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

[grossaffe]

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

So far, I'm seeing a narrative being pushed with careful framing. I'd recommend trying to find a more reliable source.

 

[HaloEliteLegend]

So far, I'm seeing a narrative being pushed with careful framing. I'd recommend trying to find a more reliable source.

I'm going to second that. The article is selectively ignoring things, downplaying incidents, and focusing far too much on ancillary concerns. At the very least, it won't give you the whole picture and seems to be manufactured to make "their side" look "better."

 

[Subtle Demise]

Please prove that it is vague, every time you have it's been explained away.

• deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group

• distributing racist material to the public

• making inflammatory public speeches

• creating racist websites on the Internet

• inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent."

Under distributing racist material, does that include music like Skrewdriver or Death in June? What about movies? A public showing of 1915's Birth of a Nation could possibly cause a riot. There's riots in the streets every time someone thinks the police are only targeting black people. Do we ban police from arresting minorities, because you see, some people find that racist; and that's my point, what people find racist is different from person to person. And just how the hell do you prove intent to spread racial discontent? Yet again, just another thing that has a meaning that changes with opinion.
Free speech is free speech. I think someone should be allowed to say they want to kill the president, and until the police find a sniper rifle in the trunk or some physical object that proves intent, no crime has been committed.

It obviously can if a significant portion of Europe and America actually start chasing cyber crimes in their jurisdictions, though

Governments need to stay out of the internet unless there's a real crime involved like murder or child abuse.

 

[the_randomizer]

Governments need to stay out of the internet unless there's a real crime involved like murder or child abuse.

All I can say is QFMFT. Unless there's a serious crime being committed, the government has no right to monitor its citizens, like the NSA and CIA bullshit. Knowing that however, I find it cathartic to tell them eff off on the internet. Free speech, right?

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Governments need to stay out of the internet unless there's a real crime involved like murder or child abuse.

Hacking? Doxxing?

So far, I'm seeing a narrative being pushed with careful framing. I'd recommend trying to find a more reliable source.

What do you recommend? Genuinely curious, I hadn't heard about Evergreen until today

 

[Subtle Demise]

Hacking? Doxxing?

Well I did say real crimes, although those could really be civil matters depending on the extent of the damage caused.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Well I did say real crimes, although those could really be civil matters depending on the extent of the damage caused.

Death threats?

 

[HaloEliteLegend]

What do you recommend? Genuinely curious, I hadn't heard about Evergreen until today

Look a few posts back, I posted two videos that I think will offer you a good perspective on what went down.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Look a few posts back, I posted two videos that I think will offer you a good perspective on what went down.

Saw them, I'll watch them when I can lol

 

[HaloEliteLegend]

Saw them, I'll watch them when I can lol

haha kay

 

[grossaffe]

Saw them, I'll watch them when I can lol

I'll try to find something that seems to be reasonable coverage. In the mean time, when you watch the videos, know that the relevant part for each of them is only the first few minutes before he goes off into other subjects. No need to stick around after he goes into another subject as he doesn't circle back around. At the very least, those videos contain clips of events, so it should give you a window into what's happening there without having to rely on someone else's narrative.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

Under distributing racist material, does that include music like Skrewdriver or Death in June? What about movies? A public showing of 1915's Birth of a Nation could possibly cause a riot. There's riots in the streets every time someone thinks the police are only targeting black people. Do we ban police from arresting minorities, because you see, some people find that racist; and that's my point, what people find racist is different from person to person. And just how the hell do you prove intent to spread racial discontent? Yet again, just another thing that has a meaning that changes with opinion.
Free speech is free speech. I think someone should be allowed to say they want to kill the president, and until the police find a sniper rifle in the trunk or some physical object that proves intent, no crime has been committed.

You do know what "intention" is, right?
I've already posted this before and you clearly don't want to accept this attribute of the law.
The law clearly states that someone is only guilty of an offence if their intention was clearly aimed at causing racial hatred. And it's pretty easy to prove racial discontent due to wording.
Saying "I hate black people" would be a clear showing of intending racial discontent. Whereas saying the N word would not, as the argument would be that it is used often in pop culture and therefore cannot be used as evidence for said offence. This would therefore mean that word has lost it's original meaning and can no longer be considered extremely offensive. Now if that word were to be used in conjunction with other phrases that would suggest racial discontent it could be used. So saying "I hate (N word)'s" can be used as evidence.

Here's a much more detailed explanation:
"
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system. Subjective descriptions of a person's actions or behaviour, however abhorrent, crass or objectionable, may not be considered an attempt to spread hate unless the motive is clearly defined as such."

Please read the Wikipedia article this time, your ignorance on this is very tiring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom


You downplay the affect of words, while actions can harm a few words can affect many.
If I kill a few black people I'd just be considered a racist murderer and be locked up. Whereas if I made other people believe my racist views I could create entire groups who hate people based on their race.
You see one of these has an effect that would last moments while the other has effects that can last for longer.
And it's completely insipid to allow those kinds of beliefs to be left unpunished in a society.

Also keep in mind we've had this law since 1986 and we haven't had any of those issues you guys have proposed, basically debunking your claims.

Edit: Just by looking at the above, by taking away some of your freedom, tell me how they could find a loophole to go further and ban other forms of speech?
Because the above makes explicit that criticism will be protected.

 

[barronwaffles]

The fact that you think 'beliefs' need to be punished at all is the most fucking insipid thing in the entire thread.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

The fact that you think 'beliefs' need to be punished at all is the most fucking insipid thing in the entire thread.

Yeah. I never said that.

You can think whatever the hell you want, but you shouldn't be able to say things that cause harm to society.

"And it's completely insipid to allow those kinds of beliefs to be left unpunished in a society."

You should read this in context. I said that these beliefs should be punished when expressed.
"If I kill a few black people I'd just be considered a racist murderer and be locked up. Whereas if I made other people believe my racist views I could create entire groups who hate people based on their race.
You see one of these has an effect that would last moments while the other has effects that can last for longer."

Thanks for showing me you're incapable of reading.

 

[barronwaffles]

No, I know exactly what you intended - and you make it clearer with every post

you shouldn't be able to say things that cause harm to society

I stand corrected - this is now the most insipid statement.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

No, I know exactly what you intended - and you make it clearer with every post



I stand corrected - this is now the most insipid statement.

I'm just going to ignore you, you clearly don't want to discuss and would rather shame arguments than actually discuss flaws.

So I'll leave you with this:

A society is something that is meant to create cohesion between communities of different races, religions, nationalities etc.
By allowing hate speech, a society would allow individuals to break up this cohesion simply due to a prejudice of a certain group. This hatred can often be transferred to others creating entire sections of society to hate one another due to trivial things such as race and religion.
This would be counter-productive for a society. It is objectively better to have a cohesive society than a broken one and hate speech is one of the best/worst (Depending on one's view of society) to break society into fragmented communities rather than one integrated community.

I'll quickly touch on the argument of "the government shouldn't be allowed to control what we can and cannot say".
Well it doesn't matter if you're actively being controlled, because in the end everything is cause and effect. So what you say is based on everything else that has happened to you, so no, your never truly free to speak what you think because what you think is based on factors outside of your control. Adding an additional layer of control isn't going to change the fact that as long as you have some form of government you will always be a sheep.

Here's a primer on determinism and why you're always incapable of thinking for yourself:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/proceed-your-own-risk/201311/do-we-have-free-will

TL;DR There is no such thing as free will so how can you defend something that as a concept cannot function within our universe?

 

[barronwaffles]

"It's fine to have the government condition human thought because we are (apparently) only capable of creating insight based on the reality we are exposed to"

No, get fucked.

Shovel your reductive bullshit somewhere else - the majority of the west was founded on the fact that people have both said and acted on ideas that would have been deemed 'harmful to society'.

 

[linkenski]

Am I the only one who thinks this might be a good thing ?

If they administer it right it is... but that's the fear. Different people working in the police have to enforce these rights and follow whatever protocols they go by and much like America's policeforce has had a lot of bigotry inside as documented in various videos, so could whoever uses this be oversensitive and over-paranoid and we'll start to see people losing their freedom of speech over unnecessarily high levels of control.

I just worry we'll see a surge in lawsuits against really petty accusations.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

"It's fine to have the government condition human thought because we are (apparently) only capable of creating insight based on the reality we are exposed to"

No, get fucked.

Shovel your reductive bullshit somewhere else - the majority of the west was founded on the fact that people have both said and acted on ideas that would have been deemed 'harmful to society'.

Damn that's some serious denial. You're pretty irrational, huh?
So you think those slave owners did a great job building the US? You're meant to learn from your mistakes not repeat them.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

If they administer it right it is... but that's the fear. Different people working in the police have to enforce these rights and follow whatever protocols they go by and much like America's policeforce has had a lot of bigotry inside as documented in various videos, so could whoever uses this be oversensitive and over-paranoid and we'll start to see people losing their freedom of speech over unnecessarily high levels of control.

I just worry we'll see a surge in lawsuits against really petty accusations.

I'd say it's been done right in the UK seeing as how it's gone without a lot of protest since 1986. The only one I can think of was when they protested to remove the word "insult" from one of the acts which I think was a good reason.

 

[linkenski]

Damn that's some serious denial. You're pretty irrational, huh?
So you think those slave owners did a great job building the US? You're meant to learn from your mistakes not repeat them.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



I'd say it's been done right in the UK seeing as how it's gone without a lot of protest since 1986. The only one I can think of was when they protested to remove the word "insult" from one of the acts which I think was a good reason.

Oh it seems to have worked wonderfully thus far but I see this as a sign, in tandem, with the rising tensions of today's youth, growth of the internet and fascism. I am totally for some levels of control but honestly I don't like what I'm seeing in that tweet because the entire "hate speech" debate seems very disingenuous to me. There's so many Youtube activists who coin the term wrongly to slander whoever isn't with them. There's a lot of "fake" accusations of "hate speech" being thrown around these days I think. There's also a lot debatable stuff like Sargon of Akkad, which can seem a bit like covert hatespeech (I'm thinking of the "garbage human being" incident), you know, the kinds of people who dedicate entire video channels to cross-examining and dissecting what other people have said as they cherry pick everything apart to go "this must mean this person said this, ergo they're evil" etc.

In general I'm also kind of against internet banning of any kinds. If there's rules of moderation and a good warning system then fine but I dislike the idea that some voices are censored away because they have a passionate opinion. If it's done to prevent rallying of violence then fine, but take that Yiannilopulus guy or whatever his name was. We are not going to hear from him because it was decided by Twitter and powers that he should not be allowed to voice his opinions anymore because it was too radical. I don't care. As long as you don't hurt anyone and as long as you don't step up on a soapbox and say "we must kill all x" and get violent then I think we should be able to say whatever the fuck we want.