He had a political debate on Facebook and the next day the actual thought police turned up at his door! He wasn't arrested but may end up in court!
I glad we kicked their asses during the American Revolution and won the right to free speech!
What kind of a chickenshit country sends out the police for comments on Facebook?
- friendly fred
- 07-19-2020, 03:08 PM
- Tiny
- 07-19-2020, 04:35 PM
Most likely if he were prosecuted it would be under the Communications Act of 2003. Here's a relevant passage from Wikipedia,
Section 127 of the act makes it an offence to send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character over a public electronic communications network.[9] The section replaced section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and is drafted as widely as its predecessor.[10] The section has been used controversially to prosecute users of social media in cases such as the Twitter Joke Trial and Facebook comments concerning the murder of April Jones.[11]
On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted. Communications that express an "unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it" will not. Communications that are merely "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false" will be prosecuted only when it can be shown to be necessary and proportionate. People who pass on malicious messages, such as by retweeting, can also be prosecuted when the original message is subject to prosecution. Individuals who post messages as part of a separate crime, such as a plan to import drugs, would face prosecution for that offence, as is currently the case.[12][13][14]
Revisions to the interim guidelines were issued on 20 June 2013 following a public consultation.[15] The revisions specified that prosecutors should consider:
whether messages were aggravated by references to race, religion or other minorities, and whether they breached existing rules to counter harassment or stalking; and
the age and maturity of any wrongdoer should be taken into account and given great weight.
The revisions also clarified that criminal prosecutions were "unlikely":
when the author of the message had "expressed genuine remorse";
when "swift and effective action ... to remove the communication" was taken; or
when messages were not intended for a wide audience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003
Elsewhere, I see that harassment is defined such that it includes "causing alarm or distress." See https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2019/...vs-harassment/
Sounds like if this applied in the USA a few posters in this forum would be risking a fine or trip to the big house.
Section 127 of the act makes it an offence to send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character over a public electronic communications network.[9] The section replaced section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and is drafted as widely as its predecessor.[10] The section has been used controversially to prosecute users of social media in cases such as the Twitter Joke Trial and Facebook comments concerning the murder of April Jones.[11]
On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted. Communications that express an "unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it" will not. Communications that are merely "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false" will be prosecuted only when it can be shown to be necessary and proportionate. People who pass on malicious messages, such as by retweeting, can also be prosecuted when the original message is subject to prosecution. Individuals who post messages as part of a separate crime, such as a plan to import drugs, would face prosecution for that offence, as is currently the case.[12][13][14]
Revisions to the interim guidelines were issued on 20 June 2013 following a public consultation.[15] The revisions specified that prosecutors should consider:
whether messages were aggravated by references to race, religion or other minorities, and whether they breached existing rules to counter harassment or stalking; and
the age and maturity of any wrongdoer should be taken into account and given great weight.
The revisions also clarified that criminal prosecutions were "unlikely":
when the author of the message had "expressed genuine remorse";
when "swift and effective action ... to remove the communication" was taken; or
when messages were not intended for a wide audience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003
Elsewhere, I see that harassment is defined such that it includes "causing alarm or distress." See https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2019/...vs-harassment/
Sounds like if this applied in the USA a few posters in this forum would be risking a fine or trip to the big house.
- oeb11
- 07-19-2020, 06:36 PM
Why hasn't Pelosi / Schumer, et al - filed a criminal case against Trump???
claiming harassment and mental distress is right up their alley - they are experts.
claiming harassment and mental distress is right up their alley - they are experts.
- friendly fred
- 07-19-2020, 10:16 PM
Why hasn't Pelosi / Schumer, et al - filed a criminal case against Trump???They would love such a law - good thing the constitution enshrines free speech and thwarts them in their pernicious efforts to enslave us.
claiming harassment and mental distress is right up their alley - they are experts. Originally Posted by oeb11
- friendly fred
- 07-19-2020, 10:17 PM
Most likely if he were prosecuted it would be under the Communications Act of 2003. Here's a relevant passage from Wikipedia,If this law were applied in the US we would have to build more jails. Plus, hopefully we would rebel against it. Anyone in England who supports this type of thing being a crime is likely a cock sucking faggot who needs some sense beaten into them.
Section 127 of the act makes it an offence to send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character over a public electronic communications network.[9] The section replaced section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and is drafted as widely as its predecessor.[10] The section has been used controversially to prosecute users of social media in cases such as the Twitter Joke Trial and Facebook comments concerning the murder of April Jones.[11]
On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted. Communications that express an "unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it" will not. Communications that are merely "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false" will be prosecuted only when it can be shown to be necessary and proportionate. People who pass on malicious messages, such as by retweeting, can also be prosecuted when the original message is subject to prosecution. Individuals who post messages as part of a separate crime, such as a plan to import drugs, would face prosecution for that offence, as is currently the case.[12][13][14]
Revisions to the interim guidelines were issued on 20 June 2013 following a public consultation.[15] The revisions specified that prosecutors should consider:
whether messages were aggravated by references to race, religion or other minorities, and whether they breached existing rules to counter harassment or stalking; and
the age and maturity of any wrongdoer should be taken into account and given great weight.
The revisions also clarified that criminal prosecutions were "unlikely":
when the author of the message had "expressed genuine remorse";
when "swift and effective action ... to remove the communication" was taken; or
when messages were not intended for a wide audience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003
Elsewhere, I see that harassment is defined such that it includes "causing alarm or distress." See https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2019/...vs-harassment/
Sounds like if this applied in the USA a few posters in this forum would be risking a fine or trip to the big house. Originally Posted by Tiny
- Levianon17
- 07-19-2020, 11:25 PM
Most likely if he were prosecuted it would be under the Communications Act of 2003. Here's a relevant passage from Wikipedia,
Section 127 of the act makes it an offence to send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character over a public electronic communications network.[9] The section replaced section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and is drafted as widely as its predecessor.[10] The section has been used controversially to prosecute users of social media in cases such as the Twitter Joke Trial and Facebook comments concerning the murder of April Jones.[11]
On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted. Communications that express an "unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it" will not. Communications that are merely "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false" will be prosecuted only when it can be shown to be necessary and proportionate. People who pass on malicious messages, such as by retweeting, can also be prosecuted when the original message is subject to prosecution. Individuals who post messages as part of a separate crime, such as a plan to import drugs, would face prosecution for that offence, as is currently the case.[12][13][14]
Revisions to the interim guidelines were issued on 20 June 2013 following a public consultation.[15] The revisions specified that prosecutors should consider:
whether messages were aggravated by references to race, religion or other minorities, and whether they breached existing rules to counter harassment or stalking; and
the age and maturity of any wrongdoer should be taken into account and given great weight.
The revisions also clarified that criminal prosecutions were "unlikely":
when the author of the message had "expressed genuine remorse";
when "swift and effective action ... to remove the communication" was taken; or
when messages were not intended for a wide audience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003
Elsewhere, I see that harassment is defined such that it includes "causing alarm or distress." See https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2019/...vs-harassment/
Sounds like if this applied in the USA a few posters in this forum would be risking a fine or trip to the big house. Originally Posted by Tiny
Well that's the beauty of America and our 1st Amendment rights. If people in America keep entertaining these fucking liberal politicians with their chickenshit support America will end up just like the UK.
- friendly fred
- 07-20-2020, 07:44 AM
- rexdutchman
- 07-20-2020, 07:51 AM
US Bill of rights ( an why it needs protection at any cost )
- sexykarma
- 07-20-2020, 08:05 AM
Leeds and Soho have red light districts but prosecute a free speech issue?
Would seem like a good trade for most people on this site.
Would seem like a good trade for most people on this site.
- Levianon17
- 07-20-2020, 08:06 AM
- friendly fred
- 07-20-2020, 12:58 PM
- friendly fred
- 07-20-2020, 01:03 PM
Leeds and Soho have red light districts but prosecute a free speech issue?I would love to have a decriminalized zone in Dallas for prostitution but I will never willingly give up free speech.
Would seem like a good trade for most people on this site. Originally Posted by sexykarma
I do wear a mask everywhere when I'm inside and away from home though...
- The_Waco_Kid
- 07-20-2020, 06:29 PM
He had a political debate on Facebook and the next day the actual thought police turned up at his door! He wasn't arrested but may end up in court!
I glad we kicked their asses during the American Revolution and won the right to free speech!
What kind of a chickenshit country sends out the police for comments on Facebook? Originally Posted by friendly fred
the dream police .. not just a video anymore ...
BAHHAHHAAAAAAA