7 ms·

It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any on

by cortic 1y ago

It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent). The Online Safety Act and Hate Crime Provision have extended these somewhat into the realms of 1984. But the police do tend to use them sparingly.

teamonkey 1y ago
> It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent). This is categorically untrue.
- oncallthrow 1y ago
  The latter part at least is true. Sending "grossly offensive" messages is illegal under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, specifically Section 127: > a person is guilty of an offence if he— > (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or > (b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent. I suspect the former is also true, but am not well-read in that area
  - teamonkey 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - oncallthrow 1y ago
      > “Grossly offensive” is absolutely not the same thing as “any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive”. There is no statutory definition of “grossly”, so in effect it is the same. There is prior art for it being interpreted incredibly widely. Not to mention the other incredibly vague adjectives in the law. > Correct https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html “Don’t be snarky”.
      - basisword 1y ago
        >> There is no statutory definition of “grossly” If this concerns you I would advise not looking into pretty much any UK law which is full of subjective terms and ways to interpret them. The law isn’t an algorithm nor should it be. Just because you can’t understand how it works doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.
      - teamonkey 1y ago
        Sorry, that was a low shot, and not meant truthfully, but I just couldn’t resist making an offensive comment when the topic was “you can be arrested for offending someone”.
  - n4r9 1y ago
    The full wording of the text is: > A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he— > [F1(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,] > [F1(b)causes such a message to be sent; or] > (c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
- cortic 1y ago
  Public Order Act 1986 "insulting words or behavior that cause distress to others" Malicious Communications Act 1988 (Section 1): "Outlaws sending messages, electronic or otherwise, with the intent to cause distress, or anxiety" Communications Act 2003, Online Safety Act 2023, hate speech, terrorist legislation all made these many orders of magnitude worse in many ways.
  - teamonkey 1y ago
    You cannot be arrested for sending “any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive”. That’s not what the law says. You can be arrested for spreading hate speech, inciting violence, sending illegal media or harassment online. All of the arrests mentioned in this thread in relation to these acts have been campaigns of intimidation, harassment and calls to violence, not simply saying something “insulting or offensive”. In the UK political expression of free speech is protected by the ECHR, which overrides both those acts (look carefully who wishes to abolish the ECHR).
    - SilverElfin 1y ago
      > All of the arrests mentioned in this thread in relation to these acts have been campaigns of intimidation, harassment and calls to violence, not simply saying something “insulting or offensive” This is false. But even if it weren’t, it would be unjust. Determinations like “hate speech” are subjective, and have no place in law concerning speech. Without free speech, there is no democracy.
      - teamonkey 1y ago
        There’s a big difference between being free to criticise the government and those who define and enforce laws, and being free to say anything to or about another citizen without repercussion, even if it may cause them harm. The people mentioned here who were arrested due to violations of the communications acts are definitely the latter. The people arrested in peaceful protests for being associated with Palestine Action or Just Stop Oil are the former.
    - 1y ago
owisd 1y ago
There's no value in making insults for the sake of being insulting protected speech, but in the UK if you're making ECHR Article 10 protected speech that someone happens to find insulting or offensive then that's not a crime. It's unhelpful to permit insults as free speech to prevent some hypothetical future abuse, since all modern dictatorships pay lip service to free speech and instead lock up their political opponents for embezzlement or mortgage fraud or whatever.
cortic 1y ago
*irrelevant, not irreverent. ffs. (meaning people can be charged with a crime and only a fictional 'reasonable' person suffering offense or insult)

by cortic 1y ago

teamonkey 1y ago

> It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent). This is categorically untrue.

oncallthrow 1y ago
The latter part at least is true. Sending "grossly offensive" messages is illegal under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, specifically Section 127: > a person is guilty of an offence if he— > (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or > (b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent. I suspect the former is also true, but am not well-read in that area
- teamonkey 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - oncallthrow 1y ago
    > “Grossly offensive” is absolutely not the same thing as “any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive”. There is no statutory definition of “grossly”, so in effect it is the same. There is prior art for it being interpreted incredibly widely. Not to mention the other incredibly vague adjectives in the law. > Correct https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html “Don’t be snarky”.
    - basisword 1y ago
      >> There is no statutory definition of “grossly” If this concerns you I would advise not looking into pretty much any UK law which is full of subjective terms and ways to interpret them. The law isn’t an algorithm nor should it be. Just because you can’t understand how it works doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.
    - teamonkey 1y ago
      Sorry, that was a low shot, and not meant truthfully, but I just couldn’t resist making an offensive comment when the topic was “you can be arrested for offending someone”.
- n4r9 1y ago
  The full wording of the text is: > A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he— > [F1(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,] > [F1(b)causes such a message to be sent; or] > (c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
cortic 1y ago
Public Order Act 1986 "insulting words or behavior that cause distress to others" Malicious Communications Act 1988 (Section 1): "Outlaws sending messages, electronic or otherwise, with the intent to cause distress, or anxiety" Communications Act 2003, Online Safety Act 2023, hate speech, terrorist legislation all made these many orders of magnitude worse in many ways.
- teamonkey 1y ago
  You cannot be arrested for sending “any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive”. That’s not what the law says. You can be arrested for spreading hate speech, inciting violence, sending illegal media or harassment online. All of the arrests mentioned in this thread in relation to these acts have been campaigns of intimidation, harassment and calls to violence, not simply saying something “insulting or offensive”. In the UK political expression of free speech is protected by the ECHR, which overrides both those acts (look carefully who wishes to abolish the ECHR).
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    > All of the arrests mentioned in this thread in relation to these acts have been campaigns of intimidation, harassment and calls to violence, not simply saying something “insulting or offensive” This is false. But even if it weren’t, it would be unjust. Determinations like “hate speech” are subjective, and have no place in law concerning speech. Without free speech, there is no democracy.
    - teamonkey 1y ago
      There’s a big difference between being free to criticise the government and those who define and enforce laws, and being free to say anything to or about another citizen without repercussion, even if it may cause them harm. The people mentioned here who were arrested due to violations of the communications acts are definitely the latter. The people arrested in peaceful protests for being associated with Palestine Action or Just Stop Oil are the former.
  - 1y ago

owisd 1y ago

There's no value in making insults for the sake of being insulting protected speech, but in the UK if you're making ECHR Article 10 protected speech that someone happens to find insulting or offensive then that's not a crime. It's unhelpful to permit insults as free speech to prevent some hypothetical future abuse, since all modern dictatorships pay lip service to free speech and instead lock up their political opponents for embezzlement or mortgage fraud or whatever.

cortic 1y ago

*irrelevant, not irreverent. ffs. (meaning people can be charged with a crime and only a fictional 'reasonable' person suffering offense or insult)