Law against Hate Speech etc etc etc...

Vonhelmet said:
Oh, ok... you started this by saying that we should hope to reduce incitement to violence by making sure people hear alternatives to just those views, but now you're saying it's fine and to let them get on with their violence.
Click to expand...

That's not where I 'started this', that's where you jumped in. I referred to "somebody" needing to take action. That would be somebody who cares about the outcome.

*redacted inflammatory statement* :p
 
This question has probably already been answered. But how do powers that be. Determine what is and what isn't hate speech?
 
DAIR said:
This question has probably already been answered. But how do powers that be. Determine what is and what isn't hate speech?
Click to expand...
What would you define as hate speech then extrapolate. That's what I'd say. They are not some lunatic regeim, they are the government of a successful European nation. We are all pretty intelligent people here, what do we define as hate speech?

Racism
Unconstructive hate on religeon inciting others to fight others of other faiths.
General inciting 1 group to physically attack another whatever the cause, verbally attacking won't break their bones, apparently. :P
 
DAIR said:
This question has probably already been answered. But how do powers that be. Determine what is and what isn't hate speech?
Click to expand...

Which is my point. It's completely subjective. I spoke to a police officer in regards to threatening behaviour a few years back after some daft tart had said I'd been threatening. I told him what had happened. He agreed that if what I'd said was true then he certainly didn't think it was. Two independent witnesses also corroborated my series of events. Yet the police still had to look in to it because this woman claimed she'd felt threatened and someone along the way agreed with her.
As an aside what had happened was a woman cutting me up and then immediately pulling over to park. I enquired angrily if she was looking for someone to kill her kids as that's certainly what her driving had suggested. If I'd have hit her car I would have gone straight in to her toddler's door at 50mph in a 2tonne pickup. He wouldn't have stood a chance.
 
Dis86 said:
I'd say the psychotic behaviour was putting your child in front of 2 tonnes at 50mph personally...
Click to expand...
Well I can't really comment further I guess I'm glad you didn't crash. It doesn't really have much to do with social media though.
You both were wrong in my honest opinion, both thought you were right tho I'm sure. So yeah it's tricky.
 
Dis86 said:
Which is my point. It's completely subjective. I spoke to a police officer in regards to threatening behaviour a few years back after some daft tart had said I'd been threatening. I told him what had happened. He agreed that if what I'd said was true then he certainly didn't think it was. Two independent witnesses also corroborated my series of events. Yet the police still had to look in to it because this woman claimed she'd felt threatened and someone along the way agreed with her.
As an aside what had happened was a woman cutting me up and then immediately pulling over to park. I enquired angrily if she was looking for someone to kill her kids as that's certainly what her driving had suggested. If I'd have hit her car I would have gone straight in to her toddler's door at 50mph in a 2tonne pickup. He wouldn't have stood a chance.
Click to expand...

Herein lies the problem. People are prone to misunderstand when they are emotional.
 
DAIR said:
This question has probably already been answered. But how do powers that be. Determine what is and what isn't hate speech?
Click to expand...
By consulting the legal definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

In England and Wales the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:

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 intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
Click to expand...
 
Dis86 said:
Which is my point. It's completely subjective. I spoke to a police officer in regards to threatening behaviour a few years back after some daft tart had said I'd been threatening. I told him what had happened. He agreed that if what I'd said was true then he certainly didn't think it was. Two independent witnesses also corroborated my series of events. Yet the police still had to look in to it because this woman claimed she'd felt threatened and someone along the way agreed with her.
As an aside what had happened was a woman cutting me up and then immediately pulling over to park. I enquired angrily if she was looking for someone to kill her kids as that's certainly what her driving had suggested. If I'd have hit her car I would have gone straight in to her toddler's door at 50mph in a 2tonne pickup. He wouldn't have stood a chance.
Click to expand...


You admit you angrily told her soemthign about killing her children and you are surprised she reacted?
 
DAIR said:
This question has probably already been answered. But how do powers that be. Determine what is and what isn't hate speech?
Click to expand...

Poltically correct group think from the left I assume, if sufficient leftists are collectively outraged on social media it's hate speech. They'll act as a group conciousness akin to the Borg from Star Trek in deciding just as they did when they got together to try to ruin Ched Evans life before he was cleared.

According to Wikipedia calling some ethnic groups freeloaders is a hate crime in Germany, I imagine calling unemployed German born nationals the same thing is perfectly fine though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom