World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
That's a very well written quote that makes a good point.
Conspiracy theorists form echo-chambers to repeat their ridiculous claims amongst themselves and it poses a challenge to the rest of us to figure out how to prevent this without compromising our own values.
The sentiment I was trying to communicate is that involving the police as enforcers of truth on the internet is simply a foreign concept to me as an American. It feels heavy handed and I think carries an obvious risk.
It's easy to cheer on when it's happening to someone we dislike, like the racist lady in question, but I think it's important to take a step back and make sure it truly aligns with our basic principles of freedom.
No, it's never OK to incite violence. The crime here isn't lying on the internet, it's spreading misinformation in order to incite violence.
...and how exactly is the intent going to be proven? The post itself isn't an incitement to violence, she isn't even claiming that what she posted was the truth, merely saying "if this is the truth".
The people who need to go to jail are the rioters, not some random woman who (in a charitable interpretation) simply reposted something online.
She was the first to post the incendiary racist lie, and she posted it claiming it should result in violence. I think Farage and Tate should also be charged for amplifying it (but Tate isn't in the country).
You think that the people who rioted should go to prison but not the woman who started the ball rolling and first suggested the rioting online? Punish the footmen but not the ringleaders? Your morality is screwy.
Words can have power. Don't use them to start violence in the streets of the UK. We'll put you behind bars for that and not be sorry.
Ringleaders? Again you claim there is intent, where is the proof of this? Also, where is she inciting violence?
Compare this to Aaronovitch tweeting (allegedly as a joke) that Biden should have Trump murdered a few days before the assassination attempt. Did he get arrested?
If one online post of (potentially innocent) misinformation is enough to rile up riots on the streets of your country, clearly your society is pretty severely fucked up and needs a reality check.
Needing to lock up random civilians because they said something inconvenient is not exactly a sign of strength or morality, at least in my book.
Far right nut jobs rioting for political purposes isn't the same as the whole country going crazy. It's not society in general that's fucked up and needs a reality check, it's the far right nut jobs. (Far, far more people turned up for the Hope not Hate counter protests, which were peaceful.)
I think this is an absurdly naïve reading of the tweet in which she quite clearly expresses that violence is the inevitable result of the wrong immigration status of the suspect. It's very clearly a lie designed to stoke anger and foment violence. Which it did. Far right nut jobs go to prison for rioting. Far right nut jobs that incite the violence go to prison. Good.
She's not a random civilian, she's the one at the start of the chain of events.
"saying something inconvenient" and calling for violence on a false racist narrative are not morally equivalent. You're not winning the moral argument by equating them.
Please try not to use words like "inconvenient" in a discussion about far right street violence. It's a bit insensitive and comes across as trivialising the issue.
You keep dodging my question. You claim that the poster knew that this was false and intended to incite violence, can you cite any external proof for this at all or is it just a hunch?
Occam's razor would point to the simplest explanation - A mistake by the poster originating from hearsay or... a hunch (something that happens thousands of times) rather than some conspiracy to incite riots and violence.
You've addressed a total of zero points I raised. It's like I didn't say them.
Again with the absurd naivety. She initiated it. The calls for riots. With her words. This wasn't an accidental brush across the keyboard, and it's illegal in UK law to do that.
Are you her lawyer?! No. What a strange question. Why the sudden asymmetry in standards of proof between us? Did you quote any external evidence for any of your opinions? Is this a court of law or an internet discussion? Weird.
I addressed a total of one.
The original question that you still haven't adressed, probably because you can't. Thing is, the rest of your arguments are moot if there is no intent. You assume she is malicious, but she very well mightn't have been, and even if she was it'll be difficult to prove.
"All hell will break loose" really isn't an incitement to violence. It might mean political scandal, flame wars on social media, protests etc., none of which are riots.
If anything, what I see is politicians wanting somebody to blame for their own mistakes, a convenient scapegoat, one person who they can pin the blame on instead of taking responsibility.
She wasn't anywhere near the "start" of this, merely one (potentially innocent) link in a chain of events starting years prior with gross political mismanagement.
You keep demanding proof of me and never proving anything at all that you claim.
If proof is important for internet debates, where's your proof that she wasn't anywhere near the start of this batch of far right violence? That's a bold unsubstantiated claim that contradicts the police. Where's your proof that the police falsely claimed that they traced online calls for violence following the child murders back to her? That's an even bolder unsubstantiated claim. You claim she's a political scapegoat. Where's your proof that there was political interference in her arrest? That's another bold unsubstantiated claim.
Incitement to violence is a crime in the UK. I'm not sure that you're entirely clear on what incitement is. She's subject to UK law. I hope she goes to prison for it. The more people know they can go to prison for this shit the less rioting we'll have.
Don't write your race hate on the internet and don't invent a lie about child murders and call for violence. If the far right nut jobs heed your call, the police will correctly come for you.
Enough to be certain that proving intent to incite is supposed to be central to the conviction.
I'm claiming that there is a lack of evidence for the polices suspicion and that it will be difficult to obtain. Your inability to point to even the slightest external evidence that the post was made maliciously is enough to say that any other explanation is just as likely and validates my claim.
Maybe you've heard of Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
It's also funny how you've set up a bunch of strawmen claims that I never made to fight. Thankfully, I don't live in a fucked up country where the legal apparatus can chase me down for other people misinterpreting my words.
Oh, and btw, do you think the UK police don't also want a scapegoat after fucking up containing riots and having kids get killed on their watch?
Just exercising my freedom of expression to share my speculations on the matter ;)
You have speculations but I have to provide external evidence? Weird disparity of expectations between you and people who disagree with you on social media.
First you blamed the politicians for scapegoating her, and when I pointed out that this was the police not the politicians and challenged you on that point, suddenly I was making a straw man argument? Unless you go back and edit what you wrote, everyone can see that you did make that claim. Now it's the police who are at fault for the kids being killed and the riots happening? You're sick.
You keep making out that if I don't have a dossier of evidence about her planning the riots that somehow that makes her innocent and you keep making these BS naive interpretations of her malicious lying racist riot-inducing tweet. OK Mr Evidence, where did the idea of the killer being an asylum seeker and that violence rightly would result come from? Because the police traced those ideas back to her and she doesn't have a plausible source, and crucially, she was the one who made the riot-inducing announcement online. That's the offence she's charged with. The evidence is the tweet itself. That's the crime right there.
It's so implausible that the far right rioters targetting asylum lawyers and hotels where asylum seekers are kept is a result of anything other than the idea that she planted on the Internet.
You're denying modus ponens, one of the most basic logical deductions, known for millenia, when you deliberately misinterpret her tweet as innocent and the question I have to ask is why the **** you're supporting her and acting like her defence lawyer?
I'm slightly alarmed but not really super surprised to find that you responded to this as if it were a personal attack against you rather than against her.
Just using my freedom of expression to share my concerns on the extent to which you appear to identify with the racist lying riot-inducing rich Internet troll.
This
has to do with this
Again, you are misinterpreting my words and going to a lot of effort to fight strawmen.
Because: a) I find it highly doubtful that the intent to incite exists or can be proven and
b) I'm bothered by these sorts of laws existing in a country even remotely close to me. They're wrong, offensive, dangerous and worthy of combating.
Who decides what speech is dangerous? Given that woman was arrested, my b) statement above might easily be considered equally or more inciteful.
These sorts of laws could be leveraged even when people are saying the truth, but instead by a truly malicious operator. Let's paint an obviously fictive scenario.
The new "Britain First" movement has gained a lot of popularity within the UK police force and military, and is set to get several seats in the new election. An insider in the London force blows the whistle!
"The Britain First party intends to overturn the election under the guise of voting fraud if they lose. They have to be stopped!" (Link to treasure trove of evidence)
Later that day, the posters door is broken down, along with several other people who had reposted the statement online. They are arrested for "incitement to violence" and forced to take down their dangerous speech to prevent violent uprisings against the legitimate authority of the police.
It's important to remember that the very same powers given to institutions to protect us can be used against us if hijacked by malicious actors. Liberal democracy is a fragile thing.
I disagree with you. On almost every point. And your example includes no reference to violence. Don't propose violence online, folks, you can go to jail. And I'm not sorry if you do.
Could you highlight any part of the post of the accused woman referencing violence?
Sigh. Iceblade, we've been over this, two days ago. You came up with excuses then and you'll come up with excuses now. I attributed it initially to naivety, but I realise now it's actually determination. It's clear to me that you will strive to find any reason you can think of to defend this racist liar and her violence-suggesting tweet.
I see where you stand and I think I know why, and I can see I won't ever convince you she did wrong. I give up.