6 ms·

UK lawyers uneasy about plan to prosecute hate speech inside the home

22 points by AndrewBissell 6y ago

mytailorisrich 6y ago
This is a crazy proposal that should raise red flags about the workings of the Law Commission.
- quattrofan 6y ago
  Indeed, utterly bonkers
- DanBC 6y ago
  The law commission is saying that stirring up (eg) racial hatred is protected if you do it in your own home but not if you do it in a private conversation that no-one overhears in an office. They're asking why that is, but they're also suggesting extending the private dwelling defence to be broader to include all private conversation. > 13018.252 To the extent that the aim is to ensure that the criminal law does not intrude on purely private matters, the exception is poorly targeted. It would include a meeting held in a large private house, for instance, but would exclude a private conversation conducted in an office. Other jurisdictions handle this issue differently. For instance, the Canadian Criminal Code excludes a “private conversation” from the offence of wilful promotion of hatred.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    As you quoted in your other comment, they are proposing to remove a legal protection for things that happen in private dwellings. However you try to spin it, the only result would be to allow prosecution for speech that takes place at home in private and that is currently protected. They are not suggesting extending any protection.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      Please read the consultation document.
      - thinkingemote 6y ago
        Please provide us with the quote that says they are "suggesting extending the private dwelling defence to be broader to include all private conversation" because your previous quotes say the exact opposite!
        DanBC 6y ago
        This is precisely the response desired by "We are fair cop". You're the victim of a misinformation campaign. > Other jurisdictions handle this issue differently. For instance, the Canadian Criminal Code excludes a “private conversation” from the offence of wilful promotion of hatred
        thinkingemote 6y ago
        Oh it may well be the desired response, but you have really not helped any of us become more informed. You are not helping us as victims. Quite the opposite, your quotes and directions prove the claims you try to refute. You have given clarification that the consultation says what they claim! That the consultation proposes "that the current exclusion of words or behaviour used in a dwelling from the stirring up offences should be removed." The best thing you can say to us victims of misinformation is "educate yourself! Read this 500 page report" which does not work. The other thing you would say is something like "I know how the law works, you dont, therefore you must believe me when I say this on faith", probably an appeal to authority which might work a bit better if you have more status (e.g. "I am a barrister")
        mytailorisrich 6y ago
        If the proposal's aim was to increase protection then I would think that this what they would have proposed instead of explicitly and only proposing to remove the existing protection (as you quote). It's strange to claim misinformation when we're only just reading the proposal.
  - thinkingemote 6y ago
    They are not suggesting extending the private dwelling defence to be broader to include all private conversation, its the opposite. They want to remove the "dwelling exception" defence because private conversations elsewhere are not protected.
raxxorrax 6y ago
Not only lawyers should be uneasy about that. I don't know the legislative process that ended in this situation, but I would guess there are a lot of cognitive errors along the way.
draugadrotten 6y ago
It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children. And with good reason, for hardly a week passed in which The Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak—‘child hero’ was the phrase generally used -- had overheard some compromising remark and denounced its parents to the Police.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  Missed time with your children due to work can also induce a bad conscience that can be appeased slightly by subjecting your children to draconic surveillance. Nothing says "I love you" like being watched 24/7 outsourced to security companies. Because you just want the best for your children.
- nullc 6y ago
  'tis but a simple book. To some a lark, an escape, a bit of amusement, or a farcical warning not to be taken that seriously. To others? A manual.
DanBC 6y ago
I suspect zero people in this thread have read the Law Commission report. It's here: https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/hate-crime/ https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/hate-crime/ You want page 481 "The Dwelling Exception". 3 things to note: 1) It's a question in a consultation document. 2) one of the answers (s18.252) could make hate speech more, not less, protected 3) It's only about the "stirring up" parts of the act. --- LIMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS The Dwelling Exception 18.250 Until 1986, the offence of using words or behaviour intended or likely to incite racial hatred could only be committed in a public place. In the POA 1986, Parliament extended the offences to the private sphere. However, an exception exists where words or behaviour are used or written material displayed within a dwelling, provided that they cannot be seen or heard outside that or another dwelling.129 Similar protections were later incorporated into the legislation on religious hatred and hatred on grounds of sexual orientation. 18.251 This exception also applies to the POA 1986 offences of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to put a person in fear of violence, or to provoke violence, or causing a person harassment, alarm or distress.130 18.252 To the extent that the aim is to ensure that the criminal law does not intrude on purely private matters, the exception is poorly targeted. It would include a meeting held in a large private house, for instance, but would exclude a private conversation conducted in an office. Other jurisdictions handle this issue differently. For instance, the Canadian Criminal Code excludes a “private conversation” from the offence of wilful promotion of hatred.131 18.253 It is also anomalous that the parallel offence of showing video or sound recordings does apply in a dwelling. 18.254 We question the need for this exception to the stirring up offences. As discussed in Chapter 3, the harm at which these offences is targeted is the propagation of hatred. Other incitement offences, such as inciting or encouraging commission of an offence,132 are not protected simply because they take place within a person’s home. 18.255 We therefore propose that the dwelling exception should be removed from the stirring up offences.
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  18.252 I cannot read this to be advocating for more protection. It's an observation that a private discussion in an office is not protected, that the protection target is vague and therefore (later on) that private discussion in your own private home should also not be protected. Its boggling how you can mis-read this.
intricatedetail 6y ago
Police in the UK only cares about low hanging fruit. It will probably be used when someone needs to be locked up and there is nothing on that person.

22 points by AndrewBissell 6y ago

mytailorisrich 6y ago

This is a crazy proposal that should raise red flags about the workings of the Law Commission.

quattrofan 6y ago
Indeed, utterly bonkers
DanBC 6y ago
The law commission is saying that stirring up (eg) racial hatred is protected if you do it in your own home but not if you do it in a private conversation that no-one overhears in an office. They're asking why that is, but they're also suggesting extending the private dwelling defence to be broader to include all private conversation. > 13018.252 To the extent that the aim is to ensure that the criminal law does not intrude on purely private matters, the exception is poorly targeted. It would include a meeting held in a large private house, for instance, but would exclude a private conversation conducted in an office. Other jurisdictions handle this issue differently. For instance, the Canadian Criminal Code excludes a “private conversation” from the offence of wilful promotion of hatred.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  As you quoted in your other comment, they are proposing to remove a legal protection for things that happen in private dwellings. However you try to spin it, the only result would be to allow prosecution for speech that takes place at home in private and that is currently protected. They are not suggesting extending any protection.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    Please read the consultation document.
    - thinkingemote 6y ago
      Please provide us with the quote that says they are "suggesting extending the private dwelling defence to be broader to include all private conversation" because your previous quotes say the exact opposite!
      - DanBC 6y ago
        This is precisely the response desired by "We are fair cop". You're the victim of a misinformation campaign. > Other jurisdictions handle this issue differently. For instance, the Canadian Criminal Code excludes a “private conversation” from the offence of wilful promotion of hatred
        thinkingemote 6y ago
        Oh it may well be the desired response, but you have really not helped any of us become more informed. You are not helping us as victims. Quite the opposite, your quotes and directions prove the claims you try to refute. You have given clarification that the consultation says what they claim! That the consultation proposes "that the current exclusion of words or behaviour used in a dwelling from the stirring up offences should be removed." The best thing you can say to us victims of misinformation is "educate yourself! Read this 500 page report" which does not work. The other thing you would say is something like "I know how the law works, you dont, therefore you must believe me when I say this on faith", probably an appeal to authority which might work a bit better if you have more status (e.g. "I am a barrister")
        mytailorisrich 6y ago
        If the proposal's aim was to increase protection then I would think that this what they would have proposed instead of explicitly and only proposing to remove the existing protection (as you quote). It's strange to claim misinformation when we're only just reading the proposal.
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  They are not suggesting extending the private dwelling defence to be broader to include all private conversation, its the opposite. They want to remove the "dwelling exception" defence because private conversations elsewhere are not protected.

raxxorrax 6y ago

Not only lawyers should be uneasy about that. I don't know the legislative process that ended in this situation, but I would guess there are a lot of cognitive errors along the way.

draugadrotten 6y ago

It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children. And with good reason, for hardly a week passed in which The Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak—‘child hero’ was the phrase generally used -- had overheard some compromising remark and denounced its parents to the Police.

raxxorrax 6y ago
Missed time with your children due to work can also induce a bad conscience that can be appeased slightly by subjecting your children to draconic surveillance. Nothing says "I love you" like being watched 24/7 outsourced to security companies. Because you just want the best for your children.
nullc 6y ago
'tis but a simple book. To some a lark, an escape, a bit of amusement, or a farcical warning not to be taken that seriously. To others? A manual.

DanBC 6y ago

I suspect zero people in this thread have read the Law Commission report. It's here: https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/hate-crime/ https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/hate-crime/ You want page 481 "The Dwelling Exception". 3 things to note: 1) It's a question in a consultation document. 2) one of the answers (s18.252) could make hate speech more, not less, protected 3) It's only about the "stirring up" parts of the act. --- LIMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS The Dwelling Exception 18.250 Until 1986, the offence of using words or behaviour intended or likely to incite racial hatred could only be committed in a public place. In the POA 1986, Parliament extended the offences to the private sphere. However, an exception exists where words or behaviour are used or written material displayed within a dwelling, provided that they cannot be seen or heard outside that or another dwelling.129 Similar protections were later incorporated into the legislation on religious hatred and hatred on grounds of sexual orientation. 18.251 This exception also applies to the POA 1986 offences of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to put a person in fear of violence, or to provoke violence, or causing a person harassment, alarm or distress.130 18.252 To the extent that the aim is to ensure that the criminal law does not intrude on purely private matters, the exception is poorly targeted. It would include a meeting held in a large private house, for instance, but would exclude a private conversation conducted in an office. Other jurisdictions handle this issue differently. For instance, the Canadian Criminal Code excludes a “private conversation” from the offence of wilful promotion of hatred.131 18.253 It is also anomalous that the parallel offence of showing video or sound recordings does apply in a dwelling. 18.254 We question the need for this exception to the stirring up offences. As discussed in Chapter 3, the harm at which these offences is targeted is the propagation of hatred. Other incitement offences, such as inciting or encouraging commission of an offence,132 are not protected simply because they take place within a person’s home. 18.255 We therefore propose that the dwelling exception should be removed from the stirring up offences.

thinkingemote 6y ago
18.252 I cannot read this to be advocating for more protection. It's an observation that a private discussion in an office is not protected, that the protection target is vague and therefore (later on) that private discussion in your own private home should also not be protected. Its boggling how you can mis-read this.

intricatedetail 6y ago

Police in the UK only cares about low hanging fruit. It will probably be used when someone needs to be locked up and there is nothing on that person.