5 ms·
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/pro
by 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 ago18.252 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.
- DanBC 6y agoPlease read the document. They suggest removing the private dwelling exemption, but later on they talk about adding free speech protections. It's boggling that people feel they can comment on a >500 page document without having read any of it, after having only read comments from groups like "We are fair cop".
- thinkingemote 6y agoYour two first comments intending to refute the claims had no evidence to back up your comments but instead proved the claims! Then, with no actual defence, instead you just say for us to read a 500 page document. To be charitable, perhaps you originally pasted the wrong quotes for your argument? Did you?
- DanBC 6y agoI quoted that bit because that's the piece that's being widely discussed. It does say that they're thinking of suggesting that the private dwelling exemption is removed, but that covers a wide range of options: 1) Remove it and criminalise "stirring up" in private dwellings 2) Remove it and add private conversations in private dwellings, thus continuing to allow stirring up in private dwellings unless it's a public meeting in someone's home 3) Remove it and add protections for private conversations, thus adding protections for hate speech that are private conversations but not in the home. It's a consultation, this is how Law Commission consultations work. Your unfamiliarity with them doesn't make you right, it just means you don't know how they work.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- thinkingemote 6y agoThank you for editing your comment that was in all caps, I have deleted my comment in reply to that.
- mytailorisrich 6y agoSeems clear: "18.255 We therefore propose that the dwelling exception should be removed from the stirring up offences." And from the link: "Reformulating the offences of stirring up hatred to focus on deliberate incitement of hatred, providing greater protection for freedom of speech where no intent to incite hatred can be proven." Here we have it. They do propose to remove the exception for private dwelling, which mean people could indeed be prosecuted for what they say at home. Then those people would be able to try to prove that, while what they said was wrong, what they thought was not. Another commentator referenced 1984... That seems apt.
- raxxorrax 6y agoIt can be interpreted that because proving intend to stir racial hatred is so hard to prove, that it is offers a good protection for any form of online speech. But yes, I would go with your version and think the arguments for better protections are dishonest. Honestly every form of executive overreach on internet comments has been a disaster. In Germany we also had some cases like this and you don't get info People responsible for it are nauseous and unfit to deal with real problems and worst of all have inspired dictators around the world. Problem is there is little room for criticism, because people responsible have real racists throwing insults at them left and right and your attempt to voice opposition will sort you right into these groups.