npub15zu89j2k6sja8qgcs5qdu2pfra5kemhlgeern2cpcw2svkuvkudqu3s7lx (npub15zu…s7lx) I think with this bill, that was kind of obvious political babble.
What matters is the *text* of the bill, especially their insistence in keeping particular text in the bill (which really says a lot), not what an official says (they have a long history of playing down practical implications of bills, and playing up theoretical benefits).
Even if they don't use it, they could *threaten* to use it.
Also, a requirement for someone to write a "report" justifying it's use is useless, if they can just put one of their friends in the role.
Also, this bill looks like a train-wreck. It conjures up corpses of decrepit obscenity laws and other arcane parts of Britain's legal system. It also invokes vague language which will chill free expression.
A structure like this is probably also uniquely amenable to moral panic, especially with how vague the language is. Even if it's a relatively neutral official, who is to say they won't panic over something.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/nov/19/paul-dacre-pulls-out-of-running-next-ofcom-chair
At one point, they considered putting the editor of the most right wing populist paper in Britain in-charge of the "regulator".
Olives /
npub1mj…9nqvc
2023-09-20 09:58:50
in reply to nevent1q…nf5l
Author Public Key
npub1mjy6478vyg26f5k4d8pyuhcexmd3uks6k07g6pzdld3r976g7zwqk9nqvcPublished at
2023-09-20 09:58:50Event JSON
{
"id": "679b564b075a2dda71ded10766db4e2f1ff043cfa847158c0e237720a067761b",
"pubkey": "dc89aaf8ec2215a4d2d569c24e5f1936db1e5a1ab3fc8d044dfb6232fb48f09c",
"created_at": 1695196730,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"a0b872c956d425d381188500de28291f696ceeff467239ab01c395065b8cb71a",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"03fae48550ad960885282f0eb9b09f8151310cb8bc443ae550605bd28d3de5d6",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"e",
"4989653c4fff1c4c98966b6249c5f2df5f47d3ed5b948f49c1df867d52c8c0d4",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://qoto.org/users/olives/statuses/111096412928120391",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "nostr:npub15zu89j2k6sja8qgcs5qdu2pfra5kemhlgeern2cpcw2svkuvkudqu3s7lx I think with this bill, that was kind of obvious political babble.\n\nWhat matters is the *text* of the bill, especially their insistence in keeping particular text in the bill (which really says a lot), not what an official says (they have a long history of playing down practical implications of bills, and playing up theoretical benefits).\n\nEven if they don't use it, they could *threaten* to use it.\n\nAlso, a requirement for someone to write a \"report\" justifying it's use is useless, if they can just put one of their friends in the role.\n\nAlso, this bill looks like a train-wreck. It conjures up corpses of decrepit obscenity laws and other arcane parts of Britain's legal system. It also invokes vague language which will chill free expression.\n\nA structure like this is probably also uniquely amenable to moral panic, especially with how vague the language is. Even if it's a relatively neutral official, who is to say they won't panic over something.\n\nhttps://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/nov/19/paul-dacre-pulls-out-of-running-next-ofcom-chair\nAt one point, they considered putting the editor of the most right wing populist paper in Britain in-charge of the \"regulator\".",
"sig": "4b49b91f5499bea47579ba23becf670f288c9a6f409215aaf8ed55133e617e0205ecaf8df8ac835e79565fc134a6be9e9aae085e2e13891f84d1d69cf8357837"
}