No need to speculate that the UK government "might" one day become the bad guys: they already arrest over 30 people a day for speech that offends the prevailing political orthodoxy.
I dislike harassing, threats, hate speech and everything wrong that people yell to other people.
But I dislike even more that we decide that the solution to it is to pass laws prohibiting speech, and even more that the ones in charge of passing those laws are very incentivised to prohibiting criticism to themselves or their policies or their ideologies.
Why is speech a specific, precise red line? Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre (and I'm aware that the case which coined this phrase was completely stupid, but the phrase itself stands) should probably not be legal, even though it is speech.
Why not? If shouting “fire” causes no harm, what’s the issue? And if it causes harm, isn’t that adequately served by civil lawsuits? Not everything on earth needs to be a criminal matter.
I think in the US we have a pretty good balance of it. The problem is enforcing the laws we have, and narrowing them so strict enforcement will not be burdensome, not adding new ones.
Everyone here subconsciously understands that most laws are only intended to apply to people who regularly cause problems, and that creates an unjust system, especially when “causing problems” starts to include political activity.
I think misdirecting people to create a panic is illegal no matter what. One should always be liable for the consequences of their actions.
The line gets s lot blurrier when you call fo arson and someone acts on it and burns down a building. Should you be liable for the actions of the third party that burnt down the building? Imho there's some responsibility to be held, yes, despite you only calling for it.
But I wouldn't want anybody to wield the power to legally shut down other people. The amount of abuse that can generate in the wrong hands is Tremendous (see what I did there?)
failbuffer · · focus · HN ↗
[1] <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2025/09/09/people-are-being-thrown-in-uk-prisons-over-what-theyve-said-online-can-free-speech-be-saved/" rel="nofollow">https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2025/09/09/people-a...
cjrp · · focus · HN ↗
PowerElectronix · · focus · HN ↗
But I dislike even more that we decide that the solution to it is to pass laws prohibiting speech, and even more that the ones in charge of passing those laws are very incentivised to prohibiting criticism to themselves or their policies or their ideologies.
someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
iamnothere · · focus · HN ↗
someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
iamnothere · · focus · HN ↗
Everyone here subconsciously understands that most laws are only intended to apply to people who regularly cause problems, and that creates an unjust system, especially when “causing problems” starts to include political activity.
PowerElectronix · · focus · HN ↗
The line gets s lot blurrier when you call fo arson and someone acts on it and burns down a building. Should you be liable for the actions of the third party that burnt down the building? Imho there's some responsibility to be held, yes, despite you only calling for it.
But I wouldn't want anybody to wield the power to legally shut down other people. The amount of abuse that can generate in the wrong hands is Tremendous (see what I did there?)