UK Locks Up Citizens for Social Media Posts

[sahgwa]

Bumping this thread with an update; I am not a Christian but as uttered previously I stand by the right of all humans to express themselves freely no matter what they say.  
I see in a newsletter that the social media platform Gab is once more under attack, this time by UK GOV
UK is very afraid of free speech.  

'The government of the United Kingdom, wielding the controversial Online Safety Act 2023, has issued a direct ultimatum, launching a blatant assault on the principles of open discourse that define our community. They demand that Gab submit to their stringent censorship regime, threatening exorbitant fines potentially reaching £18 million or a crippling 10% of our global revenue if we refuse to bow to their demands.Let us be clear: this is not about ensuring online “safety” as they claim; it is a thinly veiled attempt to exert absolute control over online expression, using ambiguous and undefined “hate speech” provisions as a weapon to silence dissent, criminalize unpopular opinions, and ultimately extinguish your fundamental right to speak freely and openly.
We unequivocally refuse to comply with these tyrannical demands. We will not pay one cent. Gab is, and always will be, a bastion for free speech, headquartered in the United States and operating under the protections of the First Amendment. Our legal team has already delivered a firm response to the UK authorities, asserting our position that Gab operates outside their jurisdiction and will not be implementing their censorship mandates.
This fight, however, extends far beyond legal technicalities; it represents a dangerous precedent where governments feel empowered to weaponize legislation to dictate acceptable thought and speech across borders. The sheer incompetence displayed in their threats—demanding a response by March 16, 2025, to a notice sent nearly two weeks later on March 26, 2025—only underscores the reckless and overreaching nature of this authoritarian push. This is the chaotic face of tyranny, and we will not yield to it.'

It's always that ancient human sheeple vs people struggle is it not, between security and freedom? 
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
“[t]hose who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

[sahgwa]

... a line championed by the right that you could get arrested for social media posts and we were living under some sort of fascist state, but I have seen no real evidence of this.
...
actual hate speech though and if you cross over into inflammatory or potentially incendiary stuff though so if I posted something racist that could be seen to be a call to harm someone or start a riot, then yes I’d also expect a knock on the door. But as a whole, free speech is alive and kicking, regardless of what the more right leaning propagandists might what you to believe.
... 

You are doing a little porky here; using a term that was invented by the Controllers to curb your freedom.  There is no such thing as 'hate speech.'
Speech is either free or it's not. 
Hate is an emotion and as humans we have a right to express our emotions, even if they offend someone.
This goes into what I said above, free speech is fine.  Surveilling people , okay not totally fine, but that is something that is not shackling your speech, be a man and say it. 

You just done gone and bowed down , saying you would expect a knock on the door for being 'racist' .  You can be a hateful bigot all you want, but if your country supports free speech, they have no right to give you a nanny state talking to, or arrest you for having sound waves coming out of your mouth. 

When or if it crosses from speech to action, then it can become a crime, if it physically harms someone, for example. 
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

[Maxmars]

Creating a society which fears itself is the first step to rendering society into a victim.

Speech is a fundamental exercise of social order.  Society cannot exist without communication.

To even presume to be an arbiter of what can and cannot be uttered, even to the extent of when; displays the classic judgement of the 'arm-chair quarterback' narcissist... as if their model of the world encompasses the totality of reality.

The entire dialogue bout 'limiting' or 'controlling' public expression is a drama of effects... not causes. 

Free speech doesn't "cause" the ignorance which offends so many; "ignorance" is the problem which will not be remedied without free speech.

Inversion, ignorance, intention... those are the real problems.

[sahgwa]

Creating a society which fears itself is the first step to rendering society into a victim.

Speech is a fundamental exercise of social order.  Society cannot exist without communication.

To even presume to be an arbiter of what can and cannot be uttered, even to the extent of when; displays the classic judgement of the 'arm-chair quarterback' narcissist... as if their model of the world encompasses the totality of reality.

The entire dialogue bout 'limiting' or 'controlling' public expression is a drama of effects... not causes. 

Free speech doesn't "cause" the ignorance which offends so many; "ignorance" is the problem which will not be remedied without free speech.

Inversion, ignorance, intention... those are the real problems.

You mean the government protecting me from hateful mean speech is a bad thing? I get so scared of the world, I need to be protected at all costs. Where is my safe space... 
I am a protected class!

[UltraBudgie]

You mean the government protecting me from hateful mean speech is a bad thing? I get so scared of the world, I need to be protected at all costs. Where is my safe space... 
I am a protected class!

This is a good thing to admit. We seem to be in the midst of a massacre. If it doesn't get to you, you're either not paying attention or have decided to become a sociopath. Feeling like a protected class is a common phase among those who have reached some level of spiritual awareness. Indeed, being able to avoid some of the more obvious pitfalls of the world, that the unwashed are so blind to, can make one feel special, like they're now immune. It's the whole armour of God idea, as expressed in Ephesians 6. But the cost of perfection is a morality so stringent it transcends the self -- the second death, rarely achieved in the body. If you can still fear it, you should.

So as you say perhaps we shouldn't be so down on those who, lacking a Godly moral compass, see government as the natural dispenser of such protection. It's a natural urge, that of a child to a parent. Not a bad thing at all. Good call.

[sahgwa]

This is a good thing to admit. We seem to be in the midst of a massacre. If it doesn't get to you, you're either not paying attention or have decided to become a sociopath. Feeling like a protected class is a common phase among those who have reached some level of spiritual awareness. Indeed, being able to avoid some of the more obvious pitfalls of the world, that the unwashed are so blind to, can make one feel special, like they're now immune. It's the whole armour of God idea, as expressed in Ephesians 6. But the cost of perfection is a morality so stringent it transcends the self -- the second death, rarely achieved in the body. If you can still fear it, you should.

So as you say perhaps we shouldn't be so down on those who, lacking a Godly moral compass, see government as the natural dispenser of such protection. It's a natural urge, that of a child to a parent. Not a bad thing at all. Good call.

Either you are being extremely meta, as the kids say, or did not pick up on my sarcasm. I am going with the former, cuz you are a clever bird!

[Purplefowler]

You are doing a little porky here; using a term that was invented by the Controllers to curb your freedom.  There is no such thing as 'hate speech.'
Speech is either free or it's not. 
Hate is an emotion and as humans we have a right to express our emotions, even if they offend someone.
This goes into what I said above, free speech is fine.  Surveilling people , okay not totally fine, but that is something that is not shackling your speech, be a man and say it. 

You just done gone and bowed down , saying you would expect a knock on the door for being 'racist' .  You can be a hateful bigot all you want, but if your country supports free speech, they have no right to give you a nanny state talking to, or arrest you for having sound waves coming out of your mouth. 

When or if it crosses from speech to action, then it can become a crime, if it physically harms someone, for example. 
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

I think you have slightly misunderstood the line, nobody will come looking for you for saying racist stuff, but if you are inciting violence or directly threatening someone then that would be a different matter. I probably didn’t make the distinction clear enough as I was still in bed and hadn’t had my first cup of tea yet!

I think the other side of this issue is one many people forget too. Free speech is a right we should all be grateful to have, but it is one that is often taken for granted. With the right to freely express what we want comes the responsibility to do so with clarity, thought and respect. I think as well, maybe quite a lot of us brits may seem to be bowing down when in reality we are still quite a polite bunch who naturally prefer not to rock the boat. But don’t mistake that for complicity, push us too far and we will come out fighting. Many people over here have had enough and sooner or later, something is going to break and that’s when you see what we are really made of.

[sahgwa]

nobody will come looking for you for saying racist stuff, but if you are inciting violence or directly threatening someone then that would be a different matter. I probably didn’t make the distinction clear enough as I was still in bed and hadn’t had my first cup of tea yet!
 With the right to freely express what we want comes the responsibility to do so with clarity, thought and respect. I think as well, maybe quite a lot of us brits may seem to be bowing down when in reality we are still quite a polite bunch who naturally prefer not to rock the boat. 

But to come back to my point and sorry if i am not understanding or being repetitive, isn't 'inciting violence' just another kind of speech?  I still support speech that incites violence, because it's just speech.
Free speech is either totally free, or it's not free speech.  See what I mean? 
Also yes I of course respect people's feelings and try to be polite myself, but I still respect someone's right to be impolite , if they choose to be a dick, too.

[Maxmars]

... isn't 'inciting violence' just another kind of speech?  I still support speech that incites violence, because it's just speech.

That whole angle of objection to speech is just a complaint.

It is the "doer' who bears responsibility for their action... speech "incitement" is a way to divest oneself of full responsibility.

It is also the way "inciters" pretend that "I am innocent" of the act, despite their words demonstrating not only their ill-will and desires, but also what they hope will happen to their enemies...

It the classic activist programming of the 20th century...

"True success means... Getting away with it."  - a pirate's creed.

[Purplefowler]

But to come back to my point and sorry if i am not understanding or being repetitive, isn't 'inciting violence' just another kind of speech?  I still support speech that incites violence, because it's just speech.
Free speech is either totally free, or it's not free speech.  See what I mean? 
Also yes I of course respect people's feelings and try to be polite myself, but I still respect someone's right to be impolite , if they choose to be a dick, too.

It is an interesting subject and I must admit I feel torn. On one hand I totally agree with you, free speech should be free, and people should be able to react as they wish too. But then there are those rare examples where words have led to horrific outcomes. For example (and I know this is an extreme and not the norm), take the Manson family. It was the members who actively carried out the acts of violence and of course should be held to account. But would they have done what they did without Manson sharing his ideas and views with some young, impressionable and damaged kids? Should he have been covered by his right to free speech or was it right that he was held accountable. He didn’t get his hands dirty and always said their actions were not his responsibility. As I said, I know this is an extreme example, but where is the line if there should be one at all?

Personally I cherish free speech. I will fight for anyone’s right to say what they want regardless on whether I agree with the words. It is through talking and sharing views that we can all grow, and I believe it is good to be challenged with different opinions. But I think there does still need to be a line in the sand in certain situations. But I have some food for thought to go and digest :)