5 ms·

That is true, however, certain people when surrounded by "hateful" speech for long periods of time can easily become the actual law breakers who attack foreigne

That is true, however, certain people when surrounded by "hateful" speech for long periods of time can easily become the actual law breakers who attack foreigners or trans or whatever other things some people hate. Although this Bill is garbage for variou reasons, I do understand that people want to try and fix things before they get out of hand, not just after somebody has stabbed somebody else when it is objectively a crime.

logicalmonster 4y ago
> people when surrounded by "hateful" speech for long periods of time can easily become the actual law breakers So, are we doing the whole Department of Pre-crime thing now? Minority Report, here we come.
causi 4y ago
That's the price you pay for freedom. If our ancestors were willing to pay hundreds of thousands of lives a year for liberty eighty years ago, how cowardly of us to declare that our principles must crack under the weight of a tiny fraction of that.
bluescrn 4y ago
There's a whole lot of very vicious 'hate' directed at politicians, presidents, and prime ministers (on both sides of the political spectrum) by online activists or just normal people with strong opinions. Should this be cracked down upon too? Or should you be able to freely say nasty/profane/hyperbolic things about members of the ruling class, and maybe even tweet it directly at them, particularly when they enact very controversial policies?
- lbriner 4y ago
  There is a difference between someone's opinion and something that is offensive and potentially conspiring or inciting a crime. "I hate Boris because he doesn't run the country properly" could be called hateful but wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone, whereas, "We should kill Boris because he doesn't run the country properly" is at least borderline. I haven't seen many examples of something that would be considered criminal but look like they should be covered by "free speech" laws i.e. examples where a legitimate statement of opinion would be considered illegal.
BLKNSLVR 4y ago
Do we progressively move the line backwards from 'actual crime' towards 'incitement to commit crime' towards 'this type of opinion leads to incitement to commit crime' towards 'this kind of upbringing breeds criminals'. As you say, this appears to be driven by 'the people want...' and therein lies the conundrum. Enacting something resembling what the people want doesn't result in something the people want when they happen to accidentally step in it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lbriner 4y ago
  Honestly, I don't know. Incitement is already a crime in many scenarios but I think there is a relatively clean line between what might be called free speech like "I hate women" and incitement or 'hate speech' like "We should kill women". We should accept that there are very vulnerable people who can't distinguish clearly between "he said that but I won't do it because it's wrong" and "yes, we should do that thing because you suggested it"
throwawaylinux 4y ago
> That is true, however, certain people when surrounded by "hateful" speech for long periods of time can easily become the actual law breakers who attack foreigners or trans or whatever other things some people hate. I'm connected to a few British people on social media who seem to just spew constant dehumanizing vitriol and hate against the Tories, for years and years. They're traitors, they're nazis, they're destroying the country, they all hate the poor, women, gays, etc. Do you think this kind of rhetoric has caused a significant increase in violence against "Tories", and do you think it should be criminalized?
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > Do you think this kind of rhetoric has caused a significant increase in violence against "Tories", and do you think it should be criminalized? No - not significant. No - I don't think rhetoric should be criminalized. FWIW, I don't think a Twitter post about a Tory can be violent. Potentially it's an incitement to violence; but that's already illegal (quite rightly).
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    No, but I was specifically asking the OP who believes that a person surrounded by "hateful" speech for long periods of time can easily start breaking the law and attacking people.
- implements 4y ago
  Isn’t that because people have internalised the value of free speech regarding politics and therefore don’t react with violence or aggression when their side is strongly criticised? In Britain we have a phrase beliefs “worthy of respect in a democratic society” (WORIADS) - ideally people should be able to express, and more importantly hear, these with zero inclination to violence - more tolerance, more moderation of emotion, less censorship - would be my ideal.

logicalmonster 4y ago

> people when surrounded by "hateful" speech for long periods of time can easily become the actual law breakers So, are we doing the whole Department of Pre-crime thing now? Minority Report, here we come.

causi 4y ago

That's the price you pay for freedom. If our ancestors were willing to pay hundreds of thousands of lives a year for liberty eighty years ago, how cowardly of us to declare that our principles must crack under the weight of a tiny fraction of that.

bluescrn 4y ago

There's a whole lot of very vicious 'hate' directed at politicians, presidents, and prime ministers (on both sides of the political spectrum) by online activists or just normal people with strong opinions. Should this be cracked down upon too? Or should you be able to freely say nasty/profane/hyperbolic things about members of the ruling class, and maybe even tweet it directly at them, particularly when they enact very controversial policies?

lbriner 4y ago
There is a difference between someone's opinion and something that is offensive and potentially conspiring or inciting a crime. "I hate Boris because he doesn't run the country properly" could be called hateful but wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone, whereas, "We should kill Boris because he doesn't run the country properly" is at least borderline. I haven't seen many examples of something that would be considered criminal but look like they should be covered by "free speech" laws i.e. examples where a legitimate statement of opinion would be considered illegal.

BLKNSLVR 4y ago

Do we progressively move the line backwards from 'actual crime' towards 'incitement to commit crime' towards 'this type of opinion leads to incitement to commit crime' towards 'this kind of upbringing breeds criminals'. As you say, this appears to be driven by 'the people want...' and therein lies the conundrum. Enacting something resembling what the people want doesn't result in something the people want when they happen to accidentally step in it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lbriner 4y ago
Honestly, I don't know. Incitement is already a crime in many scenarios but I think there is a relatively clean line between what might be called free speech like "I hate women" and incitement or 'hate speech' like "We should kill women". We should accept that there are very vulnerable people who can't distinguish clearly between "he said that but I won't do it because it's wrong" and "yes, we should do that thing because you suggested it"

throwawaylinux 4y ago

> That is true, however, certain people when surrounded by "hateful" speech for long periods of time can easily become the actual law breakers who attack foreigners or trans or whatever other things some people hate. I'm connected to a few British people on social media who seem to just spew constant dehumanizing vitriol and hate against the Tories, for years and years. They're traitors, they're nazis, they're destroying the country, they all hate the poor, women, gays, etc. Do you think this kind of rhetoric has caused a significant increase in violence against "Tories", and do you think it should be criminalized?

denton-scratch 4y ago
> Do you think this kind of rhetoric has caused a significant increase in violence against "Tories", and do you think it should be criminalized? No - not significant. No - I don't think rhetoric should be criminalized. FWIW, I don't think a Twitter post about a Tory can be violent. Potentially it's an incitement to violence; but that's already illegal (quite rightly).
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  No, but I was specifically asking the OP who believes that a person surrounded by "hateful" speech for long periods of time can easily start breaking the law and attacking people.
implements 4y ago
Isn’t that because people have internalised the value of free speech regarding politics and therefore don’t react with violence or aggression when their side is strongly criticised? In Britain we have a phrase beliefs “worthy of respect in a democratic society” (WORIADS) - ideally people should be able to express, and more importantly hear, these with zero inclination to violence - more tolerance, more moderation of emotion, less censorship - would be my ideal.