6 ms·
A few points. First, here's the actual law: https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/current-bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill/
by dvt 6y ago
A few points. First, here's the actual law: https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/current-bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill/stage-3/bill-as-amended-at-stage-3.pdf https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/...
Second, keep in mind that LotusEaters is ran by Carl Benjamin[1] -- and so it's most definitely not a balanced take.
Third, the gripe here is mainly that there's no "private conversation" exception for this bill. I personally think it's problematic even without these exceptions. If you read through it, it's riddled with "reasonable," "reasonable person," and so on.
Finally, important notice needs to be paid to section 4A, where it cites Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights of being the pallbearer for what's reasonable and what's not. Article 10 itself says:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Benjamin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Benjamin
- MikeUt 6y ago> LotusEaters is ran by Carl Benjamin[1] -- and so it's most definitely not a balanced take. Thank you for catching that. The law was also covered by the more trusted BBC [1]. A quick skim did not find any conflicting information between the two reports, but please correct me if I missed something. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364821 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364...
- bombcar 6y agoI’ve never really understood these “freedom to X shall not be limited save by this large list of limitations” style.
- exporectomy 6y agoIt's worse than that. The limitations are subjective so anything can be included and Article 10 is meaningless. The UN declaration of human rights is the same. The final "right" is the right of governments to revoke all the other rights for pretty much whatever reason they feel like.
- andrew_v4 6y agoThis, i think, is where the US got it right, by making it clear that the people were granting rights to the government and not the other way around. My understanding is that the US government would have no standing to make laws limiting free speech (even if they wanted to try). There is an interesting discussion here: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-x/interps/129#:~:text=Rights%20Reserved%20to%20States%20or,respectively%2C%20or%20to%20the%20people https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/inte....
- TameAntelope 6y agoThe US for sure has limitations on speech, for example credible threats.
- Pet_Ant 6y agoI’m pretty certain that “speech” means expression of ideas, not the audible act of speaking. So making a threat is not covered in the same way that perjury isn’t covered.
- TameAntelope 6y agoIsn't actual speech also an expression of an idea? But yes, another good example would be perjury.
- andrew_v4 6y agoI think GP is saying that threats or perjury are not just characterized by the expression of an idea but another underlying crime. Like if someone walks into a bank and says "give me all your money or else", it's still a crime, the speaking part of it is immaterial.
- Ericson2314 6y agoAnd let's not forget the fun part > The common law offence of blasphemy is abolished Yes, please clean out the dead (legal) code! Law debt is a scourge against democracy.
- exporectomy 6y agoExcept Islamic blasphemy which is a hate crime.
- selimthegrim 6y agoI think that shopkeeper getting stabbed in Scotland forced a rethink.
- exporectomy 6y agoDid it? That's interesting because plenty of other cases of Muslims killing people for blasphemy didn't seem to weaken the popular opinion that blasphemy against Islam is "hate". It could certainly be judged as "stirring up hatred". The victim of that killing might even have been guilty under this law for proselytizing a minority sect that tends to stir up hatred from the majority sect's members.
- selimthegrim 6y agoHe was trying to start his own spinoff IIRC
- sacul 6y agoKeep in mind that every culture has blasphemy laws. What you're seeing here is not the removal of blasphemy laws, but the culture's switch from one god to another.
- TimTheTinker 6y ago^ underrated comment The attempt to "cleanse the land" of what they have newly labeled as "bigotry", "racism", etc. does have what strongly resembles religious fervor, a clear definition of sin, and a clear promise of a better world and the conditions for getting there. And there are always those pesky skeptics who make it so difficult... if only everyone would just believe.
- mrkstu 6y agoChina could use the exact same verbiage and justify all the restrictions on speech that currently occur there.
- logicchains 6y agoThis is indeed how the Chinese constitution is written.
- TameAntelope 6y agoI don't think that's particularly useful as a metric. China could use the Bill of Rights similarly if they wanted to.
- indemnity 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picking_quarrels_and_provoking_trouble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picking_quarrels_and_provoking...