Freedom of speech officially dead in Scotland

[Paul Walker]

OK, I've read about 1/3rd of this and between the arguments and the title I find it incredibly frustrating.

I live in Scotland, so I can tell you that it is very rare for something to be branded a 'hate crime'. The murder of the Remain supporting MP Jo Cox by a Leave supporter whilst she was hosting a rally wasn't originally branded as such.

“It is evident from your internet searches that your inspiration is not love of country or your fellow citizens, it is an admiration for Nazis and similar anti-democratic white supremacist creeds,” [Mr Justice] Wilkie said. “Our parents’ generation made huge sacrifices to defeat those ideas and values in the second world war. What you did … betrays those sacrifices.”

Some of you were describing a hate crime as a thought crime. That's not really it, but as with everything, the judge will attempt to understand the motivation behind the incident. That involves character witnesses among other things. As with all publications, a lot more will have taken place in the trial than we are privy to as members of the public. I believe in freedom of speech. As stated, it comes with responsibilities - when lawmakers call out hate speech and similar offences they aren't attempting to restrict our freedoms, but are attempts to prevent the situation escalating to the point where someone in their 50's believes so strongly in their view that they pull out a gun to shoot someone.

[Paul Walker]

To put it another way, you have the right to complain about anything: you don't have the right to be an ass in the way that you complain.

[GandALF]

I believe in freedom of speech. As stated, it comes with responsibilities - when lawmakers call out hate speech and similar offences they aren't attempting to restrict our freedoms, but are attempts to prevent the situation escalating to the point where someone in their 50's believes so strongly in their view that they pull out a gun to shoot someone.

Nonsense, that's the same as the "violent video games make people violent" argument. Hiding vicious things does not make people more virtuous.

Milton pointed this out 400 years ago:

I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary but slinks out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat. Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world, we bring impurity much rather; that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary. That virtue therefore which is but a youngling in the contemplation of evil, and knows not the utmost that vice promises to her followers, and rejects it, is but a blank virtue, not a pure; her whiteness is but an excremental whiteness.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/608/608-h/608-h.htm

[Paul Walker]

It's not the same.

I can use another example if you'd like.

Under the UN Freedoms of Thought, Speech and Expressions:

- you are allowed to not like milk
- you are allowed to say that you don't like milk
- you are allowed to tell others that you don't like milk
- you are allowed to take out adverts proclaiming that you don't like milk
- you are allowed to tell others that they shouldn't like milk
- you are allowed to tell others that if they like milk, that you don't like them

However:

- you are not allowed to tell others that if they like milk then they are Nazi sympathisers (etc.)
- you are not allowed to tell others that if they're Jewish (etc.) they must like milk

Frankly, if you cannot communicate with someone without resorting to insults regarding the protected criteria in Article 2 of the Declaration of Human Rights (race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status) then you really should work on your vocabulary.

[GandALF]

Frankly, if you cannot communicate with someone without resorting to insults regarding the protected criteria in Article 2 of the Declaration of Human Rights (race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status) then you really should work on your vocabulary.

There should be laws against poor vocabulary? Literal grammar Nazism?

Article 2 is about preventing governments from persecuting people based on those criteria, not to stop people from insulting each other.

The government cannot compel people to be polite or save anyone's soul that's Milton's point. Adultery is much more morally objectionable than an insult, so should the police keep track of who people are sleeping with?

[Fixer]

Some of you were describing a hate crime as a thought crime. That's not really it, but as with everything, the judge will attempt to understand the motivation behind the incident. That involves character witnesses among other things. As with all publications, a lot more will have taken place in the trial than we are privy to as members of the public. I believe in freedom of speech. As stated, it comes with responsibilities - when lawmakers call out hate speech and similar offences they aren't attempting to restrict our freedoms, but are attempts to prevent the situation escalating to the point where someone in their 50's believes so strongly in their view that they pull out a gun to shoot someone.

The issue comes with who is determining what and what does not determine hate speech.
For example, the argument could be speech lead contributed to Jo Cox's murder. Therefore it should be restricted so that does not happen.

The same could be said of the British man who pulled a gun on Donald Trump.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radi ... -president

He was adamant that he had to kill Donald Trump because he was racist. Did media reporting on Trump making those claims push him to attempt an assassination? Is the US media therefore guilty of hate speech? As such, any similar speech escalating violence should be prevented.

Like you said, this is why contribution factors and the nuance of the situation needs to taken into account. Legitimate grievance, criticism, mockery or simple opposition to current popularly accepted dogma can be considered hatespeech. This is why the American approach was to allow even that which can be determined hatespeech so that the government itself cannot restrict any legitimate criticism.

The Canadian system as it was described to me is quite interesting in finding a moderate approach since it defines part of hate speech as propaganda. This means it's not hate speech if you can prove your statement to be accurate and in in good faith.

The Count Dankula case was raised without complaint from the public and the judge determined that context did not matter. That's of real concern. You could easily convict Sacha Baron Cohen for his "throw the Jew down the well." song in Borat.

As an additional note though, both aforementioned cases show why political violence is detrimental to the cause it claims to be in support of in civilised western democracy. Although Jo Cox's murder did not change the outcome of the referendum it significantly shifted the polls towards remain. The attempt on Trump's life galvanised his supporters.

[Antiboyscout]

The Canadian system as it was described to me is quite interesting in finding a moderate approach since it defines part of hate speech as propaganda. This means it's not hate speech if you can prove your statement to be accurate and in in good faith.

Umm... Canada is not the place to look for "good" hate speech laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_ ... ontroversy

Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, noted that under Section 13(1), "Intent is not a requirement, and truth and reasonable belief in the truth is no defence."

[TGLS]

Section 13 has been repealled for 5 years now.

[YAGWG]

Because hate crimes aren't crimes targeted at individuals, they're targeted at groups. When you beat up a Jewish man and leave him bloody in the streets of Austin, it is not because he slept with your girlfriend or his dog barking next door annoyed you, you did it as a message to all the Jewish people who see him that they are unwelcome, and should expect more of the same. And if there's one thing we hate it's that demographics of society be scared into not shopping or patronizing bars.

That is why the article TGLS kindly provided us made special note it was deemed not just to annoy his girlfriend, because that's the crux of the issue, typically, if it was for personal or political reasons.

To whit, I've never heard of this jackass, but his channel seems harmless enough. I mean he's a major moron, or putting on a bit (seriously I didn't think the "Bernie-to-Trump supporter" existed), so it wouldn't even be like, based on his channel, right? Like I could see the argument "He used a video of a cute dog responding positively to Hitler to direct traffic to his wholly anti-semitic channel", but that doesn't really appear to be the case (though I've only breezed through like three videos and just skimmed another three, ain't no one got time for his channel history).

That said a number of people seem to require a dictionary because they are interpreting "grossly" incorrectly, like he had a video of himself picking his nose or something, when that's clearly not how it's being employed.

It IS amusing to see Carlgon taking an interest since he likes to wrap up most of his news stories with "well here's another one for the gas chambers".

There was a link to the video in one of the long twitter threads I followed so had a quick watch of that Yesterday.

To sum it up. The guy starts off saying his girlfriend thinks the pug is the cutest thing ever, so he intends to teach it to do the least cute thing possible to annoy her. Proceeds to train the dog to react to saying "Gas the jews" and make a nazi salute.

Then I learned that apparently this court case has been going on for two years?

Obviously I'm going to have to do a lot of reading to find out what has been going on but the very principle of the matter is deeply concerning. This is based off a 2003 communications law which is extremely vague and nebulous.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).

By this law it's possible to argue for convicting anyone for simply annoying someone via a posted message on the internet and proving they had the intent to do that. So I'm afraid all you guys that Rickrolled others are criminals now. Since he expressly stated he had the intent to annoy his girlfriend he was still be liable under this law.

This obviously sets a bad precedent. The part of the law that he was convicted under was causing gross offence. Nobody reported this to the police. A police officer discovered it and declared it offensive. This means we now have case law allowing the police to determine what is or is not acceptable, then punish you for it.

It's no wonder that so many comedians are concerned about where this is leading.

IIRC, the Communications Act 2003 is a Blair government piece of legislation.

Mind you, it does come in handy when you get a telemarketer swearing at you after you react to their 100th call that day trying to sell you PPI reclaiming, ambulance chasing lawyers, home improvements, or mouldy dryer lint...

[unknownsample]

No, I said you hold fascist principles. Which you do. You are in support of laws to supress the freedom of individuals that hold views the states deems offensive. You have shown support for a group that seeks to silence their political opponents through intimidation and violence.

I haven't shown any support for Antifa. I have simply refused to play the but Antifa game that you and others want to play.