I suspect that it could possibly be considered that what you just wrote could possibly, under certain circumstances, be considered misleading. But I need to go away and think about it to try to figure out how, why and by whom. In reality of course, if the BBC’s primary role was indeed to inform the public with objective facts, and not an Orwellian propaganda arm of the central office of information and the intelligence agencies, then we wouldn’t need to be not having this conversation, or draping it in the frivolities of mirth, and satire…?👀🙄🧐😜
@@tednash7210 BBC news has no credibility the same with all the Legacy Media. The news you hear is not worth the paper it is written on. I watch GB news but realise that even that is censored. Find true news online and stop listening to the legacy media. Liars are not listened to because no one can tell if it is true or not.
I feel like a lot of RU-vidrs (including yourself) provide more accurate, more detailed, and better researched information than most news agencies, and yet they can be despised by the so-called professional journalists who write articles that could be readily classified as gossip and old-wives tales.
The Online Safety Act is framed and worded so poorly. I've worked with legislation for decades now, and the quality of the drafting is rapidly going down hill.
I've followed people (e.g. lawyers) on X who've lived & breathed the OSA for the last few years. Some think it's one of the worst drafted laws they've seen.
Everyone has a different opinion. Unfortunately, this legislation is trying to say if your opinion doesn't match the establishment then you are a criminal. Very dangerous.
So saying something by an ordiary person that is a LIE will be realised by most INTELLIGENT people. So where is the issue. But governments telling us multiple Covid vaccines are safe goes against research and Nobel Prize winner of 1913. Just withdrawing for example one or more of the vaccines late in the day. And not being interested in over 30 million excess deaths worldwide is hardly MINOR?
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. "I think immigrants don't integrate well into society " is an opinion. "the Southport killer was an illegal immigrant" is a false statement. As he says in the video, you have to know what you are saying is false. If it's your sincerely held opinion and you state it as an opinion, not as a claim on fact, then by definition you can't know it's false.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191 Exactly, the level of thought, intellect and even ability to write properly is the issue with some comments on both sides. Unless you study any issue then you are likely to make serious errors of fact. The key is that a free interchange is HEALTHY and permits others to sift out what is involved, what is correct and false and even for critical people to move forward and maybe change their views over time. And of course any generalisation is bound to be doomed whatever the facts. While talking of individuals is normally not sensible.
Some party needs to adopt a policy of giving us the same rights to free expression as a minimum that the USA has. As we are degenerating into a Tyranny.
@@victorsauvage1890 I was referring to the fact that walking through an overgrown mining area with a selfie stick ran the risk of him disappearing down a shaft. Having said that, I love his style and unique views.
This was written by the Tories. They had to include an exemption like this because their client media lie on their behalf continuously. They would never have passed the law if it required their media to tell the truth on pain of prosecution
It seems strange that broadcasters are specificly exempt when the law is something they knew to be a lie. I'd understand it if the standard was recklessness about the truth of the matter but that's a weird policy decision. How do you even prove that someone knows a thing to be false in this context? Presumably actual knowledge is more than rumour, but how certain do you have to be? Is a genuine belief that you are more likely than not to be correct enough, or would the court take the position of "a reasonable person in your position with the knowledge you had would have reasonably doubted the veracity of your statement?"
@@davidioanhedges but that means that private prosecutions cannot be brought and to obtain justice, you must rely on the regulator to apply civil sanctions. I understand where you are coming from about constant unmerittorious investigations, but that's true of offences like this anyway.
@@andrewbrian7659 The broadcasters are all licenced and regulated - so they can theoretically be punished etc .. Ofcom seems a little toothless The ones that worry me are the papers, who get the same getout, but are unregulated
What's the rationale for allowing recognized news organizations to make knowingly false statements with the intent of causing nontrivial physical or psychological harm? That makes no sense at all.
@@SmileyEmoji42 It has its usual meaning in law. It still makes no sense to me that recognized news organizations are permitted to make knowingly false statements, knowing that a likely consequence of those statements is nontrivial physical or psychological harm.
Sounds like section 179 is criminalising slander. Slander is saying false things about someone else but it's a civil matter to sort out. Since slander includes saying it to many which implies broadcasting via some electronic means (it is 2024) then section 179 now makes it a criminal offence. So is slander now prosecuted by the state or does it stay a civil matter?
Corrupt subversive Marxist legislation. These slimy subversive politicians know that the bbc and other disinformation broadcasters will fall foul of this subversive legislation , so they made them exempt. This is two tier Marxism in full view.
Wirral Council has for some years cut back on verge trimming as part of (saving money) encouraging wild flowers for butterflies and bees. But all that has grown is giant hogweed, Japanese knotweed and ragwort in ever greater numbers each year.
I'm beginning to think that Dan may be trying to eliminate his competition...has he recommended the clifftop walks and nettle-strewn paths? Oops, am I now guilty of spreading false information?
As Falstaff puts it, “There you come near me, Hal” or as RL Stevenson puts it, “Alexander is touched in a very delicate place by the ‘disregard’ of Diogenes”, (‘An Apology for Idlers’).
@@artmedialaw Looking at the evidence against nurse Letby,. I am not totally satisfied that she received justice. There is no solid evidence against her. Her defence team let her down badly. I can see her getting a pardon in the future, but these things take years.
Nick Lowles is sponsored as a charity, which is his get out of jail free card when he posts his opinions. I am not sure if his underhand activities in the documentary "Hope not Hate", would be considered legal despite this law.
The main problem with laws like this one is that they work well enough in obvious cases, but the boundaries are entirely vague, so they give a lot of leeway, not only for getting off the charge, but for the authorities to use the law against anyone that they don't like. An obvious example of how this law should be used is if someone posted online that the recent knife attacker was Muslim. Unless they can come up with a very convincing excuse for having genuinely thought that to be true, then they should justifiably be convicted under this law. That is an easy case. However, even then, the attacker was a (second generation) immigrant, so someone could post that true fact online ("the attacker was of migrant origin") and still get the desired result of stirring up violence against migrants (including Muslims). They could even say "The attacker is of migrant origin, just like Muslims are". No misinformation there! So, I think people need to word things very carefully and the most dangerous far right ring leaders probably are intelligent enough to be able to do that, so the law may not be effective against the worst offenders, catching out only the dumb low level street thugs. Someone could also post something like "the government has not convincingly denied that the attacker was Muslim". How would that stand up? The key word is "convincingly". If challenged, they could say "well it didn't convince me or my friends". Would a judge have to make a judgement call on whether that was spreading misinformation or not? I guess that the point I'm trying to make is that, sure, people can spread malicious lies online, but they can also spread malicious truths, the latter not coming under the remit of this law. I guess there are laws embargoing certain truths, which may help in cases like this, but every vague law gives the government leeway to try to shut down debate on unpopular policies, for fear of legal repercussions. Oh well, I guess it is still better than some countries in which if you criticise government policy loud enough you end up dead or in prison without trial!
I absolutely do not wish to stir up trouble over this, but I’d like to point out that we don’t know whether the suspect in the Southport case is a Muslim or not. He almost certainly wasn’t born Muslim, but people do convert - especially people who feel lost. Unlike Judaism and Hinduism, Islam is a proselytising religion. The two men who murdered Lee Rigby were both born into Nigerian Christian families, but both later converted to Islam and were then radicalised. For the avoidance of doubt, most people who convert outside the prison system do so because they marry a Muslim, and most are entirely peaceful.
@@georgesdelatour Another thing to consider is that being 17, Axel is surely still the responsibility of his parents, but I don’t see any information on their political views.
Liked the content. Couldn't stop laughing though at it, 🤩 because it reminded me of that Billy Connolly sketch going over the bridge in Dunfermline (I think) in a snowstorm and quoting poetry! He was fighting against the wind rather than stinging nettles though😇
How refreshing. A lovely setting for a video, and not one moment begging for a like or subscription, nor any unwanted 'sponsor' spots. Other youtube barristers take note! (Btw, I've given you a like and subscribed lol) 😆
Those brambles should now have a few blackberries on! I, too have noticed the spread of ragwort. There's loads of it on the western M62, once you get past the moors. It is even trying to make its way into Yorkshire!
Good evening to you. Another delightful video. I am looking forward to the possible updates as those things get tested over time. Nice to find a place that says telling porkies is bad! Gorgeous scenery again, as always. Thank you. 😊.
There’s a few people I could mention that do this specifically in the area of defence information (usually surrounding frigates and trident) especially when there’s info publicly available
Isn't the Beeb's raison d'etre as per their charter to "entertain" not inform? There is no rule that their "news" programmes or "documentaries" are other than "entertainment". As such their sleazy behaviour can be said to be entertainment too. I gave up on the Beeb due to Jimmy Savile over 20 years ago and when it was hinted the Blue Peter competitions were fixed.
The problem with that defence is that the authorities do not have a recognised accreditation system for journalists outside of certain well known organisations. I think they should, Discuss
I disagree. Citizens can be journalists and should have no more and no fewer rights than mass media organisations. Either everyone is covered by the law or no-one. Anything else negates equality before the law.
@@_Mentat That would work if the citizen journalists (I'm thinking of the 'auditors') also complied with the various constraints that the MSM have to but they don't and quickly revert to" I'm a private citizen....."
Theoretically, could the PM be charged with such? Because if the PM was to deliberately mischaracterise situation for political intent and do so by releasing a video that causes offence. Would the PM’s press office be classed as exempt? Or would that be a conflict of interest ?
Do Hope not Hate get the exemption? They appear to have admitted the online publication that the 100 targets for extremists was fake news? Does harm have to ensue? Many businesses boarded up shops in anticipation of disorder and could make no profit that day. Is financial harm covered? Or just physical and psychological?
Question; where do things like comedy and satire sit? Quite often things are false or hyperbolic, etc, for comedic effect. Memes are a good example too. Also quite curious where religion/cults/ideologies sit in there (from both the promoting and critiquing sides.)
I enjoyed your ramble highlighting some interesting views in the countryside equally to the great 'legal' explanations relating to current/unfolding events, many thanks. I will tweet this video.
I understand the point of law for broadcasters, however, if a commercial broadcaster did ‘lie’ the shareholders or advertisers would take action by withdrawing funds or support even if there was no reason for a prosecution. As for the BBC, the Licence fee payers could be considered the the equivalent of shareholders but without the ability to take action. We have seen that with some controversial events in recent years that actions against individuals who’s behaviour has bad or even illegal have been dealt with in a way that has garnered strong public outcry but no apparent real sanctions that a commercial broadcaster could suffer at the hansdsof their paymasters.
It would be much more effective to outlaw online anonymity. People would be incentivized to only say things that really matter and to stand over what they say, with only one account.
I asked what would happen if someone who lived outside the UK posted something the Govt. didn't like on a UK website. It has gone does anyone know why? Could it be that it gave an idea on how to get around this draconian law?
With the huge volume of messages, in practice this will be unenforceable in bulk. Only usable for a small number (relatively) of specific cases. As long as perpetrators feel there's no realistic prospect of detection/conviction, will go on as before
From it's very inception, Television has been implemented as a propaganda device. It's such a powerful social programming tool that you need a licence to use one. The license fee funds the desired programming.
arresting people for misinformation seems quite authoritarian honestly, especially since most people do it by accident. It's also a bit dodgy would you say that there is a law against it voted in by the very people who are stereotyped as liars: politicians? If anything you would think the BBC should be the one thing most enforced to speak the truth since there role of the main broadcaster in the UK and well their own past record of lying to cover up the crimes of certain famous names.
In cases where new laws have not yet come to court why do you not have a look at the Parliamentary debates to see what was in the mind of whomsoever drafted it?
Weirdly, that's often not that helpful because of something called 'the rule in Pepper v Hart'. That basically says, when interpreting legislation, judges *generally* don't take into account what was said during the passage of the Act. I did video on that recently; but being me, I can't remember which one it was.
@@artmedialaw yes I remember it well about the motor accident victim exaggerating but I cannot understand how that relates to looking at what the intent of the legislation was?
Wait, an individual can be charged but a massive corporation is exempt? I don't... I got nothing. I don't think this would be possible in America. Freedom of press is an individual right. If what is published is covered by free speech then you are protected. If it is not then any law it violates must be applied to everyone equally. I don't even get the argument for exempting large corporations. It's just... twisted.
*Al I think you need to do another video tonight* The head legal honcho has said reposting videos of the rioting will be viewed with a view to inciting riots and Ofcom claim they will be assisting* The human rights act article 10 states *Article 10 protects your right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference. This includes the right to express your views aloud (for example through public protest and demonstrations) or through: published articles, books or leaflets.* Where do people stand here.
Yes and No. 'yes' as they 'allow' themselves to publish whatever they want with no comeback whether their information was accurate or not. But 'no' because they deem anything and everything they publish as not misinformation. So it becomes a general exemption for themselves and any state broadcaster.
Sounds like Police will have even more issues to investigate in the future....! Tread cafefully Al, these are not the polished corridors of The Inner London Crown Court or The Old Bailey.
Presumably with new areas of law, drafters are careful to engender some degree of circumspection into statute but is there an element of consideration as to the boys (judges, lawyers, barristers) having something to get their teeth into and have something to do? Sort of: let's not be too prescriptive at this early stage: the courts will fill in the gaps (and the lawyers and barristers can rub their hands too).
When I was a kid I remember being told you can say anything as long as it isn't a threat of crime. Can't remember which naive adult told me that lol, probably in a far right jail camp now haha
Ragwort isn't illegal,&is rarely harmful.If it's dried&fed with hay to horses,then it's harmful,but they won't eat ragwort which is growing,&ragwort is essential to the survival of certain moths&butterflies,e.g,tigermoths.It's a case of people not knowing about the countryside.
