First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply CPS seeks more severe punishments for online hate speech.
20208 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17

danagram wrote:



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.



Actually on top of all those counts, you will also get charged for hate speech. But good effort.

And you actually proved my point earlier, is that there shouldn't be law that exist when there are existing laws that make it a crime. This is what peripheral just mentioned.

Mostly these hate speech laws are going to be enforced and proven by a form of written speech particularly online. I.E. social media
More censorship. Welp. If you UK wants to roll like that I could care less.

Just know what you guys are getting yourself into.
runec 
41508 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/25/17

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
But your all ready here?


941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17

riverjustice wrote:


danagram wrote:



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.



Actually on top of all those counts, you will also get charged for hate speech. But good effort.

And you actually proved my point earlier, is that there shouldn't be law that exist when there are existing laws that make it a crime. This is what peripheral just mentioned.

Mostly these hate speech laws are going to be enforced and proven by a form of written speech particularly online. I.E. social media
More censorship. Welp. If you UK wants to roll like that I could care less.

Just know what you guys are getting yourself into.


Well I don't think it matters for just your example because you're the only one practicing said religion ,however other scenarios I can see hate speech being a major factor in the sentencing.




17324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17

danagram wrote:

The whole point of having a bunch of laws is to ensure that you can charge a criminal with the highest sentence possible.



Not really. The idea is to have as few laws as possible that can meet society's needs. The problem is that as society changes the old laws aren't able to cope with the new circumstances so you either adapt the old law or add a new one. The more laws you have the more complicated your legal system, which leads to increased costs for all sides and the increased chance of perverse results as loopholes are found between overlapping laws.

In the UK (and probably other juridictions) sentencing guidelines allow judges to apply different levels of punishment for the same crime depending on the level of severity and background factors such as the perpetrator's previous record.

Automatically giving someone the most severe sentence possible is counterproductive. Switching to an American perspective, that would be like putting every single murderer on death row when in reality the majority are given prison sentences.
16276 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


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


Well, I think criminal offense is more worrying. A similar dialogue earlier this reminds me of is the arguments for laws against incest, to invariably prevent rape, as one would say. My only response is "Isn't rape already illegal", which I believe can be applied in the same way that harassment here.

In essence, why have a hate speech law when criminal harassment should and does cover the basic gist of it, and everything "criminal" about it?

Keep in mind the legal definition I believe it is and should be includes following someone around for extended periods of name calling, among others.


First of all, that is a definition of "hate crime", not "hate speech". Minor distinction but fairly important. Also, I'm not sure the legal standing of that definition as it seems to be more of a casual definition than a legal one.

But anyways, why have a hate speech law? Well, there are two reasons. One is that hate crimes are aggravating factors on top of other crimes. If you got caught vandalizing a Jewish synagogue with your tagger name, that is a bit of a different crime than vandalizing a synagogue with swastikas. It is an aggravating factor for another crime. The second reason is that hate speech isn't always targeted. Harassment requires a specific target, say, a specific Jewish person, but if you are standing on the street telling the world that the Jews are evil and they should be burned alive, there is no specific target, yet it is still a behavior that the law wishes to discourage as it is inciting hatred.

Also, making incest illegal is more complicated than that, but that isn't really on topic here.


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.


Generally, it is fine to hate. However, it is not fine to spread or incite hatred.


riverjustice wrote:



*perceived by the victim


I don't believe that is considered a legal definition. The legality of that quote is a bit unclear, so I think the best bet would be look at the actual law:


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

sundin13 wrote:



I don't believe that is considered a legal definition. The legality of that quote is a bit unclear, so I think the best bet would be look at the actual law:


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.


I'm not as familiar with UK laws about incitement. So it's a bit more difficult for me to for extrapolate the nuances.

But inciting hatred in the U.S. is legal in terms of our first amendment.
16276 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/24/17

riverjustice wrote:

I'm not as familiar with UK laws about incitement. So it's a bit more difficult for me to for extrapolate the nuances.

But inciting hatred in the U.S. is legal in terms of our first amendment.


Yeah, the US is probably one of the most lenient (first world) countries in terms of hate speech for better or for worse.
28360 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/25/17

sundin13 wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


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


Well, I think criminal offense is more worrying. A similar dialogue earlier this reminds me of is the arguments for laws against incest, to invariably prevent rape, as one would say. My only response is "Isn't rape already illegal", which I believe can be applied in the same way that harassment here.

In essence, why have a hate speech law when criminal harassment should and does cover the basic gist of it, and everything "criminal" about it?

Keep in mind the legal definition I believe it is and should be includes following someone around for extended periods of name calling, among others.


First of all, that is a definition of "hate crime", not "hate speech". Minor distinction but fairly important. Also, I'm not sure the legal standing of that definition as it seems to be more of a casual definition than a legal one.

But anyways, why have a hate speech law? Well, there are two reasons. One is that hate crimes are aggravating factors on top of other crimes. If you got caught vandalizing a Jewish synagogue with your tagger name, that is a bit of a different crime than vandalizing a synagogue with swastikas. It is an aggravating factor for another crime. The second reason is that hate speech isn't always targeted. Harassment requires a specific target, say, a specific Jewish person, but if you are standing on the street telling the world that the Jews are evil and they should be burned alive, there is no specific target, yet it is still a behavior that the law wishes to discourage as it is inciting hatred.

Also, making incest illegal is more complicated than that, but that isn't really on topic here.


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.


Generally, it is fine to hate. However, it is not fine to spread or incite hatred.


riverjustice wrote:



*perceived by the victim


I don't believe that is considered a legal definition. The legality of that quote is a bit unclear, so I think the best bet would be look at the actual law:


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.


Ah, RiverJustice posted it as a definition for Hate Speech in his original post. I have to confirm the factual accuracy of the claims presented though.
3376 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
43 / M / NW
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/25/17
The really twisted part for that YouTube mans pet is that animals that go to city pounds get put down in a gas chamber.
Humms 
14155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/25/17
Oh my, you don't want me to go that far

I can dig holes, but there is no way I would bury myself in one

There isn't anybody worth my time anyways, why would I even waste my time with pointless bigotry

and if it seems like I do.... You should probably think twice about who you're dealing with.

A man who does not give one single Fuck about how he lives, breathes, and speaks.

feels good to be your own man.

47839 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / SC
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/25/17
tea, anyone?
2044 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Valhalla
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/25/17

Sogno- wrote:

tea, anyone?


I'll have some.What kind?
20208 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/25/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:



Ah, RiverJustice posted it as a definition for Hate Speech in his original post. I have to confirm the factual accuracy of the claims presented though.


I got it from the original link or article.

One of the reasons why I hate officials that give these fucking opinionated definitions to the public and not the actual codified statue.
214 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 8/24/17 , edited 8/25/17
I'm a mixed American, my father is black and my mother is white. I've received racism from both sides my whole life.

That being the case, I think the CPS should make sure to apply the law to anti-white racism and anti-christian bigotry as well. From what I can tell from the first article, they are only looking to prosecute people who call for violence against a group of people. So if you were to post "Kill all (insert ethnicity here) people!" or "Gas the (insert religious group or 'atheists' here)!", you'll be prosecuted. If you just say "(Insert ethnicity here) suck!" you should be fine.

As for the guy who got arrested over the dog, it wasn't the Nazi Salute that got him arrested, it was the gassing comments. I don't agree with the arrest, but under UK law (as I understand it) the arrest was legal.
8801 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Definitely not EU
Offline
Posted 8/25/17 , edited 8/25/17

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


what the actual fuck lol
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.