3 ms·

This is precisely the response desired by "We are fair cop". You're the victim of a misinformation campaign. > Other jurisdictions handle this issue different

by 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
    I 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 ago
      The 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 ago
        I suspect that there is actual support for this proposal but that to explicitly say so on this forum would have a negative reaction. There could be a belief that to admit that hate speech can be allowed in your own home is to endorse and advocate the murder of others. To be uneasy about removing the protections from your dwelling could be seen as support for hate. However to say "we shouldn't be uneasy, we should welcome this removal of liberties" wouldn't go down well with HN so other (less logical) angles of attack are taken.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    You're making the assumption that this consultattion is aimed at the general public and that it is not written in careful legal language. "We're thinking of spitting in your eye. Do you want us to spit in your eye?" The question is obviously no, and here's a big list of reasons why not. "We're thinking of removing the private dwelling exemption. Do you agree?" The answer is obviously no. Police officers are going to talk about the impossibility of gathering evidence to prosecute the crime. CPS, and solicitors, and barristers are going to talk about the importance of free speech protections and the difficulty of proving mens rei. Judges are going to talk about the problems of convicting people of a crime when it's difficult to show who the victims of that crime might be. All of this thread happens because people don't bother to read the source documents and get whipped into a frenzy by shitty low-tier troll groups like "We Are Fair Cop". FFS, spit the hook.

by DanBC 6y ago

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
  I 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      I suspect that there is actual support for this proposal but that to explicitly say so on this forum would have a negative reaction. There could be a belief that to admit that hate speech can be allowed in your own home is to endorse and advocate the murder of others. To be uneasy about removing the protections from your dwelling could be seen as support for hate. However to say "we shouldn't be uneasy, we should welcome this removal of liberties" wouldn't go down well with HN so other (less logical) angles of attack are taken.
- DanBC 6y ago
  You're making the assumption that this consultattion is aimed at the general public and that it is not written in careful legal language. "We're thinking of spitting in your eye. Do you want us to spit in your eye?" The question is obviously no, and here's a big list of reasons why not. "We're thinking of removing the private dwelling exemption. Do you agree?" The answer is obviously no. Police officers are going to talk about the impossibility of gathering evidence to prosecute the crime. CPS, and solicitors, and barristers are going to talk about the importance of free speech protections and the difficulty of proving mens rei. Judges are going to talk about the problems of convicting people of a crime when it's difficult to show who the victims of that crime might be. All of this thread happens because people don't bother to read the source documents and get whipped into a frenzy by shitty low-tier troll groups like "We Are Fair Cop". FFS, spit the hook.