Ofcom’s Investigation: Our Full Response and Position on UK Jurisdiction

[Skallagrim]

"Looking at someone" — that law clearly describes intimidating sexual harassment, which, given reporting numbers, is obviously an issue.
The only example I could find of someone being jailed was of someone who continued staring after being asked to stop and also intentionally trapping the victim by blocking her exit. Source

The law describes looking at someone, then applies the act of staring at someone as sexual harassment. Even if that makes someone uncomfortable, or even feel threatened it shouldn't cross the threshold for depriving someone of their freedom. That it is even spoken about at all by law enforcement is a pretty serious attack on liberty.

People in the UK have the right to remain silent — but "something you later rely on in court" which means omitting info which could've helped their defense like an albi.

So, as I clarified in a later post - you can stay silent, but the authorities can infer guilt from that and use it against you. By that standard, a lot of places have a "right" of silence. China, for example, gives you the right to refuse to answer questions that are not relevant to the case. But when the prosecutor can say "I think it is relevant" and use that against you, it's not really a "right" that you enjoy, is it?

I'm not sure why the method of counting votes is evidence of corruption

It's not, and I didn't say it was. It is evidence of an archaic administration model that is constructed around tradition and performance, not what actually works. The method of upgrading Britain's archaic ways of gentlemen's agreements, precedents, and stuff someone said in year dot is part of the problem.

There was originally the Magna Carta, on which modern diplomacy was based — there are still around four parts of that document which are used today. However, not having a constitution doesn't automatically equal corruption — it's just a different way of doing things, which has both pros and cons. Apparently, other countries' constitutions were only written because they had revolts and revolutions, and the UK didn't have one of those.

The revolts and revolutions were largely against British colonial rule. It's one of those interesting little facts that is rarely spoken about in the UK but one of the most common public holidays in the world, celebrated by around 60 countries, on average once a week somewhere, is independence from Britain. Magna Carta (a treaty between monarchs and the ruling class) was never sufficient.

The monarchy is generally ceremonial now, and they are still restricted by UK law, etc.

As the former attorney general of the UK said, which I have subsequently linked, the monarchy still has power that can be deployed (and political figures were requesting that very thing). It's not some random person on a forum saying that, it's a KC (King's Council). And, as I said, this power (the Royal Prerogative) is still used by UK politicians because it's very hard to properly oversee or oppose it. It's not a statute, and no vote is taken upon such powers.

 

[6138]

The law describes looking at someone, then applies the act of staring at someone as sexual harassment. Even if that makes someone uncomfortable, or even feel threatened it shouldn't cross the threshold for depriving someone of their freedom. That it is even spoken about at all by law enforcement is a pretty serious attack on liberty.

I think there's two ways you can look at this. On the one hand, "staring" at someone is innocent, you can look wherever you want, it's a free country, right? But on the other hand, there are also people who could abuse this by deliberately staring at a specific person despite being asked repeatedly to stop. That means that after a certain point, an innocent action like staring could in fact become harassment.

The question is: When does that point occur?

We live in a society gone mad, censorship and "cancel culture", etc, has created a society that is fixated on exaggerating the slightest of perceived grievances into outright hate crimes. However I do think that, generally speaking, the UK is a relatively sensible country. You're not going to get locked up for just innocently making eye contact with someone, something else must have happened here for this person to be jailed. If simple innocent staring could get you locked up then everyone in the country would be locked up.

Having said that, I do think the UK (and other countries) are going in a very negative direction regarding free speech, etc, and the recent issues with ofcom prove that.

However, that's not specific to the UK, this is an example of our society, and what is happening to it. Speech is being restricted everywhere, in the online space, in real life, our society has become sensitised and sanitised to the point that it is almost dystopian in nature.

As the former attorney general of the UK said, which I have subsequently linked, the monarchy still has power that can be deployed (and political figures were requesting that very thing). It's not some random person on a forum saying that, it's a KC (King's Council). And, as I said, this power (the Royal Prerogative) is still used by UK politicians because it's very hard to properly oversee or oppose it. It's not a statute, and no vote is taken upon such powers.

There's a big difference between CAN be deployed, and WILL be deployed. It may be true that there are some laws "on the books" that allow the monarchy to have some power, but if the monarchy actually tried to pass laws and control peoples lives, replace the rule of law in the country, repeal civil rights advancements, etc, they would probably just be laughed at. They have no actual "power" in the conventional sense, just a respect for tradition and ceremony.

 

[voc_89]

its all coming to a head. As it always was going to. First they came for the catch the bus people. Then the gooners (VISA, Maastercard against Steam). Now Youtube is looking at censorship as well. We always knew this was going to happen. We tried to stand up. But it was like shouting into the void as we were labelled as pro-CTB. While, in fact, the reason many of us who on this site are still here to date is because of the people on this site. At my lowest u guys stood by me. With no afirmation bs. But with genuine care. I would not be here if it wasn't for u guys. But no, no one believes that. All we do is push for CTB. We always the bad guys because we see what things are (that life is bs). But no one I ever interacted with on this site told me to CTB. They always were. Man. I hear you. My experience was so and so. So I get it. Whatever u do is your choice. I am here to talk whenever. The love the people on this site have for each other is unlike anything u will meet out there. But they just grouped us all as bad players because they don't like that our existence shakes the norm. Now they (the normies) showing their true faces and banning or policing everything on the internet they don't like. If only people stood with us. This would never have happened

 

[dweams]

I really hope the U.S. pushes back on this hard.

 

[GhostInTheMachine]

I think there's two ways you can look at this. On the one hand, "staring" at someone is innocent, you can look wherever you want, it's a free country, right? But on the other hand, there are also people who could abuse this by deliberately staring at a specific person despite being asked repeatedly to stop. That means that after a certain point, an innocent action like staring could in fact become harassment.

The question is: When does that point occur?

People have really gotten comfortable with thinking that you have a right to stare at somebody, and not get your shit rocked for it. If your eyesight happens to sweep by me, that's one thing (not staring). If they're fixed on me for a period of time, that's another (staring). When that period of time becomes prolonged, that's yet another (visual harassment). A lot of people don't like being stared at, and it's nobody's right to do so. Quite frankly, you do that shit in the wrong hood, and you're getting fucked up.

We live in a society gone mad, censorship and "cancel culture", etc, has created a society that is fixated on exaggerating the slightest of perceived grievances into outright hate crimes. However I do think that, generally speaking, the UK is a relatively sensible country. You're not going to get locked up for just innocently making eye contact with someone, something else must have happened here for this person to be jailed. If simple innocent staring could get you locked up then everyone in the country would be locked up.

Exactly this, a lot of grifters will take the nuance out of a situation and pretend as if society has gone off the deep end, when it's usually a select few annoying people making it a pain for everybody else. Nobody is getting jailed for their eyes having people in their field of view. They're getting jailed for being fucking creeps, as they should.

Having said that, I do think the UK (and other countries) are going in a very negative direction regarding free speech, etc, and the recent issues with ofcom prove that.

However, that's not specific to the UK, this is an example of our society, and what is happening to it. Speech is being restricted everywhere, in the online space, in real life, our society has become sensitised and sanitised to the point that it is almost dystopian in nature.

It depends what you mean by "restricted". Here in the US, people are more than free to use slurs as they so choose, but they're not free from greater society wanting nothing to do with them. I can't speak for the UK, but the view from across the pond is that Brits are much more authoritarian with their speech laws, and that's likely a result from not having any free speech clauses codified within their legislation. I personally would not desire to live under such a system, but I do beg the question of what good "free speech" is when it allows some of the worst filth on the planet to gain popularity because they're free to spread lies and hatred?

I'm generally all for it, especially in matters of personal expression, protection from government persecution, freedom of association, and especially freedom of protest. However, there's a blurry line between you expressing yourself and you purposely cultivating a dangerous environment for others, especially marginalized peoples. An extreme take of mine is that lying on a mass scale should be illegal and punishable at the very least by a fine. Yet, does that now mean we require a Ministry of Truth?

 

[whywere]

I really hope the U.S. pushes back on this hard.

I am in the U.S., and I am happy not being censored, and YES, I 100% agree that I hope for once that orange face can actually do something good and tell the UK Prime Minister to back off of free speech.

Everyone should be able to talk to one another without "big brother" looking over one's shoulder ever.

Walter

 

[alwaysalone]

I find it highly ironic and frankly hypocritical that most here hate POTUS and constantly disparage and disrespect him but now you want to hide behind his words, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Where are all those claiming America is horrible??? What happened to all those who constantly talk shit about the U.S A.? Hahaha the uk is great Americans are leaving by the droves to go there because it has more freedom. Hmmmm.....

 

[whywere]

I find it highly ironic and frankly hypocritical that most here hate POTUS and constantly disparage and disrespect him but now you want to hide behind his words. Hahaha

Overall, I am in the U.S., and I did NOT vote for orange face, but anyone who wants to run for the highest office in the land and cannot keep his manhood when he is married, in his pants does NOT get my vote ever, as this alone shows what he is capable or uncapable of doing, YUCK!

Along with his big, beautiful bill that gave tax breaks to the ultra-rich while taking Medicaid away from the poor, just horrible, but when one lives in an ultra rich bubble what does one except I guess?!

Walter

 

[alwaysalone]

Here's the situation: On 8 April 2025, we received a formal letter from the UK communications regulator, Ofcom, informing us that they had officially opened an investigation into Sanctioned-Suicide.net under the UK's Online Safety Act 2023. While we typically do not comment on regulatory interactions, we feel it is necessary to inform the community of what is happening and how we are responding.

Timeline of Events & Our Response

Let's walk through the sequence that led to this point, so the situation is fully understood:

• March 3, 2025: Ofcom issued a legally binding information request under the Act, demanding a copy of our illegal content risk assessment by March 31. We responded and requested an extension, which they granted.
• March 27–April 1, 2025: We exchanged multiple emails with Ofcom. In these, we clearly stated that we do not operate in the UK, do not target UK users, and are not subject to UK law. We emphasized our platform is U.S.-based, with no infrastructure, operations, or revenue connected to the United Kingdom.
• April 1, 2025: Ofcom insisted that our site is still "capable of being used in the UK" and therefore within their scope, despite most UK ISPs already blocking access to us at the behest of the UK government. They also claimed that our platform posed a "material risk of significant harm" to UK users, though they failed to provide any concrete data or evidence to support this claim.
• April 4, 2025: We formally replied, reiterating that we would not comply with further requests and that their claims of jurisdiction were invalid. We requested they withdraw the information notice.
• April 7, 2025: They responded again, repeating their earlier assertions and pushing for compliance before the final deadline. We did not submit the requested material, and on April 8, 2025, they formally announced the investigation.

Ofcom's Allegations

In their opening letter, Ofcom claims we may have failed to comply with the following obligations under the Online Safety Act:

• Section 9: Conducting and keeping records of an "illegal content risk assessment"
• Section 10: Taking proactive safety measures to mitigate harm from "priority illegal content"
• Sections 20 & 21: Providing clear reporting and complaint mechanisms
• Section 23: Maintaining adequate documentation
• Section 102(8): Responding to an information notice

Their justification for opening this investigation is their belief that some UK residents may still be able to access the site, despite ISP-level blocks, and that content on the platform may present a risk of harm to those users.

Our Legal Position: No Jurisdiction

We have made it absolutely clear to Ofcom: Sanctioned-Suicide.net is not within the scope of UK law. Their continued insistence on jurisdiction is legally indefensible and raises serious concerns about regulatory overreach. To clarify:

• We are a U.S.-based platform. We have no offices, infrastructure, or staff in the UK.
• We are not commercially active in the UK. We generate no revenue from UK users and do not advertise or market our services there.
• Access from the UK is already severely restricted, with most major UK ISPs blocking access due to political pressure.
• We do not "target" the UK under any meaningful interpretation of the law.

Their standard—that a site being "capable of being accessed in the UK" constitutes a jurisdictional link—is dangerously broad. Under that logic, any site on the global internet could fall under Ofcom's purview, regardless of whether it targets the UK or not. This is not only unsustainable—it flies in the face of international legal norms and principles of digital sovereignty.

Selective Enforcement and Inconsistent Standards

We also question the proportionality and focus of Ofcom's actions.

There are numerous social media platforms operating within the UK and profiting from UK users that host massive volumes of self-harm or suicide-related content—often algorithmically recommended. These services are not subject to the same degree of scrutiny or threat of enforcement, despite their real-world influence and scale.

Meanwhile, Sanctioned-Suicide.net is a non-commercial, volunteer-run discussion platform with strict moderation rules against explicitly unlawful content. We do not profit from user activity, and we do not tolerate content that encourages or incites illegal acts. Yet we are being singled out for enforcement based on the premise that some UK residents may be circumventing government restrictions to access our site.

U.S. Law and Executive Order 14149

We have also pointed out to Ofcom that their actions may conflict with U.S. national policy.

In Executive Order 14149, issued by President Donald J. Trump, the United States declared:



This means we are legally and constitutionally obligated to resist foreign attempts to suppress protected speech originating from U.S. soil. If Ofcom proceeds with threats of fines or attempts to pressure U.S.-based service providers to deplatform us or block our infrastructure, we will refer this matter to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, as well as Congressional oversight committees for diplomatic escalation and possible retaliatory trade actions.

Where We Stand

• We will not be submitting any internal documentation to Ofcom.
• We reject the assertion that the Online Safety Act applies to our platform.
• We will continue to moderate our site based on our own standards, not foreign laws we are not subject to.
• We have filed a formal procedural complaintunder Section 9 of Ofcom's Online Safety Enforcement Guidance regarding:
  • Their baseless jurisdictional claim
  • Their failure to provide supporting evidence
  • Their use of intimidation tactics
  • Their selective enforcement
  • Their lack of transparency in cross-border regulatory matters

Final Word

We are committed to maintaining an open platform for discussion, subject to our own moderation standards and the laws that apply to us here in the United States.

We will not kowtow to foreign governments attempting to regulate American speech beyond their borders. The principles of digital sovereignty, free expression, and jurisdictional restraint matter—and we will defend them.

If Ofcom or the UK government escalates this further, we are prepared to meet the challenge head-on.

Ironic you choose to hide behind the president when it suits you. But blather constantly about how great the uk is. LOL

Overall, I am in the U.S., and I did NOT vote for orange face, but anyone who wants to run for the highest office in the land and cannot keep his manhood when he is married, in his pants does NOT get my vote ever, as this alone shows what he is capable or uncapable of doing, YUCK!

Along with his big, beautiful bill that gave tax breaks to the ultra-rich while taking Medicaid away from the poor, just horrible, but when one lives in an ultra rich bubble what does one except I guess?!

Walter

Guess you wouldn't have voted for jfk then or slick willy or obama??? Yet people still want to benefit from what he does when it suits them. Hypocrites at their finest.

 

[whywere]

Ironic you choose to hide behind the president when it suits you. But blather constantly about how great the uk is. LOL

Guess you wouldn't have voted for jfk then or slick willy or obama??? Yet people still want to benefit from what he does when it suits them. Hypocrites at their finest.

Nor Nixon (Scumbag, only one to resign the office) nor either Bush.

The U.S. taxpayers are picking up his bill while in Scotland opening up a new golf course. Orange face is ALL about himself, he would throw anyone and everyone under the bus.

What about giving tax breaks to the ultra-rich while taking away any help for the WORKING poor!

Orange face is THE most self-centered, narcissistic, GREEDY, the list goes on, OH and Epstein's BIG FRIEND! YIKES!

Yes, a lot of folks who run for a higher office have baggage, BUT orange face is ranked the 7th worst president by historians, go figure. In the 20th century, Hoover #9 Harding#8 and orange face # 7. NOT JFK, NOT Clinton, NOT Obama, none of these presidents made the list but orange face did, look it up!!!

Walter

After this, I will NOT talk any more about orange face, as it is a waste of time, like he is a waste period.

 

[alwaysalone]

Pffft I am the working poor he's taken nothing from me uncle Joey Obama slick willy or any other president hasn't taken. To act like he's so much worse is ridiculous. People want to act like he's the damn devil. You want to blame someone blame Roosevelt

 

[6138]

People have really gotten comfortable with thinking that you have a right to stare at somebody, and not get your shit rocked for it. If your eyesight happens to sweep by me, that's one thing (not staring). If they're fixed on me for a period of time, that's another (staring). When that period of time becomes prolonged, that's yet another (visual harassment). A lot of people don't like being stared at, and it's nobody's right to do so. Quite frankly, you do that shit in the wrong hood, and you're getting fucked up.

I get what you're saying, but the idea of "visual harassment" is... honestly, kind of nonsense. I get that staring at someone deliberately can be intimidating, and I wouldn't like it to happen to me either, but to criminalise the direction in which a person is looking is just a step too far. I mean say you're not staring at them, you're admiring the monument behind them, but they think you're staring? How do you prove that? Do you need to hire a lawyer for that? Our society has just become obsessed with this "woke" culture movement now.
I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, but if all a person is doing is staring... that's really not "visual harassment". If the person is following them around, stalking them, etc, etc, that's different. But it's a free country, you can look at someone if you want to.
But like you said, if you piss someone off by staring, that person is well within their rights to have a go at you. As you said, staring at someone in the wrong "hood" is going to very quickly get you a punch in the face.

Exactly this, a lot of grifters will take the nuance out of a situation and pretend as if society has gone off the deep end, when it's usually a select few annoying people making it a pain for everybody else. Nobody is getting jailed for their eyes having people in their field of view. They're getting jailed for being fucking creeps, as they should.

Correct. I have no issue with creeps going to jail, but what you said about "visual harassment" is worrying. You're basically talking about criminalising where a person can look, which is nonsense. You can stare at people in public all you want. It might make you an ass, but it's not illegal. It's like people who are constantly going around filming everything on their phones and putting it online. I HATE that, I can't stand that, and I don't want to be in the background of some wannabe youtubers video, but the fact is, they can film in a public place, that's just the way it is. If they're following a particular person, and targeting them, following them home, watching them outside their work, etc, that's harassment, but simply filming in a public place isn't.

It depends what you mean by "restricted". Here in the US, people are more than free to use slurs as they so choose, but they're not free from greater society wanting nothing to do with them. I can't speak for the UK, but the view from across the pond is that Brits are much more authoritarian with their speech laws, and that's likely a result from not having any free speech clauses codified within their legislation. I personally would not desire to live under such a system, but I do beg the question of what good "free speech" is when it allows some of the worst filth on the planet to gain popularity because they're free to spread lies and hatred?

I'm generally all for it, especially in matters of personal expression, protection from government persecution, freedom of association, and especially freedom of protest. However, there's a blurry line between you expressing yourself and you purposely cultivating a dangerous environment for others, especially marginalized peoples. An extreme take of mine is that lying on a mass scale should be illegal and punishable at the very least by a fine. Yet, does that now mean we require a Ministry of Truth?

You are, as far as I know, absolutely correct. As far as I am aware there is no "right" of freedom of speech in the UK. That doesn't mean freedom of speech doesn't exist, or that the country is some kind of authoritatian dictatorship, it's not, just that the protections on freedom of speech are less than in the US.

There has to be a balance here. Freedom of speech is important, but do you want a society where Nazi's, homophobic people, racists, etc, are free to spread their hatred? Of course not, there has to be some restrictions. But likewise, do we really want to live in a society where you can be sent to prison for posting rap lyrics on facebook? Or misgendering someone on twitter? Or, as we discussed, "staring" at someone in public?

I mean, what's the point in silencing hate groups and offensive speech if you're also silencing freedom of expression? No art, no music, no books, no tv shows or films, just bland, monotonous "safe", politically correct content?

It's about striking a balance between individual freedom and social responsibility.

 

[GhostInTheMachine]

I get what you're saying, but the idea of "visual harassment" is... honestly, kind of nonsense. I get that staring at someone deliberately can be intimidating, and I wouldn't like it to happen to me either, but to criminalise the direction in which a person is looking is just a step too far. I mean say you're not staring at them, you're admiring the monument behind them, but they think you're staring? How do you prove that? Do you need to hire a lawyer for that? Our society has just become obsessed with this "woke" culture movement now.
I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, but if all a person is doing is staring... that's really not "visual harassment". If the person is following them around, stalking them, etc, etc, that's different. But it's a free country, you can look at someone if you want to.
But like you said, if you piss someone off by staring, that person is well within their rights to have a go at you. As you said, staring at someone in the wrong "hood" is going to very quickly get you a punch in the face.

You've either clearly not understood the distinctions I made in my post, or you are being deliberately obtuse. Please reread it because visual harassment isn't just an "oopsie daisy" of the direction you are looking. I have no idea why you're bringing up "woke" when I'm basically saying that if you refuse to take your eyes off of me, I'm knocking the lights out of you. It's not rocket science to tell when somebody is refusing to stop looking at you. The case Dot brought up clearly stated that the accused actively refused to avert his gaze.

Correct. I have no issue with creeps going to jail, but what you said about "visual harassment" is worrying. You're basically talking about criminalising where a person can look, which is nonsense. You can stare at people in public all you want. It might make you an ass, but it's not illegal. It's like people who are constantly going around filming everything on their phones and putting it online. I HATE that, I can't stand that, and I don't want to be in the background of some wannabe youtubers video, but the fact is, they can film in a public place, that's just the way it is. If they're following a particular person, and targeting them, following them home, watching them outside their work, etc, that's harassment, but simply filming in a public place isn't.

Again, you're not understanding the distinctions I made, or you are being deliberately obtuse. There's a difference between me happening to be in your field of view, and you locking your eyes onto me. If I ask you to cut it out, and you still refuse, that is textbook harassment. So, would you rather I kick your ass over it, or get a fine from the courts? Either way, it's a social faux pas that ought to be punished. I would apply this exact same principal to retarded YouTubers going around "pranking" or maliciously filming people. You can film in a public place, you can look at public things, you CAN'T lock your eyes and cameras on specific people and expect that people or the law shouldn't punish you for it.

There has to be a balance here. Freedom of speech is important, but do you want a society where Nazi's, homophobic people, racists, etc, are free to spread their hatred? Of course not, there has to be some restrictions. But likewise, do we really want to live in a society where you can be sent to prison for posting rap lyrics on facebook? Or misgendering someone on twitter? Or, as we discussed, "staring" at someone in public?

That you keep putting "staring" in quotes expresses to me that you are trying to tacitly argue that it's some innocent thing people just happen to do by accident all the time. If this is what you genuinely think, I seriously recommend you recalibrate your social radar. For a third time now, I've made very clear distinctions as to the severity of one's gaze on somebody. As for getting jailed for rap lyrics and misgendering, in the US we've already protected lyrics under the clauses of freedom of speech (Thank you NWA). Misgendering somebody actively and maliciously is not illegal, but don't expect to keep your job if unless you live in a bigoted town. Staring at people to the point of it becoming visual harassment will get your ass whooped.

I am more or less fine with the status quo at the moment, but I personally would advocate stronger legal punishments for harassment (misgendering and staring). Frankly, while being a dick is fine, locking that on to a single person ought to be a crime.

I mean, what's the point in silencing hate groups and offensive speech if you're also silencing freedom of expression? No art, no music, no books, no tv shows or films, just bland, monotonous "safe", politically correct content?

I don't see why freedom of expression has to go completely out the window because we silenced hate groups. If you really can't see the difference between somebody being openly queer, and somebody else calling for the deaths of said queer people, you are beyond reaching in this matter. You can have edgy art that pushes social boundaries without that edge being directed at a specific group of people. Most art is already like this, and to lack that understanding is bordering on dogwhistling.

 

[6138]

You've either clearly not understood the distinctions I made in my post, or you are being deliberately obtuse. Please reread it because visual harassment isn't just an "oopsie daisy" of the direction you are looking. I have no idea why you're bringing up "woke" when I'm basically saying that if you refuse to take your eyes off of me, I'm knocking the lights out of you. It's not rocket science to tell when somebody is refusing to stop looking at you. The case Dot brought up clearly stated that the accused actively refused to avert his gaze.

I do understand the distinctions you are making, but you have to understand that you cannot criminalise something that is a human right. Even if someone is staring at you deliberately, that's still not illegal. They have a right to look in any direction they want. If you assault someone for looking at you, that would be illegal (justified, probably, but still illegal).
Again, it's like people filming with their camera phones, people don't like them doing it, but you can't really stop them, it's a public place. There are lots of things people do that they shouldn't do, we can't criminalise everything.
Like I said, if they are stalking someone, in addition to staring at them, that's different, but just staring by itself shouldn't be illegal.

If I ask you to cut it out, and you still refuse, that is textbook harassment. So, would you rather I kick your ass over it, or get a fine from the courts?

I'm not sure if it is. It's being an ass, I don't know if it's enough to be illegal. Assaulting someone for looking at you would be seen in most cases as illegal though, because you used force where it wasn't justified.

It's a social faux pas, yes, but are we going to punish people for that? If so, you're going to need to lock up a LOT of people.

I would agree that the same principal applies to youtubers pranking people, but that's not illegal either, for the same reason. That's my point.

or a third time now, I've made very clear distinctions as to the severity of one's gaze on somebody. As for getting jailed for rap lyrics and misgendering, in the US we've already protected lyrics under the clauses of freedom of speech (Thank you NWA). Misgendering somebody actively and maliciously is not illegal, but don't expect to keep your job if unless you live in a bigoted town. Staring at people to the point of it becoming visual harassment will get your ass whooped.

In the US yes, but not the UK. We're talking about the UK, where this kind of thing can happen.

It might well get your ass whooped, but we're not talking about social consequences, we're talking about legal ones. If you stare at someone and they punch you, a lot of people would think "fair enough", but should we pass laws that criminalise staring? What are the unintended consequences of that? How could that law be misused? Can you see how that would be draconian for a society to criminalise that behaviour?

I am more or less fine with the status quo at the moment, but I personally would advocate stronger legal punishments for harassment (misgendering and staring). Frankly, while being a dick is fine, locking that on to a single person ought to be a crime.

I would absolutely disagree. Those things should not be illegal, and this is what I meant by "woke" culture. Things that should be within the realm of freedom of speech are being politicised. If you choose to use the wrong gender pronoun and get fired, etc, that's one thing, but it shouldn't be against the law of the state.
Likewise, if you publish a book and get into trouble for it, fair enough, but if you publish a book and get sent to prison, that's wrong.
I'm not advocating for a "consequence free" society (Like you said, if someone gets their ass whooped for staring, that's a consequence, and it's fair enough) but I don't think the state should restrict the direction people can look in, that's nonsense.

I don't see why freedom of expression has to go completely out the window because we silenced hate groups. If you really can't see the difference between somebody being openly queer, and somebody else calling for the deaths of said queer people, you are beyond reaching in this matter.

I never said that at all. I said that our society is moving in the direction of more and more extreme censorship. And, you just proved this. You just said you would support legal punishments for misgendering and staring at people. That's not "calling for the deaths of queer people", is it? It's substantially less serious than that, and yet you think it should be a crime?

You're creating a false equivalence here, I am not defending bigotry or calling for the deaths of people, I am defending the right of individuals to do things that others don't like.

You can have edgy art that pushes social boundaries without that edge being directed at a specific group of people. Most art is already like this, and to lack that understanding is bordering on dogwhistling.

I'm not advocating for any art that targets groups of people, but you cannot be free to create any kind of art in a society that doesn't have freedom of speech to a sufficient standard.
Today, I don't think our society has that freedom of speech.

 

[Dot]

Am nt sre Y sch a bg deal = b-ing mde abt 'starng b-ing illegl' whn th/ contxt of th/ cse ws qute obvsly intendd intimdatn & harrssmnt as wll as physclly blockng an inncnt persn ext frm a train

No1 ws arrestd fr jst 'lookng @ sme1'

 

[6138]

Am nt sre Y sch a bg deal = b-ing mde abt 'starng b-ing illegl' whn th/ contxt of th/ cse ws qute obvsly intendd intimdatn & harrssmnt as wll as physclly blockng an inncnt persn ext frm a train

No1 ws arrestd fr jst 'lookng @ sme1'

Yes, that's right. Like I said, there was more to this case than "just staring at someone". That's what I said initially, that there must have been more to it, and there was.

But I and another user were discussing a situation where staring, by itself, would be made illegal. That's not what happened here.

 

[GhostInTheMachine]

I do understand the distinctions you are making, but you have to understand that you cannot criminalise something that is a human right. Even if someone is staring at you deliberately, that's still not illegal. They have a right to look in any direction they want. If you assault someone for looking at you, that would be illegal (justified, probably, but still illegal).

So you're choosing to be obtuse then, because harassing people with your constant staring is not a "human right". It is merely not a crime yet, and as the case Dot brought up shows, there is a line that makes it a crime which wasn't just the man blocking her exit.

Again, it's like people filming with their camera phones, people don't like them doing it, but you can't really stop them, it's a public place. There are lots of things people do that they shouldn't do, we can't criminalise everything.
Like I said, if they are stalking someone, in addition to staring at them, that's different, but just staring by itself shouldn't be illegal.

More obtuseness, you keep downplaying targeted staring to the point of harassment as "oopsie daisy, I'm looking at you too long". Also, there are laws even in the US against filming people without their consent, so you analogy there fails.

I'm not sure if it is. It's being an ass, I don't know if it's enough to be illegal. Assaulting someone for looking at you would be seen in most cases as illegal though, because you used force where it wasn't justified.

Just because something isn't prosecuted as harassment does not mean that it isn't harassment. It merely means that law hasn't caught up.

It's a social faux pas, yes, but are we going to punish people for that? If so, you're going to need to lock up a LOT of people.

Yes, and good, fuck those people. If you really have this hard of a time respecting that people do not want to be stared at, or filmed maliciously, you should be locked up too.

I would agree that the same principal applies to youtubers pranking people, but that's not illegal either, for the same reason. That's my point.

There are already cases where "pranksters" have been convicted of their pranks, and even assaulted and the assailant was let free. Your point fails.

In the US yes, but not the UK. We're talking about the UK, where this kind of thing can happen.

It might well get your ass whooped, but we're not talking about social consequences, we're talking about legal ones. If you stare at someone and they punch you, a lot of people would think "fair enough", but should we pass laws that criminalise staring? What are the unintended consequences of that? How could that law be misused? Can you see how that would be draconian for a society to criminalise that behaviour?

Legal consequences follow social ones, so yes we should criminalize people who otherwise would get their ass kicked because they don't understand "no means no". You fears of a "draconian" application ring hollow when the current situation is these creeps have free reign and plausible deniability to harass others because the law won't do anything about them.

I would absolutely disagree. Those things should not be illegal, and this is what I meant by "woke" culture. Things that should be within the realm of freedom of speech are being politicised. If you choose to use the wrong gender pronoun and get fired, etc, that's one thing, but it shouldn't be against the law of the state.
Likewise, if you publish a book and get into trouble for it, fair enough, but if you publish a book and get sent to prison, that's wrong.
I'm not advocating for a "consequence free" society (Like you said, if someone gets their ass whooped for staring, that's a consequence, and it's fair enough) but I don't think the state should restrict the direction people can look in, that's nonsense.

This level of being obtuse is insane. Nobody is going to jail your for using the wrong pronoun and writing a controversial book. What you'll be jailed for is constantly harassing trans people with deadnaming/misgendering, or writing manifestos that directly call for violence upon others. What you'll be jailed for is actively refusing to stop looking at women who don't want to be looked at. Quite simply, if that is the freedom you desire, fuck your freedom.

I never said that at all. I said that our society is moving in the direction of more and more extreme censorship. And, you just proved this. You just said you would support legal punishments for misgendering and staring at people. That's not "calling for the deaths of queer people", is it? It's substantially less serious than that, and yet you think it should be a crime?

Yes absolutely, and if you stop being obtuse you would have already pegged that I'm not advocating for somebody going to jail for accidentally slipping with a trans person's identity, or having their eyes sweep by others. At every step you have deliberately tried to paint a position nobody is holding. If you keep going out of your way to disrespect the identity of trans people, or lock your gaze onto others, then yes, you should be punished by law. None of this is hard to avoid, but you keep acting as if most people would be locked up for "accidental gaze".

You're creating a false equivalence here, I am not defending bigotry or calling for the deaths of people, I am defending the right of individuals to do things that others don't like.

You literally did when you said "what's the point in silencing hate groups and offensive speech if you're also silencing freedom of expression?" That's a baby out with the bathwater argument, and the alternative is to allow hatred to hide behind "freedom of expression". Otherwise, like you said earlier, there is a balance to be struck and I don't think telling absolute fucking weirdos to not stare at women on the train is throwing off that balance.

 

[6138]

So you're choosing to be obtuse then, because harassing people with your constant staring is not a "human right". It is merely not a crime yet, and as the case Dot brought up shows, there is a line that makes it a crime which wasn't just the man blocking her exit.

No, I'm not choosing to be obtuse, I explained my points reasonably well I thought. I think you're advocating for a very dangerous society, I don't know if you know that.

More obtuseness, you keep downplaying targeted staring to the point of harassment as "oopsie daisy, I'm looking at you too long". Also, there are laws even in the US against filming people without their consent, so you analogy there fails.

I didn't downplay anything, I specifically said it wasn't acceptable, just that it shouldn't be illegal. Lots of things in society are unacceptable and still legal. Cheating on your partner, insulting someone, waking someone up at 3 in the morning because you're walking home drunk, etc. You can't ban everything.

Just because something isn't prosecuted as harassment does not mean that it isn't harassment. It merely means that law hasn't caught up.

Yes, and good, fuck those people. If you really have this hard of a time respecting that people do not want to be stared at, or filmed maliciously, you should be locked up too.

I should be locked up too? You sound like a very unstable and angry person, I feel sorry for you. You really want to literally "lock up" anyone who looks at you funny? I mean that used to be a joke, now it's real...

There are already cases where "pranksters" have been convicted of their pranks, and even assaulted and the assailant was let free. Your point fails.

In specific cases, yes, but it's still legal to film in public.

Legal consequences follow social ones, so yes we should criminalize people who otherwise would get their ass kicked because they don't understand "no means no". You fears of a "draconian" application ring hollow when the current situation is these creeps have free reign and plausible deniability to harass others because the law won't do anything about them.

Yeah, I think you're intentionally exagerating and create false arguments. Maybe something of a victim complex?

This level of being obtuse is insane. Nobody is going to jail your for using the wrong pronoun and writing a controversial book. What you'll be jailed for is constantly harassing trans people with deadnaming/misgendering, or writing manifestos that directly call for violence upon others. What you'll be jailed for is actively refusing to stop looking at women who don't want to be looked at. Quite simply, if that is the freedom you desire, fuck your freedom.

I didn't think it was possible, but you have actually contradicted yourself within the same paragraph! I think that's some kind of record...
You said "nobody is going to jail you for using the wrong pronoun" and then you also said "What you'll be jailed for is harassing trans people with deadnaming/misgendering". Isn't using the wrong pronoun misgendering?
You are clearly one of these angry, bigoted, snowflake types who want to take away peoples rights if they even look at you funny. You even said "fuck your freedom". You are unapologetically trying to create a police state where the only people allowed to participate follow your rules.

If ever there was any doubt as to why woke culture is undemocratic and toxic, it would be this post. Thank you for proving everything that I already know to be true.

Yes absolutely, and if you stop being obtuse you would have already pegged that I'm not advocating for somebody going to jail for accidentally slipping with a trans person's identity, or having their eyes sweep by others. At every step you have deliberately tried to paint a position nobody is holding. If you keep going out of your way to disrespect the identity of trans people, or lock your gaze onto others, then yes, you should be punished by law. None of this is hard to avoid, but you keep acting as if most people would be locked up for "accidental gaze".

I never said anyone should go to jail for an "accidental gaze" I was not "being obtuse", I just think you are advocating for a police state, you want people to go to jail for "staring" and for "using the wrong pronoun" and for "deadnaming" and for "misgendering", what else should be illegal?

You literally did when you said "what's the point in silencing hate groups and offensive speech if you're also silencing freedom of expression?" That's a baby out with the bathwater argument, and the alternative is to allow hatred to hide behind "freedom of expression". Otherwise, like you said earlier, there is a balance to be struck and I don't think telling absolute fucking weirdos to not stare at women on the train is throwing off that balance.

The only person advocating hate here is you. I really, really, hope the society you are trying to build never happens. I worry that it will, and, as we've seen in this thread, it is happening, but I hope it doesn't go any futher.

 

[GhostInTheMachine]

I didn't think it was possible, but you have actually contradicted yourself within the same paragraph! I think that's some kind of record...
You said "nobody is going to jail you for using the wrong pronoun" and then you also said "What you'll be jailed for is harassing trans people with deadnaming/misgendering". Isn't using the wrong pronoun misgendering?
You are clearly one of these angry, bigoted, snowflake types who want to take away peoples rights if they even look at you funny. You even said "fuck your freedom". You are unapologetically trying to create a police state where the only people allowed to participate follow your rules.

As the rest of your post had no substance I'll reply to only this. There is no contradiction, you're just continuing to be obtuse. You refuse to see the line between something that can happen by accident (person in your eyesight, using the wrong pronoun) and deliberately being a dickhead to the point of emotional assault (willfully misgendering/deadnaming and prolonged staring). You can cry "snowflake" and "muh woke" all you want, but the point remains. That you are trying to have this song and dance tells me that you're willing to cry "woke" at even the slightest social pushback. Yes, fuck your freedoms. You're clearly unequipped to use them responsibly if these lines are too much for you.

 

[6138]

As the rest of your post had no substance I'll reply to only this. There is no contradiction, you're just continuing to be obtuse. You refuse to see the line between something that can happen by accident (person in your eyesight, using the wrong pronoun) and deliberately being a dickhead to the point of emotional assault (willfully misgendering/deadnaming and prolonged staring). You can cry "snowflake" and "muh woke" all you want, but the point remains. That you are trying to have this song and dance tells me that you're willing to cry "woke" at even the slightest social pushback. Yes, fuck your freedoms. You're clearly unequipped to use them responsibly if these lines are too much for you.

Yeah, I'm done with this conversation too, thank you for not continuing it. I disagree that my post had no substance, but I would like this argument to end here before it gets worse.

I am not continuing to be obtuse, I am simply disagreeing with you. I see the line between something that happens by accident and something that is deliberate, however I do not believe that "visual harassment" and "emotional assault" should be criminal offenses. In fact, these terms are not even real, they are made up. "Emotional assault" is simply "having an argument" or even "disagreeing" with someone. "Visual harassment" is simply "staring while being asked to stop". You are creating politicised phrases in order to use them as weapons against the rights of others. Speech should never land someone in jail unless they are threating to kill someone, inciting violence, etc. "Emotional assault" is a nonsense term. You can't "assault" someone with words, at least not legally.

I think that people who view the world in the way that you do are deliberately trying to use "victim language" to legislate your views (IE, misgendering is "emotional assault" when a correct term is simply "being rude").

The reason why I used the word "snowflake" is because that's exactly what this is. You are suggesting criminalising simple rudeness and impolite behaviour because it offends you. You have to understand that not everyone is going to do what you want them to do. That's not how life works. There are people out there who will always strongly disagree with you. They may not want to use your pronouns, and they have a right not to.

I am an animal lover, I never eat meat, or fish. Does that mean I want to criminalise eating meat? Of course not, because I live in a democracy. If someone wants to eat meat, they have every right to. Not everyone sees things your way, and they still have a right to live and participate fully in our society. There are many, many things that people do that offend me, but I have no choice but to put up with it, because other people have the right to live their lives as they choose, even if I disagree with it.

Finally, I would like to point out that throughout this argument you have made several references to violence ("whoop your ass", etc) and you have repeatedly disrespected the core values of a democratic society ("you should be in jail" "fuck your freedoms", etc). While I appreciate that you did not insult me or threaten violence against me personally, you are clearly a very angry and toxic person who is advocating for a society in which freedom should apply only to you, and not to others.

I can only hope that you aren't like this in real life, because if you are, you are either a danger to the public, or to yourself (other people might not like you threating to assault them, they might decide to "whoop your ass" instead.).

This is consistent with what I have seen from others with your "political outlook". You claim to be all about respect and equality for all, but you're not. This is what are really about. You either agree with me, or "fuck your freedoms, straight to jail!".

You said it best yourself:

"Yes, fuck your freedoms. You're clearly unequipped to use them responsibly if these lines are too much for you"

Meaning the only people who should be granted freedom are the people who live their lives according to your rules. You are trying to legislate your views into law, just like all those religious groups who try to ban abortion, ban gay marriage, etc. They have their view of the world and they are trying to force everyone to live their lives that way. That's not how democracy works.

The world you are building is not a world that I would want to live in.

 

[brokenspirited]

You are, as far as I know, absolutely correct. As far as I am aware there is no "right" of freedom of speech in the UK. That doesn't mean freedom of speech doesn't exist, or that the country is some kind of authoritatian dictatorship, it's not, just that the protections on freedom of speech are less than in the US.

Police make 30 arrests a day for offensive online messages

The police are making more than 30 arrests a day over offensive posts on social media and other platforms. The

freespeechunion.org

REVEALED: Foreigners may be arrested after arriving in UK for breaking country's broad hate speech laws

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has issued a warning to Americans regarding the potential risks of traveling to the UK due to its hate speech laws affecting social media posts.

www.westernstandard.news

12,000 Brits Arrested Every Year over Social Media Posts - Other Media news - Tasnim News Agency

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Thousands of people in the UK have been detained and questioned by police over online posts deemed threatening or offensive, The Times has reported, citing custody data.

www.tasnimnews.com

There has to be a balance here. Freedom of speech is important, but do you want a society where Nazi's, homophobic people, racists, etc, are free to spread their hatred? Of course not, there has to be some restrictions.

Hate speech is a term with varied meaning and has no single, consistent definition. It is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] The Encyclopedia of the American Constitutionstates that hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] There is no single definition of what constitutes "hate" or "disparagement". Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country.

Hate speech is a term with varied meaning and has no single, consistent definition.

Any carveouts are incompatible with freedom of speech.
The First Amendment is the reason this site is still around.

 

[locked*n*loaded]

Freedom of speech is important, but do you want a society where Nazi's, homophobic people, racists, etc, are free to spread their hatred? Of course not.......

That's the cost for living in a truly free society. If you don't subscribe to those kinds of views, your only corrective measures should be a) not to view such material, or b) call whomever espouses such material out on it. Everyone should be free to express their viewpoints. It's, actually, very dangerous to a free society to start quashing thoughts and controversial beliefs simply because they don't align with your own beliefs, or even society's, in general. Who are the people you're going to entrust to decide what is, and what isn't, considered offensive speech? I can't imagine a more scary proposition.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Evelyn Beatrice Hall

And it, also, brings to mind the famous prose written by Martin Niemöller.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

 

[6138]

Any carveouts are incompatible with freedom of speech.
The First Amendment is the reason this site is still around.

Exactly!

The person above who says "Fuck your freedom" doesn't seem to understand that this website exists soley because of that freedom.

Freedom of speech is not an "a la carte" menu, where you can ban one thing from the menu, leaving everything else intact. Instead, freedom of speech is a chain, where if one link is severed, the whole thing collapses.

You cannot take freedom of speech away from one person, without taking it away from yourself too.

So, if we make it illegal to "misgender" people or "deadname" people like the poster above is saying, we are also going to make it illegal to talk about suicide from a pro-choice perspective. So all of us here, including the poster above, are heading to jail too.

This is the point I'm trying to make. We are very much at the point of the spear here, regardless of your political perspectives, the right to die is VERY controversial, any restriction of freedom of speech rights is going to be the end of this site, and it may even mean criminal charges for at least the mods and admins here, maybe even us the users too. This is the reason why it's blocked in the UK: The Uk's freedom of speech laws are such that this site is simply not allowed there.

So, people like the poster above are praising the UK for criminalising certain types of speech without realising that they are criminalising their own speech too.

That's the cost for living in a truly free society. If you don't subscribe to those kinds of views, your only corrective measures should be a) not to view such material, or b) call whomever espouses such material out on it. Everyone should be free to express their viewpoints. It's, actually, very dangerous to a free society to start quashing thoughts and controversial beliefs simply because they don't align with your own beliefs, or even society's, in general. Who are the people you're going to entrust to decide what is, and what isn't, considered offensive speech? I can't imagine a more scary proposition.

Exactly. I am not advocating for a "consequence free society": Calling someone out on their speech is perfectly acceptable, even firing someone, etc, for the speech might be ok, but criminalising that speech is not.

I totally agree, the government should not be allowed to decide what is and is not considered "offensive". I think we can all agree that they can't be trusted. It's all very well to cheer when your enemies are silenced, but what about when it's your turn?

 

[locked*n*loaded]

Exactly. I am not advocating for a "consequence free society": Calling someone out on their speech is perfectly acceptable, even firing someone, etc, for the speech might be ok, but criminalising that speech is not.

But, that's not what you said. You said:

"Freedom of speech is important, but do you want a society where Nazi's, homophobic people, racists, etc, are free to spread their hatred? Of course not......."

The ONLY way that I know of to NOT have "those" types of people spread their (hatred) IS to quash their right to disseminate their thoughts, opinions, and ideas. And the only way to do that is to legally censor, and/or make illegal, their writings and ramblings. To me, your question, "do you want a society where Nazis, homophobic people, racists, etc are free to spread their hatred?" and then self-answering with "Of course not...." infers (to me at least) that you believe that it would be ok to remove that "kind" of speech from any/all mediums of dissemination in society. And the only way to do that is to have some version of a "Thought Police" instituted. Very scary.

 

[6138]

But, that's not what you said. You said:

"Freedom of speech is important, but do you want a society where Nazi's, homophobic people, racists, etc, are free to spread their hatred? Of course not......."

The ONLY way that I know of to NOT have "those" types of people spread their (hatred) IS to quash their right to disseminate their thoughts, opinions, and ideas. And the only way to do that is to legally censor, and/or make illegal, their writings and ramblings. To me, your question, "do you want a society where Nazis, homophobic people, racists, etc are free to spread their hatred?" and then self-answering with "Of course not...." infers (to me at least) that you believe that it would be ok to remove that "kind" of speech from any/all mediums of dissemination in society. And the only way to do that is to have some version of a "Thought Police" instituted. Very scary.

Yes, there should be *some* limitations to freedom of speech, in cases where someone is inciting violence, engaging in grossly offensive speech, slander/libel, etc. These things have always been illegal, I don't have an issue with that.

Nazis, extremists, and violent people would all fall into the category of "grossly offensive" (Holocaust denial, advocating or defending genocide, violence against minorities, etc, etc). That wouldn't be considered freedom of speech, even in the US where there is extremely good protection for freedom of speech.

 

[locked*n*loaded]

Yes, there should be *some* limitations to freedom of speech, in cases where someone is inciting violence, engaging in grossly offensive speech, slander/libel, etc. These things have always been illegal, I don't have an issue with that.

With the exception of "grossly offensive speech", we have safeguards in place, already, as you said. That's not what we're talking about. The idea of "grossly offensive speech" is a slippery slope, as offensive speech can mean a myriad of different things to different people. Here we go again - who is the determiner of exactly what is, and what isn't, considered "grossly offensive"? You? Unless speech can result in some type of physical harm to someone (and I'm not talking about someone who gets offended by something said and then goes and commits suicide), no good can come from curtailing someone's thoughts, words, or ideas.

 

[6138]

With the exception of "grossly offensive speech", we have safeguards in place, already, as you said. That's not what we're talking about. The idea of "grossly offensive speech" is a slippery slope, as offensive speech can mean a myriad of different things to different people. Here we go again - who is the determiner of exactly what is, and what isn't, considered "grossly offensive"? You? Unless speech can result in some type of physical harm to someone (and I'm not talking about someone who gets offended by something said and then goes and commits suicide), no good can come from curtailing someone's thoughts, words, or ideas.

That's true, but unlike "hate speech" grossly offensive speech actually (at least, partially) has a definition. It is speech which is harmful to our democracy and society as a whole. It is defined as speech which offends the very nature of society.
So, if one group of people is offended, then it's not "grossly offensive", just offensive.
Grossly offensive would be speech that everyone agrees is grossly offensive, and there is a very high standard (again, what I said above: Threatening violence, trying to demonise or subjugate minorities, etc, etc). Grossly offensive speech doesn't need to cause physical harm to a person, it could also include ideologies, such as the idea that some groups of people in society are superior to others, and that some groups of people should be subservient to others, etc (So, Nazism, racism, etc). This isn't threatening physical harm, but it's still something any decent person would consider to be wrong.

Grossly offensive speech is, by definition, objective. It's not the kind of thing you can accuse someone of because they used the wrong gender pronoun in a twitter post, the bar is much higher than that.

 

[HD72]

Thank u to the mods who have taken their valuable time without pay to defend us. U r greatly appreciated and don't get enough thanks for all of your hard work. Although thanks is not enough. It will never be enough. We are honored to have u in our corner.

Yes, there should be *some* limitations to freedom of speech, in cases where someone is inciting violence, engaging in grossly offensive speech, slander/libel, etc. These things have always been illegal, I don't have an issue with that.

Nazis, extremists, and violent people would all fall into the category of "grossly offensive" (Holocaust denial, advocating or defending genocide, violence against minorities, etc, etc). That wouldn't be considered freedom of speech, even in the US where there is extremely good protection for freedom of speech.

Um the U.S. has freedom of speech for those with money. I guess you haven't noticed how many of our books are now being banned. How our Public broadcasting system will now be having to shut down in most places because Trump has taken all funding. In rural areas it was all they had to watch to get news now it will be gone. Not to mention if you get taken to the hospital they can basically in some states force any treatment they want on you as long as they keep you alive. They can also take your property. That includes your phone. We are not a good place to look at for rights. Our government hides its rules well. So be careful siting the US. We have started on a downhill slope that I'm afraid we will never be able to clime back up.

 

[6138]

Thank u to the mods who have taken their valuable time without pay to defend us. U r greatly appreciated and don't get enough thanks for all of your hard work. Although thanks is not enough. It will never be enough. We are honored to have u in our corner.

Um the U.S. has freedom of speech for those with money. I guess you haven't noticed how many of our books are now being banned. How our Public broadcasting system will now be having to shut down in most places because Trump has taken all funding. In rural areas it was all they had to watch to get news now it will be gone. Not to mention if you get taken to the hospital they can basically in some states force any treatment they want on you as long as they keep you alive. They can also take your property. That includes your phone. We are not a good place to look at for rights. Our government hides its rules well. So be careful siting the US. We have started on a downhill slope that I'm afraid we will never be able to clime back up.

You are right, and there are certainly very serious issues in the US!
But the US at least has constitutionally protected freedoms, making it *harder* (not impossible) to remove them. The UK doesn't, as we've seen with this ofcom debate.

There are things happening in the UK today that would be illegal in the US.