3 ms·

Those laws you have the temerity to call “battle-tested” regularly lead to the violation of individual right by way of both arrest and prosecution for harmless

Those laws you have the temerity to call “battle-tested” regularly lead to the violation of individual right by way of both arrest and prosecution for harmless and necessary speech.

ttfkam 4y ago
What does a Daily Mail (already suspect source) article about a UK musician in the UK have to do with the statute as written in Germany as it applies to Germans? Right? The previous comment was talking about German law and jurisprudence and its effect (or lack thereof) on free speech? As for the Daily Mail, you should be cautious in your commitment to its veracity and its applicability to an American audience. For example, the word “arrest” does not mean what you think it does in UK English. I think you are confusing it with the word used in the scenario you expected: “charged”. An arrest simply means that the police have started asking questions, and are notifying the subject that their questions and any answers can be admissible in court. British police reality is not the same as in a US TV series.
- catiopatio 4y ago
  “See the battle-tested European hate speech laws” The police questioned someone over singing “Kung Foo Fighting” as part of their set, and threatened them with prosecution. I’m not confused as to what that means.
  - ttfkam 4y ago
    > I’m not confused as to what that means. …says the guy who fails to recognize that the musician was never taken into custody or charged with a crime. Some folks made an accusation (over a decade ago, by the way). The police followed up on the call by asking the guy questions about the incident. Literally just talked to him. And then…? Nothing. No charges filed. No detention. No indictment. Nothing. The matter was dropped. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything, both in the US and the UK. That doesn't mean when the police follow up, the accused go straight to jail and stand before a judge. Now, once more, UK laws have NOTHING to do with German laws, especially after the UK withdrew from the EU. So unless you've got an example from Germany or at least France that demonstrates a legitimate chilling effect on free speech due to hate speech laws present in those countries, you're indeed confused as to what it means. Fun fact: Europe is not a monolith, and the UK has no prohibition against Nazi iconography and rhetoric, unlike for example France and Germany.
    - catiopatio 4y ago
      > Literally just talked to him. I sincerely doubt you’d call this “nothing” if, for example, it was a white woman calling the police on a black man. The police questioning someone is never “nothing”. In a country with proper protection for speech, this should have never happened. > So unless you've got an example from Germany or at least France … I’m sorry, is the UK not in Europe now? Fine: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Enforcement_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Enforcement_Act
      - ttfkam 4y ago
        As opposed to the US where cops were called on folks BBQing in a public park (where BBQing is allowed)? And the US lacks hate speech regulations. So… no difference? When someone calls with some BS, the police are usually obligated to follow up. Now if you want to discuss how there should be penalties for wasting everyone's time with frivolous or hateful calls to the police, we can discuss that. > I'm sorry, is the UK not in Europe now? For the purposes of examining hate speech regulations, no, it's not. Different currency. Separate economic zone. Limited to no hate speech regulation especially as it regards Nazi/fascism. The US and Mexico are on the same continent as well. Closer in fact due to the huge shared border and no large salt water channel between. Should we lump the laws of Mexico and the US together haphazardly as well? No? Then why would you automatically lump the UK and Germany together like that when they are in fact quite distinct entities?

Those laws you have the temerity to call “battle-tested” regularly lead to the violation of individual right by way of both arrest and prosecution for harmless and necessary speech.

ttfkam 4y ago

What does a Daily Mail (already suspect source) article about a UK musician in the UK have to do with the statute as written in Germany as it applies to Germans? Right? The previous comment was talking about German law and jurisprudence and its effect (or lack thereof) on free speech? As for the Daily Mail, you should be cautious in your commitment to its veracity and its applicability to an American audience. For example, the word “arrest” does not mean what you think it does in UK English. I think you are confusing it with the word used in the scenario you expected: “charged”. An arrest simply means that the police have started asking questions, and are notifying the subject that their questions and any answers can be admissible in court. British police reality is not the same as in a US TV series.

catiopatio 4y ago
“See the battle-tested European hate speech laws” The police questioned someone over singing “Kung Foo Fighting” as part of their set, and threatened them with prosecution. I’m not confused as to what that means.
- ttfkam 4y ago
  > I’m not confused as to what that means. …says the guy who fails to recognize that the musician was never taken into custody or charged with a crime. Some folks made an accusation (over a decade ago, by the way). The police followed up on the call by asking the guy questions about the incident. Literally just talked to him. And then…? Nothing. No charges filed. No detention. No indictment. Nothing. The matter was dropped. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything, both in the US and the UK. That doesn't mean when the police follow up, the accused go straight to jail and stand before a judge. Now, once more, UK laws have NOTHING to do with German laws, especially after the UK withdrew from the EU. So unless you've got an example from Germany or at least France that demonstrates a legitimate chilling effect on free speech due to hate speech laws present in those countries, you're indeed confused as to what it means. Fun fact: Europe is not a monolith, and the UK has no prohibition against Nazi iconography and rhetoric, unlike for example France and Germany.
  - catiopatio 4y ago
    > Literally just talked to him. I sincerely doubt you’d call this “nothing” if, for example, it was a white woman calling the police on a black man. The police questioning someone is never “nothing”. In a country with proper protection for speech, this should have never happened. > So unless you've got an example from Germany or at least France … I’m sorry, is the UK not in Europe now? Fine: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Enforcement_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Enforcement_Act
    - ttfkam 4y ago
      As opposed to the US where cops were called on folks BBQing in a public park (where BBQing is allowed)? And the US lacks hate speech regulations. So… no difference? When someone calls with some BS, the police are usually obligated to follow up. Now if you want to discuss how there should be penalties for wasting everyone's time with frivolous or hateful calls to the police, we can discuss that. > I'm sorry, is the UK not in Europe now? For the purposes of examining hate speech regulations, no, it's not. Different currency. Separate economic zone. Limited to no hate speech regulation especially as it regards Nazi/fascism. The US and Mexico are on the same continent as well. Closer in fact due to the huge shared border and no large salt water channel between. Should we lump the laws of Mexico and the US together haphazardly as well? No? Then why would you automatically lump the UK and Germany together like that when they are in fact quite distinct entities?