🇳🇱
@waltercool Got a link to this so I can verify please?
Original source from The Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trolls-will-be-jailed-for-psychological-harm-2dccb2cct
Ok summit news is not a credible source of information. Low factual reporting. It’s even using totally ludicrous claims like “alphabet people” having special treatment from the state right in this article.
I am more than happy to agree with you here WRT to almost any media these days honestly with very few exceptions.
The question is, do you have a better source that explains the new law more accurately?
@freemo @waltercool From this free metro article. It seems that this law isn’t about vaccines at all, but rather as to ban content that can cause “likely psychological harm”
There are definitely legitimate concerns about what is “content that can cause psychological harm” and how it could be interpreted to silence people but this isn’t a “jail the anti vaxxers bill “
https://metro.co.uk/2021/11/01/online-trolls-to-be-jailed-if-they-cause-psychological-harm-15523621/
So I just found the full text of the bill and gave it a speed read. It makes no mention of vaccines anywhere in the bill, so you are correct:
With that said I would say that while the original article, as you pointed out, is incorrect, the truth of the matter is in fact **worse**. The scope is so much more general that not only could it be used to jail people for spreading misinformation but also for any number of ridiculous charges.
Its a absolutely horrific and scary bill no matter how you dice it by the looks of it.
I didnt mean to imply you said anything incorrect. I was just adding my two cents after a quick glance at the bill.
@freemo @waltercool as I said there are legitimate concerns from what I see from the article about this bill. I did not claimed to know at what extent it is concerning.