By Tom Slater |
Today is a good day for free speech in Britain. The High Court has ruled that it is unlawful for police officers to harass members of the public for expressing views on the internet that some people find offensive, but are otherwise entirely legal to express. That this even had to be clarified tells us something about how far we’ve fallen, and how sorely this ruling was needed.
The legal challenge was brought by Harry Miller, a Humberside docker and former police officer. Last year, police visited his workplace and later spoke with him because he had posted around 30 trans-sceptical tweets that someone took offence to. An officer, speaking with Miller over the phone, told him he had committed no crime, but that he nevertheless needed to ‘check’ Miller’s ‘thinking’.
In an absurd exchange that followed, the officer, who had apparently been on some transphobia-awareness course, singled out a limerick that Miller had retweeted as particularly hateful. Miller says he argued with the officer, telling him Nineteen Eighty-Four was supposed to be a dystopian novel, not a policing manual. The reference went over his head.
Read More @ Spiked Online.
It will be interesting when we stop referencing hopeless , nihilist stuff like ‘1984’ and start picking parts from things like ‘Seige’ to imagine living in. I’m sure this is a deliberate omission at this stage.
ReplyDeleteI never really think readers understand what you try to say Daithi when you wax elliptical. A good point perhaps lost.
ReplyDeleteThis is symptomatic of where things are at. Police should simply be told to fuck off and mind their own business.
Is this one reason by Drew Harris wants access to all phones?
AM, what do you want me to say instead ? We need to learn the thickness of armour plating? We need to watch how informers can infiltrate a group? The more explicit I get , the closer to sanction I get . I’m no Harry Miller, no interested in being on either . So for now , just read the around the book ref !?
ReplyDeletesomething less obtuse. A Frenchman talking to himself in French might say something very profound but to the ear of those with no French it sounds unintelligible.
Deletedemeaning you is certainly not the purpose. It is trying to understand what it is you are trying to say and if can't say it in a manner that is understood it might be best not saying it. The Marxist Fredric Jameson used to justify his impenetrable commentary on the grounds that it is important to make people think deeper. He produced plenty of psychobabble and little comprehension. On a comments section of a blog people are not going to spend time to parse. It is clearer now - you have reflected rather than advocated some violent overthrow of the state. You could say the same thing in a court. But, there are always dangers in giving a different opinion. Even commenting on this blog is enough for some to hate you.
DeleteTrying to circle the drain without falling into it. Too epileptic still?
ReplyDeleteif nobody knows what you are talking about, yeah, I guess so.
DeleteI take your point AM, at this stage i don’t doubt you say your truth, you aren’t trying to demean me.
DeleteWhat I was trying to say was instead of being resigned to constantly observing we are living in a 1984 society, it might be more useful to suggest we imagine we are living in a Seige society. As far as I can determine, constantly playing defence holds no ground over time. Some more aggressive response is necessitated, but I’m too cowardly to be the one to initiate it. Eventually reading more and more articles about how intrusive and biased the Law is requires more than just championing the few who defy the system, we need examples of what can be done to collapse it.
Hope this is clearer , I blame you if I get a knock on the door for this!
Ps check your what’s app fam!
ReplyDeletenot near enough to the phone to look!
Delete