> This offence banned disinformation that could cause “non-trivial psychological or physical harm”. .. “The problem with trying to criminalise ‘disinformation’ is that it empowers the state to decide what is and isn’t true.”<p>The other problem is how slanted the law is, even as written. "We didn't come to Britain - Britain came to us", "Diversity built Britain" and "Britain has always been diverse" [1], and other such phrases crafted to delegitimize British nationhood are never "hate", nor do they cause "harm".<p>But "Britons Built Britain", "It's OK to be white", and "We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066" are cited as "hate" [2].<p>If you argue for immigration, you can be as loose with your facts and as fiery with your rhetoric as you like. But argue <i>against</i> it, and you better not make a single error [3], and keep your phrasing as dry as possible, or you'll end up behind bars.<p>[1] Or the more insidious portrayal of historical Britain as ahistorically diverse behind the shield of fiction, even when that element of an otherwise fictional story is clearly intended to portray a real place: "Piers Wenger [BBC head of drama] said failing to update the classics with diverse characters would be a dereliction of duty" - <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/24/bbc-drama-boss-defends-woke-adaptations-classic-novels/" rel="nofollow">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/24/bbc-drama-boss-d...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51zn2l33r9o" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51zn2l33r9o</a><p>[3] Even if that "error" is extremely reasonable and plausible inference, such as claiming a terrorist found with an Al Qaeda manual is Muslim: <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/southport-stabbings-suspect-faces-separate-terror-charge-after-ricin-and-al-qaeda-manual-found-at-home-13243980" rel="nofollow">https://news.sky.com/story/southport-stabbings-suspect-faces...</a>