Online Safety Bill Etc

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Paul

Hmm, who decides what is/are "hateful and harmful views" ?

It won't be a man ,a conservative or a muslim

[jfman]

Two tier Kier.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jfman

Two tier Kier.

He doesn't know what a woman is so he's no good for sorting out misogyny, and what about the man haters are they doing anything about that

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

He doesn't know what a woman is so he's no good for sorting out misogyny, and what about the man haters are they doing anything about that

Whilst misandry does exist too, i'm not aware of any extreme views being posted online such as the misogyny from the likes of Andrew Tate.

---------- Post added at 17:26 ---------- Previous post was at 17:25 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

Hmm, who decides what is/are "hateful and harmful views" ?

Ultimately it'll be Ofcom.

[jfman]

Where - in the Act - are Ofcom delegated such authority?

[Pierre]

The obvious way forward is to be a polite misogynist.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

Hmm, who decides what is/are "hateful and harmful views" ?

I heard this today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00224s9

It explained why it's believed that misogyny and terrorism are connected.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I heard this today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00224s9

It explained why it's believed that misogyny and terrorism are connected.

I will give this a listen, but probably not until after the weekend.

[RichardCoulter]

Pavel Durov, the owner of Telegram (a messaging platform that is encrypted at both ends), has been arrested in France for failing to co-operate with the authorities in their efforts to find criminals, including paedophiles, who use his platform to communicate with each other.

I wonder if the Online Safety Act (and similar legislation introduced by other countries) will be used in a similar way towards websites owners, some whom have also said that they will not allow the authorities access to the encrypted messages sent over their platforms?

Elon Musk is said to 'be worried' about this development.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. I'm sure that Governments (including our own) will be watching very closely as it's basically a test to see who is in control, platform owners or Government.

[RichardCoulter]

The Information Commissioner has welcomed a decision by Instagram to take steps to try and protect young people:

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/med...teen-accounts/

It appears that EU & UK egislation is having an impact, even before the latter is properly in force.

Will website owners relent on not giving access to encrypted messages following the Huw Edwards Court case? It transpired that they know he interacted with another paedophile on other platforms, but that the details couldn't be recovered. If they had of been able to, maybe the outcome would have been more than a 6 months suspended sentence.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Will website owners relent on not giving access to encrypted messages following the Huw Edwards Court case?

Unlikely, and I certainly hope they dont, thats the whole point of encryption.

I highly doubt the Huw Edwards case will make a scrap of difference to the tech companies refusal to hand over encryption keys. After all, the English justice system has made clear it views the case as being at the very low end of this sort of offending.

[Russ]

Any sex crime involving children is despicable and no sentence will ever feel long enough for many people, especially victims of such crimes.

I openly (and wrongly) assumed there was more being made of this than it was, with most people being reactionary in their approach to the whole thing when it first came out that he'd been involved in something foolish.

It's absolutely right that simply viewing category A, B or C photos are not 'victimless' offences as if the images already existing equates to the crime already having been committed in he past, when they were taken.

In Law, mitigating circumstances can influence a person's behaviour, whether we like it or not.

In no way am I suggesting it excuses anything.

However, it's also well-known to judges and magistrates that all kinds of attempts are often made to garner sympathy for the defendant.

Were Edwards' mit-circs genuine? Yes, I mostly think they were.

But he could at any time have broken off contact with the Welsh guy who sent him stuff. He could have instantly deleted anything questionable that showed up on his phone. Granted he said (words to the effect of) "don't send anything underage", but why not "don't send anything that could be mistaken or misconstrued for underage".

For the purposes of context, for a moment let's remove the fact he had underage material on his phone. Let's just say he was receiving sexual images of clearly-adult women. He's doing nothing illegal then. Morally it could be argued he's cheating on his wife but that's a different story.

However, there was an underage, or at least implied aspect to his actions.

Given the fact he wasn't distributing them, specifically asking for them, or making/taking the photos/videos himself, for a first-time offender who may well have depression or similar mental health issues, his sentence is pretty much standard for what he did.

Very much so … and there’s another thread for discussing all of that in detail.

However, rightly or wrongly, he has been judged a low-level offender and therefore, nothing so far having persuaded tech giants to hand over encryption keys to their messaging apps, the Huw Edwards case is spectacularly unlikely to make any difference at all.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

Very much so … and there’s another thread for discussing all of that in detail.
.

I’m not allowed on that……..no idea why.

But strange that we live in a society where calling somebody a paedophile can get you a longer sentence, than actually being a paedophile.


And no, none of Edwards “mitigating” circumstances cut any mustard.

He was a person in a position of power over someone in the initial case and just an outright paedo in the one that followed. No better than Saville, Harris or Hall. He deserved jail time and the biggest crime is he didn’t get it.