6 ms·

Why is it "none of the BBC's business" when you send hate mail to the BBC? Haven't you made it their business?

interfixus 9y ago
That magic spell again: Hate mail. All parties are invited to remember, one guy's considered opinion is another guy's hate speech. And then, ever so often, the wind changes, the tables are turned, those in the wrong are now in the right, and those in the right are now everybody's laughing stock.
- Veen 9y ago
  The boundaries are fuzzy and subject to change. That doesn't mean there can be no standards of acceptability. Who defines the standards? In this case, the BBC.
  - interfixus 9y ago
    And those standards to be defined by ... ???
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - PascLeRasc 9y ago
      The BBC. Someone's website isn't a public place. This isn't free speech.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    That doesn't mean there can be no standards of acceptability. Why do there need to be "standards of acceptability" at all? Seems to me the better world is one in which people don't interfere in other people's employment.
npiazza83 9y ago
The courts and laws are established to determine appropriate action in such a case. Proving real damage to the BBC due to what they perceive to be "hate speech" is difficult. The BBC has put in their terms that they reserve the right to cause real financial harm to those they perceive to be writing "hate speech". I can put in my contract that I reserve the right to murder you, and if you sign it I'm still going to jail. Such is the case here. The BBC just made themselves look like idiots for no enforceable reason.
- jellicle 9y ago
  If telling your ISP about something you sent causes you "real financial harm", perhaps you shouldn't have sent it. Perhaps you are responsible for the "real financial harm" to yourself.
  - npiazza83 9y ago
    The law is designed to cover cases you might not immediately think of. Protecting men/women from "legal" harassing communication in the work place, protecting homosexual couples from discrimination, etc. eliminating such protections to stick it to nazis is, to put it mildly, naive

That magic spell again: Hate mail. All parties are invited to remember, one guy's considered opinion is another guy's hate speech. And then, ever so often, the wind changes, the tables are turned, those in the wrong are now in the right, and those in the right are now everybody's laughing stock.

Veen 9y ago
The boundaries are fuzzy and subject to change. That doesn't mean there can be no standards of acceptability. Who defines the standards? In this case, the BBC.
- interfixus 9y ago
  And those standards to be defined by ... ???
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - PascLeRasc 9y ago
    The BBC. Someone's website isn't a public place. This isn't free speech.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  That doesn't mean there can be no standards of acceptability. Why do there need to be "standards of acceptability" at all? Seems to me the better world is one in which people don't interfere in other people's employment.

npiazza83 9y ago

The courts and laws are established to determine appropriate action in such a case. Proving real damage to the BBC due to what they perceive to be "hate speech" is difficult. The BBC has put in their terms that they reserve the right to cause real financial harm to those they perceive to be writing "hate speech". I can put in my contract that I reserve the right to murder you, and if you sign it I'm still going to jail. Such is the case here. The BBC just made themselves look like idiots for no enforceable reason.

jellicle 9y ago
If telling your ISP about something you sent causes you "real financial harm", perhaps you shouldn't have sent it. Perhaps you are responsible for the "real financial harm" to yourself.
- npiazza83 9y ago
  The law is designed to cover cases you might not immediately think of. Protecting men/women from "legal" harassing communication in the work place, protecting homosexual couples from discrimination, etc. eliminating such protections to stick it to nazis is, to put it mildly, naive