Post

This is how journalism that picks up a narrative from govt sources and other media end up misrepresenting reality to readers. This says charges are for “protests against the death penalty” which, w/o context, paints a diff picture from what actually happened. www.independent.co.uk/asia/southea...

The charges are now framed as being about “protests” because the charges under the Public Order Act are about “public assemblies”. But the Public Order Act is so broad that a huge range of action can be deemed “public assembly” even if we wouldn’t ordinarily see it as such.

The average reasonable person would *not* define this as a “public assembly” or “protest”. But when media outlets pick up on the state’s language and narrative without describing what actually happened, it gives people a very different impression of the situation.

Do you think they’ve latched on to the matching tshirts? Tshirt logo seemed to play a part later in the reporting?

The authorities seem to have latched on to the T-shirts to argue that it turns this into an assembly for the cause of death penalty abolition. But is it reasonable that that is all it takes? If I went to lunch with friends and we were strolling in a mall wearing these shirts, is that a protest, too?

The Public Order Act also says that an “assembly” can actually even be made up of just one person. So if I wore that T-shirt and walked around in public alone could that also be an illegal protest under the Public Order Act? The law is broad to the point of absurdity.