🇳🇱
@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/
That part is enough to jail people who claim something different than government.
That law is making illegal and punishable any statement contrary to "official truth", online.
Actually the wording of the bill is even worse than that. It is illegal even if it is false and you as the author did not know it was false.
The criteria to violate this law is that the information you publish need be false and wreckless, which is way more broad than "knowingly".
Here is the exact text of the bill that covers this:
A person commits an offence if, in response to an information notice—
(a) the person provides or publishes information or produces a document,
(b) the information or document is false in a material respect, and
(c) at the time the person provides, publishes or produces it, the person
knows that it is false in a material respect **or is reckless** as to whether it
is false in a material respect.
