B1360 - Freedom of Expression Bill 2018 Watch

This discussion is closed.
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#1
What is this?/I'm confused
Hi there. If you're confused as to what is going on here then you are probably new to this section of TSR. This is a Model House of Commons, a forum where we emulate the structure of the Real Life House of Commons as an excuse to debate politics.

If you are seeing this and you want to get involved in the debate, please feel free. You do not need to join a party, get approval or join any group to get stuck in right away. If you enjoy it and you do want to join a party then you can do so here. If you have any questions or need any help please message me. I am the current speaker of the house and part of my role involves offering impartial advice to new members so I will always be happy to answer what questions you have. Alternatively, you can read the new members guide to get advice on a wide range of issues.

Note: Please refrain from making comments about how we spend our free time. It is our free time to spend.


B1360 - Freedom of Expression Bill 2018, TSR Government

Freedom of Expression Bill 2018
A bill to reform current Communications legislation

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's [King's] most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows: -

1. Repeals
(1) Section 127 (Improper use of public electronic communications network) of the Communications Act 2003 is repealed.

2. Amendments
(1) The Malicious Communications Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) Subsections 1, 2 and 4 of Section 1 (Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety) will be changed to—

“1. Offence of sending letters, electronic communications or articles of any description etc.

(1) Any person who sends another person–
(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys–
(i) a threat,

is guilty of an offence if his purpose in sending it is that it should cause serious distress or is otherwise deemed to be actionable.

(2) A person is not guilty of the offence above is he shows–
(a) that the threat was used to reinforce a demand, made by him on reasonable grounds; and
(b) that he believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing his demand.”

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable–
(a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine (or both);
(b) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine (or both).

3. Extent
(1) The Malicious Communications Act 1988 is extended to the whole of the United Kingdom.

4. Short title, extent and commencement
(1) This Act may be cited as the Freedom of Speech Act 2018.
(2) This Act comes into force the day it receives Royal Assent.
(3) This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Notes
Joshua Cryer, Neil Swinburne, Daniel Thomas, John Kerlen and more recently Mark Meechan. Prosecuted for being offensive, they demonstrate the problems we all face from Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Its loose wording, its ambiguity and its undermining of freedom of expression. A freedom that comprises part of the Liberal country this Government wishes to foster. The bill itself abolishes Section 127 whilst extending and amending the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to address its wide nature and extending its provisions to the entire country.

Links to amended acts–
Malicious Communications Act 1988
Communications Act 2003
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 11 months ago
#2
Aye.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 11 months ago
#3
Numbering is a bit off.
0
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 11 months ago
#4
It's an aye from me.
0
CountBrandenburg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 11 months ago
#5
Aye
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 11 months ago
#6
I've got to say, I'm delighted to see a Government clearly eager to take on the worst overreaches of the state into our modern personal lives. An enthusiastic Aye from me here.
0
LibertarianMP
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 11 months ago
#7
aye
0
Unown Uzer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 11 months ago
#8
Mr Speaker,

What were the reasons for prosecution of Joshua Cryer, Neil Swinburne, Daniel Thomas, John Kerlen and Mark Meechan?
0
CoffeeAndPolitics
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 11 months ago
#9
Aye.
0
The PoliticalGuy
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 11 months ago
#10
Absolute nonsense, this bill would wave freedom to those who have committed great atrocities but do not fall under the bills grasp, in fact this reform makes it even more vague
Nay.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 11 months ago
#11
Whilst I acknowledge, and, to some extent, agree with the motivation behind this Bill, it inadvertently facilitates disgusting crimes - that is to say, the sending of 'indecent or grossly offensive messages'.

Ergo, nay. It would be in the best interests of the public to retain this clause, in a rewritten fashion are to remove ambiguity.
0
username1450924
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 11 months ago
#12
(Original post by ns_2)
Whilst I acknowledge, and, to some extent, agree with the motivation behind this Bill, it inadvertently facilitates disgusting crimes - that is to say, the sending of 'indecent or grossly offensive messages'.

Ergo, nay. It would be in the best interests of the public to retain this clause, in a rewritten fashion are to remove ambiguity.
*Loud cheers go up across the chamber in amusement*
1
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 11 months ago
#13
Aye.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 11 months ago
#14
(Original post by The PoliticalGuy)
Absolute nonsense, this bill would wave freedom to those who have committed great atrocities but do not fall under the bills grasp, in fact this reform makes it even more vague
Nay.
Is pissing off your girlfriend "a great atrocity"?
1
username2080673
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 11 months ago
#15
(Original post by Unown Uzer)
Mr Speaker,

What were the reasons for prosecution of Joshua Cryer, Neil Swinburne, Daniel Thomas, John Kerlen and Mark Meechan?
Joshua Cryer was prosecuted for racist tweets towards a footballer.

Neil Swinburne was prosecuted for creating a page apparently glorifying an alleged murderer of a policeman.

Daniel Thomas wasn't prosecuted (apologies, an error) although the existance of Section 127 had meant that a homophobic tweet he had posted was brought into question.

John Kerlen was prosecuted for insulting a Bexley councillor on Twitter.

Mark Meechan was prosecuted for creating a YouTube video with anti-Semetic content, e.g. repeating 'sieg heil' and 'gas the jews'.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#16
Report 11 months ago
#16
(Original post by Conceited)
Joshua Cryer was prosecuted for racist tweets towards a footballer.

Neil Swinburne was prosecuted for creating a page apparently glorifying an alleged murderer of a policeman.

Daniel Thomas wasn't prosecuted (apologies, an error) although the existance of Section 127 had meant that a homophobic tweet he had posted was brought into question.

John Kerlen was prosecuted for insulting a Bexley councillor on Twitter.

Mark Meechan was prosecuted for creating a YouTube video with anti-Semetic content, e.g. repeating 'sieg heil' and 'gas the jews'.
Other than John they all seem reasonable and I’m 50/50 on John...
0
username2080673
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 11 months ago
#17
(Original post by Aph)
Other than John they all seem reasonable and I’m 50/50 on John...
Whilst they're all disgusting and immensely bad reflections on the individuals, it is not in our interests as a Government to prosecute individuals for being unfunny imbeciles, offensive pricks and so on. It sets a bad precedent and we're surprised such reform hasn't been proposed before.
0
Unown Uzer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#18
Report 11 months ago
#18
(Original post by Conceited)
Joshua Cryer was prosecuted for racist tweets towards a footballer.

Neil Swinburne was prosecuted for creating a page apparently glorifying an alleged murderer of a policeman.

Daniel Thomas wasn't prosecuted (apologies, an error) although the existance of Section 127 had meant that a homophobic tweet he had posted was brought into question.

John Kerlen was prosecuted for insulting a Bexley councillor on Twitter.

Mark Meechan was prosecuted for creating a YouTube video with anti-Semetic content, e.g. repeating 'sieg heil' and 'gas the jews'.
Looks like I will be supporting this bill, then. At least those people weren't charged under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act!
0
LPK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 11 months ago
#19
Maybe I'm misinterpreting the proposed legislation or have had too much to drink, but I am failing to follow how the examples above would meet the new criteria outlining justifications for threats. In those instances, the people aren't reinforcing any sort of demand. They're just being ********s?

I still don't agree people should be prosecuted for being ********s, but I'm a little unclear on how this bill prevents this if the examples cited don't meet the proposed standards.
0
username2080673
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 11 months ago
#20
(Original post by LPK)
Maybe I'm misinterpreting the proposed legislation or have had too much to drink, but I am failing to follow how the examples above would meet the new criteria outlining justifications for threats. In those instances, the people aren't reinforcing any sort of demand. They're just being ********s?

I still don't agree people should be prosecuted for being ********s, but I'm a little unclear on how this bill prevents this if the examples cited don't meet the proposed standards.
The above examples would not meet the criteria in the bill and this bill does not seek to prevent instances such as those examples.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (42)
19.53%
Before I was 12 (79)
36.74%
13 (34)
15.81%
14 (32)
14.88%
15 (14)
6.51%
16 (5)
2.33%
17 (2)
0.93%
18 (2)
0.93%
Between the ages of 19 - 24 (4)
1.86%
Over 25 (0)
0%
12 (1)
0.47%

Watched Threads

View All