"I'd do a lot worse than rape you. I've just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried [sic]. #10feetunder."
"I will find you, and you don't want to know what I will do when I do. You're pathetic. Kill yourself. Before I do. #Godie."
Caroline Criado Perez was not complaining about one or two people sending a few dozens of messages that were a bit mean. She was inundated with thousands of messages, from many people, threatening sexual violence and death. One man was sending 50 messages per hour, over about 12 hours. Another woman sent hundreds of messages. Perez's "crime"? She campaigned to have a woman on British banknotes after the Bank of England phased out Elizabeth Fry on the £5 - leaving no women on the banknotes.
It's weird that you do not say anything about her freedom to talk without being subjected to death threats, but that you are concerned that people offering to rape and murder her might have to stop posting death threats.
The most worrying thing about hate speech today is that time and time again it's in response to people, usually women, campaigning for gender equality, and almost always takes the form of violent sexual threats. There really is a concerted effort taking place to try to prevent women from having their say, and it's sickening.
She, you, myself, we don't have a freedom to talk without being subjected to death threats.
It's terrible, awful, and a reflection of the unfathomable depths of depravity existent within humanity that she was subjected to such horrible treatment, but as long as she's allowed to say what she wants, these folks are allowed to say what they want.
I know for absolute certain that this is a truly repugnant idea, letting people like those who've harassed that poor woman continue, but to stop them would be declaring a governmental monopoly on the determination of "appropriate" speech, something which invariably leads to abuse.
I'm not comfortable letting my government tell me what's okay to say, and I don't think the threat of being threatened with death is enough to get me to change my mind.
Like I said, threats really suck. They do, I wouldn't ever deny that.
The cost of eliminating them just isn't a cost I'm willing to pay, however. Maybe that's because I don't pay a high cost for that position, but that's probably true for most of the things I or anyone else believe.
> It's terrible, awful, and a reflection of the unfathomable depths of depravity existent within humanity that she was subjected to such horrible treatment, but as long as she's allowed to say what she wants, these folks are allowed to say what they want.
She's not allowed to say what she wants. She's not allowed to make death threats or to tell people that she's going to rape them.
English people on the whole think it's just weird that people would defend that as a freedom people should have.
> I'm not comfortable letting my government
It's (just about) a democratically elected government, and they're reflecting the English mood.
but to stop them would be declaring a governmental monopoly on the determination of "appropriate" speech, something which invariably leads to abuse.
Or... the world could be in shades of grey.
Edit: actually, to address the issue at it's fundamental level, yes, she should have a right to talk without being subject to death threats. If she is intimidated to the point of not talking, then she has had her right to freedom of speech taken away by another. What you're saying is that people are free to intimidate others into silence, which is internally inconsistent as an argument for free speech.
At least in the US, credible death threats made with an intent to intimidate are not protected free speech (as the Supreme Court has ruled in the past).
> Which is why no new legislation is needed- it's already against the law.
New laws guide behaviour. People don't wear seatbelts until you make it illegal to not do so. New laws make sure there are no gaps in the existing laws - laws applicable to public order or telecommunications may leave exploitable gaps.
Oddly enough reading the article there is no new anti-troll law. They are just changing the max penalty on a ten year old law. There does seem to be a new anti revenge porn clause being put in though.
Not government but common law; the existing law regarding offensive language in public is "breach of the peace", is very old, and administered by magistrates.
>declaring a governmental monopoly on the determination of "appropriate" speech
It would end up being more of a court decision as to what the limits are and not absolutely a new thing. Some existing forms of speech such as blackmail, incitement to murder or genocide, offers to sell heroin and the like have been able to get you into legal difficulties for a while in most counties. It's a question of where you draw the line.
Your argument is fallacious, because the law covers much more than death threats. It makes illegal to send messages “for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another”, not just to send death threats.
It has been illegal to say things in public, or to send written material through the postal system, or to use telephones “for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another” for very many years. This new law just ties up loose ends with online activity.
I will go right ahead and say it: It's substantially worse to destroy free speech for the sake of a few people's "right" to feel comfortable (which I deny is a right at all) than it is to allow a few (really, very few) threatening statements to go unpunished.
Also, it is foolish to think that law enforcement will be judicious in their application of these anti-speech laws.
"I will find you, and you don't want to know what I will do when I do. You're pathetic. Kill yourself. Before I do. #Godie."
Caroline Criado Perez was not complaining about one or two people sending a few dozens of messages that were a bit mean. She was inundated with thousands of messages, from many people, threatening sexual violence and death. One man was sending 50 messages per hour, over about 12 hours. Another woman sent hundreds of messages. Perez's "crime"? She campaigned to have a woman on British banknotes after the Bank of England phased out Elizabeth Fry on the £5 - leaving no women on the banknotes.
It's weird that you do not say anything about her freedom to talk without being subjected to death threats, but that you are concerned that people offering to rape and murder her might have to stop posting death threats.