3 ms·

Strictly speaking most have been arrested on immigration-related charges but been targeted for prosecution due to criticizing israel. This is bad and a large st

Strictly speaking most have been arrested on immigration-related charges but been targeted for prosecution due to criticizing israel. This is bad and a large step in the wrong direction but it's markedly less bad than the "hate speech" laws of Britain and many european countries.

chairmansteve 1y ago
The laws may be different but the result is identical. JD Vance should look at the bible he likes to tout. "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"
- landl0rd 1y ago
  Vance isn't running policy. He is the vice president. Many people are arrested every day. Some are for justified reasons and some are not. "The result is identical." Intent and rationale matter.
  - burnt-resistor 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - landl0rd 1y ago
      Right I already said he's the vice president. That's the job. We started with a system where the runner-up was VP and had a bit more of a role, then changed it to this.
KaiserPro 1y ago
> but it's markedly less bad than the "hate speech" laws those laws require due process. the american immigration "charges" are not tested by courts. They are executive actions, that might be challenged if you are rich enough. The UK does not have "hate speech" laws. It never had, anyone who tells you otherwise is pulling your leg. What can happen is you can ask for a more harsh sentence if there is "hate" involved. Yes, you will have heard of cases where someone was simple "just a bit racist" but thats moreoften than not an aggravating factor.
- landl0rd 1y ago
  In 2014, Police Scotland posted on its Twitter, "Please be aware that we will continue to monitor comments on social media & any offensive comments will be investigated." Met Police have taken similar actions in pursuit of chilling effects on social media. The Communications Act prohibits what are at best vaguely-defined "offensive communications" and created Ofcom. Because of this ridiculous violation of inalienable rights, in 2016, almost 9 people every day were detained and questioned for online speech and almost half of those were prosecuted. Britons have been jailed for posting emojis of an ethnic minority with an emoji of a gun. Or for saying illegals should be mass-deported. They have also been jailed for things that probably are closer to hate speech but that is just as bad. Let's not pretend "due process" is worth a damn when such a basically unjust law is allowed to stand.
  - skippyboxedhero 1y ago
    The number today is 30 arrests per day.
    - KaiserPro 1y ago
      ok, can you provide a link to where that number comes from?
  - pcrh 1y ago
    > inalienable rights The UK doesn't follow the American declaration of independence... In UK law such "inalienable rights" are found within the Human Rights Act, 1998 [0], itself based largely on the European Convention on Human Rights [1]. Both are famously disparaged by the political right. [0] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents [1] https://coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/home https://coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/home
    - landl0rd 1y ago
      That's basically irrelevant from where I stand. I don't subscribe to the idea that everything is relative. That we should "respect different choices". The point of an inalienable right is that it's intrinsic according to our basic values. The british failing to respect that doesn't change it.

chairmansteve 1y ago

The laws may be different but the result is identical. JD Vance should look at the bible he likes to tout. "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"

landl0rd 1y ago
Vance isn't running policy. He is the vice president. Many people are arrested every day. Some are for justified reasons and some are not. "The result is identical." Intent and rationale matter.
- burnt-resistor 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - landl0rd 1y ago
    Right I already said he's the vice president. That's the job. We started with a system where the runner-up was VP and had a bit more of a role, then changed it to this.

KaiserPro 1y ago

> but it's markedly less bad than the "hate speech" laws those laws require due process. the american immigration "charges" are not tested by courts. They are executive actions, that might be challenged if you are rich enough. The UK does not have "hate speech" laws. It never had, anyone who tells you otherwise is pulling your leg. What can happen is you can ask for a more harsh sentence if there is "hate" involved. Yes, you will have heard of cases where someone was simple "just a bit racist" but thats moreoften than not an aggravating factor.

landl0rd 1y ago
In 2014, Police Scotland posted on its Twitter, "Please be aware that we will continue to monitor comments on social media & any offensive comments will be investigated." Met Police have taken similar actions in pursuit of chilling effects on social media. The Communications Act prohibits what are at best vaguely-defined "offensive communications" and created Ofcom. Because of this ridiculous violation of inalienable rights, in 2016, almost 9 people every day were detained and questioned for online speech and almost half of those were prosecuted. Britons have been jailed for posting emojis of an ethnic minority with an emoji of a gun. Or for saying illegals should be mass-deported. They have also been jailed for things that probably are closer to hate speech but that is just as bad. Let's not pretend "due process" is worth a damn when such a basically unjust law is allowed to stand.
- skippyboxedhero 1y ago
  The number today is 30 arrests per day.
  - KaiserPro 1y ago
    ok, can you provide a link to where that number comes from?
- pcrh 1y ago
  > inalienable rights The UK doesn't follow the American declaration of independence... In UK law such "inalienable rights" are found within the Human Rights Act, 1998 [0], itself based largely on the European Convention on Human Rights [1]. Both are famously disparaged by the political right. [0] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents [1] https://coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/home https://coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/home
  - landl0rd 1y ago
    That's basically irrelevant from where I stand. I don't subscribe to the idea that everything is relative. That we should "respect different choices". The point of an inalienable right is that it's intrinsic according to our basic values. The british failing to respect that doesn't change it.