3 ms·
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
by 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 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 agoI 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.