Wow Exactly Something A Censorist Would Say. You're Just Trying To Censor Him.
edit: I wrote the above in all caps to indicate sarcasm but Chuy's forum auto-edited me to capitalize just the first letter in each word. Ironically I'm actually being censored. Conspiracy.
elon musk’s buyout of twitter was agreed at $55 per share. this week twitter’s shares have dropped to $37 per share.
meanwhile, the stock value of the main source of his wealth, tesla, has dropped quite a few points too.
all this with the vaguest and most ill-defined aims for the buyout and ownership of twitter. the guy is prevaricating over the purchase because he’s ‘unsure about bots’. lol. didn’t he say he was going to solve the bot problem in week 1 of his ownership?
good evidence that a lot of pro-musk bots have been astroturfing his reputation and working in his benefit all these years, too.
But Musk himself has been a beneficiary of mechanized boosting, researchers say, including through accounts that raved about his most valuable investment, Tesla shares, when the electric-car company faced negative news because of accidents, poor financial results and clashes with regulators.
These researchers say bots — automated accounts that are programmed to do pre-defined tasks, often at speeds faster than a person could manage — have been deployed to harass Musk critics, to trumpet the controversial takeover approved by Twitter’s board, and even to present Musk as a model of manliness and the opposite of propaganda foil George Soros, a liberal financier and subject of viral antisemitic conspiracy theories.
imagine needing bots on the internet to tell people how manly you are. highly cucked 'i went bald at 28' behaviour.
Locked up for sending 'offensive messages'... what a fucking joke.
Not defending the people involved, clearly they should be fired but I can't understand why a judge should decide if a private WhatsApp message is or isn't offensive. This is insane.
I wonder if I'm missing something as well. Admittedly I am not super well versed in what counts as protected speech over there, or special circumstances for law enforcement.
Neville had been accused of "acting out a rape fantasy" following comments he made about restraining a teenage girl, which he referred to as a "struggle snuggle".
But Judge Turnock found the term referred to a technique learnt during police training, and said the message did not in itself imply the action had been sexually motivated.
What the heck thing in police training shares slang with one of rape's euphemisms?
Well, feel free to move my post if I've committed an offence.
I had to look this up because I still can't get my head around it
(1)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. (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, (b)causes such a message to be sent; or (c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network. (3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
I'm pretty sure ken's being coy. Not even jay's last meltdown got him in trouble.
I would have to read more to find out what they mean by "public electronic communications network." Do they mean public messaging, private messaging, or just free access to a service? Is it clearly defined in that link? Were the PCs using a work service to send all that (which might be subject to review?)? Still confused.
i don't think most private whatsapp chats are 'fair game' in the law. i believe that law was signed into place to prevent online abuse from people on social networks. you'd think it's 'public' by the fact it has to cause an offence or annoyance to someone at some point, i.e. either a targeted and abusive message or some third-party whom you wouldn't normally intend for that message to see, thereby it being a 'public communication'.
the UK has signed some ridiculously draconian public laws into the books lately. it's effectively illegal to protest now, for similarly phrased reasons. causing a public nuisance or 'annoyance' can get your protest shut down. well, what sort of public protest doesn't cause a mild annoyance in some way or other? they're supposed to be seen and heard!
the specifics of that case are pretty dodgy. tied into a much bigger story about institutional misogyny and sexism in the police force. i can definitely see the 'public interest' aspect in what a bunch of plods say to one another in their work-group whatsapp chats. someone from that group was a policeman who raped and murdered someone ... it's hardly idle banter between a bunch of private mates. it's coppers egging each other on with hate speech ... and one of them fucking picked a woman up whilst dressed as a copper, abused her trust, and murdered her!
we live in a weird world where services like whatsapp are simultaneously used between mates but also used by people in professional capacities. MPs at westminster are all in giant, 'private' whatsapp chats, for example, but obviously it's in the public interest to see those chats if they're all conniving and conspiring and arranging corrupt deals, you know? so with a bunch of policemen who are all in the same group chat, it's not really as if they're there because they're mates from down the pub, is it? it's a bit of a grey area. whatsapp isn't an 'official' communications channel for any of these organisations but it has become really closely enmeshed with people's use in a professional/public capacity.
i don't think the courts are going to be taking an interest in any off-colour banter you and your mates engage with on whatsapp any time soon dauntless. it's of no public interest or consequence.
i don't think most private whatsapp chats are 'fair game' in the law. i believe that law was signed into place to prevent online abuse from people on social networks. you'd think it's 'public' by the fact it has to cause an offence or annoyance to someone at some point, i.e. either a targeted and abusive message or some third-party whom you wouldn't normally intend for that message to see, thereby it being a 'public communication'.
Apparently its precursor was originally intended to stop harassment via phone and mail, but then got updated to cover 'modern communication systems' and got outdated fast. I'm still not sure how this can be considered public though, it may have been leaked into the public domain but the person sending the messages couldn't control that.
The judge said although messages were never intended to be made public, those people and groups referenced “will undoubtedly have been caused great distress by learning police officers found it funny to joke about them in such a deeply offensive manner”.
The judge said the messages were “made fun of people or group of persons they had sworn an oath to protect”.
Well maybe they are distressed or offended, but tough shit. Also reading peoples private messages without any context can easily sound offensive, I've been in chats where people have said worse things, but I know the people saying them well enough to know that they're just going for a 'shock' laugh, and they don't literally mean what the message says. If it was read back in court to a bunch of strangers it would sound entirely different.
uziq wrote:
the UK has signed some ridiculously draconian public laws into the books lately. it's effectively illegal to protest now, for similarly phrased reasons. causing a public nuisance or 'annoyance' can get your protest shut down. well, what sort of public protest doesn't cause a mild annoyance in some way or other? they're supposed to be seen and heard!
It's not at all illegal to protest though is it? Just in the last few weeks we've had Just Stop Oil protestors sit in the street (Outside New Scotland Yard of all places... you probably couldn't pick an area with more police in all of the UK!) and block traffic including emergency ambulances and the police are politely asking if the protestors would mind moving. They're hardly being locked up on site.
the specifics of that case are pretty dodgy. tied into a much bigger story about institutional misogyny and sexism in the police force. i can definitely see the 'public interest' aspect in what a bunch of plods say to one another in their work-group whatsapp chats. someone from that group was a policeman who raped and murdered someone ... it's hardly idle banter between a bunch of private mates. it's coppers egging each other on with hate speech ... and one of them fucking picked a woman up whilst dressed as a copper, abused her trust, and murdered her! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Everard
Yeah I can see there might be public interest too, and if the WhatsApp chats came out in the case because the prosecution/defence decide to use them and make them public, then ok. But there's no way what people say in private on those chats should land them in jail.
uziq wrote:
we live in a weird world where services like whatsapp are simultaneously used between mates but also used by people in professional capacities. MPs at westminster are all in giant, 'private' whatsapp chats, for example, but obviously it's in the public interest to see those chats if they're all conniving and conspiring and arranging corrupt deals, you know? so with a bunch of policemen who are all in the same group chat, it's not really as if they're there because they're mates from down the pub, is it? it's a bit of a grey area. whatsapp isn't an 'official' communications channel for any of these organisations but it has become really closely enmeshed with people's use in a professional/public capacity.
Sure, if it's in the public interest to see chats then they should be treated in the same way as any other form of written communication from an MP. It shouldn't be possible for anyone in the chat to be locked up for causing offense though.
Still don't understand if there's something cut-and-dry to justify jailing them for private messages. Did I miss that they helped to plan a murder? Were they talking about how they were going to go out and commit rape/murder? What part of their private chat justifies imprisonment, exactly?
From an outside perspective, it just sounds needlessly broad. I would like to see the judge write an explanation of what happened (and why this isn't thought police).
I agree that they should be divorced from any position of authority and even benefits from the job. I'd expect there to be at least something the scum violated in terms of personal conduct regulations that would justify it.
it is broad and heavy handed. i’m not defending it or the recent public order acts.
i have to say, though, if i was in a role of public responsibility, say like a fucking police officer who is supposed to uphold public standards … i simply would not join PC plod group chats and post racist and sexist remarks. you’ve got to be a special sort of stupid to be a police officer in an org like the london met who are weekly embroiled in a scandal, and think this is in any way a good idea. the london met are starting to look as institutionally rotten as the 1990s LAPD. not the brightest bunch of bulbs over there.
i can’t say i’ve ever been in a ‘banter with the boys’ group chat where a member has kidnapped, raped and murdered someone. so erm, good riddance to human trash? “tough shit to the offended” bereaved dauntless, really? this was a case where a woman was kidnapped because she trusted a man in uniform. you don’t see the exceptional circumstances here where a bunch of people in trusted uniform conduct themselves this way? this isn’t really a simple case of “oh, you can’t handle an offensive remark?”
and i’m not the guy who voted for the conservatives, the party who promote this tough on crime bullshit. dauntless is a paying member. may, priti and suella are his calendar pinup home secs. so, er, write an email to your own local MP there matey?
w/r/t the communications act, this is the first case i’ve heard of a private whatsapp chat being used as an example of abuse. did the guy appeal? i haven’t been in the UK following this or even the murder case antecedent to it. i have heard of a few instances of people being given community service for being abusive on twitter, which even then seemed heavy-handed to me.
Well, feel free to move my post if I've committed an offence.
I had to look this up because I still can't get my head around it
(1)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. (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, (b)causes such a message to be sent; or (c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network. (3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
Why on earth was this signed into law and why is it being upheld in court????? What a fucking shit country.
Also how have they determined a private WhatsApp chat is a public communications network?
I know America has problems too but at least you don't risk being locked up for flaming Dilbert.
1. Parliament is a sovereign and its powers are plenary. You don't have a constitution restricting governments from passing laws that take away fundamental freedoms. the people voted for parliament, thus should acquiesece to the law
it is broad and heavy handed. i’m not defending it or the recent public order acts.
i have to say, though, if i was in a role of public responsibility, say like a fucking police officer who is supposed to uphold public standards … i simply would not join PC plod group chats and post racist and sexist remarks. you’ve got to be a special sort of stupid to be a police officer in an org like the london met who are weekly embroiled in a scandal, and think this is in any way a good idea. the london met are starting to look as institutionally rotten as the 1990s LAPD. not the brightest bunch of bulbs over there.
Yeah me neither, clearly they are stupid and should lose their jobs and they will no doubt be judged by the public and their acquaintances for what they said.
uziq wrote:
i can’t say i’ve ever been in a ‘banter with the boys’ group chat where a member has kidnapped, raped and murdered someone. so erm, good riddance to human trash? “tough shit to the offended” bereaved dauntless, really? this was a case where a woman was kidnapped because she trusted a man in uniform. you don’t see the exceptional circumstances here where a bunch of people in trusted uniform conduct themselves this way?
I've also never been part of a group chat where one of the members murdered anyone but at the same time, you never really know what a person might do in their private life and I wouldn't want something I said as a joke to someone once to be read in court out of context and then be locked up because I've potentially offended the bereaved. Come to think of it, one of my ex colleagues was actually jailed for rape. I knew him quite well and he would literally be one of the last people I (or anyone else who knew him) would ever guess to do such a thing. All this just to say, it's easy for everyone on the chat to think it's banter until someone gets seriously harmed.
uziq wrote:
this isn’t really a simple case of “oh, you can’t handle an offensive remark?”
It literally is though, if they were jailed for assisting in the kidnap and rape then I'd hope they rot in there for life. The jail time as far as I can see was literally for causing people offense from a comment that clearly wasn't intended to be public - which is insane.
uziq wrote:
and i’m not the guy who voted for the conservatives, the party who promote this tough on crime bullshit. dauntless is a paying member. may, priti and suella are his calendar pinup home secs. so, er, write an email to your own local MP there matey?
Well this law came into force under Labour and was the responsibility of Tessa Jowell. They fucked that one up eh? Maybe I should write to her.
uziq wrote:
w/r/t the communications act, this is the first case i’ve heard of a private whatsapp chat being used as an example of abuse. did the guy appeal? i haven’t been in the UK following this or even the murder case antecedent to it. i have heard of a few instances of people being given community service for being abusive on twitter, which even then seemed heavy-handed to me.
Yeah they're appealing. Seems like some of the updated guidelines weren't followed so maybe they have a chance:
On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law.
The revisions specified that prosecutors should consider:
whether messages were aggravated by references to race, religion or other minorities, and whether they breached existing rules to counter harassment or stalking; and the age and maturity of any wrongdoer should be taken into account and given great weight.
The revisions also clarified that criminal prosecutions were "unlikely":
when the author of the message had "expressed genuine remorse"; when "swift and effective action ... to remove the communication" was taken; or when messages were not intended for a wide audience.
legislation can be modified by a number of judicial and legislative mechanisms. sorry but i don't think you can blame tessa jowell for not predicting the interpretation of her laws 20 years in the future, especially in an area as fast-moving as communications. it's often the case that laws addressed at technology (or social mores, for that matter) quickly become defunct or need rephrasing. it's part of the process. write to your MP. (or if the appeal goes through successfully, perhaps some case law amendment will be made; i don't know, i haven't read up on my legal chops in about 12 years and can't remember how the statutory-common law stuff works itself out).
otherwise i agree with everything you say, got no argument there. i don't want to live in a society where a protest can be broken up for being too loud and people fined or, worse, acquire a criminal record for exercising their democratic right. i don't want to be in a society where you can be pulled up and questioned on a flippant or facetious message you sent in the past, either. it is totally mental. but that's what tory voters seem to want. /shrug. there was hardly any protest from the backbenches during this last bill being snuck through parliament.
i do think the fact they are police adds an extra dimension to it. public servants, especially lawgivers/lawkeepers, are naturally held to a pretty high standard. that's part of the deal of them being allowed to wield power over us.
I think that's the full gallery, might have missed a couple. Reminds me of bf2s in its heyday when a mod would get crazy. On a much more vast scale, of course.
Well, feel free to move my post if I've committed an offence.
I had to look this up because I still can't get my head around it
(1)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.
If its a private message person to person and neither is offended its a private matter and making it a crime is stupid.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he— .... (c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network. (3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
uziq is going to fucking prison.
I know America has problems too but at least you don't risk being locked up for flaming Dilbert.
uwuuuu my name is dilbert and i'm a 50 year old man and i still weekly mention how much forum messages hurt my feelings uwuuuuu.
all this post-2000s communications act stuff is targeted at social media age, a thin-skinned era in which people post online transparently under their real names and 'real' identities. this is a 90s era web1.0 creation. get onboard or get off the train, cuck. we post under USER HANDLES here, we have forum AVATARS, we form fictitious CLANS which in no ways resemble real-life guilds or militias.
'i nearly joined the paras but thought twice about it'. 'calling me names on a forum is highly illegal and you should go to prison'.
ahh ... basic training and parachuting might breaks my bones, but words will never hurt me, eh? you really are a dork. don't call the police on me for that last word!
