Discussion
"Prosecutors will be ordered to treat online hate crime as seriously as offences carried out face to face in plans announced by the director of public prosecutions.
Alison Saunders said the Crown Prosecution Service will seek stiffer penalties for abuse on Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms.
Saunders says the crackdown is needed because online abuse can lead to the sort of extremist hate seen in Charlottesville in the United States last weekend, which left one person dead."
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/21/cp...
Alison Saunders said the Crown Prosecution Service will seek stiffer penalties for abuse on Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms.
Saunders says the crackdown is needed because online abuse can lead to the sort of extremist hate seen in Charlottesville in the United States last weekend, which left one person dead."
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/21/cp...
AJS- said:
An equally simple answer, because being a bellend in the opinion of Some Gump isn't a criminal offence.
I want to know what is deemed to be a criminal opinion.
Nothing is deemed to be a criminal opinion. I want to know what is deemed to be a criminal opinion.
The definition wording of religiously aggravated offences is quite easy to find if you are, in fact, genuinely interested and not just wanting to find something to argue about.
"Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides a definition of the term 'racially or religiously aggravated' for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 of the Act.
28(1) An offence is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if -
(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group; or
(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group.
28(2) In subsection (1)(a)-
membership,
in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;
presumed
means presumed by the offender.
28(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above whether or not the offender's hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.
28(4) In this section racial group means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
28(5) In this section religious group means a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief."
Pothole said:
Nothing is deemed to be a criminal opinion.
The definition wording of religiously aggravated offences is quite easy to find if you are, in fact, genuinely interested and not just wanting to find something to argue about.
"Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides a definition of the term 'racially or religiously aggravated' for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 of the Act.
28(1) An offence is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if -
(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group; or
(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group.
28(2) In subsection (1)(a)-
membership,
in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;
presumed
means presumed by the offender.
28(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above whether or not the offender's hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.
28(4) In this section racial group means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
28(5) In this section religious group means a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief."
No clarification there on what they perceive hostility to be. Very open and vague which is never a good thing when regards to the law. The definition wording of religiously aggravated offences is quite easy to find if you are, in fact, genuinely interested and not just wanting to find something to argue about.
"Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides a definition of the term 'racially or religiously aggravated' for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 of the Act.
28(1) An offence is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if -
(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group; or
(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group.
28(2) In subsection (1)(a)-
membership,
in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;
presumed
means presumed by the offender.
28(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above whether or not the offender's hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.
28(4) In this section racial group means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
28(5) In this section religious group means a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief."
No doubt someone saying "your fairytale is a load of s
t" to some could be seen as hostile. This is all about control, they have control with what you see to a certain extent in MSM they now want that in the new media.
Even in a strong field of candidates Alison Saunders must be one of the most useless people to head the CPS. Driven by her politically correct view of how the 'justice' system should work.
We're often told how under resourced the system is, now we're being told that slightly hurt feelings can get you criminalised regardless of intent, or whether the 'target' had a problem - a third party perceiving something as being the undefined 'hostile' is now enough.
Pretty much thought crime in action.
I also look forward to seeing how balanced they are in applying this new idea as I have a sneaky suspicion that hurtful speech from some people is seen as worse than the same thing from others.
We're often told how under resourced the system is, now we're being told that slightly hurt feelings can get you criminalised regardless of intent, or whether the 'target' had a problem - a third party perceiving something as being the undefined 'hostile' is now enough.
Pretty much thought crime in action.
I also look forward to seeing how balanced they are in applying this new idea as I have a sneaky suspicion that hurtful speech from some people is seen as worse than the same thing from others.
Not-The-Messiah said:
Pothole said:
Nothing is deemed to be a criminal opinion.
The definition wording of religiously aggravated offences is quite easy to find if you are, in fact, genuinely interested and not just wanting to find something to argue about.
"Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides a definition of the term 'racially or religiously aggravated' for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 of the Act.
28(1) An offence is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if -
(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group; or
(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group.
28(2) In subsection (1)(a)-
membership,
in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;
presumed
means presumed by the offender.
28(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above whether or not the offender's hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.
28(4) In this section racial group means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
28(5) In this section religious group means a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief."
No clarification there on what they perceive hostility to be. Very open and vague which is never a good thing when regards to the law. The definition wording of religiously aggravated offences is quite easy to find if you are, in fact, genuinely interested and not just wanting to find something to argue about.
"Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides a definition of the term 'racially or religiously aggravated' for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 of the Act.
28(1) An offence is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if -
(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group; or
(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group.
28(2) In subsection (1)(a)-
membership,
in relation to a racial or religious group, includes association with members of that group;
presumed
means presumed by the offender.
28(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above whether or not the offender's hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.
28(4) In this section racial group means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
28(5) In this section religious group means a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief."
No doubt someone saying "your fairytale is a load of s
t" to some could be seen as hostile. This is all about control, they have control with what you see to a certain extent in MSM they now want that in the new media.
MSM?
Jonesy23 said:
We're often told how under resourced the system is, now we're being told that slightly hurt feelings can get you criminalised regardless of intent, or whether the 'target' had a problem - a third party perceiving something as being the undefined 'hostile' is now enough.
.
That's the hardest bit to understand, you only have to look on twitter and someone somewhere will find offence with anything, the Daily Mail base a huge chunk of their articles on finding someone who is upset..
Type R Tom said:
Jonesy23 said:
We're often told how under resourced the system is, now we're being told that slightly hurt feelings can get you criminalised regardless of intent, or whether the 'target' had a problem - a third party perceiving something as being the undefined 'hostile' is now enough.
.
That's the hardest bit to understand, you only have to look on twitter and someone somewhere will find offence with anything, the Daily Mail base a huge chunk of their articles on finding someone who is upset..
Jonesy23 said:
Even in a strong field of candidates Alison Saunders must be one of the most useless people to head the CPS. Driven by her politically correct view of how the 'justice' system should work.
We're often told how under resourced the system is, now we're being told that slightly hurt feelings can get you criminalised regardless of intent, or whether the 'target' had a problem - a third party perceiving something as being the undefined 'hostile' is now enough.
Pretty much thought crime in action.
I also look forward to seeing how balanced they are in applying this new idea as I have a sneaky suspicion that hurtful speech from some people is seen as worse than the same thing from others.
Spot on. 110%!We're often told how under resourced the system is, now we're being told that slightly hurt feelings can get you criminalised regardless of intent, or whether the 'target' had a problem - a third party perceiving something as being the undefined 'hostile' is now enough.
Pretty much thought crime in action.
I also look forward to seeing how balanced they are in applying this new idea as I have a sneaky suspicion that hurtful speech from some people is seen as worse than the same thing from others.
BlackLabel said:
Just follow these simple rules and all will be fine. 
About the most ludicrous set of rules ever. 'Necessary'? That gets rid of most internet content, including every film or piece of music ever posted.And 'kind'? God help us. Presumably if it is kind, it cannot be 'hurtful'.
And, in considering whether your material is legal, you have to decide whether it is 'illegal'? Who are these idiots? (Oh dear, was that unkind?)
In principle I don't see why you should be able to say something with less of a penalty because you say it on the internet than because you say it to someone's face.
It's easy to point to edge cases where something seems to have gone wrong but I think we need to see where this one goes before making a judgement.
It's easy to point to edge cases where something seems to have gone wrong but I think we need to see where this one goes before making a judgement.
mac96 said:
Who are these idiots? (Oh dear, was that unkind?)
The kind of aholes that think it's clever to turn an appropriate/useful word into an acronym by assigning some random words to the letters.P - Politeness. Get down on the f
king floor you fking offensive nerd, you're fking nicked!O - Openness and honesty. Planting evidence is now as easy as hacking a social media account.
L - Life. The sentence you'll be looking at for offending someone on the internet.
I - Investors in the offended.
C - Crime In progress? Don't bother calling us, we're too busy prosecuting angry nerds.
E - Ethnic minority? Help us to criminalise people posting stupid things!
In case it needs to be said, this was a joke. I don't hate the police
voyds9 said:
BlackLabel said:
Just follow these simple rules and all will be fine.
Does it have to meet all these criteria or just oneMind you, on reflection, it only says you should think about these things. Doesn't say what they are telling you to do if you conclude it is hurtful etc.Why don't they just say 'don't post x y and z'? Even more stupid than it appeared at first reading.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff