Thought Crime charges dismissed

[bsjkki]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11758387/Catholic-woman-prosecuted-silently-praying-outside-abortion-clinic-CLEARED.html

Edited February 16, 2023 by bsjkki

[bsjkki]

And another case. 
 

https://www.phillyburbs.com/story/news/2023/01/30/mark-houck-bucks-county-anti-abortion-activist-found-not-guilty-assault-at-clinic-philadelphia/69855788007/

Edited February 16, 2023 by bsjkki

[Calm]

Hopefully if they still want buffer zones, they will craft the law in less vague terms.  I do think when a clinic is in a residential area, there should be some restrictions on protests…noise levels at least.

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hopefully if they still want buffer zones, they will craft the law in less vague terms.  I do think when a clinic is in a residential area, there should be some restrictions on protests…noise levels at least.

Silent prayer by one person didn’t meet the legal standard. I’m sure a rowdier protest might.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hopefully if they still want buffer zones, they will craft the law in less vague terms.

The fact that there are buffer zones to create safe places for women to butcher their offspring just goes to show how far society has digressed. What a sad state of affairs. 

[bsjkki]

35 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

The fact that there are buffer zones to create safe places for women to butcher their offspring just goes to show how far society has digressed. What a sad state of affairs. 

I think buffer zones are fine. Requiring protesters to not block entrances and stay so far away from doors is okay. We expect the same laws to apply to protesters outside our temples and church buildings. In a free society, it’s important to protect the rights of those you agree with and don’t agree with. 
 

This gentlemen was found not guilty in one hour most likely because he was not the ‘aggressor.’

In England, one person saying a silent prayer, did not meet their legal standard. 

Edited February 16, 2023 by bsjkki

[Dario_M]

I still find it ridicelous that she may not pray there if she wants too. What did she doing wrong? What harm has she done? What danger did she caust? 

I don't understand the English police anyway to be honest (makes me think a bit about the police in the Netherlands, same kind).  

I see it again now with this other case. The case of Nicola Bulley. She is missing for weeks now. And the police had made a total mess of her case and investigation. 🎭 They clearly had sourched on the wrong places to find her.

In times like a person is missing every hour counts. You can not waste so much time to sourch in the wrong directions. I even heard that the place where she has been seen for the last time and where the police found her mobile phone and glove they didn't even sealt the place to do a proper investigation. They just from the start assume that the poor woman felt into the river...without thinking for other posibility's. 🤦‍♂️

Edited February 16, 2023 by Dario_M

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Silent prayer by one person didn’t meet the legal standard. I’m sure a rowdier protest might.

I agree, as long as the one did not approach clients or staff, while it might be disconcerting and even uncomfortable, the one could be avoided easily enough and if they are silent there is no real intrusion on personal space.  Disturbing posters or signs of taking videos or groups one has to pass through are quite a different story.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

I still find it ridicelous that she may not pray there if she wants too. What did she doing wrong? What harm has she done? What danger did she caust? 

The buffer zone was created in part because there is an anti abortion group that has two 40 day campaigns a year for multiple years where they gather in front of this clinic and others and chant prayers quite loudly according to reports, apparently loud enough to be heard by nearby residents even when windows are closed.  They were also claimed to be following the female clients and staff to their cars, forcing anti-abortion literature on them and trying to engage them in conversations about abortion.  The law was put in place about praying with those kinds of prayers in mind, intrusive protest prayers.  Police and others overdid it, imo, to ban personal, silent prayers as well, even though the purpose might be protest.

However, I still think Vaughan-Spruce was wrong to act like she wasn’t there to protest and to create a confrontation with the police over the law, given she had her camera person all ready to pounce when the police finally showed up on the fourth day, I would have admired her if she had been forthright about her civil disobedience in challenging a poorly written and enforced law.

[Dario_M]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

The buffer zone was created in part because there is an anti abortion group that has two 40 day campaigns a year for multiple years where they gather in front of this clinic and others and chant prayers quite loudly according to reports, apparently loud enough to be heard by nearby residents even when windows are closed.  They were also claimed to be following the female clients and staff to their cars, forcing anti-abortion literature on them and trying to engage them in conversations about abortion.  The law was put in place about praying with those kinds of prayers in mind, intrusive protest prayers.  Police and others overdid it, imo, to ban personal, silent prayers as well, even though the purpose might be protest.

 

Yeah you know... that woman didn't do that. 

But i am agree with you that people that go so far to follow somebody to their car and fors anti abortion nonsens in that persons face goes way to far. And those people should be arested for SURE. 

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

However, I still think Vaughan-Spruce was wrong to act like she wasn’t there to protest and to create a confrontation with the police over the law, given she had her camera person all ready to pounce when the police finally showed up on the fourth day, I would have admired her if she had been forthright about her civil disobedience in challenging a poorly written and enforced law.

Yeah. 🤣

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Hopefully if they still want buffer zones, they will craft the law in less vague terms.  I do think when a clinic is in a residential area, there should be some restrictions on protests…noise levels at least.

Our British friends might want to consider some principles developed in one of their former colonies.  Specifically, robust "Free Speech" protections coupled with reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions.

From 2013:

Quote

British police are arresting people in the middle of the night if they have made racist or anti-Muslim comments on Twitter following the murder of a soldier by two Muslims in Woolwich, London.

Three men have so far been taken into custody for using Twitter and Facebook to criticize Muslims.

In the Woolwich attack, Lee Rigby, a drummer in the Royal Regiment of Fusliers, was run down in a car and then hacked and stabbed to death by two men with knives and a cleaver. They told a man video recording the scene that it was vengeance for the killings of Muslims by the British Army.

One man has been charged with "malicious communications" on Facebook, the Daily Mail reports.

Two others have been arrested under the Public Order Act on suspicion of inciting racial or religious hatred. The police are now arresting people based on mere speech in social media, a detective said in a statement to the press:

'The men were arrested under the Public Order Act on suspicion of inciting racial or religious hatred. Our inquiries into these comments continue.

'These comments were directed against a section of our community. Comments such as these are completely unacceptable and only cause more harm to our community in Bristol.

'People should stop and think about what they say on social media before making statements as the consequences could be serious.'

From 2016:

Quote

The number of people being arrested for “online crimes of speech” have increased dramatically in London.

While arrests for aggressive, threatening or hateful speech on social media declined between 2010 and 2013, the numbers rose last year.

According to the Register, a total of 2,500 Londoners have been arrested over the past five years for allegedly sending “offensive” messages via social media. In 2015, 857 people were detained, up 37 per cent increase since 2010.

The Communications Act 2003 defines illegal communication as “using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”. Breaking the law carries a six-month prison term or fine of up to £5,000.

From 2017:

Quote

British police forces arrested at least nine people a day for “offensive” online comments last year.

Figures obtained by The Times through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that 3,395 people across 29 forces were arrested last under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which makes it illegal to intentionally “cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another”, in 2016.

The true figure is likely to be significantly higher, as thirteen police forces refused to provide the requested information and two did not provide usable data.

Around half of the investigations were abandoned before being brought to prosecution, which critics say is an indication that the authorities are being excessively strict in their interpretation of the law’s restrictions on freedom of speech.

Nevertheless, many forces have massively stepped up their focus on so-called trolls, with the number of arrests by West Midlands Police having increased by an astonishing 877 per cent since 2014.
...

The seeming inconsistency in the enforcement of free speech restrictions has also been a source of contention, with the Metropolitan Police — who detained 867 people in 2016, according to the Times figures — appearing reluctant to investigate people such as Nadia Chan, the self-described Islamist who was revealed as having made a number of deeply racist remarks about white people on social media after an appearance on public broadcaster Channel 4.

Chan branded Israeli Jews “parasites” and ranted that white people were “swine” and “pasty bland bitches [who] have NO culture, no rich history, you ain’t s^&t, ur ancestors were cave ppl”. She also openly endorsed terror attacks on Iranian state network Press TV —  but the Met refused to say whether they would bring charges against her.
...
Similarly, people who reported mixed race transgender model Munroe Bergdorf for saying “the white race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on earth” in a segment produced and aired by the publicly-funded BBC — an apparent violation of the laws against ‘inciting racial hatred’ — were met with official indifference.

From 2018:

Quote

Which country's police force just called on its citizens to report offensive speech? Not libelous speech or death-threat speech, just plain old insulting speech. Speech that is merely hurtful or hateful. Which nation's cops instructed the citizenry to snitch on haters?

North Korea? China? Maybe Turkey?

It was Britain. Yes, Britain has become a nation in which offensive speech can become a police matter. Where, in April this year, a 19-year-old woman was convicted of sending a "grossly offensive" message after she posted rap lyrics that included the N-word on her Instagram page. Where, also in April, a Scottish s^&tposter was found guilty of a hate crime for teaching a pug to do a Nazi salute and posting the footage on YouTube. Where in recent years individuals have been arrested and in some cases imprisoned for making racist comments or just cracking tasteless jokes on Twitter.

This birthplace of John Stuart Mill, this nation that gave the world John Milton and his Areopagitica, still one of the greatest cries for the "liberty to utter," is now at the forefront of shutting speech down.

The latest Orwellian invitation to rat out offensive speakers was issued by the South Yorkshire Police.

These clearly time-rich coppers took to Twitter to remind people that "HateHurts". That was their actual hashtag. I'm sure hate can hurt, but not nearly as much as being burgled or beaten up or whatever other crimes these cops are probably missing as they trawl Twitter for rudeness.

"In addition to reporting hate crime, please report non-crime hate incidents," they pleaded. These non-crimes include "things like offensive or insulting comments, online, in person or in writing."

It is chilling that cops, whose only business should be fighting crime, now want to hear about non-crime. Anyone who has even a sliver of respect for the ideal of liberty, for the right of people to go about their lives without being watched or narked on, should be seriously concerned that cops would want to hear about non-criminal behavior, otherwise known as everyday behavior.

...

In essence, South Yorkshire Police want people to report on everyday conversations. This is Stasi territory. Coppers asking citizens to file reports on things they have read or overheard really should have disappeared from Europe with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Yet here it still is, this GDR-style instruction to eavesdrop and squeal, though now it's happening on the other side of the old Iron Curtain.

It is testament to how entrenched censorship has become in 21st-century Britain that a police force can so casually call for reports about speech.

This is a country whose communications laws and public-order legislation can be, and regularly are, used to punish hateful expression. Last year The Times reported that British police are arresting nine people a day for posting "offensive messages online." In 2016, 3,300 people were detained and questioned for things they said online. In some parts of Britain the arrest rate for offensive speech has risen by nearly 900% in recent years. We Brits are sleepwalking into a police state.

Not content with punishing people for the offensive things they say on public online platforms, now there are moves afoot to punish them for what they say privately too. This week the Labour MP Lucy Powell put forward a Bill in parliament that would ban private online discussion forums because, she says, hate speech can fester in these "echo chambers." Why not go the whole hog and mic us all up so that you can hear what we're saying at all times of the day?

From 2021:

Quote

British police have arrested 11 people across the UK in connection with episodes of racist abuse targeting England football players on social media following the team’s Euro 2020 final loss to Italy.

The UK Football Policing Unit (UKFPU) launched a hate crime investigation after racist comments were directed at some of England’s Black players following the game on July 11.

The unit said it received more than 600 reports from individuals, charities, clubs and other organizations. According to the UKFPU, 207 of these were found to be criminal in their nature.

Of the 207 posts found to be criminal, 123 accounts belonged to individuals outside of the UK and British police say the details of these are being processed and passed on to the relevant countries to act on.

So far 34 accounts were found to have been in the UK, and 11 of these account holders have now been arrested.

From 2022:

Quote

Hardly a day goes by without some viral international incident reminding us why we’re so lucky to have the First Amendment. The latest such lunacy comes courtesy of the United Kingdom, where police just arrested a man for posting an allegedly offensive tweet.

Yes, seriously.

As shown in a viral video, Hampshire officers on Thursday confronted and arrested a UK man. One of the officers says, “Someone has been caused anxiety based on your social media post. And that is why you’re being arrested.”

The post at question was reportedly an image mocking the many evolutions of the LGBT/transgender pride flag by reshaping it into a swastika. 

According to the BBC, the man was arrested for “malicious communications,” while another man who recorded the incident was arrested for supposedly “obstructing an arrest.”

This rather alarming graphic from the Hampshire government attempts to explain what “malicious communication” is. The graphic notes that malicious communication “relates to the sending of indecent, offensive or threatening letters, electronic communication or articles with the intent to cause the recipient distress or anxiety” and that it “is a criminal offense, which could result in prosecution and a criminal record.”

From 2022:

Quote

A British Catholic mother of five, who was arrested at her family home while making roasted chicken, said that she believes Catholics are a “soft target” for the police.

It was approaching dinnertime on Monday, Oct. 3, and Catholic commentator Caroline Farrow was roasting chicken and putting the laundry away when suddenly the police knocked on the door of her home in Guildford, West Surrey, and arrested her for malicious communications and harassment in relation to a long-running online debate she had regarding transgender issues, she said.

Farrow told CNA that after the police officers entered her house, they seized her electronic devices, including her phone and her daughter’s iPad, and then proceeded to take her to the police station. She waited in a cell for three hours before they conducted a two-hour interview. Then she was released. She told CNA she has not been formally charged as of yet.
...
“One minute I am cooking a roast chicken and putting the laundry away and the next thing I know, they’re checking my socks for drugs,” she said.
...

The Surrey Police Department said in a statement issued Oct. 4 that the arrest was “part of an investigation into allegations of malicious communications (sending of indecent, grossly offensive messages, threats, or information) and harassment.” The police provided no further details about the alleged messages beyond describing the content as “grossly offensive.”

Farrow, who is married to a Catholic priest — a former Anglican vicar who converted to Catholicism — told CNA: “As far as the police are concerned, my Catholicism makes me a soft target, and they automatically infer a level of guilt on me. The police have been ideologically captured by LGBTQ lobby groups, prioritizing and putting too much emphasis on perceived hate crime.”
...

When asked by CNA if she would do anything differently following the arrest, Farrow said: “I refuse to shy away from critiquing gender ideology.”

“Given that I was arrested and had my devices seized because of the social media posts of a third party, it’s clear that taking a different tack won’t protect me from malicious reports.”
...

Farrow is campaign director for the internet activism organization CitizenGO. CitizenGO is a “community of active citizens who work together, using online petitions and action alerts as a resource, to defend and promote life, family, and liberty,” its website states. The organization has an online petition demanding an inquiry into the police’s actions.

The organization’s website states: “It should terrify us all that the police can simply take someone’s word for something, storm into your house and arrest you like this.”

Here is the general framework for how government regulation of speech operates in the U.S.:

Quote

Time, place, and manner restrictions

 

Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972) summarized the time, place, manner concept: "The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time."^[30] Time, place, and manner restrictions must withstand intermediate scrutiny. Note that any regulations that would force speakers to change how or what they say do not fall into this category (so the government cannot restrict one medium even if it leaves open another). Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989) held that time, place, or manner restrictions must:^[31]

• Be content neutral
• Be narrowly tailored
• Serve a significant governmental interest
• Leave open ample alternative channels for communication

Freedom of speech is also sometimes limited to so-called free speech zones, which can take the form of a wire fence enclosure, barricades, or an alternative venue designed to segregate speakers according to the content of their message. There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas – the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the First Amendment makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone.^[32] Civil libertarians often claim that Free Speech Zones are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal the existence of popular opposition from the mass public and elected officials.^[32]

Definition and early history[edit]

Time, place, and manner restrictions refer to a legal doctrine enforced under the United States Constitution and Supreme Court. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines time, place, and manner restrictions as "[A] restriction on the time, place, or manner of expression that is justified when it is neutral as to content and serves a significant government interest and leaves open ample alternative channels of communication.^[33] The goal of time, place and manner restrictions is to regulate speech in a way that still protects freedom of speech.^[34]

While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is not absolute, and therefore subject to restrictions.^{[neutrality is disputed]} Time, place, and manner restrictions are relatively self-explanatory. Time restrictions regulate when expression can take place; place restrictions regulate where expression can take place; and manner restrictions regulate how expression can take place. A restriction may occur if someone is protesting loudly in front of someone's house in a neighborhood in the middle of the night, or if someone was sitting in the middle of a busy intersection during rush hour, for example. These actions would cause problems for other people, so restricting speech in terms of time, place, and manner addresses a legitimate societal concern.^[35] Restricting this speech would be constitutional because the restrictions are content neutral, meaning they would restrict anyone from saying anything in these situations, no matter what their message is; they are narrowly drawn, meaning the restriction was examined specifically for the case in question to determine how to serve the governmental interest at stake; the restrictions serve a significant governmental interest, meaning other fundamental rights are important to citizens, such as sleeping peacefully at night or people getting to work or home from work; and there are plenty of alternative methods of communicating their message, such as writing an editorial in the paper or moving to the sidewalk at a different time in the day.

One of the earliest mentions of the principle of time, place, and manner restrictions comes in the Cox v. Louisiana (1965) case. Justice Goldberg delivered the opinion and stated, "From these decisions, certain clear principles emerge. The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time.^[36]" From this, the United States Supreme Court doctrine of time, place, and manner restrictions emerged.

I dislike much of the content of "Free Speech," but one of the most potent weapons of burgeoning tyranny is censorship and suppression of speech (and, increasingly these days, compelled speech).

Religious liberty is intimately tied up with these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

that woman didn't do that. 

Not that time, but she is the head of the group and likely familiar to the police because of being there during those types of demonstrations.  I think that is likely why the police operated that way, they saw it as just a variation of what she was doing before that would break the law (as she knew iirc because she had filed an appeal with the city to get the buffer zone removed so her group could resume its protests).

I can also see the police reasoning to themselves ‘this is the fourth day she has been out here, she is obviously waiting around to be confronted and won’t go away til she is, so let’s just get this over with’ (they would have known she didn’t live nearby and just happened to be there by chance).

Edited February 16, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Our British friends might want to consider some principles developed in one of their former colonies.  Specifically, robust "Free Speech" protections coupled with reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions.

From 2013:

From 2016:

From 2017:

From 2018:

From 2021:

From 2022:

From 2022:

Here is the general framework for how government regulation of speech operates in the U.S.:

I dislike much of the content of "Free Speech," but one of the most potent weapons of burgeoning tyranny is censorship and suppression of speech (and, increasingly these days, compelled speech).

Religious liberty is intimately tied up with these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Unfortunately I didn’t see what these men had actually said that got them arrested, so I don’t know whether I agree or not they should have been arrested. I do believe those inciting violence should be accountable, but there is a distinction between just expressing hate and pushing violence out of hate.

[Dario_M]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not that time, but she is the head of the group and likely familiar to the police because of being there during those types of demonstrations.  I think that is likely why the police operated that way, they saw it as just a variation of what she was doing before that would break the law (as she knew iirc because she had filed an appeal with the city to get the buffer zone removed so her group could resume its protests).

 

Oh okay, my bet. Yeah that make sense. 

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

I can also see the police reasoning to themselves ‘this is the fourth day she has been out here, she is obviously waiting around to be confronted and won’t go away til she is, so let’s just get this over with’ (they would have known she didn’t live nearby and just happened to be there by chance).

It is also strange that she stays there for 4 days indeed.

[The Nehor]

Still not actually a thought crime.