UK police warns those who post "hate crime" and threatens users with "criminal offences"

[MadMageKefka]

A Red Room is online interactive torture

So then, if that's not ok with you, how do you feel about police going after webhosts dedicated to giving advice for suicide? (Locations, door combos, drug suggestions, injection/cutting sites, etc.)

What the fuck. Obviously thats not ok. There is a very large difference between saying racist bullshit, and strait up fucking torture.

Not sure how suicide help relates to this, but idk if its all that bad. If someone decides to do it, they're gonna do it with or without help. Hopefully the "help" at least gives ways to die peacefully? Id rather know a person didn't suffer, I guess. I had a neighbor kill herself by overdosing on Tylonol. Very painful way to go. Even if those sites didn't exist, you could easily find out how to kill yourself with a google search. I've never seen a site like that myself though, so its hard to have a solid opinion.

 

[grossaffe]

Screw you if you think privacy is moot. Also the nothing the hide is not an excuse. Most people break 3 or 4 laws a day without even knowing.

To paraphrase Edward Snowden: Saying we don't need privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying we don't need freedom of speech because you have nothing to say.

Free healthcare, for instance. The rest of the world's agreed on it but the US won't.

Same for clean energy.

Those are more of examples of us being dumb and refusing to cooperate rather than the idea not working, though

There is no such thing as free healthcare. And just because the "rest of the world" does something, it does not make it the ideal solution.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

There is no such thing as free healthcare. And just because the "rest of the world" does something, it does not make it the ideal solution.

Exhibit A of the point I was trying to prove

And I guess I should call it "healthcare as a right" or "government subsidized healthcare," if you insist on splitting that hair

 

[grossaffe]

Exhibit A of the point I was trying to prove

And I guess I should call it "healthcare as a right" or "government subsidized healthcare," if you insist on splitting that hair

It's a massive hair. The government's money comes from you, me, and everyone else who pays taxes. The cost of individual things like healthcare are just hidden from us when it's paid through us paying more taxes rather than when it comes out of our bank accounts.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

It's a massive hair. The government's money comes from you, me, and everyone else who pays taxes. The cost of individual things like healthcare are just hidden from us when it's paid through us paying more taxes rather than when it comes out of our bank accounts.

It's also something that unless you're incredibly lucky, you're going to use. There's no reason not to pay into a system that's going to a) lower costs nationally on healthcare and b) make sure private hospitals aren't capitalizing on your condition. Plus, it's not unheard of to have a single-payer system coexist with private hospitals that receive government funding for equipment and base salary but use profits to raise pay for doctors and add, say, better furnishings

 

[grossaffe]

It's also something that unless you're incredibly lucky, you're going to use. There's no reason not to pay into a system that's going to a) lower costs nationally on healthcare and b) make sure private hospitals aren't capitalizing on your condition. Plus, it's not unheard of to have a single-payer system coexist with private hospitals that receive government funding for equipment and base salary but use profits to raise pay for doctors and add, say, better furnishings

Look, I'm not here to discuss healthcare. That's a complex topic for another thread. It's easy to make claims on why something should be better, but the reality is much more complicated.

 

[Quantumcat]

It's a massive hair. The government's money comes from you, me, and everyone else who pays taxes. The cost of individual things like healthcare are just hidden from us when it's paid through us paying more taxes rather than when it comes out of our bank accounts.

Healthcare should be a human right, it is crazy to believe that someone should die of a treatable or preventable illness because they can't afford it. It's a similar sort of outrage you'd feel if there are no public schools, and the only children to be educated were those of rich families. And because of no choice to go the public route, the schools cost hundreds of times what an equivalent school would cost in another country. This is what is actually happening to you in healthcare and higher education - the same surgery or drug or degree can cost hundreds of times what the same thing would cost in another country, purely because of the way it is set up with little to no regulation - companies can charge whatever they want and people are forced to pay, since you can't really choose to go without healthcare, and if you don't want a poor life you're forced to have higher education as well. Every time I hear any mention of it I am surprised again about how few Americans are outraged about the situation. The ones that are rich and can afford all the necessities don't want to part with any of their money (even though doing so would keep prices down, possibly resulting it them ending up with the same or more disposable income) either because they are greedy and don't care if other Americans suffer or they genuinely have no idea what it's like for the non-rich. The ones that are poor have been brainwashed into thinking it's a priviledge to have to go bankrupt to pay for life-saving treatment and to have to repeat the cycle of poorness due to not being able to afford higher education because they have something intangible called FREEDOM (when really all they have is the freedom to suffer in ways the "poor" of other countries do not have to) and they are from the greatest country on earth 'MURICA when they have no idea what other countries are like and the true injustices they are facing compared to elsewhere.

 

[rileysrjay]

Healthcare should be a human right, it is crazy to believe that someone should die of a treatable or preventable illness because they can't afford it. It's a similar sort of outrage you'd feel if there are no public schools, and the only children to be educated were those of rich families. And because of no choice to go the public route, the schools cost hundreds of times what an equivalent school would cost in another country. This is what is actually happening to you in healthcare and higher education - the same surgery or drug or degree can cost hundreds of times what the same thing would cost in another country, purely because of the way it is set up with little to no regulation - companies can charge whatever they want and people are forced to pay, since you can't really choose to go without healthcare, and if you don't want a poor life you're forced to have higher education as well. Every time I hear any mention of it I am surprised again about how few Americans are outraged about the situation. The ones that are rich and can afford all the necessities don't want to part with any of their money (even though doing so would keep prices down, possibly resulting it them ending up with the same or more disposable income) either because they are greedy and don't care if other Americans suffer or they genuinely have no idea what it's like for the non-rich. The ones that are poor have been brainwashed into thinking it's a priviledge to have to go bankrupt to pay for life-saving treatment and to have to repeat the cycle of poorness due to not being able to afford higher education because they have something intangible called FREEDOM (when really all they have is the freedom to suffer in ways the "poor" of other countries do not have to) and they are from the greatest country on earth 'MURICA when they have no idea what other countries are like and the true injustices they are facing compared to elsewhere.

Everytime they pass any healthcare laws it only gets worse here. I'm just ready for this crap to end but it's going to be years before they finally iron something out that works.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

By the way the national insurance (The benefits a UK citizen gets such as the NHS) is 12% of a persons income per month iirc

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Everytime they pass any healthcare laws it only gets worse here. I'm just ready for this crap to end but it's going to be years before they finally iron something out that works.

Ironically enough, the best commentary I've heard about this came from Rush Limbaugh. He said something like "notice that every healthcare system that's failed exempts Congress from having to use it. If they drafted a bill that they would be comfortable putting THEMSELVES on, America would be set!"

Paraphrased, of course

 

[HaloEliteLegend]

Well no, this is what comes from a lack of knowledge of the law in the UK.
There's a pretty detailed description of what constitutes hate speech, what you've been trying to do is finding loopholes which can be simply explained. So, before I just show you the description I'll discuss some flaws in your argument.

Criticism is not hate speech. Just compare the definitions:
"the expression of disapproval of someone or something on the basis of perceived faults or mistakes."

-Criticism

"Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden"

- Hate speech

So, criticism is the disapproval based on falsifiable evidence, whereas hate speech is an expression of hatred without the requirement of evidence/basis. So what do they mean by this?
If the above were the only thing in UK law that described hate speech then yes, it would be vague. But it's not.

"

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) they intend thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
Offences under Part 3 carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both.[6]"


I think this is pretty clear, they must clearly show intent to stir up racial hatred, so they must at least mention something that identifies a specific race or religion etc.

So no, there is very little room for interpretation.
I'd chalk that down to ignorance of law, no offence of course.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm a bit wary because of the current state of things on some college campuses here in the US, including my own. There's been an awful tendency to conflate "hate speech" and "criticism," with certain groups denouncing all criticism as hate speech and actually having actions taken against "offending parties" who were never actually offensive. Many of these campuses have very loose definitions of what they deem "hate speech," and therefore some student groups have successfully exploited it. That's the perspective I'm coming from, and why I'm extremely wary of "hate speech" laws and what can come of them. Admittedly, I haven't read the actual UK laws, I'm just reacting to what I'm hearing on this thread.

Like I said in my previous post, and to reiterate my stance, today it could be hate speech, tomorrow it could be general dissent. Hence, freedom of speech should never be restricted. Furthermore, and probably more importantly, to properly combat abusive individuals, you have to change their minds on a social level. Creating laws doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes it underground where it can be left to fester and boil out of sight, and likely rear its ugly head later in an ugly way. Basically: I think banning speech, however dastardly it may be, sets a bad precedent, and is ultimately ineffective at solving the root issue of hateful language, because the sentiment will continue to exist.

I come from India, where political imprisonment is all too common because of politicians stretching laws and setting up nefarious practices from dangerous precedents. That's why I'm against any banning of free expression, even if it's hate, the only exception being threats and calls to imminent violence, which are actionable. Hateful speech needs to be dealt with in another way, not through laws.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm a bit wary because of the current state of things on some college campuses here in the US, including my own. There's been an awful tendency to conflate "hate speech" and "criticism," with certain groups denouncing all criticism as hate speech and actually having actions taken against "offending parties" who were never actually offensive. Many of these campuses have very loose definitions of what they deem "hate speech," and therefore some student groups have successfully exploited it. That's the perspective I'm coming from, and why I'm extremely wary of "hate speech" laws and what can come of them. Admittedly, I haven't read the actual UK laws, I'm just reacting to what I'm hearing on this thread.

Like I said in my previous post, and to reiterate my stance, today it could be hate speech, tomorrow it could be general dissent. Hence, freedom of speech should never be restricted. Furthermore, and probably more importantly, to properly combat abusive individuals, you have to change their minds on a social level. Creating laws doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes it underground where it can be left to fester and boil out of sight, and likely rear its ugly head later in an ugly way. Basically: I think banning speech, however dastardly it may be, sets a bad precedent, and is ultimately ineffective at solving the root issue of hateful language, because the sentiment will continue to exist.

I come from India, where political imprisonment is all too common because of politicians stretching laws and setting up nefarious practices from dangerous precedents. That's why I'm against any banning of free expression, even if it's hate, the only exception being threats and calls to imminent violence, which are actionable. Hateful speech needs to be dealt with in another way, not through laws.

If you're referring to the Milo Yinnanoplis thing, a) he's a pedophile apologist, but b) the student body were exercising their right both to free speech and protest against him

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm a bit wary because of the current state of things on some college campuses here in the US, including my own. There's been an awful tendency to conflate "hate speech" and "criticism," with certain groups denouncing all criticism as hate speech and actually having actions taken against "offending parties" who were never actually offensive. Many of these campuses have very loose definitions of what they deem "hate speech," and therefore some student groups have successfully exploited it. That's the perspective I'm coming from, and why I'm extremely wary of "hate speech" laws and what can come of them. Admittedly, I haven't read the actual UK laws, I'm just reacting to what I'm hearing on this thread.

Like I said in my previous post, and to reiterate my stance, today it could be hate speech, tomorrow it could be general dissent. Hence, freedom of speech should never be restricted. Furthermore, and probably more importantly, to properly combat abusive individuals, you have to change their minds on a social level. Creating laws doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes it underground where it can be left to fester and boil out of sight, and likely rear its ugly head later in an ugly way. Basically: I think banning speech, however dastardly it may be, sets a bad precedent, and is ultimately ineffective at solving the root issue of hateful language, because the sentiment will continue to exist.

I come from India, where political imprisonment is all too common because of politicians stretching laws and setting up nefarious practices from dangerous precedents. That's why I'm against any banning of free expression, even if it's hate, the only exception being threats and calls to imminent violence, which are actionable. Hateful speech needs to be dealt with in another way, not through laws.

Please don't take this the wrong way, I am completely for criticism, otherwise I wouldn't be arguing right now

 

[grossaffe]

If you're referring to the Milo Yinnanoplis thing, a) he's a pedophile apologist, but b) the student body were exercising their right both to free speech and protest against him

If you're wondering about the University issues regarding free speech stifling, I'd start with looking at the fiasco at Evergreen State College.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

If you're wondering about the University issues regarding free speech stifling, I'd start with looking at the fiasco at Evergreen State College.

I just looked it up, this is the 3rd result: http://socialistworker.org/2017/07/26/what-happened-at-evergreen-state

 

[grossaffe]

I just looked it up, this is the 3rd result: http://socialistworker.org/2017/07/26/what-happened-at-evergreen-state

Before I even begin to read that, might I point out you linked a website called "socialistworker"? I suspect I already know their opinion on the events.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Before I even begin to read that, might I point out you linked a website called "socialistworker"? I suspect I already know their opinion on the events.

I thought so too, but the commentary actually appears to be just stating the events as they unfolded. Give it a read

 

[HaloEliteLegend]

If you're referring to the Milo Yinnanoplis thing, a) he's a pedophile apologist, but b) the student body were exercising their right both to free speech and protest against him

Nah, not the Milo stuff. I'm talking about other incidents, and a lot of more localized incidents. For example, right-of-center articles in the university newspaper being reported as "hate speech" (when they're clearly not) by certain student groups and then being removed. Or the Evergreen State College fiasco. These are incidents where people have labeled things that others have said as "hate speech" when it clearly was not and gotten away with it (had some kind of action taken against the falsely accused).

Please don't take this the wrong way, I am completely for criticism, otherwise I wouldn't be arguing right now

Oh no, I never thought that! You're perfectly fine!

 

[Deleted member 377734]

you guys are really getting your panties in a bunch over this.

 

[HaloEliteLegend]

I thought so too, but the commentary actually appears to be just stating the events as they unfolded. Give it a read

You should watch Philip Defranco's segment on it in these two videos:



Philip Defranco is pretty moderate and overall has trustworthy reporting. Plus, he includes video footage from bystanders at Evergreen State College so you can see for yourself some of the things that went down.