Be me

>be me
>Mark Meecham case
>write to MP

I explained that with such an insane standard now set, the abolition of free speech in the UK is essentially an unavoidable conclusion. If you can be imprisoned for a video of a saluting pug, you can be imprisoned for saying anything - at the discretion of the authorities. I explained further that it follows from this without free speech there is no democracy - a democracy cannot exist where ideas are suppressed. I said furthermore that I'd like to see a meaningful roadmap for how this state of affairs is reversed as I feel this thread if pulled at will unravel any legitimacy to our political system.

However I don't want to abdicate this matter as soon as it has been discussed in parliament - this is a civilisational threat, the loss of free speech, I want to ensure I (and hopefully others) have a well-formed impression of what amendments to the current legislation are necessary to protect free speech in the UK.

I'd also like to discuss ITT how this opportunity can be used to start amending or implementing legislation which will protect us from other abuses - the government has made it quite clear they fully intend to abuse their authority up to and beyond destroying the very standards which allow them to have such authority (beyond those of a simply well-hidden military occupation), in light of this there are only three possible outcomes and the only one I consider acceptable is undoing the damage which has been done so far.

I'd like to invite input from people here but even if nothing useful comes from it I'm going to be posting things here as I think it's worth doing with others.

Attached: nazi.jpg (1920x1080, 599K)

>this is a bigger deal than paki's raping your daughters and your law enforcement straight up not caring
>ignore that lets help the commie
kek

The section of legislation Mark Meecham was prosecuted under was s.127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003.

127 Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b) causes such a message to be sent; or
(c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).

>grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character

There won't be any prospect of speaking out about these issues if free speech is illegal.

In this case the notion of "grossly offensive" is included to distinguish it merely from what is "offensive" under the understanding as observed in Handyside v UK (1976) that:

>the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things or express opinions "...that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population".

In terms of guidance on the definition of what constitutes communication which is "grossly offensive" from the Crown Prosecution Service, in Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157 (Admin), the Lord Chief Justice made it clear that:

"Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comments, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by [section 127 of the Communications Act 2003]."

He further notes:

"There can be no yardstick of gross offensiveness otherwise than by the application of reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the particular message sent in its particular context. The test is whether a message is couched in terms liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates."

"The Justices must apply the standards of an open and just multi-racial society".

"The question is whether ... [the defendant] used language which is beyond the pale of what is tolerable in our society".

"[Is there anything] in the content or tenor of [the] messages to soften or mitigate the effect of [the] language in any way"?

Stop clutching at your pearls because of the audacity of the current ruling elite are willing to destroy civil liberties to enforce their multicultural agenda.

Embrace it.

If they deny your free speech, you have no obligation to uphold their free speech.

The answer is conflict, and it always has been.

Shouldn't have called us mutts and greatly offended pugs everywhere. Enjoy your 56% speech, Ahmed.

Attached: senseoffense.png (200x164, 19K)

Beyond the requirement that the communications be subjectively considered to go beyond what is offensive, shocking, disturbing, satirical, iconoclastic, rude, unpopular, unfashionable as opinion on serious or trivial matters or humor or "banter" or whether or not it is perceived as distasteful or painful to those subjected to it - there is a further component that the prosecution must be in the public interest.

That public interest must consider the effects of:

1. Whether or not the use of this legislation will cause a "chilling effect" on public discourse and freedom of speech.
2. The harm done where it is clear there is intent to cause harm to the victims.

That's so broad as to include almost anything.

Unfortunately the fact is democracy can and does exist with suppression of speech. Criminalizing the opposition will make it easier, not harder for establishment politicians to maintain and expand their power.

You need a codified and written constitution to protect freedom of speech. Look at our Constitution (First Amendment) or Japan's (Article 21) and you'll see why.

Make sure to let us know when the police show up at your door OP.

I never did call you mutts - although apparently the JTRIG D&C tactics have worked wonders here - maybe Sup Forums is dead and all the smart people have left?

It's not clutching pearls it's trying to actually get some thinking going about how this can be reversed - you've all laughed at the British not doing anything about it and now you're laughing when someone tries.

now your mp knows your an alt-right fascist

who is your MP?

Bingo. Fight or Die. That is where you are.

As an expat with British citizenship, who can I write to in order to express my displeasure?
It's for reasons like this that I started my business in France and not the UK, they seem to fail to realize that there's a brain drain happening in the UK right now where anyone who has the means to get out, does.
Look up how many personalities and businessmen from the the UK actually live in the US or in other countries besides their homeland.
Nobody stays if they have a way out, and it's costing the UK tangible tax money.

On the question of weighing up public interest as a necessary component of a prosecution it was established in Sener v Turkey [2003] 37 EHRR 34 that where freedom of speech is to be restricted in the public interest that restriction must be:

1. Necessary; and
2. Proportionate

On this matter the Crown Prosecution Service's own guidance states that:

A prosecution is unlikely to be both necessary and proportionate where:

1. The suspect has expressed genuine remorse;
2. Swift and effective action has been taken by the suspect and/or others for example, service providers, to remove the communication in question or otherwise block access to it;
3. The communication was not intended for a wide audience, nor was that the obvious consequence of sending the communication; particularly where the intended audience did not include the victim or target of the communication in question; or
4. The content of the communication did not obviously go beyond what could conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in an open and diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression.

It does not state if these components are sufficient singularly but it does state this list is not exhaustive.

Just bantz. Nevertheless I think it's silly to be autistic about this and think in terms of tweaks to systems. Your "system" is broken. If you want something like the first amendment you have to fight for it. I don't mean "fighting" in the female sense including silly shit holding up signs, drums and chants. I mean real, violent protests. Too many people think that the Founding Fathers just sat down and decided we should have free speech. It was not planned in advance. Various sects of Christianity would not stop fighting one another and 1A came out of that. These "principles" are a reaction to real events, not the result of philosopher kings ruminating. Make something happen, make it worth more than they're willing to pay. That's my advice.

Checked
I'm lauding your efforts and will work on a proper response to your issues. My first thought is to implore your prosecution teams to hold politicians to their own standards. What defines gross and indecent can be held towards opposing party officials as the thought of replacing brits and imposing sharia can be considered both gross and indecent.

That's the point with some laws. Make them as vague as fucking possible.

Offering someone a job that they get really anxious about is now illegal?

Attached: 1521567039825.jpg (179x180, 8K)

btw your post number came in exactly 1000 after mine.

The ruling class will always try to sneakily take away civil liberties to further their own agenda, that's nothing new.
If there had been mass public outrage at this sentence, then perhaps they would have backed off. However, only a minority of people are vocally upset about this. Most are apathetic, some are even happy.
Sorry to say this, former master, but you're fucked. The UK will soon become the dystopian realm we've seen in movies last decade, and Brexit did nothing to prevent that.

Thus far it would appear at least 2 MPs have chosen to take a stand on this issue:

The Rt Hon. Andrea Leadsom MP (Conservative Member of Parliament for South Northamptonshire. Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons.)

Tel: 020 7219 7149
Email: [email protected]

The Rt Hon. Philip Davies MP (Conservative Member of Parliament for Shipley in West Yorkshire)

Tel: 020 7219 8264
Email: [email protected]

You might also want to consider The Rt Hon Malcom Pearson (The Lord Pearson of Rannoch)

Tel: 020 7219 5353
Unfortunately no public email for him but you can specify in your email: [email protected]

I know how you feel I've thought about leaving too but if a line isn't drawn here it'll be everywhere pretty soon.

I'm actually doing something about the state of my country, unlike you who is apparently content to be put in prison for using the wrong pronoun. It's also *you're - I imagine you'll sit back as they get ready to imprison you for mis-using contractions.

You're a moron.

Thanks, I'll contact one of those guys.
It might not do much but at least I can go on record.

That really is the last of all options and it's only once all others are exhausted - it's only once the matter is that publicly discussed and then ignored in spite of all popular opinion that there's sufficient fury - you've perhaps not seen what the Poll Tax Riots looked like, the British might take a while to snap but when we do we do love a little anarchy to remind them why they're there.

Explain your philosophy thoroughly in a letter, at the end call the politician a nigger or a jew. This should end up with you being prosecuted. Use that prosecution and trial to publicize your views.

1. Issue

Looking at everything thus far it seems impossible to classify even in the first (offensive / grossly offensive) component that Meecham's video went beyond the bounds of acceptable free speech on various factors that have been explicitly acknowledged in the Supreme Court or any case law surrounding the implementing leglislation from the highest precedents in European Court of Human Rights cases.

Unless - of course, (and this is the only decently conceivable explanation) you're a judge who's woefully out of touch and thus almost prima facie disqualified from exercising subjective discretion on behalf of the public.

1A. Solution

In and of itself it seems a necessary question whether or not in such subjective situations there is not an immediate necessity (regardless of whether or not it is a summary offence) for the involvement of a jury of one's peers - and especially in this day and age there should be hugely specific guidance as to its selection, where that selection is subject to scrutiny.

2.

Secondly as regards public interest despite the fact this judgement sailed straight past a number of things which were specified by the CPS as to be taken into account as disqualifying such prosecutions as necessary and proportionate - there is furthermore the question / component as to harm to victims.

In this situation it seems the police involved specifically sought out testimony at some length to back up the harm component of the public interest in order to fulfill this technicality as a part of the prosecution.

2A.

Following an investigation of this case there should be specification as to use of police resources to establish the nature and scope of any class of "victim", the degree to which harm can be quantified, and at the same time by the same metric the degree to which a "chilling effect" as a result of prosecution might occur to free speech.

Beyond the rest of it there's the issue of mens rea and context - in the first the total arbitrary discretion in a summary offence which was used to establish it is terrifying because you've created a tool to conveniently smear and imprison people provided the offence is summary.

In the second there's the fact that both pieces of statute (MCA 1998 and CA 2003) are not just woefully out of scope given modern technology but are also likely to continue to be woefully out of scope were anything new to be drafted today given the extent to which technology is now fused with culture and the speed with which it evolves.

That's the point, retard. The legal system bent over backwards to punish this guy for nothing while severe crime is ignored.