|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 18, 2018 12:38:51 GMT -5
This has been making it's way across Twitter as the last couple of days.
So, if I do something in the UK that is, in and of itself, not a criminal offense, but someone believes that it was motivated because of prejudice or hatred, then I can be arrested and charged. And this is from, as far as I can tell, the Metropolitan Police Website, not some group trying to get new legislation passed. Does anyone else find this terrifying? Do we have any UK members here?
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 18, 2018 17:02:57 GMT -5
Thoughtcrime is doubleplus ungood, Vince.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Mar 18, 2018 17:48:29 GMT -5
UK also seems to be getting worse about free speech. They've never really had it in the sense that the US does, but I wouldn't have thought that the more conservative coalition Parliament they current have would have let things associated to these topics go in the direction they seem to be.
Will be an interesting trend to watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by SilentRob on Mar 19, 2018 6:41:09 GMT -5
I think the key thing is the 'it may be possible...'
If the police were to charge somebody based on their intent rather action, it doesn't necessarily mean it would lead to a conviction. We do have judges and courtrooms and they are still impartial in the law.
That said, the right-wing of the conservative party (who are not governing as part of a coalition, btw, but have an agreement in place with the Northern Irish DUP who will support them on certain votes), are a right nasty bunch and would no doubt be overjoyed at the prospect of prosecuting people for thinking the wrong way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 19, 2018 9:26:08 GMT -5
This isn't new. The UK has had Hate Crimes laws for a while. The UK is also notorious for libel tourism. The First Amendment is really pretty unique as far as how far it goes in protecting free speech. I don't think any other country protects the range of free expression we do. I think this is a good thing. But non-Americans often just don't get it, and are as boggled by our laws that allow Nazis to march in the street as we are horrified by what's criminalized in their country. |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Mar 22, 2018 7:31:34 GMT -5
This isn't new. The UK has had Hate Crimes laws for a while. The UK is also notorious for libel tourism. The First Amendment is really pretty unique as far as how far it goes in protecting free speech. I don't think any other country protects the range of free expression we do. I think this is a good thing. But non-Americans often just don't get it, and are as boggled by our laws that allow Nazis to march in the street as we are horrified by what's criminalized in their country. Doesn't 'free speech' in the US mean that the rich can buy elections, just as under McCarthy it meant you could be thrown out of work for having opinions? The libel tourism is real enough; the rest of what's been said seems to be about normal, sensible law. Who needs 'race' hate? |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 22, 2018 11:30:17 GMT -5
This isn't new. The UK has had Hate Crimes laws for a while. The UK is also notorious for libel tourism. The First Amendment is really pretty unique as far as how far it goes in protecting free speech. I don't think any other country protects the range of free expression we do. I think this is a good thing. But non-Americans often just don't get it, and are as boggled by our laws that allow Nazis to march in the street as we are horrified by what's criminalized in their country. Doesn't 'free speech' in the US mean that the rich can buy elections, just as under McCarthy it meant you could be thrown out of work for having opinions? The libel tourism is real enough; the rest of what's been said seems to be about normal, sensible law. Who needs 'race' hate? You're talking about several different problems and sweeping them all under a rather dismissive reading of "free speech." The disproportionate influence of money on politics is a problem in most countries, regardless of their free speech laws. I don't think Russia (or, for that matter, the UK) has solved this problem. If you're referring to the rather dubious Supreme Court ruling that equated money with speech, which weakened limits on campaign spending, you're right that it seems to be stretching the definition of "political speech" for a lot of people, but it's not the principle of free speech per se that lead to that ruling. I don't think it's accurate to say "free speech means the rich can buy elections" (implying that less free speech would mean the rich couldn't buy elections). McCarthyism was 60 years ago. However, for the most part, you are still not legally protected for your political opinions in most states - your employer can still fire you because he didn't like your Facebook post about Trump. In practice, that rarely happens because the lashback against employers who casually fire people for having opinions is pretty severe. Large businesses with HR departments almost never do, unless the politics in question are way out there. (Cue debate about James Damore and Google, but note that it's simplistic to say he was fired just for "having opinions.") Getting to the crux of your questions - who needs race hate? Well, no one. In an ideal world it would be nice if no one was a racist. The reason US free speech laws protect even the most noxious speech is because, with good reason, we mistrust the government having the power to put people in jail for their opinions. Even during McCarthyism, it was theoretically legal to be a communist. (In practice, people still went to jail for it - that would not happen now.) It's still legal to be a communist, or a fascist, or a Holocaust denier, or someone who worships Moloch and believes we should throw live babies into the fire as sacrificial offerings to him. (As long as you don't actually do that.) You can also be fired for all of those things. (Well, the Moloch case might make an interesting test of the First Amendment.) But put in jail? No. I know in some countries, like the UK, you actually can be arrested for making racist statements. If you think that's a good thing, then it's odd that you see McCarthyism as a bad thing, because if the government can arrest you for saying racist things, it can also arrest you for being a communist. Or being Jewish. All it takes is an administration that decides to criminalize those things. |
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 22, 2018 11:49:41 GMT -5
Here's an example of what is the difference between there and here. If this was meant as a joke, it makes him IMHO a pretty stupid person. You have to know how badly some will react to that. I imagine there more sensitive there to Nazi crap then we are here. But I'd also think if this happened here it would be covered by freedom of speech and the idea that this guy, idiotic as he might be, might due jail time for it is absurd. I've said before, if America had a national religion, it would be the 1st Amendment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 22, 2018 12:19:05 GMT -5
I've said before, if America had a national religion, it would be the 1st Amendment. No, I see far more religious behavior wrt to the 2nd Amendment. The Hitler-saluting dog thing has been going viral here precisely because the idea of putting someone in jail because he taught his dog to do a stupid, offensive trick would be so ridiculous in the US. |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Mar 23, 2018 8:46:00 GMT -5
Doesn't 'free speech' in the US mean that the rich can buy elections, just as under McCarthy it meant you could be thrown out of work for having opinions? The libel tourism is real enough; the rest of what's been said seems to be about normal, sensible law. Who needs 'race' hate? You're talking about several different problems and sweeping them all under a rather dismissive reading of "free speech." The disproportionate influence of money on politics is a problem in most countries, regardless of their free speech laws. I don't think Russia (or, for that matter, the UK) has solved this problem. If you're referring to the rather dubious Supreme Court ruling that equated money with speech, which weakened limits on campaign spending, you're right that it seems to be stretching the definition of "political speech" for a lot of people, but it's not the principle of free speech per se that lead to that ruling. I don't think it's accurate to say "free speech means the rich can buy elections" (implying that less free speech would mean the rich couldn't buy elections). McCarthyism was 60 years ago. However, for the most part, you are still not legally protected for your political opinions in most states - your employer can still fire you because he didn't like your Facebook post about Trump. In practice, that rarely happens because the lashback against employers who casually fire people for having opinions is pretty severe. Large businesses with HR departments almost never do, unless the politics in question are way out there. (Cue debate about James Damore and Google, but note that it's simplistic to say he was fired just for "having opinions.") Getting to the crux of your questions - who needs race hate? Well, no one. In an ideal world it would be nice if no one was a racist. The reason US free speech laws protect even the most noxious speech is because, with good reason, we mistrust the government having the power to put people in jail for their opinions. Even during McCarthyism, it was theoretically legal to be a communist. (In practice, people still went to jail for it - that would not happen now.) It's still legal to be a communist, or a fascist, or a Holocaust denier, or someone who worships Moloch and believes we should throw live babies into the fire as sacrificial offerings to him. (As long as you don't actually do that.) You can also be fired for all of those things. (Well, the Moloch case might make an interesting test of the First Amendment.) But put in jail? No. I know in some countries, like the UK, you actually can be arrested for making racist statements. If you think that's a good thing, then it's odd that you see McCarthyism as a bad thing, because if the government can arrest you for saying racist things, it can also arrest you for being a communist. Or being Jewish. All it takes is an administration that decides to criminalize those things. |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Mar 23, 2018 8:51:26 GMT -5
McCarthy is still in power. Who, actually, can really speak freely over there? 'Race' is a totally exploded idea that only the mugs keep up. State Capitalism under Stalin was real, and could be used to justify monopoly capitalism in America, whereas 'race' is a dead dog, totally meaningless, kept up by capitalist states to divide the mugs. 'Hate speech' is something perfectly clear, and those accused foolishly can obviously rip the accusation apart in court iof its about dead dog tricks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 23, 2018 9:01:45 GMT -5
McCarthy is still in power. Who, actually, can really speak freely over there? In what way is speech restricted "over here"? Weren't you just objecting to the fact that we don't have hate crimes laws? Citation needed. But I'm sure plenty of folks will be happy to learn that race no longer exists and isn't a problem. Because racism doesn't exist in non-capitalist countries? Have you ever been to Asia or Africa? No, it really isn't. If I say "Gas all the Jews," is that hate speech? If I teach my dog to Sieg Heil, is that hate speech? If I say "You know, Jews really do seem to have a disproportionate influence in Hollywood," is that hate speech? If I say "I've got nothing against Jews, but I wouldn't want my daughter marrying one," is that hate speech? Which of those things should land me in jail? Even in the UK, you have problems with your hate speech laws. Really? So the guy with the Nazi dog has no fear of going to jail? And you speak as if having to go to court (and pay for an attorney) is no big deal. |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Mar 23, 2018 9:21:01 GMT -5
In what way is speech restricted "over here"? Weren't you just objecting to the fact that we don't have hate crimes laws?Who in public life is seriously empowered to oppose the NRA, AIPAC or monopoly capitsalism? Citation needed. But I'm sure plenty of folks will be happy to learn that race no longer exists and isn't a problem.The problem, as you know, is lying. Which are these different 'races' of humans, and why can they breed together like one speciues? Because racism doesn't exist in non-capitalist countries? Have you ever been to Asia or Africa?Don't be silly. Lies exist everywhere that people need to be divided by the thieves. No, it really isn't. If I say "Gas all the Jews," is that hate speech? If I teach my dog to Sieg Heil, is that hate speech? If I say "You know, Jews really do seem to have a disproportionate influence in Hollywood," is that hate speech? If I say "I've got nothing against Jews, but I wouldn't want my daughter marrying one," is that hate speech? Which of those things should land me in jail? Even in the UK, you have problems with your hate speech laws.They are all obviously hate speech. Probably the first might put you in jail. Really? So the guy with the Nazi dog has no fear of going to jail? And you speak as if having to go to court (and pay for an attorney) is no big deal.Can't say. You're a lot less likely to get a fair trial here, that's for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 23, 2018 11:25:47 GMT -5
Who in public life is seriously empowered to oppose the NRA, AIPAC or monopoly capitsalism? I think you're shifting the goalposts here. We're talking about free speech - the ability to criticize, or advocate. Anyone can criticize the NRA and AIPAC or monopoly capitalism, and plenty of people do. If you mean nobody can actually "take down" the NRA, well, that's like saying "Who in public life is seriously empowered to oppose the oil industry?" We're not talking about relative power, we're talking about the ability to silence dissent. Of course that is not what anyone means by "race." We all know that all humans are the same species. That doesn't mean that "race" doesn't exist and doesn't impact lives. Saying "race is a social construct for mugs" doesn't make the issue go away. But you said race is an artifact of capitalism. Racism predates capitalism, and it exists in non-capitalist countries. I don't think it's "obvious" until you define hate speech. Evidently the first and second might put me in jail in the UK. I think that's a bad thing, you apparently think it's a good thing. Do you think the third and fourth statements should also put me in jail? |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Mar 24, 2018 7:24:02 GMT -5
Who in public life is seriously empowered to oppose the NRA, AIPAC or monopoly capitsalism? I think you're shifting the goalposts here. We're talking about free speech - the ability to criticize, or advocate. Anyone can criticize the NRA and AIPAC or monopoly capitalism, and plenty of people do. If you mean nobody can actually "take down" the NRA, well, that's like saying "Who in public life is seriously empowered to oppose the oil industry?" We're not talking about relative power, we're talking about the ability to silence dissent. Of course that is not what anyone means by "race." We all know that all humans are the same species. That doesn't mean that "race" doesn't exist and doesn't impact lives. Saying "race is a social construct for mugs" doesn't make the issue go away. But you said race is an artifact of capitalism. Racism predates capitalism, and it exists in non-capitalist countries. I don't think it's "obvious" until you define hate speech. Evidently the first and second might put me in jail in the UK. I think that's a bad thing, you apparently think it's a good thing. Do you think the third and fourth statements should also put me in jail? If free speech means they can't stop you talking to yourself in the lavatory, big deal. I mean access to the means of public discussion, which in the US prevents any serious questioning of the capitalist ideology and all the guff that goes with it. The problem with Americans and 'race' is that nobody in this wide world knows what they are babbling about, except their desperate urge to hate and spite other people. Dislike of outsiders exists in all primitive communities. Racism was a lying invention in the Seventeenth Century to justify imperialism and the enforcement of slavery on easily identifiable groups, as you know. Hate speech, as you know, is speech uttered to express hate. |
|
