First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply CPS seeks more severe punishments for online hate speech.
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17

octorockandroll wrote:

I wonder how many people here actually read what CPS' initiative actually entailed.

Probably not many.


I know I didn't.
467 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17

octorockandroll wrote:

I wonder how many people here actually read what CPS' initiative actually entailed.

Probably not many.


Good call. Liberal bias media is shit. Can trust them at all.
336 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / A hookah bar
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17
Godspeed, UK.
20177 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17


But your all ready here?
941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F
Online
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17

riverjustice wrote:


Instead of trying to argue against my specific example, you should try to argue the conceptual idea I was illustrating.


You'd have a tough time jailing people for burning " any" flag because they can argue that they were not targeting your religion specifically. For example, burning a flag to protest the government would not be hate speech towards your religion while burning the flag to protest Flagism would.


riverjustice wrote:


Burning down buildings is called arson. Damaging buildings is called vandalism.Hating someone for their ideas or beliefs shouldn't be a crime. People should be able to hate Nazism. Or Islam, or Christianity, or any religion.


Well not every country out there was founded on the idea of freedom of speech so the laws are going to different when it comes to hate speech.
20208 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17


*perceived by the victim
2044 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Valhalla
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17

riverjustice wrote:

Hate speech:

Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.

^You gotta be fucking kidding me right?

"perceived by the victim" key wording here


^^^
2044 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Valhalla
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17

Metallium wrote:

What in the hell is "hate speech"? Who gets to decide what is and is not "hate speech"? Where do we draw the line between speech that someone doesn't like and actual "hate speech" whatever that may be?

And no, me saying something that you dont like is not "hate speech", people need to grow up, block and move on.


I agree.
2044 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Valhalla
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17

Shipwright wrote:

Isn't the UK already really strict about "hate crime'" though, even on social media platforms?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/09/nazi-pug-man-arrested-after-teaching-girlfriends-dog-to-perform/


Here's the YouTube video the guy was arrested for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus


I remember that.So yeah, I guess the uk already is.
941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F
Online
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17

riverjustice wrote:



*perceived by the victim


You still have to prove that they intentionally burned the flag because they targeted your religion specially to cause direct harm. Honestly I think this is a case where their statement is being blown out of proportion,and making it sound way worse than it really is. I just don't see CPS going around arresting people for doing something that may be against someone's else religion,but not directly targeting said religion because of motivated hatred . For example,CPS probably isn't going to arrest anyone that eats,or sells pork because the Muslim religion forbids it.

20208 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17

danagram wrote:


You still have to prove that they intentionally burned the flag because they targeted your religion specially to cause direct harm. Honestly I think this is a case where their statement is being blown out of proportion,and making it sound way worse than it really is. I just don't see CPS going around arresting people for doing something that may be against someone's else religion,but not directly targeting said religion because of motivated hatred . For example,CPS probably isn't going to arrest anyone that eats,or sells pork because the Muslim religion forbids it.



CPS probably isn't going to arrest anyone that eats,or sells pork because the Muslim religion forbids it.

I'm not the one who wrote the law. But technically they could arrest someone if there was a complaint.

For instance, if a male or female wanted to accuse you of rape. Calls the police up and say that you've raped them, what do you think is going to happen?

What do you think is going to happen if you accidentally offended someone's religion without prior knowledge? They can call up the police and have you arrested. It's a criminal offence.

The law doesn't care about subjective opinions.
941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F
Online
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17

riverjustice wrote:


danagram wrote:


You still have to prove that they intentionally burned the flag because they targeted your religion specially to cause direct harm. Honestly I think this is a case where their statement is being blown out of proportion,and making it sound way worse than it really is. I just don't see CPS going around arresting people for doing something that may be against someone's else religion,but not directly targeting said religion because of motivated hatred . For example,CPS probably isn't going to arrest anyone that eats,or sells pork because the Muslim religion forbids it.



CPS probably isn't going to arrest anyone that eats,or sells pork because the Muslim religion forbids it.

I'm not the one who wrote the law. But technically they could arrest someone if there was a complaint.

For instance, if a male or female wanted to accuse you of rape. Calls the police up and say that your raped them, what do you think is going to happen?

What do you think is going to happen if you accidentally offended someone's religion without prior knowledge? They can call up the police and have you arrested. It's a criminal offence.

The law doesn't care about subjective opinions.


They would arrest you,collect any physical evidence, question you,and after that decide to either drop all charges,or pursue the case in a court. This is already normal procedure so I don't see what the big deal is here.

The law also protects you from begin falsely charged as in you can sue the person for damages,and they can end up in jail themselves depending on how far they took the actual accusations.


20208 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17

danagram wrote:


They would arrest you,collect any physical evidence, question you,and after that decide to either drop all charges,or pursue the case in a court. This is already normal procedure so I don't see what the big deal is here.

The law also protects you from begin falsely charged as in you can sue the person for damages,and they can end up in jail themselves depending on how far they took the actual accusations.




When it comes down to it the language- perceived by the victim.

If I create a church on my own property for myself and then I burn it down and said I don't like this religion. You can actually get arrested and sent to prison. Does that make any sense to you? Do you not find that retarded?
3871 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17
how are they going to enforce this ?
941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F
Online
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17

riverjustice wrote:


danagram wrote:


They would arrest you,collect any physical evidence, question you,and after that decide to either drop all charges,or pursue the case in a court. This is already normal procedure so I don't see what the big deal is here.

The law also protects you from begin falsely charged as in you can sue the person for damages,and they can end up in jail themselves depending on how far they took the actual accusations.




When it comes down to it the language- perceived by the victim.

If I create a church on my own property for myself and then I burn it down and said I don't like this religion. You can actually get arrested and sent to prison. Does that make any sense to you? Do you not find that retarded?


The whole religious aspect doesn't even matter in that example when your actions can be seen as trying commit insurance fraud,and committing arson. It doesn't matter if it's your property either as you're intentionally creating a dangerous situation for the people around you,yourself,and the fire fighters.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.