Chilling Guidelines Issued For UK Communications Act Enforcement 111
From El Reg comes word that interim guidelines have been issued for prosecutions under the UK Communications Act that have landed a few folks in jail for offensive speech: "Keir Starmer QC published this morning his interim guidelines for crown prosecutors that demanded a more measured approach to tackling trolling on the Internet. ... 'A prosecution is unlikely to be in the public interest if the communication is swiftly removed, blocked, not intended for a wide audience or not obviously beyond what could conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in a diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression. The interim guidelines thus protect the individual from threats or targeted harassment while protecting the expression of 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.'"
What about those already found guilty? (Score:2)
Do they get a new trial?
Re:What about those already found guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, these are only guidelines. The state reserves the right to punish whomever it wants. The law still says all those completely harmless things are still illegal.
Re:What about those already found guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, these are only guidelines. The state reserves the right to punish whomever it wants.
The parent post has it spot on.
Most countries actually have two parallel legal systems.
The first: The laws and legal precedents that we can all go to the library and read
The second: Unpublished guidelines, policies, and training manuals that shape how the laws are actually applied.
It doesn't actually matter what the law says, if the bureaucrats, police, prosecutors, and judges have already agreed on how to interpret it.
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR The law is whatever they want it to be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Current guidelines in the US:
Once the person becomes a suspect, charge him/her with everything you possibly can, no matter how ridiculous the charge.
Then, use the threat of possibly 175 years in jail to work out a deal for 10 years in jail.
Right now, you are breaking some law that carries the penalty of at least 3 months in jail. Welcome to the land of the free.
Re: (Score:2)
"It doesn't actually matter what the law says, if the bureaucrats, police, prosecutors, and judges have already agreed on how to interpret it."
I'm not arguing with you, but that is the completely wrong way to go about it.
"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." -- James Wilson
Re: (Score:2)
"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." -- James Wilson
It seems crazy to me that that's considered a notable quote, but hey - people write something down and someone comes along later with motivated reasoning and "interprets" the meaning. Kinda like when Jews put a string around their neighbourhood so they can carry things around on the Sabbath (e.g. their keys) without vexing God. Because God is fooled by some string. Yay!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Care to elaborate? Because currently this is a completely usless attempt at a rebutal without any substance.
I guess he is referring to the fact that in the UK guidelines on enforcement, prosecution, and sentencing are published - not unpublished
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
How is this "chilling"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is this "chilling"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this 'chilling' as in 'relaxing'? It certainly doesn't worry me and looks as though Starmer-Smith is seeking to tackle the problem in a measured, sensible fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry - 'Starmer', not 'Starmer-Smith'. He's a completely different person!
Re:How is this "chilling"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How is this "chilling"? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still a bit messy though. What it really means is that 'These things are harmless and trivial, but still illegal. So rather than making them legal, we'll just make a non-binding promise not to prosecute.'
And cynically, I continue with the inevitable: '... unless the victim is someone rich, powerful or famous. In which case the full force of the law will come down upon the offender.'
Re:How is this "chilling"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You must be pretty young if you think embarrassing any government will get them to fix the laws.
Most likely, they'll make it illegal for him to suggest guidelines that are not in strict compliance with the law. Thus able to send him to jail for embarrassing the gov't.
Re: (Score:2)
That'd mean parliament dealing with things it doesn't want to deal with. For example, judges and prosecutors have repeatedly said that parliament must deal with the issue of assisted dying, what should happen when someone goes with someone to euthenasia clinics in other countries, and so on. They're technically illegal, but prosecutors mostly don't prosecute whilst complaining that they don't want to have to be the ones making the decision. But parliament finds it quite convenient not to deal with it - all
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's still a bit messy though. What it really means is that 'These things are harmless and trivial, but still illegal. So rather than making them legal, we'll just make a non-binding promise not to prosecute.'
He's reacting to the courts tossing some convictions out on appeal. So case law says harmless things are legal; I agree it would be better if Parliament reframed the law a bit. However, this isn't a situation where the CPS has decided unilaterally not to prosecure.
Re: (Score:2)
It's chilling in the way that The Register is a sensationalist trash-publication along the lines of Fox News and The Daily Mail and that it's readers have thus been brainwashed into thinking that everything ever is bad and out to get them, hence why they get confused between what is bad, and what is, in fact, actually good.
Seriously, this is what happens if you routinely read The Register, your brain turns to mush and you just start spouting complete and utter bollocks. You only have to read an Andrew Orlow
Re: (Score:2)
I still read it, but when I do read one of its articles and go 'wtf' it does indeed usually have Orlowski's name attached.
I read The Inquirer too. High degree of overlap but different perspectives, writing styles and focus.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah so if someone disagrees with the government position, label him as paranoid or as a 'victim' of 'sensationalist propaganda.' Who does that sound like?
The correct thing to do is verify the facts and the conclusions made. The law under discussion here is the reprehensible issue, not the behavior of the people whacked with it. this larger issue is independent of how register and slashdot editors spun it..
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except there's not actually a problem with the government position in this case, it's actually a marked improvement from the current status quo, so yes, I'll label him a victim of sensationalism, because he's seeing a problem where there simply isn't one.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume the "chilling" part is that the guidelines were even necessary to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
The guidelines are that people should be a bit more liberal in what they accept - not the scariest thing that the UK government has ever proposed.
Except that this doesn't change the law nor what is illegal. It's just guidelines for subjectively selectively applying the law only where they feel like it.
-- "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." From Atlas Shrugs
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I did not, in any way, intend that to sound like that here in the U.S. lies the real world. Worded it horribly, sorry. Thanks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In jail for exercising their free speech rights?
They have every right to believe what they want, and express that belief in public, and that is what they do. I may no agree with them, but the last thing I want to see is a government deciding what speech is ok and what isn't.
Free speech was never intended to defend the rights of those who say what others approve of, or those who quietly express their beliefs in out of the way corners. If the most offensive, in your face speech is not protected, then we may a
Re: (Score:2)
But one has to question whether their right to freedom of speech would be substantially harmed if they were restricted from using such hateful speech specifically to cause direct upset to people, and whether that right should be balanced against other rights such as, for example, the right of the family to have a dignified funeral ceremony for a loved one.
As a freedom of speech advocate, finding I'm obliged to support organisations like Westboro causes me issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Go UK! (Score:5, Insightful)
and there you have your dilemma.
one of the consequences of free speech is that you get arses like the Westboro church.
speaking as UK citizen, I envy the ability of the USA legal system to say 'we hate what they're saying, but there is a bigger principle at stake here'.
the only other alternative is for someone somewhere to be in charge of deciding when the line has been crossed.
-westboro 'god hates gays'
-pro life 'murderer' signs outside abortion clinics
-islamist 'death to those who insult Islam'
-atheist 'islam is stupid'
-some guy 'some celebrity is fat and ugly'
for any place that you are willing to draw the line, I'll find some offensive speech that sits just above or below your line. The next person in the room won't quite agree with you on where the line has to go.
who decides which person goes to jail?
the Westboro baptist church, is actually something to be proud of. Not because it is hateful, but because it is allowed to be hateful.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that harm extends past the physical, the below needs to be addressed:
(or you work in a "right-to-work" state)
The definition of "right-to-work" is a state which does not have a law requiring employers to either fire non-union employees or deduct union dues from their paycheck and remit them to a union if a union organizes at their place of business.
You are confusing "right-to-work" with "at-will" employment, a confusion which unions are more than happy to continue perpetuating.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, then when we're done with them, we can sic the lawyer lynch mob on anyone else who offends The People and their Servants in the People's Paradise..or at least those voters with attributes on their 'social victimhood' lists. Gotta love 'social justice.'
Attack their free speech and you attack your own, along with everyone elses. Once holes are punched the guarantee is meaningless. WBC is a laughable joke. The fact you're offended by them is truly pathetic.
No, it's a statement of fact. (Score:2, Insightful)
'course you could try to have a jury of your peers convict him for it, but you'll get nowhere.
Whereas a jury of your peers would agree WBC should be shoved in the slammer.
(PS you'd need standing. Unless you're a member of WBC you don't. And they already sue people for getting irate over their trolling, so no change there).
Re: (Score:2)
If you're REALLY worried about it, what the hell are you doing about the wiretap laws in your country? Fic your own fucking country rather than whine about others.
Both issues can be talked about at once. I do not believe anyone is a spineless crybaby for suggesting such a thing. Are you a spineless crybaby for disagreeing with them and then posting about it?
Re: (Score:2)
'course you could try to have a jury of your peers convict him for it, but you'll get nowhere.
And the point is... what if he did get somewhere? Since he offended someone, it should be okay to arrest him.
But I guess it's only valid if certain people are offended...
Isn't the Internet . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Like the television? If you don't like it . . . . CHANGE THE CHANNEL!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Friend Citizen, what is your security clearance?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:These are in no way "chilling" (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything the intent appears to be to reduce the chilling effect of the existing guidelines. It might not go far enough, but it still seems like a step in the right direction.
Re: (Score:2)
A very, very small step in roughly the right direction.
Re:These are in no way "chilling" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's "chilling" that the actual law goes so much further than this,
So, it's chilling as in not at all.
The law might be chilling, but the guidlines, as claimed buy TFH are not.
Re:These are in no way "chilling" (Score:5, Insightful)
If you say something that offends someone it's the prosecutor's discretion whether or not you're charged,but if he does bring them you'll still be convicted because the law still stands. You're granted permission to say unpopular things by the government, and a government official decides what's unpopular, and he can get convictions for ridiculous things.
The prosecutor is only asked to consider whether it's "likely to be in the public interest" to bring charges. Thank God prosecutors in western nations have no history of bringing politically-motivated charges, charging disfavored people on whim or request or for political advantage with trumped-up offenses, otherwise this setup would be an open invitation to the worst kinds of abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything shy of changing the LAWS themselves, is chilling.
The laws are chilling....selective enforcement...maybe a little less, but who's to say when the next one in charge comes in, they go the other way and try to over prosecute and stretch the laws even more?
Chilling Guidelines?? (Score:3)
Being a sarcastic bell-end is a must! Ludicrous threats for violence too, and if my train is cancelled again I'm going to find the head of south western rail and stick the first 4 coaches of the 7:50 London service up his arse.
Re:Chilling Guidelines?? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's chilling in that, rather than repeal or rewrite the Communications Decency Act, which basically criminalises anything said online if it causes offense to anyone else in any way, they're just saying "We won't bother prosecuting unless enough people kick up a fuss about it."
Say something offensive to a celebrity, or make a comment that would upset grieving parents that have been in the tabloids that week, or burn a poppy while being the wrong skin-colour, or get an offensive tweet noticed and retweeted enough by Twitter celebrities, and you'll still get prosecuted. Nothing has changed, just the enforcement of a stupid law is going to get a bit more selective (i.e. it will be even more arbritrarily enforced). That's what's chilling.
Re: (Score:3)
Because Keir Starmer doesn't have that power. The best he can do is change the prosecuting guidelines for the CPS.
Re: (Score:2)
It's chilling in that, rather than repeal or rewrite the...
So, it's chilling in that it isn't.
The law is chilling. The guidelines are not.
The CPS has no authority to rewrite the law. But they've clearly decided that parliament psased an idiotic law and they want nothing to do with it.
Not chilling, quite the opposite! (Score:5, Insightful)
These guidelines are not chilling: they are the opposite. Following the introduction of these guidelines, many knee-jerk prosecutions will not take place, whereas previously they would have taken place.
Whoever wrote the Slashdot headline is entirely wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chilling as in cooling off from the flames of "jail them all" mouth frothing Daily Mail style "justice", not chilling as in creepy freedom restricting by an overbearing state.
Re: (Score:2)
In Britain this is quite chilling. These are a people that WANT a Nanny State Gov't that regulates politeness with an iron fist and enforces public safety with a million cameras. Essentially, the gov't is saying they might have to live their lives a little less sheltered and allow other people to say things that they may not like.
Pure Anarchy.
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to the entire populace of the USA which want to be gate-raped by the TSA, want to be locked up indefinitely without trial in Gitmo, and consider it the lesser evil that innocent children should die rather than american men with small penises give up their gun-toys.
Or perhaps there's a *populace* that is outraged by all these things, but a *government* that implements them. On both sides of the pond.
Simon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is still well short of freedom of speech, and British libel laws are still a huge problem.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe we shouldn't make offending these hairtrigger, insecure people a criminal offense in the first place. 'Offending feelings/beliefs' should NEVER be a crime in a free society. Once feelings/consensus matter more than the facts and the truth, the society will fall once it gets too difficult for individuals within it to acknowledge reality when making decisions. The fear and risk of artificially imposed legal reprisals from insecure masses/governments/organizations would be too great.
Western society
Balance? (Score:2)
It's easy to balance a scale when you can change the weight of on one side. Then again, it's easy to unbalance it in your favor too.
And that's why a bunch of people a few centuries ago decided that was a bad idea, split from their former country, and decided that freedom of expression need be kept protected. And they were right. Because some three hundred years later the same bullshit is happening.
Re: (Score:2)
protecting the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humor, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it ; ).
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that was the point. I'd almost include that quote, but figured it would make the joke too obvious.
The main point (which probably now won't be seen by anyone) is that it doesn't matter what the guidelines are, people can still be prosecuted for "offensive" posts online. That I could be prosecuted for my post is an abomination. Well, except that I'm basically anonymous and they can't find me based on my posts here...
Chilling? (Score:1)
Are they chilling in that they will cause the idiots prosecuting to chill the fuck out?
It's hardly chilling. (Score:2)
This is just the latest occasion when I have wished that /. editors would, you know, do some editing. The story is interesting; the attempt by the submitter to spin it as evidence of a particular viewpoint adds nothing.
All legal jurisdictions are having to come to terms with the fact that groups of people in social networks now have the ability to publish (mis)information on a scale that was previously limited to mainstream media outlets. This effort from the UK authorities is (in my opinion) a reasonably
"Chilling"? (Score:2)
For a European government those guidelines seem pretty liberal.
"highly reasonable" (Score:1)
Chilling? I think the submitter fails the goddam Turing test.
"highly reasonable" I would say. Which, come to think of it, is kind of chilling, seeing as it's the UK government being reasonable.
So in other words (Score:2)
If you can't say something nice then don't say anything at all..... else you go to jail law.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but calling me names will land you in jail.
I'm rubber you're glue, what ever you say bounces off me and locks you in jail.
Yeah ok..
What is obvious? (Score:2)
..."not obviously beyond what could conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in a diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression"
Is there anything that is obviously beyond what could conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in a diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression? I can't think of anything.
Re: (Score:2)
When's the last time britain contributed anything of note to the arts and sciences? Isaac Newton? That was a long fucking time ago.
We invented Pop idol and the X-factor ... oh wait you may have a point
Re: (Score:2)