Read on Twitter
Help. I’ve just had the misfortune of reading the Law Commission’s proposals to reform communications laws in the UK. First step to exaggerating the harms of free speech is to come up with a pseudo-intellectual elaboration of its harms. First speech becomes a 'speech act'
I mean did anyone ever, anywhere, argue that speech is merely 'inert words or ideas'? Of course not. Speech is active; it's for communication.
This is already so outlandishly stupid that you do a double take reminding yourself that it's our Law Commission writing it. The 'statutory independent body created to keep the law of England and Wales under review and to recommend reform where it is needed'.
Continue to make something sound complex. Bore people into not paying attention. Make them a little bit worried about feeling stupid. But... but... Is there really a way in which something can harm that is not by way of an 'effect'? Give me an example.
The Law Commission doesn't give any examples of constitutive harm, hoping we won't notice. But that's okay because we can complicate causal harm.
Within a few paragraphs, the harms of free speech have gone all the way to potentially including 'reduced representation of certain social groups in positions of power'.
Sneak back in 'constitutive harm' - even though no-one can provide an example of it. It just makes the harm sound worse if you can categorise and sub-categorise it.
I find the Law Commission's choice of example worrying. Appropriation of the word 'woman' so that anyone who claims to be one, is one, is regarded as 'humiliating and distressing' for lots of women. So? How to move forward? Keep speech free perhaps?
Catastrophise the harms of free speech
Interesting. De-transitioners often argue that social media encouraged them to self-harm
I think it is utterly wrong for our Law Commission to normalise the term 'cis-gender' thereby normalising the concept of 'inner gender identity' & the utterly regressive sex stereotypes needed to prop the concept up. I never dreamt we would go so far backwards...
The proposed new offence, from the Law Commission. Good grief, a very great deal indeed, rests on the concept of 'harm'
How on earth can anyone prove this?
The Law Commission is completely clear that this is just a harm based model - the 'new offence' only has to involve causing 'serious emotional distress'. Who on earth can prove that?
At least they are honest. There need be no 'actual harm'. The Law Commission proposes a new offence, where there is no 'actual harm'. This construction means there doesn't even have to be anyone claiming to be the victim.
OMG
All the wider implications of this....
Not only does the harm need only to be 'emotional' - it doesn't even need to have happened. Get your head around that; coming from our Law Commission...
Really - I am not exaggerating - the harm need only be emotional. How on earth can this be proved?
Example of what would be caught by the new offense. This is vile & offensive. 100% of us would agree. Even the people who send such stuff would agree - that's why they do it. But is this how we want our police, our courts, to spend their time? Chasing down this nonsense?
Ok - through the looking glass. Even the 'reasonable person' test would be abandoned. This truly undermines bedrocks of our justice system.
Tyranny comes not silently like a thief in the night, but openly & in broad daylight, boldly declaring its intent
Good bye humour - because doesn't humour very often involve at least a risk of offensiveness?
Is the Law Commission showing evidence of a neutral position in this debate? What's with that 'implying'?
Ok - I think the Law Commission just described the gender critical position as 'harmful speech'. Yes - I am offended.
Handing over to this thread, which was the first I knew about this. 'Yes, what the @Law_Commission proposes is repressing public speech through violence. Arresting people is violent." https://twitter.com/prestonjbyrne/status/1339684188321144832
