#the tyranny of words

[divorcedwife]

i love the idea of a god of tyranny so i designed my girl as the chosen of bane. inspired by the bane worshippers of bg3, roman emperors, and greek tragedy actors

[upstatestuck]

[krumpkin]

I think it's important that we remember politicians will always be politicians 🤔

[rumor-imbris]

He has the dark beauty of autumn shades, the unquiet melancholy of a stormy ocean sunset and the hopeful strength of shooting stars ere dawn All the painful lights and colours in his eyes one could paint a whole new night

[littlefankingdom]

After some research, I learned that the creator of Lonnie Machin created him to be the next Robin after Jason's death, but Tim Drake was created and stole the job later. This explains the comparaison between Lonnie and Jason, and probably also why he is called a vigilante and Bruce likes the kid so much. Anyway, this is just feeding the "Bruce should take Lonnie under his wing and make him another one of his kids" want I have developed playing Batman Arkham: Origins. That's what his creator wanted, for his revolutionary baby to have Batman mentors him (so they can destroy capitalism) If DC weren't coward they would give to Bruce his anarchist kid and make Lonnie a batkid!

~ Detective Comics (1937)

Anarky and Lonnie Machin's beginning! I was a bit worried, because I don't really trust an usamerican media to be objective about anarchism, but actually Bruce is shown to agree with Anarky's cause! He agrees with him, but not with using violence as punishment. Bruce, once again, uses the power trinity to explain why he is against killing.

Bruce calling Anarky "a vigilante", just like the murderer of that ceo in Future State, once again shows that Bruce doesn’t see people as criminals if they are in the eyes of the law or break his moral code. If someone is trying to take over the drug cartels (Red Hood in Under The Red Hood), that's a criminal. If someone is killing ceos because they are pos (Anarky here), that's a vigilante. Also, again, they show how Bruce is NOT a capitalist. He openly criticizes a new bank opening instead of social housings. He says he admires the kid, he defends him as "just trying to do the right thing".

Bruce panicking because he hit a kid is everything I want about him. Yeah, Batman should be horrified at the idea of hitting a kid! But also, Lonnie reminding him of Jason, and like, is there a kid out there that doesn't remind him of his late son? Really, this man is like "A kid... My son was a kid... *starts to cry*". And the fact that he got pranked by Lonnie? Just great.

[srisrisriddd]

Modern Art - Big Man - Listen, Little man - Tyranny - Masterpiece

Big Man

THE WORLD PREYS ON BIG MAN TO Make Him STAY IN THE CORNER, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SCALE ONE IS FORCED TO STAY IN THE CORNER ONE-TO-ONE WITH SELF. MAN HAS NO WAY TO ESCAPE TYRANNY.

LISTEN, LITTLE MAN BY WILHELM REICH IS A MUST READ TO UNDERSTAND AVERAGE MAN

- Dr Devang H Dattani

Good Morning

See Exhibits Of Modern Art Human On Chair

Quote / Poem / Poetry / Quotes Of 

Bhagwan Sri Sri Sri

Doctor Devang H Dattani

Infinite SriSriSri DDD

Posted By TheBlissCity DDD Team

See The Media Photo Video For

Quoteoftheday

God Morning

#Prey, #Tyranny, #bliss , #TheBlissCity , #philosophy , #mindfulness , #DrDevangHDattani , #nature , #awareness , #InfiniteSriSriSriDDD , #quotes , #life , #art , #zen , #awakening , #quote , #spirituality , #photography , #Video , #meditation , #psychology , #poem , #poetry , #motivation , #inspiration , #quoteoftheday , #love , #words , #thoughts , #joy , #pun , #enlightenment , #health , #mental health , #consciousness , #good , #god , #life , #thoughts , #nirvana , #tantra , #yoga , #soul , #love , #esoteric , #mystic , #spirit , #spiritual , #magic , #photooftheday , #modern art, #illustration , #artists, #models, #wellbeing , #wellness , #exhibit, #sculptures, #drawing , #painting , #Listen, little Man, #Big Man

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Andrew Doyle

Published: Apr 7, 2025

A new report in the Times has revealed that police in the UK are arresting more than 12,000 people each year for words that cause offence. That’s over 30 arrests per day for speech crime.

So I thought it might be helpful to compile a list of UK citizens who have been visited, investigated or arrested by the police for speech that was deemed ‘offensive’. The vast majority of cases have not been reported in the press, and so I am only drawing on those in the public domain. This is by no means a comprehensive list. Please feel free to add more in the comments!

In January 2019, Harry Miller was contacted by Humberside Police for retweeting a poem that was interpreted as ‘transphobic’. Miller asked why he was being investigated and why the unnamed complainant was being described as a ‘victim’ if no crime had been committed. The officer replied: ‘We need to check your thinking’.

In February 2025, school administrator Helen Jones was visited by Greater Manchester Police after posting criticisms of Labour politicians on Facebook, specifically calling for the resignation of local councillors involved in a WhatsApp scandal. Officers later confirmed that she hadn’t committed any crime.

In July 2022, women’s rights campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen was visited by Wiltshire Police officers at her home for a social media post that was deemed ‘untoward about paedophiles’. The police later admitted that the visit was ‘not wholly appropriate’.

In May 2016, YouTuber Markus Meechan (aka ‘Count Dankula’) was arrested for posting a comedy video in which he taught his girlfriend’s pug to perform a Nazi salute and react excitedly to the phrase ‘gas the Jews’. He was later found guilty in court and fined £800.

In September 2016, former footballer Paul Gascoigne was found guilty in a criminal court of racially aggravated abuse, after a joke he made during a stop on his An Evening with Gazza tour at Wolverhampton Civic Hall. At one point during the show, he had turned to Errol Rowe, a black security guard, and said, ‘Can you smile please, because I can’t see you’. For this, Gascoigne was fined £1,000 and forced to pay a further £1,000 in compensation to Rowe.

In March 2025, Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine were arrested and locked in a cell for eight hours for criticising the policies of their daughter’s school in emails and a WhatsApp group. Six police officers had turned up to their house to make the arrest. The case was dropped after a five-week investigation.

In February 2021, Joseph Kelly was arrested and charged (and later found guilty in court) for a tweet about the late Captain Tom Moore that was deemed ‘grossly offensive’.

In October 2024, Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councillor, was sentenced to 31 months in prison after an offensive tweet about burning hotels housing asylum seekers in the wake of the Southport murders.

In July 2024, former Royal Marine Jamie Michael posted a video online which criticised illegal migration and called for peaceful protest. He was arrested and charged and later found not guilty in court.

In July 2022, army veteran Darren Brady was arrested and handcuffed for ‘causing anxiety’ by posting an image of four Progress Pride flags arranged into a swastika. Brady had shared the meme which had been previously posted by actor Laurence Fox in protest against the ‘hectoring authoritarianism’ of Pride month.

In June 2019, comedian Jo Brand was investigated by police after an appearance on BBC Radio 4’s Heresy programme. She had joked about throwing battery acid at right-wing politicians.

In February 2020, Kate Scottow was convicted under the Communications Act for referring to a transgender individual who identified as a woman as ‘he’ on social media. This was later overturned on appeal.

In April 2018, teenager Chelsea Russell was convicted for quoting rap lyrics containing racially offensive language on her Instagram page as a tribute to a dead friend. She was given a community order and placed on curfew, which was later overturned on appeal.

In May 2010, Paul Chambers was found guilty of sending a joke tweet in which he said he would blow up an airport in Doncaster after it closed due to heavy snowfall. The case only went ahead at the insistence of the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer.

In August 2024, Lee Joseph Dunn was sentenced to 8 weeks in jail for posting three memes on Facebook that were considered ‘grossly offensive’. The most objectionable of the memes depicted a group of knife-wielding immigrants with the caption ‘Coming to a town near you’.

In 2012, teenager Matthew Woods was imprisoned for three months for posting offensive jokes on Facebook. He had apparently been drunk at the time, and the material had been copied from the website ‘Sickipedia’.

In November 2024, journalist Allison Pearson was visited by police and investigated for a year-old social media post that some had found offensive. The visiting officers would not provide any details of the specific post, which is why she later described the experience as ‘Kafkaesque’.

In August 2023, women’s rights campaigner Maya Forstater was investigated by police for a tweet about a trans-identified male doctor examining female patients without their informed consent. The investigation was dropped after 15 months.

In September 2022, Christian preacher David McConnell was found guilty of harassment for ‘misgendering’. He had referred to a trans-identified male as a ‘man’ and a ‘gentleman’. His conviction was later overturned.

Journalist Caroline Farrow was subjected to a 6-month-long investigation by police following an appearance on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, where during an off-air moment she had allegedly referred to another contributor’s trans-identified daughter with a male pronoun.

--

By: Charlie Parker, Yennah Smart and George Willoughby

Published: Apr 4, 2025

The police are making more than 30 arrests a day over offensive posts on social media and other platforms.

Thousands of people are being detained and questioned for sending messages that cause “annoyance”, “inconvenience” or “anxiety” to others via the internet, telephone or mail.

Custody data obtained by The Times shows that officers are making about 12,000 arrests a year under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

The acts make it illegal to cause distress by sending “grossly offensive” messages or sharing content of an “indecent, obscene or menacing character” on an electronic communications network.

Officers from 37 police forces made 12,183 arrests in 2023, the equivalent of about 33 per day. This marks an almost 58 per cent rise in arrests since before the pandemic. In 2019, forces logged 7,734 detentions.

The statistics have provoked criticism from civil liberties groups that the authorities are over-policing the internet and threatening free speech using “vague” communications laws.

As director of public prosecutions, Sir Keir Starmer issued Crown Prosecution Service guidance stating that offensive social media messages should only lead to prosecution in “extreme circumstances”.

Analysis of government data shows that the number of convictions and sentencings for communications offences has dramatically decreased over the past decade.

According to Ministry of Justice figures, there were 1,119 sentencings for Section 127 and Section 1 offences in 2023, down by almost half since 2015 when 1,995 people were found guilty of the crimes.

There are several reasons for arrests not resulting in sentencing, such as out-of-court resolutions. But the most common is “evidential difficulties”, specifically that the victim does not support taking further action.

There has been an outcry about police “overreach” and fears that officers could be “curtailing democracy” by arresting people for malicious communications offences.

The Times reported last week that Hertfordshire police sent six officers to detain a couple and put them in a cell for eight hours after their child’s primary school objected to the volume of emails they sent and “disparaging” comments made in a WhatsApp group.

Maxie Allen, 50, and Rosalind Levine, 46, were questioned on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications and causing a nuisance on school property. After a five-week investigation, the police concluded that there should be no further action.

A police officer also said that elected officials could be treated as harassment suspects if they continued advocating for the couple.

Andy Prophet, chief constable of Hertfordshire, defended the arrests, saying that the force had given warnings and they were lawful, although he conceded that “with the benefit of hindsight we could have achieved the same ends in a different way”.

According to the data obtained by The Times, the force with the highest number of arrests in 2023 was the Metropolitan Police (1,709), the largest force in the UK, followed by West Yorkshire (963) and Thames Valley (939). However, when adjusted for population, Leicestershire police had the highest rate of arrests per 100,000 with 83. Cumbria police was second (58) and Northamptonshire police third (50).

The total arrest figures are likely to be far higher because eight forces failed to respond to freedom of information requests or provided inadequate data, including Police Scotland, the second largest force in the UK. Some forces also included arrests for “threatening” messages, though these do not fall under the specified sections.

Jake Hurfurt, head of research and investigations at Big Brother Watch, a civil liberties group, said the increase of arrests for communications offences is “seriously concerning”.

He said: “Police look to be wasting countless hours on arresting people for posting things online that, while offensive, are not illegal. Heavy-handed use of vague communications offences is a threat to everyone’s freedom to express themselves online.

“Police must remember that free speech is a right, and only intervene when absolutely necessary, because needless arrests for social media posts have a chilling effect that will cause the decline of our democratic culture.

“These statistics are seriously concerning and the home secretary should instigate an independent review into police arrests for online speech and the health of free expression in the UK.”

Toby Young, the founder and director of the Free Speech Union, said his organisation was helping half a dozen people who were being prosecuted for section 127 or section 1 offences.

They include David Wootton, 40, who is appealing against a conviction for dressing up as the Manchester Arena bomber, Salman Abedi, for a Halloween party last year.

[ David Wootton dressed as the Manchester Arena bomber, Salman Abedi, for a Halloween party ]

He had posted images on social media showing him wearing an Arabic-style headdress, and the slogan “I love Ariana Grande” on his T-shirt, and carrying a rucksack with “Boom” and “TNT” written on the front. Wootton was arrested and admitted sending an offensive message online. He faces up to two years in prison.

Young accused police forces of being “over-zealous in pursuing people for alleged speech crimes”.

He added: “Given that only 11 per cent of the violent and sexual offence cases in England and Wales were closed after a suspect was caught or charged in the year to June 2024, a steep decline on previous years, it seems extraordinary that the police are wasting so much time arresting people for hurty words.

“Sir Keir Starmer emphatically denied there is a free speech crisis in Britain when JD Vance raised this with him at the White House, but this data suggests we have a serious problem.”

A suspect arrested on suspicion of malicious communications may have also been arrested on suspicion of other linked offences. So while they might not have been sentenced for that offence, they might for another offence if it was part of the same incident.

A spokeswoman for Leicestershire police said crimes under Section 127 and Section 1 include “any form of communication” such as phone calls, letters, emails and hoax calls to emergency services.

“They may also be serious domestic abuse-related crimes. Our staff must assess all of the information to determine if the threshold to record a crime has been met.

“Where a malicious communications offence is believed to have taken place, appropriate action will be taken. Our staff must consider whether the communication may be an expression which would be considered to be freedom of speech. While it may be unacceptable to be rude or offensive it is not unlawful — unless the communication is ‘grossly offensive’.

“Freedom of speech is enshrined within our society, and while communications may be rude, impolite or offensive, they may not be unlawful. Decisions are made taking this into consideration and if found not to be unlawful, will not be recorded as a crime.”

Other police forces deferred to the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which did not provide a comment.

==

“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people. I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down.” ― Salman Rushdie

Reminder: offence must be taken.

[palatinewolfsblog]

"We live in capitalism.

Its power seems inescapable.

So did the divine right of kings.

Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings.

Resistance and change often begin in art,

and very often in our art, the art of words."

- Ursula K. Le Guin, US-american Author and "Activist of the Imagination".

[maleficore]

You can't convince me Durge/Gortash was not "and they were both tops" kind of mishap

[crabs-with-sticks]

Paso Doble: Ghilara Lavellan x Felassan

Characterised by strong, bold, and confident movements, with dramatic poses, body the paso doble tells the story of a Spanish bullfight. The lead represents the Matador, while the follower can represent the Matador's cape or the bull. Unlike other forms of dance, the lead is able to take the spotlight- requiring both parties to be equally bold and confident.

Pose inspired by this dance by Lindsey Stirling and Mark Ballas.

Solas x Ghilara: waltz | | Solas x Felassan: tango

Art is based on the poly relationship in my fic Small Tyrannies

[krumpkin]

One of my favourite quotes 🤔

[rumor-imbris]

Each word a thread I weave a blanket of love poetry for you oneiric starry skies, a tangled lullaby - to wrap you up and when I dream of you, the cloak is pulled tighter to hold you closer

[without-ado]

“All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force.”

—George Orwell

[sloganeeer]

Great thing about rain all day: I walked around my neighbourhood and scraped off all the bullshit nationalist manifestos that have been pasted on traffic poles in the last month.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

There is a curious and curiously popular habit whereby people edit down the subjective truth in the statement “I am afraid we will lose” to the pseudo-objective declaration “We will lose.” My best interpretation of this, after seeing it time after time, in crisis after crisis, is that it’s how people hide from their own vulnerable emotions. It’s an interesting journey from real fear to false authority and projection of confidence. But why would you assert as fact and inevitability what you fear? What are you protecting? Maybe the self rather than the cause, but only protecting it from disappointment, uncertainty, risk.

When you assert that the future is already decided, you undermine the motivation to participate in shaping that future—which seems ridiculously obvious as I type these words, but doesn’t seem like it’s considered by these prophets of doom. Also when you turn your feelings into facts, you turn truth into fiction. Accepting defeat in advance is a curious form of self-protection. I want to see people protect the cause by distinguishing between these two things and maybe realizing that you protect the self by protecting the cause and the possibilities.

This is not an argument against fear. It’s an argument for clarity about what’s a feeling and what’s a fact and a contemplation of how our words shape our world. I’ve been saying for the last few years, in regard to climate, “I respect despair as an emotion but don’t confuse it with an analysis.” You can feel fear, despair, sorrow, anxiety without surrender; history is full of countless people who persevered under the grimmest circumstances, often with heavy hearts and no victory visible on the horizon, or success a wild unlikelihood. Sometimes they lost, but the only ones who won were the ones who stuck with it (or who benefited from someone else doing the work).

Here I’m arguing for what my friend Roshi Joan Halifax calls wise hope, not foolish optimism; there are times when an honest assessment of “this will not work” is the beginning of turning toward what possibly will. On the other hand, in my years on this earth, I’ve seen things declared impossible or unimaginable come to pass, notably the fall of the Soviet satellite states in 1989—I don’t think that even most of the people who toppled those regimes believed they could and would, until they did.

We make something more likely, more widely believed, by saying and repeating it. Our rhetoric encourages or discourages. Which is why sports teams chant a version of “I believe we will win.” A whole sector of the progressive/left/whatever, however, seems to be eternally chanting “I believe we will lose.” This is not something sports teams do, incidentally.

In life outside games, warnings matter, but warnings are not prophecies. Warnings say, “this could happen, or if this happens, the results will be that,” which is quite different from “this will happen” as a flat declaration of inevitability. From Orwell to Octavia Butler, the people who give us warnings believe we have choices to make; as Butler said: “The very act of trying to look ahead to discern possibilities and offer warnings is in itself an act of hope.”

I don’t love Winston Churchill’s politics, but I do like some of his rhetoric, namely his famous declaration of defiance: “We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall never surrender.” He said that on June 4, 1940, when he had just become Britain’s prime minister. The war was going terribly: Belgium had surrendered and the Nazis, having crushed France, were about to take Paris. Britain faced continental fascism largely alone and Churchill feared that Germany would invade the UK. He didn’t say that the Allies would win, but that they would not cease to try. And he saw his job as to feed their stubborn ferocity, not their fear.

In the wake of the 2016 election, historian Timothy Snyder issued his Twenty Rules for Surviving Tyranny. The first is “1. Do not obey in advance.” I would add to that “do not surrender in advance.” I shared that in the wake of the abysmal debate last week, adding: Do not surrender prematurely. Do not surrender maturely, for that matter. Do not surrender if there is any other option, and maybe don’t surrender then, either.

Snyder continues, "Much of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then start to do it without being asked. … Anticipatory obedience teaches authorities what is possible and accelerates unfreedom."

I have said, "Your opponents would love you to believe that it’s hopeless, that you have no power, that there’s no reason to act, that you can’t win. Hope is a gift you don’t have to surrender, a power you don’t have to throw away."

It was striking in the face of that terrible debate to see people decide we had already lost an election that will not begin until early voting this fall. You would never see this kind of public defeatism and infighting from the Republicans, not that their boundless loyalty to a deranged criminal is exactly admirable. But it is effective. On the other hand, saying we’ve lost or will inevitably lose the election helps lose it.

Sunday, facing the nightmare of the far-right party’s success in the French election, left-wing politician Jean Luc Melenchon declared in a nighttime rally in Paris, “French people, the future of our common homeland will depend on your choice, whatever our skin color, our religion, our gender. Nothing is decided. Courage, young people! Hold fast! The future is what we make of it!” He spoke in Place de la Republique, where the rights of man and the revolutionary values of liberté, egalité, fraternité are celebrated, reaffirming those commitments.

“With high hope for the future no prediction in regard to it is ventured,” said Lincoln in his second inaugural address, in the midst of that war over the future of slavery in the United States (which is itself a reminder that the people who decided to abolish that institution were at first a marginalized, mocked, and sometimes terrorized minority and abolition was widely regarded as impossible).

What has most moved me in public life over the past thirty or forty years is people facing terrible odds without surrendering. I’m old enough to remember the anti-apartheid movement when Nelson Mandela was still serving a life sentence, and the collapse of the Soviet satellite states thanks to nonviolent organizing and civil society engagement; I’ve seen it in more contemporary faces of resistance from Florida’s Coalition of Immokalee Workers to Chiapas’s Zapatistas to the Indigenous-led anti-pipeline activism at Standing Rock and western Canadian sites; I’ve seen it in the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street, in the Chilean student movement a few years ago, in the South Pacific Climate Warriors, and in the Hong Kong protests of 2019-2020.

We are in a crisis like nothing before in this country—only the rise of the Confederacy, secession, and the Civil War are equal in import, but they are not equal in corruption at the heart of things—in Congress and in the Supreme Court, which has staged a judicial coup in its last few days of outrageous rulings.

If Trump resumes office, the third branch falls and they combine into an unholy cabal for at least an attempt at endless tyranny. We may not win, but it behooves us to do everything we can to do so, and that includes our words and their impact. This does not mean suppressing fear and dissent, but being clear about the difference between emotion and analysis and about the fact that our words shape our worlds.

It also means recognizing the arenas in which opinion and thereby consequences are being shaped. A bunch of pundits who presumably want the Democrats to win the 2024 presidential election have taken to calling for Biden to step down, apparently oblivious or indifferent to how that weakens his candidacy, while not demonstrating a convincing alternative path to the White House. They too seem to have taken their fears for analyses.

They are joined in this undermining of the candidate by the New York Times, which famously dragged (“but her emails”) the Democratic candidate in 2016 while saying little about the Republican candidate’s appalling record of racism, bankruptcy, corruption, and criminal associates. The paper has published mountains of articles and editorials on Biden’s age since February and a few days ago issued an editorial insisting he must step down. (Strikingly, only the Philadelphia Inquirer saw Trump’s criminality and threats of tyranny as grounds to declare he should step down.)

As a study of the newspaper issued this spring put it, "The Times is engaged in a game of circular narrative construction: first, cover an issue excessively relative to other equally or more important issues; second, conduct opinion polls and follow up reporting that offer respondents the opportunity to express concern about the excessively covered issue; third, cover the results of stage two as if they are newsworthy events that happened independently of any prior media coverage."

Words have impacts. We shape our worlds with them, and that’s a power that though not evenly distributed lies with nearly all of us one way or another. The poet Marie Howe famously recounted of the Soviet refugee she studied with, “One of my teachers at Columbia was Joseph Brodsky… and he said ‘look,’ he said, ‘you Americans, you are so naïve. You think evil is going to come into your houses wearing big black boots. It doesn’t come like that. Look at the language. It begins in the language.”

But there is another kind of language that opens the door and lets that evil into the house—including by saying it’s inevitable—and that issues from our mouths, not theirs.

[Rebecca Solnit]

[cleaningbones]

pisses me off so bad when a quote is taken out of context like ahhhhh kys i mean noooo that's mean but seriously stop