I get that UK law is different from US law, and that they actually have hate speech laws (while, in the US, hate speech is protected by the first amendment). But it's really bad that governments have this sort of power, where they can persecute people based on speech they don't like.
I went to an interesting seminar on UK defamation law as it relates to the UK, given by an experienced barrister. He didn't mention much about hate speech, so I don't know if it's relevant. Notes and slides from the seminar are here: http://francisdavey.github.io/defamation/ and I highly recommend reading them, very interesting! It basically looks like a UK operator now has a fair amount of protection if they take reasonable actions.
"On 4 March 2010, a jury returned a verdict of guilty against Harry Taylor, who was charged under Part 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. Taylor was charged because he left anti-religious cartoons in the prayer-room of Liverpool's John Lennon Airport on three occasions in 2008. The airport chaplain, who was insulted, offended, and alarmed by the cartoons, called the police.[11][12][13] On 23 April 2010, Judge Charles James of Liverpool Crown Court sentenced Taylor to a six-month term of imprisonment suspended for two years, made him subject to a five-year Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) (which bans him from carrying religiously offensive material in a public place), ordered him to perform 100 hours of unpaid work, and ordered him to pay £250 costs"
Not quite 2 years prison sentence, but a (suspended) jail term nevertheless. But then again, it was not a desecration of a main cathedral either, it was just a cartoon on a wall in an airport prayer room...
Maybe Pussy Riot gives us a case to abolish hate speech laws altogether? So nobody should be threatened with arrest or fine for saying bad things about Muslims, homosexuals, Christians, Jews or whoever, as it is the case now.
Well, if there's very aggressive legislation to combat "hate speech", is it unreasonable to call this target of combat "hate crimes" (or hate "crimes")?
With such aggressive legislation, I'm a bit wary of even going to the UK (I'm not a native speaker of English.)
In Canada for example the laws are quite controversial, regardless of political affiliation:
> The controversy around the issue lies in the reasoning behind Canada’s top court decision that proclaimed Bill Whatcott, a Christian evangelist, guilty of hate speech because of the language he used to refer to homosexuality.
> But in order to protect homosexuals from being perceived negatively, the Supreme Court went too far in infringing on freedom of speech, and of religion, critics said.
> This criticism came from both left and right, caused by the way the judge in charge of the case explained the ruling.
> “Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction,” the judge wrote at the time.
> ... famed comedian Rowan Atkinson and 20 others, including actors, philosophers, and writers, working with Humanist Society Scotland, see it as posing danger to freedom of expression, because the new legislation aims to introduce the offense of “stirring up hatred” without taking into account if hatred was the intent, bringing with it the danger of criminalizing and jailing people simply for their controversial views, the article said of the artists’ concerns.
Can you give me a link to evidence of this? Like an op-ed in a major publication or something? My first google shows articles that affirm "hate speech" is protected speech in the US.
I really can't speak for the UK or Canada. The US has free speech enshrined in the constitution's first amendment; and I'm not aware other countries have such constraints that are as absolute as the first amendment.
I don’t believe the UK has the concept of a “hate speech crime”. Rather, first a crime must be committed, and then that crime may be classified as motivated by hate, which attracts higher penalties.
Also, intent matters, and it is a defense if the allegedly criminal conduct can be proven to be reasonable.
You can get locked up for very mild 'hate speech' in the UK. And I don't even mean hate speech, but posting "I hate these people and this is why", not "violent acts towards so and so!"
I didn't know that. A blasphemy law sounds very bad. On the other hand, more general hate speech laws sound much more reasonable I think (although I'd still disagree); the UK has those for example.
It’s not so odd when you see countries with laws labeling and controlling “hate speech”, such as the UK, end up prosecuting people for blaspheming religious prophets and critiquing religion.
There are obvious pros and cons to nebulous hate speech laws. They codify assumptions about what is currently culturally sacrosanct into law without regard for consequences.
Based on how censorship is currently done in Europe, I won't be surprised if this law would be used to target "hate speech" like this and still nothing will be done about all of the content on YouTube being made for pedophiles.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/stephen-birrell-s-convic...
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-19883828
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/03/satanic-isla...
This is just a small selection. Obviously the UK has not "devolved into a dictatorship", but it is clearly censoring non-violent political speech.
reply