To think Keir Starmer holds a lot of sway?

[TakemedowntoPotatoCity]

Former Director of Public Prosecutions. Now PM.
Following the 'civil unrest' last week, several perpetrators have been not only arrested and jailed, but publicly named and shamed, the speed of which I have never seen before.
Our PM clearly knows the right people to get things rolling quickly.
This, combined with the anti racism protestors, gives me a glimmer of hope for the future. I feel in safe(ish) hands with Keir.AIBU?

Examples, please?

They’ve had a month. You aren’t in actual fact, waiting to see. You’re assuming it won’t happen. I’m confident it will.

The value people on here place on free speech is genuinely horrifying,

I just don’t think people have really thought about it.

Whats confusing is that people are calling anyone who objects to immigration ‘far right fascist’ yet there is literally nothing more fascist than censoring people’s speech, and the doing of this with glee and a casualness is the bit which is truly scary

@dottiehens I absolutely agree that this should be applied fairly.

For clarity: an opinion about something is not hate speech if it isn’t inciting division or violence. For example, just expressing the opinion that you don’t like the Tories or their policies isn’t hate speech.

Making threats of violence, encouraging people to violent against Tories or speeding malicious, prejudicial falsehoods designed to create division and fear is hate speech.

People just need to find a less inflammatory way to express their opinions and stop to think before they post ‘facts’ they find on social media.

The while internet would be a better place if we could get rid of the pernicious, attention seeking bollocks that seems to be everywhere.

The previous poster said they would have said it in messaging about the riots (stoking and legitimising violence to some degree) nit that they haven’t said they want to. Everyone wants to. It’s just Labour might address the reasons it happens rather than just demonising the people coming that way.

No they're not. Free Speech does not mean the Freedom to tell lies without consequence.🤷‍♀️

No, people are calling people who riot and assault the police, try to burn down mosques and hotels and talk about hatred of immigrants far right fascists.

Really? I can’t tell a lie at all? The government need powers to intervene in lies?

What happens when the government or police tell lies?

That’s not true.

People who have not actually been rioting are called Far Right Fascists for expressing an opinion about immigration

You should be careful telling lies - apparently they have consequences

@hamstersarse

Lies always have social consequences if you’re caught out lying. The level of consequence depends on how big the lies is and how many other people it affects.

If I lied about having a qualification to get a job and was caught the consequences would be to lose my job.

If I lied about the government or a high profile figure online and it was seen by millions and created civil unrest and meant people got hurt and I was caught doing it then the consequence should fit the magnitude of the effect of my lie.

None of this is new. People got so used to lying online and getting away with it that they thought it was normal. It’s not.

You are being obtuse

You know what was meant by the comment and are minimising the potential impact of a government using their power to 'clamp down on lies and misinformation'

I see that Meta / Facebook have deleted Richard Dawkin's entire Facebook account:

"My entire @facebook account has been deleted, seemingly (no reason given) because I tweeted that genetically male boxers such as Imane Khalif (XY undisputed) should not fight women in Olympics. Of course my opinion is open to civilised argument. But outright censorship?"

This is an example of how enabling the government to use these powers to censor people is ideologically driven. We have to be so so so so so careful about what we cheer on and what we let the government do. And KS, unfortunately, is very ideological and his version of 'hate speech' may well one day cross your path in the wrong direction. There have been Labour MP's tweeting about Imane Khalif being a 'Queen' this morning, and that is their belief. And so they will class anyone disputing that as dealing in 'hate speech'.

And as an aside, Facebook have admitted that the government advise them on what to censor. X is the only platform that refuses to be advised by governments, hence why they hate Elon Musk. This is not some conspiracy theory - Mark Zuckerberg has openly said they take advice from governments, Elon Musk has said he won't.

Genuinely which is the best for your own rights and freedoms? Yes, you may not like Elon Musk's view right now, but there may be a time when there is a topic that you disagree with the government on, and you may find you cannot discuss it if you are cheering on them using these powers.

@hamstersarse

No, you’re missing the point. Lying online is no different to lying in real life. Both do, and should, have consequences if you get caught doing it.

If you stood in the middle of town shouting lies about people designed to create mistrust and fear and hate, the police would come and take you away for a public order offence.

It is no different online.

I’d be happy to see the back of malicious, shit stirring behaviour online. Anonymity makes people think they can say whatever with no consequences. That’s never been true on the entire history of human kind. The internet shouldn’t change that.

The ‘far right’ label is a deterrent. Deliberately used to create a climate of fear. It’s fascism in action: silence your political rivals.

I think you are missing the point.

You say "If you stood in the middle of town shouting lies about people designed to create mistrust and fear and hate, the police would come and take you away for a public order offence."

Who decides what creates mistrust? Mistrust in what? Who decides whether something should be trusted?
Who decides what creates fear? What level of fear would be acceptable? What if we did need to be fearful?
Who decides what is hateful? What if something should be hated? But who decides that anyway?

A pp asked what Labour have done re the backlog of rape cases and you replied "set up 80 courts for rape cases" implying they had already done this which is why I asked if you had a link.

Not sure why you're getting so defensive.

I struggle to believe that people don't see the difference between expressing an opinion, however racist and distasteful, and inciting people to break the law.

I am fine with someone on here saying that immigrants are to blame for all the UK's woes. I will challenge that statement because it is untrue, but I am fine with people saying it.

I am not fine with people suggesting that attacking mosques, setting fire to buildings with people inside and dragging people out of cars for looking a bit foreign is OK. That is incitement, it merits jail time.

And of course certain people on here do know the difference, and their bleatings about free speech are only there to mask their tacit agreement with those encouraging the rioters.

The far right label is useful when talking about racist rioters.

But....as the Director of the CPS has stated, even sharing online material of riots could be an offence.

That, imo, is a new definition of incitement? A concept creep.

Would you prefer the laws were kept secret so you didn’t know you were breaking one until you got prosecuted? Do you apply the same impeccable logic to speed signs?

I imagine you were one of the Outraged from Tumbridge Wells when the police decided not to do anything about personal possession of weed a few years back.

The problem with not implementing laws that criminalise the spreading of hate and violence against minorities is that once the hate spreads, the violence escalates. Before Kristalnacht there was a campaign of disinformation that demonised and othered the Jewish population.

@hamstersarse

Intention is always the key here. If you’ve made up or changed a fact to make yourself right- that’s bad but not illegal.

If you’ve made something up that is untrue and encourages violence and is designed to deceive and mislead others into supporting you (for whatever reason, be it power or monetary gain) then that is and should be illegal.

There’s so many facets to the people being arrested for social media posts during the riots. One is that they are spreading prejudicial information which they couldn’t verify to support a narrative that they beloved, regardless of the consequences and the other is that they hadn’t considered the possible real life impact of what they said.

People need to start seeing what they write online as being the same as saying it in real life. If you wouldn’t say it to someone’s face or out loud where people knew you, should you be saying it at all.

I feel so strongly about this because it is spilling over into real world behaviour. Teenagers especially have picked up this idea that it is okay to say whatever you like to or about people- not matter how untrue, cruel, harmful or hateful.

There is a massive difference between free speech and being an abusive arsehole on the regular because you think you’ll get away with it.

People need to start seeing what they write online as being the same as saying it in real life. If you wouldn’t say it to someone’s face or out loud where people knew you, should you be saying it at all.

I feel so strongly about this because it is spilling over into real world behaviour. Teenagers especially have picked up this idea that it is okay to say whatever you like to or about people- not matter how untrue, cruel, harmful or hateful

There is a massive difference between free speech and being an abusive arsehole on the regular because you think you’ll get away with it.

I don't agree with being awful on line, and I agree that it would be lovely if they didn't, but, that is different to what the law is on free speech.

I can be a twat to people in real life, if I want to, it is not against the law (yet). If you really want to legislate against people being twats, we really are in a whole world of trouble.

I think you are living in a dream world wanting everyone to be nice all the time. And if that is where this is all coming from, maybe some people should just not go on the internet, because genuinely you cannot legislate that people are nice all the time.

I suspect that it would depend on how those images were shared. Praising the rioters as patriotic English men taking a stand would be a problem. Condemning them as a bunch of racist wreckers, not so much. Choices, consequences.

I think you will find, once you enable and encourage censorship by the government, you are very soon living in a totalitarian state. A bit worse than a few dickheads rioting.

On the weed thing, not sure what you mean, but I don't really have an opinion on weed other than I think we underestimate the impact it has on young people's brains.

What's your deal with lies and the lying liars who spread them? What's wrong with objective reality?