3 ms·
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
by 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 agoAs 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 agoPlease read the consultation document.
- thinkingemote 6y agoPlease 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 agoThis 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 agoOh 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 agoIf 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 agoI think its a safer and probably more accurate claim that it's needless fear mongering I would have focused more on the credibility of the source and weakened the severity of it. 1) it's from the guardian via its a fair cop. Weakening the source of the news, the anti-government angle, attacking the poor legal knowledge of the argument. 2) it's a consultation document, it's just for discussion, its nothing legal, nor will it be used for making new laws. Its nothing to worry about. I cant find any possible way to spin what the document says to make it read the other way. strange indeed!
- mytailorisrich 6y agoThe Law Commission is a very serious and credible source, obviously newspapers spin this however suits them. It is known that their reports are not the law but only proposals that may inform law-making. The article is quite factual. What is shocking is that they (the Law Commission) would essentially propose restricting free speech in people's homes, which is what their proposal is word for word.
- thinkingemote 6y agoThey 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.