5 ms·

The problem is that it is really difficult to define what hate speech is, and more often than not it's used as a cudgel to silence the opposition. For Iran and

The problem is that it is really difficult to define what hate speech is, and more often than not it's used as a cudgel to silence the opposition. For Iran and Russia, it is what Khamenei and Putin don't want to hear, in the UK it's what Starmer doesn't want to hear.

delichon 10mo ago
Apparently it isn't very hard to define as you just did so quite accurately. It's just whatever those who control the definition don't want to hear.
- immibis 10mo ago
  Murder is just the killing of people who are liked by those who control the definition of murder. But everyone still agrees murder should be illegal.
  - delichon 10mo ago
    Murder is a far brighter line than hate, and therefore a law against it enables far less arbitrary power.
    - immibis 10mo ago
      It means ICE officers can kill you but you can't kill ICE officers. This is arguably an even worse asymmetry than the one about speech.
earthnail 10mo ago
That comparison is not only highly inaccurate, it’s also harmful in that it distracts from the real problem at hand. Putin and Khamenei are ruthless, brutal dictators. You don’t need to like Starmer, but he’s none of that. He’s a proper democrat. The implication that they’re all somewhat the same delegitimises democracies and legitimises these dictators. That’s how they win. I personally don’t think UK’s age verification thing is a good idea. I like Germany‘s idea of mandating PC and smartphone manufacturers to put simple parental controls in thar parents, not the central government, can enable for their kids. I love Australia‘s banning of Social media for kids. Let’s see where that leads. I don’t live there but am very excited for rhe outcome of that experiment. We can’t just sit here and simplify everything to black and white while Russian troll farms polarise our societies. We bear some responsibility here to have a nuanced debate about these things.
- wartywhoa23 10mo ago
  > I love Australia‘s banning of Social media for kids. Talking about ruthless dictators and true democrats in the same post.
  - immibis 10mo ago
    Banning children from accessing things proven to be harmful to children does not a dictator make. Or else you'd be rallying just as hard to allow children to drink alcohol.
    - wartywhoa23 10mo ago
      > Or else you'd be rallying just as hard to allow children to drink alcohol Why? I don't have a threshold at 127 in my luminance channel. Just a reminder - what children are allowed or not is not any government's business, it's parents' one. Which requires tearing their asses off from sofas and their eyes from screens and actually talk to their children and be in the know of their circles and activities.
      - immibis 10mo ago
        I'm glad you agree that if a child happens to be born to parents who aren't very good at parenting, they deserve to suffer. Basically if a child's parents smoke around them and give them lung cancer, all we should do is yell at them and moan on the internet, not actually do anything (via the government) to prevent it. Nothing you've said contradicts that you think the government should not forbid children from buying alcohol. Social media appears to be more harmful to a child than low quantities of alcohol, but less harmful than lung cancer.
        wartywhoa23 9mo ago
        I recommend you studying some history, especially that of Germany since 1920 till 1945, to help yourself part with the illusion that the government's overreaching care has anything to do with actual care, and to finally grok the essense of the saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
wartywhoa23 10mo ago
It's not the puppets who don't want to hear, it's the puppet masters.
teiferer 10mo ago
> more often than not Do you have any evidence for that claim or is it a gut feeling? > in the UK it's what Starmer doesn't want to hear. In a literal sense that can't be true, since upon change of government, the hate speech definition does not suddenly change. In contrast, Putin and Khamenei are very literally able to personally define the definition. In a figurative sense, that's likely true. As a democratically elected representative of the people, what he wants censored reflects what the people want censored, so is in alignment with a democratic society. If the people change their mind or realize it's not actually what they wanted, they elect somebody else next time. Good luck trying that with Putin or Khamenei. In either case, your comparison does not hold up.
- throwfaraway135 10mo ago
  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-scandal-cover-up-oldham-telford-rotherham/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-s...
  - teiferer 10mo ago
    So, use that information at the next election. If enough people care then it changes outcomes. Again, try that with Putin or Khamenei. (If such an article even gets published instead of ending the career or life of the journalist.)
- JuniperMesos 10mo ago
  > In a literal sense that can't be true, since upon change of government, the hate speech definition does not suddenly change. In contrast, Putin and Khamenei are very literally able to personally define the definition. Well it might if people systematically vote for politicians who promise to change the hate speech definition.
Defletter 10mo ago
> The problem is that it is really difficult to define what hate speech is It can be, but free speech types like to pretend it's nigh impossible. The UK has had modern hate-speech laws (for want of a better term) since the Public Order Act 1986, which made it an offence to stir up or incite racial hatred. Amendments in 2006 and 2008 expanded that to religious and homophobic hatred respectively. This exists in stark contrast to the common strawman touted by freeze peach types of "are you just going to compile a list of 'bad words'?!" Hate speech is not magic: you're not casting the self-incriminatus spell by saying the bad word. That said, I wont pretend like that aren't misuses of police powers in regard to speech, and expression more generally. We've seen a crackdown on protests over the past few years which is more than a little frightening. That said, it's become a pattern that anytime I encounter a discussion online about the UK trampling on freedom of speech or whatever, it always comes back to hate speech. It's almost never about protest or expression. I think that's interesting. EDIT: Correction, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 did not make stirring up or inciting "homophobic" hatred an offence, but rather hatred on the basis of sexual orientation. So one could get prosecuted for being inciting anti-straight hatred.
- thinkingemote 10mo ago
  In the UK the arrests are mostly about "grossly offensive" speech. That's more of a grey area than the clearly defined hate speech. Often there are arrests and investigations but convictions on these are less. Convictions of hate speech also occur but are not news worthy and no one objects. The two different offenses are being confused and so it becomes news. In the US they don't have the grossly offensive category. It's an issue because people are being investigated because people are offended by some things while others are not, and others (like comments here) see the difference between offensive speech and outright calls for violence. The police in some areas are encouraged to actively investigate reports of offensiveness whether or not they seem to them serious. It's a good idea on paper but the ambiguities and unequal application of their policy is newsworthy. It leads to conspiratorial and political theories. There is also a related newsworthy issue of the widening of what hate speech means to encompass forms of offensiveness. So some may say it's a direct call to violence to say some things but others may say it's not. This ambiguity leads to an effect and discussions. "Silence is violence" and "From the river to the sea" are topical example quotes used in this debate.
thrance 10mo ago
Just read the damn law before spouting nonsense. There have been hate speech laws since the 1980s. There are simply just more and more insane neonazis groyper-types online to which it is applicable.
- curtisblaine 10mo ago
  I don't think groyper speech is (or should be) automatically banned, though. It's a point of view that many find abhorrent, but it should be possible to express it. Same for far left messages encouraging the public to "eat the rich".
  - thrance 10mo ago
    Please do not equate demands for more taxations with calls to do more genocides of jewish people. The far right is uniquely problematic in our modern political landscape. And I disagree, free speech is a liberal value, you don't get to say nazi shit and hide behind free speech. Being a groyper is not a crime, but calling for genocide is and should be punished. Else we run the risk of normalizing these abhorrent ideas and repeating the worst times of our history, like the US seems on a course to doing.
    - curtisblaine 10mo ago
      > demands for more taxations That would be "eat the rich"? It looks like more demand for homicide and cannibalism, at least at a face value. > free speech is a liberal value That is a really nice definition that allows your side to say whatever they want, but the other side to have their speech restricted. It looks like "free speech" because you say it is, but of course it is not. > but calling for genocide is and should be punished And that is the usual strawman. "Calling for genocide" is incredibly vague. Is repatriation of immigrants genocide? Is CECOT genocide? Is advocating bombing Gaza genocide? Is "from the river to the sea" a coded call for genocide? Is, God help us, saying that trans women are men advocating for "trans genocide"? (apparently that's a thing) I have this feeling you don't want to establish a line in the sand for free speech to be free - you just want to pick and choose the examples that you deem acceptable.
ben_w 10mo ago
It is really difficult to define what hate speech is, it certainly can be used as a cudgel to silence the opposition though I'm not sure about "more often than not" and bluntly everything can be used that way: my previous commute took me across the lines of what was officially known as (translated) an "anti-fascist protection rampart"* to keep people from leaving a country that put "Demokratische" in its name. For the UK, it's not even clear what Starmer doesn't want to hear, he's got the charisma of the 10th-worst-in-class GCSE-level presentation on a topic not of his own choice. This can be observed in the poll ratings which are both amusing and the kind of thing that should only be found in a farce and not reality. I'd instead point to Musk, who has openly said that "cis" is "hate speech" on Twitter now he owns the site. Starmer may or may not have such examples, but it's just too hard to figure out what they even are 'cause he lacks presence even as PM with all the cameras pointed at him. * And to English speakers, "the Berlin Wall"
hdgvhicv 10mo ago
It’s Badenoch wanting to deport a British Citizen for what he posted online, not Starmer.
- qweiopqweiop 10mo ago
  More precisely, an Egyptian citizen who was given British citizenship recently without having visited the country, and his views (about Jews, killing police) clearly not being factored in when granting said citizenship. Whether right or wrong, your comment omits improtant details.
flr03 10mo ago
Law is always subject to interpretation and as imperfect as it sounds it is better than no law at all. And I'm not talking about hate speech specifically. Using this as a tool to silence opposition is possible and made easy in countries that do not value and nurture independence of institutions and have rampant corruption, often countries with authoritarian leadership. UK is not exempt of criticism, it would be unhealthy not to, but comparing Russia/Putin with UK/Starmer makes it evident that you are more concerned by pushing a political agenda that by facts and reason.

delichon 10mo ago

Apparently it isn't very hard to define as you just did so quite accurately. It's just whatever those who control the definition don't want to hear.

immibis 10mo ago
Murder is just the killing of people who are liked by those who control the definition of murder. But everyone still agrees murder should be illegal.
- delichon 10mo ago
  Murder is a far brighter line than hate, and therefore a law against it enables far less arbitrary power.
  - immibis 10mo ago
    It means ICE officers can kill you but you can't kill ICE officers. This is arguably an even worse asymmetry than the one about speech.

earthnail 10mo ago

That comparison is not only highly inaccurate, it’s also harmful in that it distracts from the real problem at hand. Putin and Khamenei are ruthless, brutal dictators. You don’t need to like Starmer, but he’s none of that. He’s a proper democrat. The implication that they’re all somewhat the same delegitimises democracies and legitimises these dictators. That’s how they win. I personally don’t think UK’s age verification thing is a good idea. I like Germany‘s idea of mandating PC and smartphone manufacturers to put simple parental controls in thar parents, not the central government, can enable for their kids. I love Australia‘s banning of Social media for kids. Let’s see where that leads. I don’t live there but am very excited for rhe outcome of that experiment. We can’t just sit here and simplify everything to black and white while Russian troll farms polarise our societies. We bear some responsibility here to have a nuanced debate about these things.

wartywhoa23 10mo ago
> I love Australia‘s banning of Social media for kids. Talking about ruthless dictators and true democrats in the same post.
- immibis 10mo ago
  Banning children from accessing things proven to be harmful to children does not a dictator make. Or else you'd be rallying just as hard to allow children to drink alcohol.
  - wartywhoa23 10mo ago
    > Or else you'd be rallying just as hard to allow children to drink alcohol Why? I don't have a threshold at 127 in my luminance channel. Just a reminder - what children are allowed or not is not any government's business, it's parents' one. Which requires tearing their asses off from sofas and their eyes from screens and actually talk to their children and be in the know of their circles and activities.
    - immibis 10mo ago
      I'm glad you agree that if a child happens to be born to parents who aren't very good at parenting, they deserve to suffer. Basically if a child's parents smoke around them and give them lung cancer, all we should do is yell at them and moan on the internet, not actually do anything (via the government) to prevent it. Nothing you've said contradicts that you think the government should not forbid children from buying alcohol. Social media appears to be more harmful to a child than low quantities of alcohol, but less harmful than lung cancer.
      - wartywhoa23 9mo ago
        I recommend you studying some history, especially that of Germany since 1920 till 1945, to help yourself part with the illusion that the government's overreaching care has anything to do with actual care, and to finally grok the essense of the saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

wartywhoa23 10mo ago

It's not the puppets who don't want to hear, it's the puppet masters.

teiferer 10mo ago

> more often than not Do you have any evidence for that claim or is it a gut feeling? > in the UK it's what Starmer doesn't want to hear. In a literal sense that can't be true, since upon change of government, the hate speech definition does not suddenly change. In contrast, Putin and Khamenei are very literally able to personally define the definition. In a figurative sense, that's likely true. As a democratically elected representative of the people, what he wants censored reflects what the people want censored, so is in alignment with a democratic society. If the people change their mind or realize it's not actually what they wanted, they elect somebody else next time. Good luck trying that with Putin or Khamenei. In either case, your comparison does not hold up.

throwfaraway135 10mo ago
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-scandal-cover-up-oldham-telford-rotherham/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-s...
- teiferer 10mo ago
  So, use that information at the next election. If enough people care then it changes outcomes. Again, try that with Putin or Khamenei. (If such an article even gets published instead of ending the career or life of the journalist.)
JuniperMesos 10mo ago
> In a literal sense that can't be true, since upon change of government, the hate speech definition does not suddenly change. In contrast, Putin and Khamenei are very literally able to personally define the definition. Well it might if people systematically vote for politicians who promise to change the hate speech definition.

Defletter 10mo ago

> The problem is that it is really difficult to define what hate speech is It can be, but free speech types like to pretend it's nigh impossible. The UK has had modern hate-speech laws (for want of a better term) since the Public Order Act 1986, which made it an offence to stir up or incite racial hatred. Amendments in 2006 and 2008 expanded that to religious and homophobic hatred respectively. This exists in stark contrast to the common strawman touted by freeze peach types of "are you just going to compile a list of 'bad words'?!" Hate speech is not magic: you're not casting the self-incriminatus spell by saying the bad word. That said, I wont pretend like that aren't misuses of police powers in regard to speech, and expression more generally. We've seen a crackdown on protests over the past few years which is more than a little frightening. That said, it's become a pattern that anytime I encounter a discussion online about the UK trampling on freedom of speech or whatever, it always comes back to hate speech. It's almost never about protest or expression. I think that's interesting. EDIT: Correction, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 did not make stirring up or inciting "homophobic" hatred an offence, but rather hatred on the basis of sexual orientation. So one could get prosecuted for being inciting anti-straight hatred.

thinkingemote 10mo ago
In the UK the arrests are mostly about "grossly offensive" speech. That's more of a grey area than the clearly defined hate speech. Often there are arrests and investigations but convictions on these are less. Convictions of hate speech also occur but are not news worthy and no one objects. The two different offenses are being confused and so it becomes news. In the US they don't have the grossly offensive category. It's an issue because people are being investigated because people are offended by some things while others are not, and others (like comments here) see the difference between offensive speech and outright calls for violence. The police in some areas are encouraged to actively investigate reports of offensiveness whether or not they seem to them serious. It's a good idea on paper but the ambiguities and unequal application of their policy is newsworthy. It leads to conspiratorial and political theories. There is also a related newsworthy issue of the widening of what hate speech means to encompass forms of offensiveness. So some may say it's a direct call to violence to say some things but others may say it's not. This ambiguity leads to an effect and discussions. "Silence is violence" and "From the river to the sea" are topical example quotes used in this debate.

thrance 10mo ago

Just read the damn law before spouting nonsense. There have been hate speech laws since the 1980s. There are simply just more and more insane neonazis groyper-types online to which it is applicable.

curtisblaine 10mo ago
I don't think groyper speech is (or should be) automatically banned, though. It's a point of view that many find abhorrent, but it should be possible to express it. Same for far left messages encouraging the public to "eat the rich".
- thrance 10mo ago
  Please do not equate demands for more taxations with calls to do more genocides of jewish people. The far right is uniquely problematic in our modern political landscape. And I disagree, free speech is a liberal value, you don't get to say nazi shit and hide behind free speech. Being a groyper is not a crime, but calling for genocide is and should be punished. Else we run the risk of normalizing these abhorrent ideas and repeating the worst times of our history, like the US seems on a course to doing.
  - curtisblaine 10mo ago
    > demands for more taxations That would be "eat the rich"? It looks like more demand for homicide and cannibalism, at least at a face value. > free speech is a liberal value That is a really nice definition that allows your side to say whatever they want, but the other side to have their speech restricted. It looks like "free speech" because you say it is, but of course it is not. > but calling for genocide is and should be punished And that is the usual strawman. "Calling for genocide" is incredibly vague. Is repatriation of immigrants genocide? Is CECOT genocide? Is advocating bombing Gaza genocide? Is "from the river to the sea" a coded call for genocide? Is, God help us, saying that trans women are men advocating for "trans genocide"? (apparently that's a thing) I have this feeling you don't want to establish a line in the sand for free speech to be free - you just want to pick and choose the examples that you deem acceptable.

ben_w 10mo ago

It is really difficult to define what hate speech is, it certainly can be used as a cudgel to silence the opposition though I'm not sure about "more often than not" and bluntly everything can be used that way: my previous commute took me across the lines of what was officially known as (translated) an "anti-fascist protection rampart"* to keep people from leaving a country that put "Demokratische" in its name. For the UK, it's not even clear what Starmer doesn't want to hear, he's got the charisma of the 10th-worst-in-class GCSE-level presentation on a topic not of his own choice. This can be observed in the poll ratings which are both amusing and the kind of thing that should only be found in a farce and not reality. I'd instead point to Musk, who has openly said that "cis" is "hate speech" on Twitter now he owns the site. Starmer may or may not have such examples, but it's just too hard to figure out what they even are 'cause he lacks presence even as PM with all the cameras pointed at him. * And to English speakers, "the Berlin Wall"

hdgvhicv 10mo ago

It’s Badenoch wanting to deport a British Citizen for what he posted online, not Starmer.

qweiopqweiop 10mo ago
More precisely, an Egyptian citizen who was given British citizenship recently without having visited the country, and his views (about Jews, killing police) clearly not being factored in when granting said citizenship. Whether right or wrong, your comment omits improtant details.

flr03 10mo ago

Law is always subject to interpretation and as imperfect as it sounds it is better than no law at all. And I'm not talking about hate speech specifically. Using this as a tool to silence opposition is possible and made easy in countries that do not value and nurture independence of institutions and have rampant corruption, often countries with authoritarian leadership. UK is not exempt of criticism, it would be unhealthy not to, but comparing Russia/Putin with UK/Starmer makes it evident that you are more concerned by pushing a political agenda that by facts and reason.