Dolan well the UK is really misguided in the way they do things, sometimes.

You'll also find that Dolan spends lots of time trying to find click bait articles which in no way represent reality. Thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of people have posted similar things on instagram and faced 0 repercussions, he's just found one time where a law was misapplied(probably due to personal views of a judge) and and attempting to make it seem like its somehow the norm, which it isnt.

[chris1089]

Identity politics has become normative for much of the supposed "conservative" party in Britain. A lot of this "hate speech" legislation flows out of that world view.

[[TLDT]Amsterda]

@Dolan well the UK is really misguided in the way they do things, sometimes.

You'll also find that Dolan spends lots of time trying to find click bait articles which in no way represent reality. Thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of people have posted similar things on instagram and faced 0 repercussions, he's just found one time where a law was misapplied(probably due to personal views of a judge) and and attempting to make it seem like its somehow the norm, which it isnt.

Have you read the law? Even if we act as if "he's just found one time where a law was misapplied(probably due to personal views of a judge)" was true do you realise what happens when a legal precedent is set? You're not really making a good argument here, it's not like the stated events were just fiction with no impact on reality regardless of perceived levels of enforcement.

[chris1089]

There are lots more cases similar. Maybe not convictions, but police have been knocking on doors of middle aged women because of holding feminist views on transgender stuff when drug gangs are running aloof.

[gibson]

@Dolan well the UK is really misguided in the way they do things, sometimes.

You'll also find that Dolan spends lots of time trying to find click bait articles which in no way represent reality. Thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of people have posted similar things on instagram and faced 0 repercussions, he's just found one time where a law was misapplied(probably due to personal views of a judge) and and attempting to make it seem like its somehow the norm, which it isnt.

Have you read the law? Even if we act as if "he's just found one time where a law was misapplied(probably due to personal views of a judge)" was true do you realise what happens when a legal precedent is set? You're not really making a good argument here, it's not like the stated events were just fiction with no impact on reality regardless of perceived levels of enforcement.

Ofc I haven't looked into it, common sense tells me that its unlikely to be true that the mere use of a slur online is illegal. Could be mistaken, but I doubt it.

[knusch]

Show hidden quotes

@Dolan well the UK is really misguided in the way they do things, sometimes.

You'll also find that Dolan spends lots of time trying to find click bait articles which in no way represent reality. Thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of people have posted similar things on instagram and faced 0 repercussions, he's just found one time where a law was misapplied(probably due to personal views of a judge) and and attempting to make it seem like its somehow the norm, which it isnt.

Have you read the law? Even if we act as if "he's just found one time where a law was misapplied(probably due to personal views of a judge)" was true do you realise what happens when a legal precedent is set? You're not really making a good argument here, it's not like the stated events were just fiction with no impact on reality regardless of perceived levels of enforcement.

Ofc I haven't looked into it, common sense tells me that its unlikely to be true that the mere use of a slur online is illegal. Could be mistaken, but I doubt it.

how do u think anti hate speech laws work? you r just opening pandora's box...

[Dolan]

You'll also find that Dolan spends lots of time trying to find click bait articles which in no way represent reality. Thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of people have posted similar things on instagram and faced 0 repercussions, he's just found one time where a law was misapplied(probably due to personal views of a judge) and and attempting to make it seem like its somehow the norm, which it isnt.

Ofc I haven't looked into it, common sense tells me that its unlikely to be true that the mere use of a slur online is illegal. Could be mistaken, but I doubt it.

So you haven't looked into it, but you know I found one time the law was misapplied, right?

The number of people being arrested for “online crimes of speech” have increased dramatically in London.
While arrests for aggressive, threatening or hateful speech on social media declined between 2010 and 2013, the numbers rose last year.
According to the Register, a total of 2,500 Londoners have been arrested over the past five years for allegedly sending “offensive” messages via social media. In 2015, 857 people were detained, up 37 per cent increase since 2010.

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a ... 64246.html
Btw, the Independent is a leftist outlet in the UK. And these arrests were only for the London area. There are more in the rest of the country.

The Communications Act 2003 defines illegal communication as “using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”. Breaking the law carries a six-month prison term or fine of up to £5,000.
The legislation has been used to arrest Twitter users responsible for racist hate speech. According to Vocativ, among many recently arrested was a Scottish citizen who had posted hate speech about Syrian refugees on his Facebook page.

Last year [2016], more than 3,300 people were detained and questioned, according to the Times.
Police in London arrested 867 people last year while West Midlands police arrested 635 suspects.
The increase in the Midlands is staggering as figures showed an 877 percent rise in the number of arrests since 2014, when 65 people were detained.

Using Freedom of Information requests, the Times found that 3,395 people across 29 forces were arrested last year under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. The act allows officers to investigate messages and posts which are “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.”
In 2014 there were 2,315 arrests, compared with 2,755 in 2015. This means there has been a rise of almost 50 percent between 2014 and 2016. However, 15 forces did not submit data, meaning the real figure is likely to be higher. Last year 1,696 people were charged and 1,399 convicted – despite almost 4,000 arrests.

Really, all you have to do is just run a quick search for "uk twitter police" and you'll find lots of results.

I mean, even the police in the UK says it on their Twitter account:


Only took me about 3 minutes to find all this.

[gibson]

So lets use some common sense for a bit. 2500 people arrested over 5 years is 500 people a year. That article also says that a study found that the words slut and whore were used 10,000 times in 3 weeks. Assuming that rate is constant, that means such language about 175k times a year. And that's only 2 words, if we were to include all foul language, its a safe assumption that the usage is in the millions if not 10s of millions. So we have millions( and this is a very very conservative estimate) of cases of such language being used each, yet the amount of arrests dwarfs that number. The article also mentions someone who tweeted a "joke" about blowing up an airport who was initially convicted but the conviction was overturned. So this sort of shows were the bar is. It is not common for people to be arrested for simply using hateful language, but rather extreme cases where someone "jokingly" makes a threat ( it actually happened in the US a while ago, some kid in a video game said that he was going to go to a specific school with a specific type of weapon and shoot it up, not so much later he's being removed from his house by a SWAT team), where someone "jokingly" is inciting actual violence, or where someone is being harassed. Its very clear that its not simply for saying nigger or faggot or what not. But go ahead, post a link to another click bait article where that does happen and continue to play the victim and act like its the norm.

[Dolan]

No, this shows that the police doesn't have enough staff to monitor millions of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram accounts. These are only the cases that were investigated and prosecuted. Obviously, the police supposedly deals with other types of crime too, not just Twitter crime.
They have like 200.000 police employees in England and Wales serving a population of about 59 million people. If only 10% of them have a Twitter account, they would need to monitor almost 6 million accounts.
Obviously they are not doing that, they're just reacting to reports made by other users.

So it's not a question that, relative to the large population of the UK the number of prosecuted Twitter crimes is small, because the police could not possibly monitor everyone who has a Twitter or other social media account in the UK. So probably most of this stuff goes off radar not because they don't think it should be punished, but because they can only act on reports, since they don't really have the staff to actually perform mass monitoring of social media.

[gibson]

So lets say they are only reacting to reports made by users. Millions of people live in London, you really only think that there are only 500 such reports made in a year? I would hazard there are more than that many reports filed in a single day related to offensive social media. They literally said that someone who threatened to bomb a fucking airport was not guilty of breaking the law. So its obvious they generally only act on bigger issues than someone merely using a word, unlike what you implied in your first post here relating to this specific topic. It's like how in the US you can drive over the speeding limit without repercussion, even if they see you speeding they're only gonna bust you if you're going far over the limit. But please continue to baselessly fear monger about how everyone who says nigger on social media is gonna get in trouble with the law.

[princeofcarthage]

It's naive to think that UK government doesn't have resources to monitor all of social media. It is more likely that they are monitoring everything. They have lot more serious work to do than arresting people for saying few words though. Also the potential repercussions of mass arrests. It's likely what Gibby said. Only in extreme cases.