Scotland’s hatespeech law proposal

[Koldo]

It certainly answers the question you would not need to ask if you had actually read the whole sentence before writing this.

Then again, you probably would have had to post your links without an introductory line.


But free speech has already been outlawed in the UK since 1986, hasn't it?

(Wikipedia)

Tell me, how have you managed to live during these 14 years of the brutal and tyrannical opppression of your freedom?

I think he meant it as: But who gets to determine whether a certain speech counts as hate speech or not? The very own people feeling offended?

Do you see how dangerous that can be?

 

[Tambourine]

I think he meant it as: But who gets to determine whether a certain speech counts as hate speech or not? The very own people feeling offended?

Do you see how dangerous that can be?

Who gets to determine whether the public performance of a play is "intended to incite racial hatred" as per the Public Order Act of 1986?

Why didn't the UK descend into tyranny in 1986?

 

[Notanumber]

It certainly answers the question you would not need to ask if you had actually read the whole sentence before writing this.

Then again, you probably would have had to post your links without an introductory line.


But free speech has already been outlawed in the UK since 1986, hasn't it?

(Wikipedia)

Tell me, how have you managed to live during these 14 years of the brutal and tyrannical opppression of your freedom?

Have you never heard the expression, much wants more?

They are not satisfied with the powers they already have and are determined to keep pressing for more and more.

 

[Tambourine]

Have you never heard the expression, much wants more?

They are not satisfied with the powers they already have and are determined to keep pressing for more and more.

Who is "they", and why would "they" need additional powers, when they presumably had the power to shut you up since 1986?

And why didn't Thatcher ban the Labor party and rule the UK as an authoritarian dictator?

 

[wellwisher]

In America, hate speech protection applies only to left wing supported groups. It is a political scam and tool, created by the left. When Former President Obama was elected, it was considered hate speech to even disagree with Obama on policy matters, due to the color of his skin. But if a black person was a Republican, hate speech no longer applied to the same things.

President Trump defied this scam, by not going along with the PC rules, as was defined by the left. Now the criminal activity of the left, that their hate speech prohibitions covered up, are more on display. He knew how to nip it in the bud since it was sold as something it was not.

When Trump was running for office, and after elected as president, top level Obama Officials were running a coup. Part of that coup, was connected to a continuous stream of Trump hate by the left wing media. This stream of hate, was not considered hate speech, even though the word hate and emotion of hate was used in every sentence. Hate speech was subjective and used by the left as a political tool, to cheat the opposition.

My advice is, if bigoted government wishes to institute hate speech laws, then everyone needs to add their own words that bother them to their list, so this does not become a one sided political tool. If it only applies to one side of the political spectrum, it is a scam by crooks.

 

[Koldo]

Who gets to determine whether the public performance of a play is "intended to incite racial hatred" as per the Public Order Act of 1986?

Why didn't the UK descend into tyranny in 1986?

I have no idea on what this Public Order Act consists of and how it has been used. I also think it is a bit of a stretch to say a country would descend into tiranny simply because of a law that can be misused.

I am merely opposed to punishing people for things they say, in general. I don't see why people need to be protected from being offended.

 

[Tambourine]

I have no idea on what this Public Order Act consists of and how it has been used. I also think it is a bit of a stretch to say a country would descend into tiranny simply because of a law that can be misused.

Earlier, you who were warning of the dangers of hate speech legislation. Now that we have a factual, real world example of hate speech law in action, how do you assess the factual, real world damage it has caused since 1986?

I am merely opposed to punishing people for things they say, in general. I don't see why people need to be protected from being offended.

Why do you assume that hate speech laws exist to protect people from being offended?
The reason that, for example, National Socialist political activity is banned in Germany isn't because a handful of German Jews felt a little bit offended by it.

In America, hate speech protection applies only to left wing supported groups.

Does the right wing in America not seek to protect racial, religious and sexual minorities from harassment and violence?

 

[Notanumber]

The difference between the Right and Left is that the Right are prepared to listen to others and their opinions, not try to shut them up or deplatform them when they say or could say something that the Left finds disagreeable.

 

[Koldo]

Earlier, you who were warning of the dangers of hate speech legislation. Now that we have a factual, real world example of hate speech law in action, how do you assess the factual, real world damage it has caused since 1986?

I have the factual example of how hate speech legislation works in my country. You will need to use google translate though.

Mais um caso de injúria racial é registrado na Grande BH; vítima é taxista

Skinhead é condenado por racismo na Internet contra judeus, negros e nordestinos — Tribunal de Justiça do Distrito Federal e dos Territórios

Advogado é condenado a dois anos de prisão por racismo ao escrever que índios são malandros e vadios

Paulo Henrique Amorim é condenado por injúria racial contra Heraldo Pereira

In essence, saying 'I hate x,y and z group' is a crime. Saying someone in particular has a white soul is a crime. And so on. It is silly that people feel the need to punish others for things like this.

Why do you assume that hate speech laws exist to protect people from being offended?
The reason that, for example, National Socialist political activity is banned in Germany isn't because a handful of German Jews felt a little bit offended by it.

What do you see as the reason for hate speech laws? To prevent ideologies we don't like from spreading?

 

[Tambourine]

The difference between the Right and Left is that the Right are prepared to listen to others and their opinions, not try to shut them up or deplatform them when they say or could say something that the Left finds disagreeable.

Did Thatcher ban free speech in the UK in 1986 because she was listening to "others"?

 

[Tambourine]

I have the factual example of how hate speech legislation works in my country. You will need to use google translate though.

Mais um caso de injúria racial é registrado na Grande BH; vítima é taxista

Skinhead é condenado por racismo na Internet contra judeus, negros e nordestinos — Tribunal de Justiça do Distrito Federal e dos Territórios

Advogado é condenado a dois anos de prisão por racismo ao escrever que índios são malandros e vadios

Paulo Henrique Amorim é condenado por injúria racial contra Heraldo Pereira

In essence, saying 'I hate x,y and z group' is a crime. Saying someone in particular has a white soul is a crime. And so on. It is silly that people feel the need to punish others for things like this.

I'm guessing that your country is Brazil? How is it possible to have these hate speech laws, but elect a candidate into office of President who has publically proclaimed his hatred for homosexuality?

That suggests that either your hate speech laws aren't as thoroughly enforced as you claim they are, or that they are only enforced on select groups of people and not on others. Can you enlighten me on this?

What do you see as the reason for hate speech laws? To prevent ideologies we don't like from spreading?

Sorry, I will try to respond to this later on in depth.

 

[Koldo]

I'm guessing that your country is Brazil? How is it possible to have these hate speech laws, but elect a candidate into office of President who has publically proclaimed his hatred for homosexuality?

That suggests that either your hate speech laws aren't as thoroughly enforced as you claim they are, or that they are only enforced on select groups of people and not on others. Can you enlighten me on this?


Sorry, I will try to respond to this later on in depth.

Yes, I am from Brazil. I don't know what speech in particular you had in mind when you mentioned that but it was only last year that our Supreme Court decided that the concept of racism includes homophoby. And since this counts as a novatio legis in pejus, it can't be applied to things that happened before then. In other words, being openly homophobic wasn't a crime per se until recently. However, Bolsonaro already had to fork over some money (150.000 reais, roughly 25.000 dollars nowadays) to compensate for moral damage.

 

[Tambourine]

Yes, I am from Brazil. I don't know what speech in particular you had in mind when you mentioned that but it was only last year that our Supreme Court decided that the concept of racism includes homophoby. And since this counts as a novatio legis in pejus, it can't be applied to things that happened before then. In other words, being openly homophobic wasn't a crime per se until recently. However, Bolsonaro already had to fork over some money (150.000 reais, roughly 25.000 dollars nowadays) to compensate for moral damage.

Do you think it is "silly" that people can't publically call for the murder of homosexual people any more without facing fines?

 

[Tambourine]

What do you see as the reason for hate speech laws? To prevent ideologies we don't like from spreading?

"Hate speech laws" are a fairly general category, and can be fairly widely encompassing, or fairly narrow in their application. I believe most of them were passed for one or several of these purposes:
1. Protecting minorities, from political or media campaigns intended to harass them.
2. Allowing these minorities legal recourse against such harassment, assuming that members of these minority groups are more vulnerable and have less access to public discourse to respond to these attacks in other ways.
3. Reducing opportunities for media access for extremist political agents and movements that do not share a general acceptance of human rights for these minorities.
4. Preventing racism, sexism, and homophobic speech from becoming an accepted part of the public discourse and policy making.

 

[Tambourine]

The difference between the Right and Left is that the Right are prepared to listen to others and their opinions, not try to shut them up or deplatform them when they say or could say something that the Left finds disagreeable.

Why should I listen to people who are calling for "peaceful genocide" to establish "white ethnostates", who are calling for the ethnic cleansing of immigrant communities or the death of homosexual people? Why do you believe I only find these opinions reprehensible because "the Left" finds them "disagreeable"?

Do you consider these opinions worth listening to?

 

[Koldo]

Do you think it is "silly" that people can't publically call for the murder of homosexual people any more without facing fines?

No. I think it is reasonable to put limitations on speech when they involve a call to violence. But not when it merely involves speaking ill of someone or some group.

 

[Koldo]

"Hate speech laws" are a fairly general category, and can be fairly widely encompassing, or fairly narrow in their application. I believe most of them were passed for one or several of these purposes:
1. Protecting minorities, from political or media campaigns intended to harass them.
2. Allowing these minorities legal recourse against such harassment, assuming that members of these minority groups are more vulnerable and have less access to public discourse to respond to these attacks in other ways.
3. Reducing opportunities for media access for extremist political agents and movements that do not share a general acceptance of human rights for these minorities.
4. Preventing racism, sexism, and homophobic speech from becoming an accepted part of the public discourse and policy making.

The problem is: by creating those laws we are allowing those that have felt harassed to harass others back in an even worse way.
I don't think the proper way to deal with ideas we don't like is to put the police after those that utter them.
The proper way to deal with them is to openly discredit those ideas, and even shun the people that hold them.

 

[Tambourine]

The problem is: by creating those laws we are allowing those that have felt harassed to harass others back in an even worse way.

Do you actually believe that paying a fine is worse than having people call for your death?

I don't think the proper way to deal with ideas we don't like is to put the police after those that utter them.
The proper way to deal with them is to openly discredit those ideas, and even shun the people that hold them.

You are assuming an ideal society where "good" ideas in the public discourse will always outnumber "bad" ideas because people will intrinsically flock to the better idea by default. But this is not borne out by either history or contemporary facts of reality. If what you claim had actually happened, then nobody would have voted for Hitler in 1933, and very few would have voted for Bolsonaro or Trump.

No matter how reprehensible, reprehensible and dehumanizing ideas will always find an audience if they are brought into the public discourse, and the more you debate their merits, the more you are growing their potential audience.

No. I think it is reasonable to put limitations on speech when they involve a call to violence. But not when it merely involves speaking ill of someone or some group.

You could always argue that it wasn't a direct and unmistakeable call to violence. If they said "all X are thieves and rapists, and we would be better off without them", then that's not a direct and clear call to violence, but some people will nevertheless interpret it that way if that's all they hear about group X.

The thing is, if somebody called me a thief by name, then I would have the recourse of a libel trial in civil court. But if somebody called me a thief by virtue of being part of group X, I would have no such recourse, because that would be protected speech, and not a case for a civil lawsuit.

Do you think it is important that hate speech is part of the public discourse? What value would be lost if nobody was racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or antisemitic in public?

 

[Koldo]

Do you actually believe that paying a fine is worse than having people call for your death?

No. But I wasn't making that comparison.

You are assuming an ideal society where "good" ideas in the public discourse will always outnumber "bad" ideas because people will intrinsically flock to the better idea by default. But this is not borne out by either history or contemporary facts of reality. If what you claim had actually happened, then nobody would have voted for Hitler in 1933, and very few would have voted for Bolsonaro or Trump.

I am not assuming any of that.

No matter how reprehensible, reprehensible and dehumanizing ideas will always find an audience if they are brought into the public discourse, and the more you debate their merits, the more you are growing their potential audience.

That's a risk I am willing to take.

You could always argue that it wasn't a direct and unmistakeable call to violence. If they said "all X are thieves and rapists, and we would be better off without them", then that's not a direct and clear call to violence, but some people will nevertheless interpret it that way if that's all they hear about group X.

The thing is, if somebody called me a thief by name, then I would have the recourse of a libel trial in civil court. But if somebody called me a thief by virtue of being part of group X, I would have no such recourse, because that would be protected speech, and not a case for a civil lawsuit.

I think it is reasonable to draw the line in a manner that doesn't allow falsehoods to be intentfully spread.

Do you think it is important that hate speech is part of the public discourse? What value would be lost if nobody was racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or antisemitic in public?

We would live pretending that people don't hate each other. We would live in a falsehood.

 

[Notanumber]

They cannot stop us thinking but they can stop us sharing our thoughts.

Free speech is something to cherish.

Police Abuse Of Powers - Civil Liberties Eroding!

Paradoxically, while free speech is under threat we no longer have the right to remain silent in the UK.

Britain First leader Paul Golding guilty of terror offence after refusing to give cops his phone's PIN after Russia trip