4 ms·

Agreed. There is a 1000% chance this legislation will be used to muzzle valid criticism of the rich and powerful, both in and out of government. The uncritical

Agreed. There is a 1000% chance this legislation will be used to muzzle valid criticism of the rich and powerful, both in and out of government. The uncritical crowd here tends to assume anyone critical of hate speech laws just wants to toss slurs at people online, but the reality is that this represents a very real threat to free society on a basic level. Governments are ALWAYS trying to get more power than they need, so that they can abuse that power, and it's the ongoing sisyphean task of the population to push back if they don't want to end up in a dystopia. Power to muzzle people for saying something mean is power the government SHOULD NOT HAVE. And if they get it, it WILL be abused.

busymom0 5y ago
Every single leader of almost each of the Canadian political parties was caught breaking their own covid guidelines and going on vacations, without masks, hugging and kissing etc. Yet not a single one of them got held accountable. Similarly in UK, the health secretary was caught having an affair the entire time he was telling people to socially distance. Not a single political will ever get held accountable. But business owners, everyday people were getting arrested and fined. Kitchen chefs were getting fined $300 for not having their mask on "properly" while they operated 500 degree ovens: https://mtracey.substack.com/p/kitchen-worker-not-wearing-a-mask https://mtracey.substack.com/p/kitchen-worker-not-wearing-a-... This legislation will get abused so easily against everyday people, I can't believe that anyone thinks this is a wise idea.
- neartheplain 5y ago
  >Similarly in UK, the health secretary was caught having an affair the entire time he was telling people to socially distance. Not a single political will ever get held accountable. In response to this affair, the Health Secretary has resigned: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/57622888 https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/57622888
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - JetAlone 5y ago
    All things considered, holding himself accountable is an honourable thing to do. I don't know if I could trust him to lead a health department again, but I'd surmise he's on the road of redemption in his family and community's eyes.
    - busymom0 5y ago
      He refused to resign first. Only after there was significant pressure did he finally do it. https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1454520/matt-hancock-statement-affair-pictures-quit-resign-gina-coladangelo-latest-breaking-news https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1454520/matt-hancock...
      - JetAlone 5y ago
        Ah, thank you for further elucidating!
        nate_meurer 5y ago
        And to pile on a bit, he also appears to have dumped his wife (and unavoidably his kids to an extent) to run off with the mistress.
        busymom0 5y ago
        Reminds me of 'Professor Lockdown' Neil Ferguson, 53, who resigned from SAGE last year after also getting caught having an affair and breaking his own social distancing policies. Best part is that back then, this same Health Secretary Matt Hancock was criticizing Neil Ferguson for doing so. Now he's caught doing the exact same thing too. Full circle.
        BoxOfRain 5y ago
- zdragnar 5y ago
  We saw the same in the US with both elected and appointed officials in many of the states with the strictest of mandates, including California, Michigan and New York. At least CA has a recall election planned for the governor, but if I were a betting man I doubt I would bet on it succeeding. People of all political leanings seem quick to forgive politicians (from their side) for being human, while average citizens do not receive the same leniency from the government itself.
Aeolun 5y ago
I’m curious if you live in the US, and if this is why you feel this way? I think it’s fairly normal that countries place a restriction on what is acceptable free speech and what goes beyond your right of expression because it infringes on others.
- lodi 5y ago
  That's right; we already have free speech restrictions. Why do we need these extremely vague, extra restrictions, and why now? Nothing in this bill would have prevented the vehicle attack that supposedly prompted this bill.
- _fat_santa 5y ago
  American here. The problem I see with laws against hate speech is that "hate speech" is not defined concretely. While the intentions are certainly good, and I agree with the intentions, I disagree with the law because it leaves the definition of "hate speech" as a subjective term that is left up to the courts/prosecutors to define.

busymom0 5y ago

Every single leader of almost each of the Canadian political parties was caught breaking their own covid guidelines and going on vacations, without masks, hugging and kissing etc. Yet not a single one of them got held accountable. Similarly in UK, the health secretary was caught having an affair the entire time he was telling people to socially distance. Not a single political will ever get held accountable. But business owners, everyday people were getting arrested and fined. Kitchen chefs were getting fined $300 for not having their mask on "properly" while they operated 500 degree ovens: https://mtracey.substack.com/p/kitchen-worker-not-wearing-a-mask https://mtracey.substack.com/p/kitchen-worker-not-wearing-a-... This legislation will get abused so easily against everyday people, I can't believe that anyone thinks this is a wise idea.

neartheplain 5y ago
>Similarly in UK, the health secretary was caught having an affair the entire time he was telling people to socially distance. Not a single political will ever get held accountable. In response to this affair, the Health Secretary has resigned: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/57622888 https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/57622888
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- JetAlone 5y ago
  All things considered, holding himself accountable is an honourable thing to do. I don't know if I could trust him to lead a health department again, but I'd surmise he's on the road of redemption in his family and community's eyes.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    He refused to resign first. Only after there was significant pressure did he finally do it. https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1454520/matt-hancock-statement-affair-pictures-quit-resign-gina-coladangelo-latest-breaking-news https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1454520/matt-hancock...
    - JetAlone 5y ago
      Ah, thank you for further elucidating!
      - nate_meurer 5y ago
        And to pile on a bit, he also appears to have dumped his wife (and unavoidably his kids to an extent) to run off with the mistress.
        busymom0 5y ago
        Reminds me of 'Professor Lockdown' Neil Ferguson, 53, who resigned from SAGE last year after also getting caught having an affair and breaking his own social distancing policies. Best part is that back then, this same Health Secretary Matt Hancock was criticizing Neil Ferguson for doing so. Now he's caught doing the exact same thing too. Full circle.
        BoxOfRain 5y ago
zdragnar 5y ago
We saw the same in the US with both elected and appointed officials in many of the states with the strictest of mandates, including California, Michigan and New York. At least CA has a recall election planned for the governor, but if I were a betting man I doubt I would bet on it succeeding. People of all political leanings seem quick to forgive politicians (from their side) for being human, while average citizens do not receive the same leniency from the government itself.

Aeolun 5y ago

I’m curious if you live in the US, and if this is why you feel this way? I think it’s fairly normal that countries place a restriction on what is acceptable free speech and what goes beyond your right of expression because it infringes on others.

lodi 5y ago
That's right; we already have free speech restrictions. Why do we need these extremely vague, extra restrictions, and why now? Nothing in this bill would have prevented the vehicle attack that supposedly prompted this bill.
_fat_santa 5y ago
American here. The problem I see with laws against hate speech is that "hate speech" is not defined concretely. While the intentions are certainly good, and I agree with the intentions, I disagree with the law because it leaves the definition of "hate speech" as a subjective term that is left up to the courts/prosecutors to define.