[krona]

Section 127 of the UK's Communications Act 2003 makes it illegal to send e.g. tweets that are "grossly offensive" or "indecent, obscene, or menacing".

The Malicious Communications Act 1988 makes it illegal to send offensive communications.

I could go on...

[nrawe]

Right, but that's not a free speach issue. I can critise a public officials handling of a situation, or disagree with a policy, or publicly protest a law, and not go to prison.

I cannot be wantonly offensive about a minister just because I don't like them, up to including threatening behaviour.

Free speach doesn't mean no rules/consequences.

[krona]

Have you ever sent anyone a message that later turned out to be false?[1] Do you have £50k on hand to defend yourself against the accusation that you knew it to be false when you sent it? Perhaps you'd rather spend 18 months on remand in the meantime, just to be sure you don't send anything else that might also be false, while we prepare your trial (which may or may not collapse due to a complete lack of evidence).

[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/179

[nrawe]

You seem to have overlooked the clause 179.1.C. If I send a death threat to someone, or I incite violence by spreading misinformation (like happened in Southport) there are consequences.

That's what it covers, not a random tweet that says "I think the sky is actually green".

[krona]

Would accusing you of naivete cause "non-trivial psychological harm?"

[nrawe]

Of course not.

There are people facing genuine harassment, death threat, rape threat every day; that's what the law protects against.

If you were to dox me, threaten mine and my families life repeatedly, spread lies about me that convince other people to do the same, then that would be closer to the definition of _reasonable_ psychological harm.

We can see that scenario playing out for people right now, some of whom actually come to harm because of it.

Look at some of the hate directed at MP Jess Philips on Twitter recently based on downright lies, and the mob that stirred up as a result, as an example.

[hk__2]

Please go on because nothing that you mentioned can send you in jail.

[krona]

Oh? How about being held 18 months on remand if you don't automatically plead guilty? Perhaps read the sentencing guidelines for s127.

[teamonkey]

Section 127 is problematic and should be updated for the internet age, but it’s disingenuous to imply that any “indecent, obscene or menacing” tweet will send you to jail.

In particular, the European Convention of Human Rights article 10 guarantees freedom of expression and overrules both of those acts: “This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

So really S127 and the MCA cover extreme cases of harassment or abuse. Where it’s a problem is what makes something “grossly” offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing; the interpretation is down to the layers of magistrates and judges overseeing each case.

[krona]

Section 127(2): A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

  a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false

[teamonkey]

Again, the ECHR’s freedom of expression takes precedence. Good news! You can still post bad takes and disinformation online!

But you can’t abuse people with it. For example sending a hate mob on someone, defamation, swatting etc. (which are also covered by other acts).

And again, S127 is problematic because it doesn’t clearly define a line, it leaves it up to the courts on a case-by-case basis. Much of British common law is like that though.

[krona]

I think you're grossly underestimating the CPSs ability to misinterpret legislation when it's convenient. On convictions:

> ECHR’s freedom of expression takes precedence

It takes 5 years on average to exhaust domestic remedies. Then another 3 years (on average) for the ECHR to hear your case. Needless to say, you can't afford it anyway.

[teamonkey]

I’m not underestimating, I said it was a problem several times, and also said it should be changed.

Codifying it wouldn’t help it being abused though, and the US court system also has such problems, it takes time to prove that a right is being breached and a lot is down to the judge.

Also, there are strict limits to how long you can be fined or imprisoned under S127. The majority of cases result in small fines.

[seb1204]

But none of this is related to your opinion. So you are still free to state your opinion. Insult, defamation, misinformation and hate should not be given the protection under the umbrella of free speech.