Britain ending free speech
 

In case our non-Brits were not aware:

Previously a comedian filmed his girlfriend's pug giving a Nazi salute, in a hilarious style, and was charged with hate crimes

Yesterday a girl posted Snoop Dogg lyrics to Instagram and is charged with hate crimes

Context? PURPOSEFULLY IGNORED. Intent? NOT CONSIDERED.

This is using Fascist approaches to fight Fascism. How far will it go?

The other day an old friend of mine (who is British, working in the US) said that he considers Nazis and Capitalists to be "sub-human". After a few days of thinking about it, I realized the full implications of what he said. And how horrible it is that he believes it. Classing your enemies as sub-human? In 2018? It's one of the most alarming things I've ever heard someone say. In our tribal era, I expect to hear a lot more of it.

Can you get arrested for hating hate crimes?

The second case with the girl posting rap lyrics is ludicrous. It is clearly not the intended target of hate speech laws.

The first one was pretty predictable given we have had laws about that sort of thing since the mid-80s. Posting a video where a dog does nazi salutes in response to someone saying 'gas the jews' would have drawn prosecution at any time in the last 30 years, had that sort of thing been possible. Distributing that same scenario in cartoon form on leaflets would have put you at risk of prosecution - telling it as a joke on stage - whether the authorities wuol have chosen to pursue a prosecution or not is a bit of a moot point, but the legal framework was there - and the potentially anti-semitic nature of it (as opposed to, say, a paki joke) would have made that far more likely.


This is not a case of Britain ending free speech - this is new media bringing individual, user-made content to a mainstream audience and butting up against very well-established laws.



As to your second point - labelling your opponent as sub-human is a frightening direction to go in. There is no good outcome to that sort of thinking.

It's the prelude to a Free Speech Tax.

You'll have to have a Snoop Dogg user-made content party.

That's when you counter-accuse the government of dog/Dogg hate crimes and dump their censorship into the Channel.

When is the last time somebody paid to speak freely? And how much money did it cost?

We already pay the public safety costs collectively through our taxes. The point is, there're those who would have it happen, one way or another, more selectively. For instance those who attempted to do so in Pennsylvania last year. You must've forgot.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speec...ay-free-speech

Nazi pug video results in £800 fine

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8317751.html

if he monetized his youtube video, he may have earned more than that with all the publicity

I imagine he'd be paying a lot higher fine if he had left it up.

Undertoad, thoughts on Fosta / Sesta ??

https://cellar.org/showthread.php?p=1006827

I would have thought, highly germane to someone running an open, public forum?

I haven't put much time in on it, and can't definitively say which side I'd wind up on. I've believed in a lot of libertarian crises in my day that turned out to be not much at all, so it takes something pretty nasty to sway me.

~

This is not an open forum. It's moderated. Sex trafficking is strictly forbidden. Rule number one: "Do not try to break the law using the Cellar". It's rule number one for reasons!

~

There is some confusion over what is meant by freedom of speech. Having certain rights doesn't allow us to violate other people's rights. The example always given is, you can't yell Fire in a crowded theater.

Because the limit on freedom of speech is whether it affects other rights, the fact that you can't yell Fire in a crowded theater is not a dilution of freedom of speech. It's a protect of all our rights.

UNLESS we invent new rights to be violated, such as the right not to be offended. That's not a right; in fact exactly the opposite, it's specifically meant to control speech, and really, to control thought.

I was pretty susceptible to libertarian slippery slopism. I see the world differently now, more of an ongoing negotiation. If we screw up, we can change course.

http://northyorkshire.police.uk/news...jammer-prison/

Of course you don't have to actually speak. A gesture or dance is also a form of speech.

What do you figure is the right level of punishment for someone who fits their vehicle with a laser jammer to stop the cops from detecting what speed he's going?

Okay, now what is the right level of punishment for someone who gives the finger to the mobile speed detection van as he drives past?

(UT note: the finger? One middle finger? What happened to the standard backwards two-finger flip? Has even North Yorks become Americanised?)

If you said "eight months in prison" you have listed the Brit punishment for such a thing. EIGHT MONTHS!!

But it's not about the finger, right? Because that part is speech.

(Giving the finger to speed detection devices and red light cameras should be considered hardy tradition in the states!)

The middle finger is only the clickbait headline. I'm sure the gesture did him no favors, but he lied to the cops and attempted to destroy evidence, in addition to using the banned device in the first place. Another case of the coverup being worse than the crime.

This.


And yes, th middle finger is commonly used here. Even in Yorkshire :P

I think 2 fingers nowadays is more of a kid thing. Though you still see it sometimes from adults. I thing the middle finger is generally seen as a more serious insult than the two finger salute - but also context driven - it's like .... if you are insulting an individual you'd usually go with the middle finger - if you're insulting the police at a demonstration then it would be two fingers