FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Is Lying Online Now Illegal?
Is Lying Online Now Illegal?
Jump to: Newest in thread
It seems sending a message or posting or sharing content online that a person knows to not be true is now a criminal offence under the new online safety act. So…….
1. How can it be proven that the person posting/sharing content, knew it wasn’t true?
2. Does believing something that is widely acknowledged as not being true, but sharing that belief now get you into trouble? For example people that share flat earth stuff
3. Politicians of all parties lie all the time and their lies are published online, although not usually by themselves. So if a media outlet publishes a politicians statement, knowing it’s not true, who goes to court? The journalist? The owner of the media? Or the politician? Or nobody because they can just say they thought it was true and can’t be proven otherwise?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It seems sending a message or posting or sharing content online that a person knows to not be true is now a criminal offence under the new online safety act. So…….
1. How can it be proven that the person posting/sharing content, knew it wasn’t true?
2. Does believing something that is widely acknowledged as not being true, but sharing that belief now get you into trouble? For example people that share flat earth stuff
3. Politicians of all parties lie all the time and their lies are published online, although not usually by themselves. So if a media outlet publishes a politicians statement, knowing it’s not true, who goes to court? The journalist? The owner of the media? Or the politician? Or nobody because they can just say they thought it was true and can’t be proven otherwise?
"
It replaces this one, so old news
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 is a UK law that makes it an offense to send or deliver certain types of threatening or offensive messages. Specifically, it targets communications that are indecent, grossly offensive, or threatening, or that contain false information known to be false by the sender. The act aims to protect individuals from harassment and distress caused by malicious communications. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It seems sending a message or posting or sharing content online that a person knows to not be true is now a criminal offence under the new online safety act. So…….
1. How can it be proven that the person posting/sharing content, knew it wasn’t true?
2. Does believing something that is widely acknowledged as not being true, but sharing that belief now get you into trouble? For example people that share flat earth stuff
3. Politicians of all parties lie all the time and their lies are published online, although not usually by themselves. So if a media outlet publishes a politicians statement, knowing it’s not true, who goes to court? The journalist? The owner of the media? Or the politician? Or nobody because they can just say they thought it was true and can’t be proven otherwise?
It replaces this one, so old news
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 is a UK law that makes it an offense to send or deliver certain types of threatening or offensive messages. Specifically, it targets communications that are indecent, grossly offensive, or threatening, or that contain false information known to be false by the sender. The act aims to protect individuals from harassment and distress caused by malicious communications. "
The 2003 communications act is the one that replaced the 1988 malicious communications act. That was an authoritarian dick move by Blair. The original malicious communications act was written for postal messages where someone sending offensive messages targeted at an individual. Tony Blair expanded that law blindly to digital communications which made it illegal to post anything offensive on the internet. And today thousands of people face legal action every year because of what they posted on the internet.
OP, which part of the online safety act says it's illegal to share lies? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It seems sending a message or posting or sharing content online that a person knows to not be true is now a criminal offence under the new online safety act. So…….
1. How can it be proven that the person posting/sharing content, knew it wasn’t true?
2. Does believing something that is widely acknowledged as not being true, but sharing that belief now get you into trouble? For example people that share flat earth stuff
3. Politicians of all parties lie all the time and their lies are published online, although not usually by themselves. So if a media outlet publishes a politicians statement, knowing it’s not true, who goes to court? The journalist? The owner of the media? Or the politician? Or nobody because they can just say they thought it was true and can’t be proven otherwise?
It replaces this one, so old news
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 is a UK law that makes it an offense to send or deliver certain types of threatening or offensive messages. Specifically, it targets communications that are indecent, grossly offensive, or threatening, or that contain false information known to be false by the sender. The act aims to protect individuals from harassment and distress caused by malicious communications.
The 2003 communications act is the one that replaced the 1988 malicious communications act. That was an authoritarian dick move by Blair. The original malicious communications act was written for postal messages where someone sending offensive messages targeted at an individual. Tony Blair expanded that law blindly to digital communications which made it illegal to post anything offensive on the internet. And today thousands of people face legal action every year because of what they posted on the internet.
OP, which part of the online safety act says it's illegal to share lies?"
I believe it’s section 179 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I believe it’s section 179"
Thank you, it does seem to be the case that you can't send lies. There are a couple of extra conditions that the person should know it's false and there must be an intent to cause psychological or physical harm to the recipient with those lies. Both are very hard to prove either ways.
So basically just another day of politicians hiding more authoritarian laws within a wider framework and passing them hoping that no one would notice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
As usual it starts with the “safety” of children and then “safety” will be expanded to protect us all from “harmful opinions” which will be anything that Labour doesn’t agree with.
If the government isn’t working just blame the electorate for criticising it.
Still it’s all creating a boom for VPN and age verification providers. I imagine it took most 14 year olds about ten minutes to work their way around the controls. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As usual it starts with the “safety” of children and then “safety” will be expanded to protect us all from “harmful opinions” which will be anything that Labour doesn’t agree with.
If the government isn’t working just blame the electorate for criticising it.
Still it’s all creating a boom for VPN and age verification providers. I imagine it took most 14 year olds about ten minutes to work their way around the controls."
I wonder who might have bought stocks in vpn companies or signed up to their affiliate schemes and splattered those links all over the net under an alias.
And as for blaming the people criticising the government, they are doing better than that, they’re putting together an elite team of police to find them and silence them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It always amazes me when a certain guy was doing videos about anti Vax, he clearly underlined words from official reports leaving out the words that didn't fit his agenda. You couldn't miss it he did it on camera lol
Anyway, it's a pain having to take a selfie to access porn but I do agree with it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I wonder who might have bought stocks in vpn companies or signed up to their affiliate schemes and splattered those links all over the net under an alias.
And as for blaming the people criticising the government, they are doing better than that, they’re putting together an elite team of police to find them and silence them. "
Don't stress yourself,it'll be AI that tracks you down not an elite policeman lol
If you're that worried maybe you shouldn't be using the internet so much to spread negativity  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I wonder who might have bought stocks in vpn companies or signed up to their affiliate schemes and splattered those links all over the net under an alias.
And as for blaming the people criticising the government, they are doing better than that, they’re putting together an elite team of police to find them and silence them.
Don't stress yourself,it'll be AI that tracks you down not an elite policeman lol
If you're that worried maybe you shouldn't be using the internet so much to spread negativity "
Won’t be AI knocking on doors or putting the cuffs on, but yes I’m sure computers with be doing the grunt work.
As for being worried…. If you think staying silent is the answer to an authoritarian government infringing on freedom of speech, fuck knows where we will end up. Something like North Korea perhaps? The former East Germany?
Will you be keeping your opinions to yourself if they go against a government policy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I wonder who might have bought stocks in vpn companies or signed up to their affiliate schemes and splattered those links all over the net under an alias.
And as for blaming the people criticising the government, they are doing better than that, they’re putting together an elite team of police to find them and silence them.
Don't stress yourself,it'll be AI that tracks you down not an elite policeman lol
If you're that worried maybe you shouldn't be using the internet so much to spread negativity
Won’t be AI knocking on doors or putting the cuffs on, but yes I’m sure computers with be doing the grunt work.
As for being worried…. If you think staying silent is the answer to an authoritarian government infringing on freedom of speech, fuck knows where we will end up. Something like North Korea perhaps? The former East Germany?
Will you be keeping your opinions to yourself if they go against a government policy? "
.
There's no law against expressing an opinion against government policy. In fact you can express your opinion about pretty much anything without fear of repercussions.
There is and has been for quite some time a law against spreading deliberate misinformation.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It seems sending a message or posting or sharing content online that a person knows to not be true is now a criminal offence under the new online safety act. So…….
1. How can it be proven that the person posting/sharing content, knew it wasn’t true?
2. Does believing something that is widely acknowledged as not being true, but sharing that belief now get you into trouble? For example people that share flat earth stuff
3. Politicians of all parties lie all the time and their lies are published online, although not usually by themselves. So if a media outlet publishes a politicians statement, knowing it’s not true, who goes to court? The journalist? The owner of the media? Or the politician? Or nobody because they can just say they thought it was true and can’t be proven otherwise?
"
So does that mean all Nigerian emails will be true from now on? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm fact those supporting the withdrawal of the UK from the ECHR should know that freedom of expression is mainly legalisated through the ECHR
Maybe a ploy of reform to remove these rights as much as to supposedly stop immigration |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Please tell me what part I should be concerned about ?
2. The Online Safety Act 2023:
The Online Safety Act aims to make the UK a safer place online, particularly for children.
It requires platforms to remove illegal content and to protect users from harmful content.
It also includes provisions to prevent the spread of misinformation and to be transparent about content moderation practices.
While the Act has raised concerns about potential impacts on free speech, it also includes provisions to protect adults' freedom of expression .
Adults will have more control over what content they see online, including the ability to filter out or avoid certain types of content .
3. What to consider when expressing opinions online:
Be mindful of defamation laws: Avoid making false or damaging statements about others.
Consider the potential impact of your words: Think about whether your message could be offensive, harmful, or incite hatred.
Understand your employer's policies: Many workplaces have social media policies that outline expected behavior.
Be aware of the context: What might be acceptable in one online community might not be in another.
In short, while you have the right to express your opinions online, you also have a responsibility to do so within the bounds of the law and with consideration for others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm fact those supporting the withdrawal of the UK from the ECHR should know that freedom of expression is mainly legalisated through the ECHR
Maybe a ploy of reform to remove these rights as much as to supposedly stop immigration "
In the UK, freedom of expression is primarily covered by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, ensuring that the right to freedom of expression is protected.
Leaving the ECHR wouldn’t change its content, only revising it would do that. So even if the government removed the UK, the human rights act would still draw content from the ECHR
But on that topic, I’m pretty sure Greece, Poland, Germany and The Netherlands are also under the ECHR and yet they seem to be able to remove illegal migrants, something this and the previous government said wasn’t possible. It clearly is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm fact those supporting the withdrawal of the UK from the ECHR should know that freedom of expression is mainly legalisated through the ECHR
Maybe a ploy of reform to remove these rights as much as to supposedly stop immigration
In the UK, freedom of expression is primarily covered by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, ensuring that the right to freedom of expression is protected.
Leaving the ECHR wouldn’t change its content, only revising it would do that. So even if the government removed the UK, the human rights act would still draw content from the ECHR
But on that topic, I’m pretty sure Greece, Poland, Germany and The Netherlands are also under the ECHR and yet they seem to be able to remove illegal migrants, something this and the previous government said wasn’t possible. It clearly is. "
So what should I be worried about then ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm fact those supporting the withdrawal of the UK from the ECHR should know that freedom of expression is mainly legalisated through the ECHR
Maybe a ploy of reform to remove these rights as much as to supposedly stop immigration
In the UK, freedom of expression is primarily covered by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, ensuring that the right to freedom of expression is protected.
Leaving the ECHR wouldn’t change its content, only revising it would do that. So even if the government removed the UK, the human rights act would still draw content from the ECHR
But on that topic, I’m pretty sure Greece, Poland, Germany and The Netherlands are also under the ECHR and yet they seem to be able to remove illegal migrants, something this and the previous government said wasn’t possible. It clearly is.
So what should I be worried about then ?"
You tell me, you’re the one who mentioned the ECHR. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm fact those supporting the withdrawal of the UK from the ECHR should know that freedom of expression is mainly legalisated through the ECHR
Maybe a ploy of reform to remove these rights as much as to supposedly stop immigration
In the UK, freedom of expression is primarily covered by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, ensuring that the right to freedom of expression is protected.
Leaving the ECHR wouldn’t change its content, only revising it would do that. So even if the government removed the UK, the human rights act would still draw content from the ECHR
But on that topic, I’m pretty sure Greece, Poland, Germany and The Netherlands are also under the ECHR and yet they seem to be able to remove illegal migrants, something this and the previous government said wasn’t possible. It clearly is.
So what should I be worried about then ?
You tell me, you’re the one who mentioned the ECHR. "
You started the post, what should I be concerned about the online safety act ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm fact those supporting the withdrawal of the UK from the ECHR should know that freedom of expression is mainly legalisated through the ECHR
Maybe a ploy of reform to remove these rights as much as to supposedly stop immigration
In the UK, freedom of expression is primarily covered by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, ensuring that the right to freedom of expression is protected.
Leaving the ECHR wouldn’t change its content, only revising it would do that. So even if the government removed the UK, the human rights act would still draw content from the ECHR
But on that topic, I’m pretty sure Greece, Poland, Germany and The Netherlands are also under the ECHR and yet they seem to be able to remove illegal migrants, something this and the previous government said wasn’t possible. It clearly is.
So what should I be worried about then ?
You tell me, you’re the one who mentioned the ECHR.
You started the post, what should I be concerned about the online safety act ?"
Your post was about the ECHR not the online safety act. So unless you mean the human rights act gives a fundamental right to lie online, I’m not sure how it relates to the OP. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm fact those supporting the withdrawal of the UK from the ECHR should know that freedom of expression is mainly legalisated through the ECHR
Maybe a ploy of reform to remove these rights as much as to supposedly stop immigration
In the UK, freedom of expression is primarily covered by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, ensuring that the right to freedom of expression is protected.
Leaving the ECHR wouldn’t change its content, only revising it would do that. So even if the government removed the UK, the human rights act would still draw content from the ECHR
But on that topic, I’m pretty sure Greece, Poland, Germany and The Netherlands are also under the ECHR and yet they seem to be able to remove illegal migrants, something this and the previous government said wasn’t possible. It clearly is.
So what should I be worried about then ?
You tell me, you’re the one who mentioned the ECHR.
You started the post, what should I be concerned about the online safety act ?
Your post was about the ECHR not the online safety act. So unless you mean the human rights act gives a fundamental right to lie online, I’m not sure how it relates to the OP. "
My post about the ECHR was to illustrate that I have freedom of speech in contrast to other claims so all related.
Again you started the post about the online safety act so please tell me which part I shoild be concerned about ?
You also said
"
As for being worried…. If you think staying silent is the answer to an authoritarian government infringing on freedom of speech, fuck knows where we will end up. Something like North Korea perhaps? The former East Germany?
Will you be keeping your opinions to yourself if they go against a government policy?
" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm fact those supporting the withdrawal of the UK from the ECHR should know that freedom of expression is mainly legalisated through the ECHR
Maybe a ploy of reform to remove these rights as much as to supposedly stop immigration "
Have you read the ECHR article 10 about freedom of speech? It does absolutely nothing to protect freedom of speech. It only creates an illusion of doing so.
The devil is in the details. There is a list of exceptions to freedom of speech. Now, I am not completely against having exceptions as long as these exceptions are well defined and have a good justification. The American first amendment has exceptions but are really well defined and the courts usually lean more towards freedom of speech in cases which are hard to judge. But look at ECHR's list of exceptions:
-protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or -public safety
-prevent disorder or crime
-protect health or morals
-protect the rights and reputations of other people
-prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence
maintain the authority and impartiality of judges
Did you see the one about protecting "morals"? Tomorrow, we could have a theocracy that bans any criticism of a religion for "moral reasons" and ECHR will do nothing about it.
European politicians are in general very good at doing this - passing laws which are a high level might look fine but you dig into the details, you will realise that they are getting away with a lot more than they said in the headlines. The 2003 communications act, the Online safety bill pretend like just another bill to "protect" you while taking away your right to speech. The ECHR pretends like they are protecting your freedom of speech but not really doing much in practice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 40 weeks ago
|
Ofcom has today published the names of some porn websites which aren’t complying with the new law and say they are going to take action.
This is quite useful as it lets everyone (including children) know where they can find online porn without having to get age checked.
What a laughing stock Britain has become. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm fact those supporting the withdrawal of the UK from the ECHR should know that freedom of expression is mainly legalisated through the ECHR
Maybe a ploy of reform to remove these rights as much as to supposedly stop immigration
In the UK, freedom of expression is primarily covered by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, ensuring that the right to freedom of expression is protected.
Leaving the ECHR wouldn’t change its content, only revising it would do that. So even if the government removed the UK, the human rights act would still draw content from the ECHR
But on that topic, I’m pretty sure Greece, Poland, Germany and The Netherlands are also under the ECHR and yet they seem to be able to remove illegal migrants, something this and the previous government said wasn’t possible. It clearly is.
So what should I be worried about then ?
You tell me, you’re the one who mentioned the ECHR.
You started the post, what should I be concerned about the online safety act ?
Your post was about the ECHR not the online safety act. So unless you mean the human rights act gives a fundamental right to lie online, I’m not sure how it relates to the OP.
My post about the ECHR was to illustrate that I have freedom of speech in contrast to other claims so all related.
Again you started the post about the online safety act so please tell me which part I shoild be concerned about ?
You also said
"
As for being worried…. If you think staying silent is the answer to an authoritarian government infringing on freedom of speech, fuck knows where we will end up. Something like North Korea perhaps? The former East Germany?
Will you be keeping your opinions to yourself if they go against a government policy?
""
Where did I say you should be concerned?
My OP quite obviously is pointing out the futility of the clause/section of the act as it’s all but impossible to enforce unless people incriminate themselves |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Where did I say you should be concerned?
Will you be keeping your opinions "to yourself if they go against a government policy?"
"
Vainly searching for the words “you should be concerned” but can’t see them. Wanna try again? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 39 weeks ago
|
"No, GB news still has a license "
GB News now the most watched news channel in the UK ahead of both BBC News and Sky News.
I’m surprised that endless Leftist ranting of the “GB News….haha….their orl thik” variety seems to have made absolutely no difference. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The ‘Public order offences’ immediate custodial sentenced population has increased notably (by 69% compared to June 2024), again likely linked to the disorder in Summer 2024.
Gov.Uk
This rise is an exception to a longer-term trend where the number of offenders sentenced for public order offenses had been decreasing since 2006, according to Sentencing Council data.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 39 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
The key part in section 179 has been missed in my opinion.
This: false communication must cause “non trivial psychological (or physical) harm”. In other words, harm must be more than trivial to be deemed as criminal.
Post all the lies you want, if those lies are more than trivial in impact and they cause real upset or unrest, you must be prepared to defend what you said in a court of law.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 20 weeks ago
|
That act actually works I have actually used it aganist someone , so some of you which might say bad things about another person which the bad things may possibly be untrue on here to someone else you know and you think you are flying under the radar,think again because if anyone has a reasonable suspicion that they are being targeted , they can inform law enforcement and they WILL investigate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"That act actually works I have actually used it aganist someone , so some of you which might say bad things about another person which the bad things may possibly be untrue on here to someone else you know and you think you are flying under the radar,think again because if anyone has a reasonable suspicion that they are being targeted , they can inform law enforcement and they WILL investigate. "
I'm pretty sure "law enforcement" have better things to do than cure hurt feelings .. but hey .... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"That act actually works I have actually used it aganist someone , so some of you which might say bad things about another person which the bad things may possibly be untrue on here to someone else you know and you think you are flying under the radar,think again because if anyone has a reasonable suspicion that they are being targeted , they can inform law enforcement and they WILL investigate. "
So, if someone on FAB said I was an ugly, old timewaster.
Will the Police immediately investigate the timewaster bit as the rest is just someone's opinion.
Liz.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
From ukgov
'at the time of sending it, the person intended the message, or the information in it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience, and
(d) the person has no reasonable excuse for sending the message.
(2) For the purposes of this offence an individual is a “likely audience” '
_--------------------------------
It does seem to have boundaries, not just being any fibs,etc that are relayed
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
