Subject: UK's Green Party Demands "Arday's Law" to Limit Reporting on Misdeeds of Black People

The Good Law Project (which had supported serial plagiarist and professional liar Jason Arday) and allies in the UK's Green Party have circulated an open letter/petition to the Prime Minister Andy Burnham calling for an "immediate public inquiry into how to ensure a responsible press given its contribution
to Dr Arday's tragic death."

It attracted tens of thousands of signatures (reports range from ~30,000 early on to over 122,000), with support from MPs (including Diane Abbott and others, totaling dozens of parliamentarians in some accounts), public figures, and activists. Signatories and supporters characterized the media coverage of Arday's various scandals as relentless, often racist or ableist, and a
"vicious witch hunt", arguing self-regulation failed and government intervention is needed. London Mayor Sadiq Khan called the attention an "unacceptable public hounding".

The solution: A new law is need, dubbed "Arday?s Law", which would impose limits on the number of news articles published about a single individual within a defined timeframe. Proponents present this as balancing the public's right to information against privacy and mental well-being. Activist groups (including some under Amnesty UK) have backed related accountability
measures.

Defining any such rule would, of course, be inherently difficult: What would count as an "article"? Would it have to be multiple paragraphs or would a single tweet count? How would "about a single individual" be measured? What timeframe and numerical limit would apply? Would there be public-interest exceptions (ongoing investigations, public figures, new developments)? Who decides and how are disputes resolved? And most importantly, does the UK,
which already is the butt of international derision over the erosion of free speech within its borders, really need yet another censorship law on its
books?

Of course any such law would have limited practical effect anyway, given the international nature of the internet and the fact that people in other countries would not be legally bound by a UK law.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Subject: Re: UK's Green Party Demands "Arday's Law" to Limit Reporting on Misdeeds of Black People

On 2026-08-20 11:49 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:

The Good Law Project (which had supported serial plagiarist and professional liar Jason Arday) and allies in the UK's Green Party have circulated an open letter/petition to the Prime Minister Andy Burnham calling for an "immediate public inquiry into how to ensure a responsible press given its contribution to Dr Arday's tragic death."

It attracted tens of thousands of signatures (reports range from ~30,000 early
on to over 122,000), with support from MPs (including Diane Abbott and others,
totaling dozens of parliamentarians in some accounts), public figures, and activists. Signatories and supporters characterized the media coverage of Arday's various scandals as relentless, often racist or ableist, and a "vicious witch hunt", arguing self-regulation failed and government intervention is needed. London Mayor Sadiq Khan called the attention an "unacceptable public hounding".

The solution: A new law is need, dubbed "Arday?s Law", which would impose limits on the number of news articles published about a single individual within a defined timeframe. Proponents present this as balancing the public's right to information against privacy and mental well-being. Activist groups (including some under Amnesty UK) have backed related accountability measures.

Defining any such rule would, of course, be inherently difficult: What would count as an "article"? Would it have to be multiple paragraphs or would a single tweet count? How would "about a single individual" be measured? What timeframe and numerical limit would apply? Would there be public-interest exceptions (ongoing investigations, public figures, new developments)? Who decides and how are disputes resolved? And most importantly, does the UK, which already is the butt of international derision over the erosion of free speech within its borders, really need yet another censorship law on its books?

Of course any such law would have limited practical effect anyway, given the international nature of the internet and the fact that people in other countries would not be legally bound by a UK law.

You've put your finger on the problem - and the solution: clearly a
world government of some kind is needed so that offenders can't get away
with things by simply being on the other side of a border. If there are
no borders, there can be no hiding from accountability. They've been
working on this behind the scenes for decades now....

--
Rhino

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Subject: Re: UK's Green Party Demands "Arday's Law" to Limit Reporting on Misdeeds of Black People

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

The Good Law Project (which had supported serial plagiarist and professional >liar Jason Arday) and allies in the UK's Green Party have circulated an open >letter/petition to the Prime Minister Andy Burnham calling for an "immediate >public inquiry into how to ensure a responsible press given its contribution >to Dr Arday's tragic death."

A responsible press is responsible for learning and publishing the truth
and providing proper context so that the public may judge the weight and severity of the situation. Can't do much to hod them responsible for
their faiings aside from unsubscribing.

It attracted tens of thousands of signatures (reports range from ~30,000 >early on to over 122,000), with support from MPs (including Diane Abbott
and others, totaling dozens of parliamentarians in some accounts), public >figures, and activists. Signatories and supporters characterized the
media coverage of Arday's various scandals as relentless, often racist
or ableist, and a "vicious witch hunt", arguing self-regulation failed
and government intervention is needed. London Mayor Sadiq Khan called
the attention an "unacceptable public hounding".

In a weird coincidence, I just watched a Rory Sutherland (non photogenic marketing executive with the London office of what had been Ogilvie and
Mather) video in which those who promote cost cutting in a business are
never held responsible for the long-term harm that is a consequence of eliminating the human interaction, the Doorman fallacy.

Obviously, the people who should be held responsible are those who
promoted this guy wel beyond his ability and failed to make sure that he
had developed into the academic he was purported to be. But they won't
be as they met a short-term objective of promoting a guy who appeared to
tick off some boxes.

If you think about it, they literally discriminated on racial
bias in academia rather than remedying it for the very fact that they
simply pretended he was someone he was not, then threw him to the
wolves. In truth, no one wanted to mentor him BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK. It
was so much easier to pretend he was the Sidney Poitier character in
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner than to actually set him off on the road
toward well-earned success.

The solution: A new law is need, dubbed "Arday's Law", which would impose >limits on the number of news articles published about a single individual >within a defined timeframe.

That won't work. Arday needed to be an entirely fictional character with
a good-looking actor hired to play him, to be trotted out in public when university needed to prove inclusiveness. The script needed to be
written to avoid what academia feared most, dealing with junior faculty
and students as actual human beings with a mix of good points as well as failings and flaws.

Cleaning up after the fact ain't gonna cut it. Fake it better for next
time.

. . .

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Subject: Re: UK's Green Party Demands "Arday's Law" to Limit Reporting on Misdeeds of Black People

On 2026-08-21 12:01 a.m., Rhino wrote:

On 2026-08-20 11:49 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:

The Good Law Project (which had supported serial plagiarist and
professional
liar Jason Arday) and allies in the UK's Green Party have circulated
an open
letter/petition to the Prime Minister Andy Burnham calling for an
"immediate
public inquiry into how to ensure a responsible press given its
contribution
to Dr Arday's tragic death."

It attracted tens of thousands of signatures (reports range from
~30,000 early
on to over 122,000), with support from MPs (including Diane Abbott and
others,
totaling dozens of parliamentarians in some accounts), public figures,
and
activists. Signatories and supporters characterized the media coverage of
Arday's various scandals as relentless, often racist or ableist, and a
"vicious witch hunt", arguing self-regulation failed and government
intervention is needed. London Mayor Sadiq Khan called the attention an
"unacceptable public hounding".

The solution: A new law is need, dubbed "Arday?s Law", which would impose
limits on the number of news articles published about a single individual
within a defined timeframe. Proponents present this as balancing the
public's
right to information against privacy and mental well-being. Activist
groups
(including some under Amnesty UK) have backed related accountability
measures.

Defining any such rule would, of course, be inherently difficult: What
would
count as an "article"? Would it have to be multiple paragraphs or would a
single tweet count? How would "about a single individual" be measured?
What
timeframe and numerical limit would apply? Would there be public-interest
exceptions (ongoing investigations, public figures, new developments)?
Who
decides and how are disputes resolved? And most importantly, does the UK,
which already is the butt of international derision over the erosion
of free
speech within its borders, really need yet another censorship law on its
books?

Of course any such law would have limited practical effect anyway,
given the
international nature of the internet and the fact that people in other
countries would not be legally bound by a UK law.

You've put your finger on the problem - and the solution: clearly a
world government of some kind is needed so that offenders can't get away with things by simply being on the other side of a border. If there are
no borders, there can be no hiding from accountability. They've been
working on this behind the scenes for decades now....

Please note that the preceding paragraph was NOT something I personally advocate for, it's actually something that terrifies me! A world without borders where the whole planet was run like the UK would be a true
dystopia.

--
Rhino

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)