> These laws not only existed, they where far more stringent, prosecution far easier and the punishment far more severe. Try going back then and discussing the

> These laws not only existed, they where far more stringent, prosecution far easier and the punishment far more severe. Try going back then and discussing the king/queen in a negative way. True. > And yet, his book was still published. Because the subject of his book wasn't covered by these laws. > And in any case, he didn't say it to be threatening or abusive, so that's moot. Neither did Damore. He still got fired. > The HR policies of an American company (a country where in a lot of states you can be fired for any/no reason at all) is neither here nor there in a discussion about the UK's definition of hate crime, where that definition needs to be proven in a court of law to a jury of your peers at a trial. These HR policies are a sign of the times. The fashion of suppressing rational speech & thought in a misguided attempt to "protect" the minority-du-jour will eventually creep upwards into the laws of countries, as has already happened in Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_H... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_103 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_103