Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Labour would add "legal but harmful" BACK into the online bill

80 replies

ResisterRex · 04/12/2022 10:43

Of course they would. FFS

order-order.com/2022/12/04/phillipson-labour-would-restore-legal-but-harmful-clause-for-online-content/

OP posts:
Signalbox · 04/12/2022 12:11

Oh no how utterly depressing. I feel like now Labour know that they are almost guaranteed to win the next election they can get away with putting anything in their manifesto however socially reactionary or authoritarian it is. Lawful but harmful is bad law and will definitely have an impact on women who attempt to discuss their rights.

ArabellaScott · 04/12/2022 13:54

'of course they would' was my first response, too.

Never thought I'd feel this way about Labour.

MargaritaPie · 04/12/2022 13:56

I'm also against the Online Harms Bill.

A lot of vagueness, difficult to enforce and people can just use TOR/VPNs etc.

Circumferences · 04/12/2022 14:11

I feel like now Labour know that they are almost guaranteed to win the next election...

Nothing is guaranteed.

Happylittlechicken · 04/12/2022 14:34

MargaritaPie · 04/12/2022 13:56

I'm also against the Online Harms Bill.

A lot of vagueness, difficult to enforce and people can just use TOR/VPNs etc.

I bet you are @MargaritaPie . i mean, how could people issue rape threats and death threats to women and Dix them if it was made illegal? I mean, if women were prosecuted for ‘misgendering’ and those were allowed to stand, I think it would shed a lot of sunlight on the whole gender ideology, don’t you?

WomaninBoots · 04/12/2022 14:38

She says "Russian and Incels" but in practice she means "women saying women don't have penises"...

MangyInseam · 04/12/2022 14:40

It boggles my mind that grown adults, who have been elected in a major political party and are responsible for drafting policy, cannot see why this is a bad, bad, terribly dangerous idea.

MangyInseam · 04/12/2022 14:41

And actually, to the point where it goes beyond anything to do with gender ideology, or women's rights, and shows them to be an immediate danger, people who should never be in power, no matter what.

Original poster
ResisterRex · 04/12/2022 14:43

I'm not against the Bill. It contains important protections for children. But "legal but harmful" is plainly a vehicle for authoritarian measures.

OP posts:
Ohnohedident · 04/12/2022 14:47

MangyInseam · 04/12/2022 14:41

And actually, to the point where it goes beyond anything to do with gender ideology, or women's rights, and shows them to be an immediate danger, people who should never be in power, no matter what.

100% this.

waterwitch · 04/12/2022 14:52

Surely if it’s harmful enough to ban it in a democratic society, that should be managed through legislation, not on the say-so of whoever currently owns Twitter?

  • but looking at the rest of the posts, I wonder whether this line of argument is already agreed here?!
Signalbox · 04/12/2022 15:00

Circumferences · 04/12/2022 14:11

I feel like now Labour know that they are almost guaranteed to win the next election...

Nothing is guaranteed.

No of course not. But atm it does feel like we are heading towards a Labour victory but not because voters are inspired by Labour, just that they are so sick of the Tories.

MargaritaPie · 04/12/2022 15:05

"how could people issue rape threats and death threats to women and Dix them if it was made illegal"

There are existing laws to cover threats of violence, malicious communication, intentionally putting someone in a state of fear and alarm, things like that.

I'm not too sure where doxxing would come under in existing law, probably under stalking/harassment laws or something.

"if women were prosecuted for ‘misgendering’"

Noone has ever been prosecuted for misgendering and I'm sure noone ever will be.

Signalbox · 04/12/2022 15:05

MargaritaPie · 04/12/2022 13:56

I'm also against the Online Harms Bill.

A lot of vagueness, difficult to enforce and people can just use TOR/VPNs etc.

I’m also not against the whole of this legislation. I was listening to Miriam Cates the other day talking about pornography and how easy it is for children to access it online. Legislation is sorely needed to protect children from harm.

MargaritaPie · 04/12/2022 15:06

Business will be booming for VPN providers when/if this passes, that's for sure.

Original poster
ResisterRex · 04/12/2022 15:15

Noone has ever been prosecuted for misgendering and I'm sure noone ever will be.

But you can't be sure. Just like you can't be sure no future government would decide that discussing changes to road tax, or benefits, or the motorway speed limit would be designated "legal but harmful", and ban all online discussion of it. And good lawmaking does look at the "what ifs", which it seems the Tories have somewhat belatedly done.

And this is entirely the point. You can't know no one would be prosecuted for calling a male (who says magic words and decrees himself a woman), "he".

Frankly I don't want to find out what it's like to live in a country that hands politicians that kind of power. Be it the power to silence women, or silence any debate that's deemed inconvenient to the government.

OP posts:
MargaritaPie · 04/12/2022 15:30

I really don't think anyone is being silenced. Prominent gender-critical figures have large platforms and the media often relays their opinions. Gender critical people are speaking and been heard by and listened to by millions.

Scotland's GRC finally looks set to pass (it's been debated to death and has majority of public and politician support) but it's been delayed for years and given extra public consultations because of GC people speaking up against it, same with the UK's gender conversion therapy ban which is still on hold.

Just because the majority of the population don't agree with you doesn't mean you are "silenced", and just because a heckler was thrown out of a talk which wasn't even about the GC discussion doesn't mean you are "silenced" either.

"Frankly I don't want to find out what it's like to live in a country that hands politicians that kind of power"

Want to know what silenced actually means you have a lot of choices of countries to live in, try Afghanistan, China or N. Korea.

ArabellaScott · 04/12/2022 15:31

MangyInseam · 04/12/2022 14:41

And actually, to the point where it goes beyond anything to do with gender ideology, or women's rights, and shows them to be an immediate danger, people who should never be in power, no matter what.

100%

Thelnebriati · 04/12/2022 15:32

It boggles my mind that grown adults, who have been elected in a major political party and are responsible for drafting policy, cannot see why this is a bad, bad, terribly dangerous idea.

I used to think that and now I just think they are doing it because they support it.

ArabellaScott · 04/12/2022 15:33

(it's been debated to death and has majority of public and politician support)

Untrue.

www.holyrood.com/news/view,only-a-fifth-of-scots-back-plans-for-selfid-transgender-laws

'53 per cent of Scots believe that a doctor’s approval should be needed for a person to change their sex'

Original poster
ResisterRex · 04/12/2022 15:37

Want to know what silenced actually means you have a lot of choices of countries to live in, try Afghanistan, China or N. Korea.

Well we won't have to go to the trouble if this change in the law is made. And my point which you ignored in its entirety is that it does not matter which topic it is that displeases the government. "Legal but harmful" could apply to any topic. Any one at all. Then you'd be banned from discussing it online. And the unintended consequences of legislation under development should be thought about like this.

Indeed, if the government deems discussion online of: increased council tax, or parking charges at hospitals, or building on the green belt, is legal but harmful and bans it, that would also have the effect of stopping MPs from posting their own entries in Hansard on that topic.

It's indefensible as a premise. Everyone can see it.

OP posts:
Signalbox · 04/12/2022 16:20

Noone has ever been prosecuted for misgendering and I'm sure noone ever will be.

Oh well, how reassuring that Margarita Pie is sure that no-one will be ever be prosecuted for misgendering. We can all rest peaceably in our beds knowing that this ideology has pushed as far as it intends to go now it has achieved equality of being able to alter official documents to contain completely incorrect information. It is inconceivable that these same ideologues would ever consider pushing for non-compliant women to be prosecuted for calling them the "wrong" pronoun.

Signalbox · 04/12/2022 16:24

Want to know what silenced actually means you have a lot of choices of countries to live in, try Afghanistan, China or N. Korea.

This really does win idiotic statement of the year.

Happylittlechicken · 04/12/2022 16:38

It is the top 10 weirdest things Margie has said this week to be honest.

MargaritaPie · 04/12/2022 17:09

Do you honestly think people with gender-critical views living in the UK are "being silenced"?

JK Rowling has just short of 14M followers and every opinion she has is published by the daily mail for one example.

When Kathleen Stock left her role in the college, she spent over a month on TV/newspapers/radio etc daily as a platform for her views as another example.