Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://news.sky.com/story/supreme-court-judge-orders-shutdown-of-x-in-brazil-13206388 I'm rooting for the rest of the world now too.
"C X is a cesspit | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It won't be long don't worry. The tightening of what you are allowed to say, think, and believe in is getting ever restricted. Wrong think, wrong opinions but most importantly; voicing them, will soon be punishable by law. (kinda already there) Though, it won't affect certain demographics. They have a multipass on what they can say and do. The slope gets slicker, yet majority of the world can't yet feel the decline. I fear it'll be far too late by the time they do. We all know what happens when things like this escalate. " What demographics are you referring to? The ones you say get a pass? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile Pavel Durov is arrested in France." Great News. *****Mr Durov was arrested at an airport north of Paris under a warrant for offences related to the app, according to officials. The investigation is reportedly about insufficient moderation, with Mr Durov accused of failing to take steps to curb criminal uses of Telegram.****** Which is a crime in France - Go France! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile Pavel Durov is arrested in France. Great News. *****Mr Durov was arrested at an airport north of Paris under a warrant for offences related to the app, according to officials. The investigation is reportedly about insufficient moderation, with Mr Durov accused of failing to take steps to curb criminal uses of Telegram.****** Which is a crime in France - Go France!" Do you think end to end encryption of messaging services should be allowed or not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you think end to end encryption of messaging services should be allowed or not?" Absolutely, it should be allowed - After all, why should the government have the right to listen to conversations in your own lounge or as you are walking down the street? Without warrant? Having said that. If I want to say something privately to someone, I usually say it face-to-face. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you think end to end encryption of messaging services should be allowed or not? Absolutely, it should be allowed - After all, why should the government have the right to listen to conversations in your own lounge or as you are walking down the street? Without warrant? Having said that. If I want to say something privately to someone, I usually say it face-to-face." So why do you think Pavel getting arrested to be the right thing? Telegram is not completely end to end encrypted, but most of it is. But end to end encryption means neither the government nor the app owners themselves can snoop-in on your messages. The side effect of that is the apps cannot do any moderation either because they can't see the messages. Pavel just did that. He didn't want to snoop-in on the messages in the name of moderation | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As in the UK, French judicial process can only access encrypted messages by warrant. Even then, it is doubtful they could decrypt such messages. But he was arrested for 'not having adequate moderation of hate speech in the wild', et-al. Which is a crime in France. Not encrypted messages." How can he moderate the messages when he can't read it? The reason why he ran out of Russia in the past was that Russia wanted to snoop-in on all messages. Now when France wants to snoop-in on messages under the guise of "moderating messages", it's suddenly a good thing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As in the UK, French judicial process can only access encrypted messages by warrant. Even then, it is doubtful they could decrypt such messages. But he was arrested for 'not having adequate moderation of hate speech in the wild', et-al. Which is a crime in France. Not encrypted messages. How can he moderate the messages when he can't read it? The reason why he ran out of Russia in the past was that Russia wanted to snoop-in on all messages. Now when France wants to snoop-in on messages under the guise of "moderating messages", it's suddenly a good thing?" I have already said: He WASN'T arrested for encrypted messages - read above ^^^^ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As in the UK, French judicial process can only access encrypted messages by warrant. Even then, it is doubtful they could decrypt such messages. But he was arrested for 'not having adequate moderation of hate speech in the wild', et-al. Which is a crime in France. Not encrypted messages. How can he moderate the messages when he can't read it? The reason why he ran out of Russia in the past was that Russia wanted to snoop-in on all messages. Now when France wants to snoop-in on messages under the guise of "moderating messages", it's suddenly a good thing? I have already said: He WASN'T arrested for encrypted messages - read above ^^^^" He was arrested for not moderating messages. But encrypted messages cannot be moderated by definition. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't actually give a crap about the Brazilian Government - that's up to their people to decide. Recent figures show that X does not remove 83% of hate speech. For that reason alone, the Brazilian government 'have a point'. "Who defines what's "hate speech"? This is just authoritarianism at its finest. It's interesting how these governments would criticise Russia and China for doing something like this and would go on to do the same thing themselves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't actually give a crap about the Brazilian Government - that's up to their people to decide. Recent figures show that X does not remove 83% of hate speech. For that reason alone, the Brazilian government 'have a point'. "Your view indicates you only care about the removal of X not the reasons why. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As in the UK, French judicial process can only access encrypted messages by warrant. Even then, it is doubtful they could decrypt such messages. But he was arrested for 'not having adequate moderation of hate speech in the wild', et-al. Which is a crime in France. Not encrypted messages. How can he moderate the messages when he can't read it? The reason why he ran out of Russia in the past was that Russia wanted to snoop-in on all messages. Now when France wants to snoop-in on messages under the guise of "moderating messages", it's suddenly a good thing? I have already said: He WASN'T arrested for encrypted messages - read above ^^^^ He was arrested for not moderating messages. But encrypted messages cannot be moderated by definition." For the last time - 'HE WAS NOT ARRESTED FOR NOT MODERATING ENCRYPTED MESSAGES' He WAS arrested for not moderating messages 'in the wild'. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't actually give a crap about the Brazilian Government - that's up to their people to decide. Recent figures show that X does not remove 83% of hate speech. For that reason alone, the Brazilian government 'have a point'. "The site descended into just another (ironically named) Truth Social or Gab when Musk took over. I'm sure the Brazilian people who enjoyed their freedom to spread misinformation and hate can go to those similar type sites. To be honest, I don't think it's great to ban a platform for the hate and misinformation spread by the users. The Brazilian government should probably invest in a better education system so it's citizens can distinguish between misinformation, and real info. We've seen how powerful misinformation can be covid conspiracies/Trump as POTUS/Brexit/etc. However the cynical side of me thinks that world governments are quite happy with their populations being easier to manipulate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile Pavel Durov is arrested in France. Great News. *****Mr Durov was arrested at an airport north of Paris under a warrant for offences related to the app, according to officials. The investigation is reportedly about insufficient moderation, with Mr Durov accused of failing to take steps to curb criminal uses of Telegram.****** Which is a crime in France - Go France! Do you think end to end encryption of messaging services should be allowed or not?" Not unless you give access to law enforcement. There’s a reason why telegram has been used for the distribution of child pornography. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People should look deeper into why the Brazilian government has come to this decision, if you support government interference aimed at controlling the narrative you will applaud this move." tory governments have doing this for decades with no complaints from their fanboys | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh an authoritarian left wing government suppressing a platform where most right wingers are? I am shocked!! Meanwhile Pavel Durov is arrested in France."
When did suppressing freedom of speech ever improve people lives? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't actually give a crap about the Brazilian Government - that's up to their people to decide. Recent figures show that X does not remove 83% of hate speech. For that reason alone, the Brazilian government 'have a point'.
Who defines what's "hate speech"? This is just authoritarianism at its finest. It's interesting how these governments would criticise Russia and China for doing something like this and would go on to do the same thing themselves."That was my question. Who decides what 'hate speech' is? If someone is offended nothing has happened. They're not wounded physically. Do we really want to shut down speech because someone is offended? Dangerous isn't the word for it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't actually give a crap about the Brazilian Government - that's up to their people to decide. Recent figures show that X does not remove 83% of hate speech. For that reason alone, the Brazilian government 'have a point'.
Who defines what's "hate speech"? This is just authoritarianism at its finest. It's interesting how these governments would criticise Russia and China for doing something like this and would go on to do the same thing themselves.
That was my question. Who decides what 'hate speech' is?
If someone is offended nothing has happened. They're not wounded physically. Do we really want to shut down speech because someone is offended? Dangerous isn't the word for it."How would you deal with those using it to share child pornography. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As in the UK, French judicial process can only access encrypted messages by warrant. Even then, it is doubtful they could decrypt such messages. But he was arrested for 'not having adequate moderation of hate speech in the wild', et-al. Which is a crime in France. Not encrypted messages. How can he moderate the messages when he can't read it? The reason why he ran out of Russia in the past was that Russia wanted to snoop-in on all messages. Now when France wants to snoop-in on messages under the guise of "moderating messages", it's suddenly a good thing? I have already said: He WASN'T arrested for encrypted messages - read above ^^^^ He was arrested for not moderating messages. But encrypted messages cannot be moderated by definition. For the last time - 'HE WAS NOT ARRESTED FOR NOT MODERATING ENCRYPTED MESSAGES' He WAS arrested for not moderating messages 'in the wild'. " What does 'in the wild' mean? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://news.sky.com/story/supreme-court-judge-orders-shutdown-of-x-in-brazil-13206388 I'm rooting for the rest of the world now too.
C
X is a cesspit "It always was, why the concern now | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As in the UK, French judicial process can only access encrypted messages by warrant. Even then, it is doubtful they could decrypt such messages. But he was arrested for 'not having adequate moderation of hate speech in the wild', et-al. Which is a crime in France. Not encrypted messages. How can he moderate the messages when he can't read it? The reason why he ran out of Russia in the past was that Russia wanted to snoop-in on all messages. Now when France wants to snoop-in on messages under the guise of "moderating messages", it's suddenly a good thing? I have already said: He WASN'T arrested for encrypted messages - read above ^^^^ He was arrested for not moderating messages. But encrypted messages cannot be moderated by definition. For the last time - 'HE WAS NOT ARRESTED FOR NOT MODERATING ENCRYPTED MESSAGES' He WAS arrested for not moderating messages 'in the wild'. What does 'in the wild' mean?" In the open, publicly available by anyone to see, read etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? " Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't actually give a crap about the Brazilian Government - that's up to their people to decide. Recent figures show that X does not remove 83% of hate speech. For that reason alone, the Brazilian government 'have a point'.
Who defines what's "hate speech"? This is just authoritarianism at its finest. It's interesting how these governments would criticise Russia and China for doing something like this and would go on to do the same thing themselves."Governments define what hate speech is, different governments have different definitions of what hate speech is. If you want to run your business in those countries you have to abide by their laws. Do businesses have the right to tell democratically elected governments what their laws should be? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is." When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't actually give a crap about the Brazilian Government - that's up to their people to decide. Recent figures show that X does not remove 83% of hate speech. For that reason alone, the Brazilian government 'have a point'.
Who defines what's "hate speech"? This is just authoritarianism at its finest. It's interesting how these governments would criticise Russia and China for doing something like this and would go on to do the same thing themselves.
Governments define what hate speech is, different governments have different definitions of what hate speech is. If you want to run your business in those countries you have to abide by their laws. Do businesses have the right to tell democratically elected governments what their laws should be?"Then in theorythre is no limit to what governments can call hate speech. You cannot tell someone to commit crime and you cannot incite riot. That should be it. Once they start calling hurty words hate speech there's no limit. They can criminalize anything. What freedom loving politician would even think of going down that road. It's endless. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh an authoritarian left wing government suppressing a platform where most right wingers are? I am shocked!! Meanwhile Pavel Durov is arrested in France." Strange that some people see nothing wrong with uncontrolled lies being published and shared. All people have to do is tell the truth, regardless of whether they are left wing, right wing, or support any particular party, organisation or cause. Odd that some people don’t like the idea of having to tell the truth or being held accountable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us." true .... it was sue ellen bravermans rabid far right extremist ideas of extremism that triggered the extinction level event of the lunatic rightwing conservative party | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us." Hmmmm. Not a fan of government process are we? ******first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage and third reading – before the two Houses resolve any differences between them and the bill receives royal assent to become an act, and law. Some bills will also undergo an optional pre-legislative scrutiny stage before any of these and others will undergo scrutiny after they become law.****** Yup. NO consultation there at all !!! Learn how government works.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is." How would you define hate speech? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. How would you define hate speech?" Pretty much the same way Oxford dictionary does: ___________________________________ hate speech noun noun: hate speech abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds. __________________________________ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. How would you define hate speech? Pretty much the same way Oxford dictionary does: ___________________________________ hate speech noun noun: hate speech abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds. __________________________________ "Is that a crime? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. How would you define hate speech? Pretty much the same way Oxford dictionary does: ___________________________________ hate speech noun noun: hate speech abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds. __________________________________
Is that a crime?"As defined in law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. How would you define hate speech? Pretty much the same way Oxford dictionary does: ___________________________________ hate speech noun noun: hate speech abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds. __________________________________
Is that a crime?
As defined in law."Do you think it should be a crime? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. How would you define hate speech? Pretty much the same way Oxford dictionary does: ___________________________________ hate speech noun noun: hate speech abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds. __________________________________
Is that a crime?
As defined in law.
Do you think it should be a crime?"Just get to where you are trying to get and ask a proper question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us." Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. " Exactly  We the People. Represented by the Government we elect. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. " No and no. I expect politicians to protect liberty not feelings. Freedom of speech,thought,expression. I do not expect them to take it from us because someone is offended. Anyone can be offended by anything said. That being the case there is potentially no limit to what speech the politicians could limit by criminalizing it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. Exactly We the People. Represented by the Government we elect. "Did sunak or Starmer tell you they were going to suppress freedom of speech? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. Exactly We the People. Represented by the Government we elect.
Did sunak or Starmer tell you they were going to suppress freedom of speech?"when did they do that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. No and no. I expect politicians to protect liberty not feelings. Freedom of speech,thought,expression. I do not expect them to take it from us because someone is offended. Anyone can be offended by anything said. That being the case there is potentially no limit to what speech the politicians could limit by criminalizing it. " So saying 'I think all -pick a religion a race a gender- should be killed' is just a thing that hurts feelings and that's all okay? Time to grow up in your societal understanding and realise that words actually kill people. 
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't actually give a crap about the Brazilian Government - that's up to their people to decide. Recent figures show that X does not remove 83% of hate speech. For that reason alone, the Brazilian government 'have a point'.
Who defines what's "hate speech"? This is just authoritarianism at its finest. It's interesting how these governments would criticise Russia and China for doing something like this and would go on to do the same thing themselves.
Governments define what hate speech is, different governments have different definitions of what hate speech is. If you want to run your business in those countries you have to abide by their laws. Do businesses have the right to tell democratically elected governments what their laws should be?
Then in theorythre is no limit to what governments can call hate speech.
You cannot tell someone to commit crime and you cannot incite riot. That should be it. Once they start calling hurty words hate speech there's no limit. They can criminalize anything. What freedom loving politician would even think of going down that road. It's endless."The limits are tested every general election, that’s how democracies work. Have you considered starting a political party to see how popular your ideas are? You seem to have the answer to everything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. No and no. I expect politicians to protect liberty not feelings. Freedom of speech,thought,expression. I do not expect them to take it from us because someone is offended. Anyone can be offended by anything said. That being the case there is potentially no limit to what speech the politicians could limit by criminalizing it. So saying 'I think all -pick a religion a race a gender- should be killed' is just a thing that hurts feelings and that's all okay? Time to grow up in your societal understanding and realise that words actually kill people.
"Is anyone physically harmed? Being unpleasant isn't a crime, is it? I think you're the one who needs to grow up. Stop being a cry baby,suck it up,accept hurty words and grow a thicker skin. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Did sunak or Starmer tell you they were going to suppress freedom of speech? when did they do that? They haven't"  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. No and no. I expect politicians to protect liberty not feelings. Freedom of speech,thought,expression. I do not expect them to take it from us because someone is offended. Anyone can be offended by anything said. That being the case there is potentially no limit to what speech the politicians could limit by criminalizing it. So saying 'I think all -pick a religion a race a gender- should be killed' is just a thing that hurts feelings and that's all okay? Time to grow up in your societal understanding and realise that words actually kill people.
Is anyone physically harmed? Being unpleasant isn't a crime, is it?
I think you're the one who needs to grow up. Stop being a cry baby,suck it up,accept hurty words and grow a thicker skin."In your first: People are killed every day because of other people words of hate. In your second: Oh, thank you so much for the wisdom! I'll be sure to add "growing up" to my to-do list right after "mastering the art of not caring about unsolicited advice." It's really comforting to know that you're here to help me toughen up with your deeply insightful comments. How could I possibly survive without such pearls of maturity? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. " No. It won't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. " It must be awful being so scared all the time, how do you cope? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As in the UK, French judicial process can only access encrypted messages by warrant. Even then, it is doubtful they could decrypt such messages. But he was arrested for 'not having adequate moderation of hate speech in the wild', et-al. Which is a crime in France. Not encrypted messages. How can he moderate the messages when he can't read it? The reason why he ran out of Russia in the past was that Russia wanted to snoop-in on all messages. Now when France wants to snoop-in on messages under the guise of "moderating messages", it's suddenly a good thing? I have already said: He WASN'T arrested for encrypted messages - read above ^^^^ He was arrested for not moderating messages. But encrypted messages cannot be moderated by definition. For the last time - 'HE WAS NOT ARRESTED FOR NOT MODERATING ENCRYPTED MESSAGES' He WAS arrested for not moderating messages 'in the wild'. " The whole legal framework around this sounds stupid to me. They are basically saying that if messages are encrypted, you can't moderate and that's cool. But if they aren't, they have to be moderated? So it's ok to send bad stuff to each other as long as it's encrypted? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile Pavel Durov is arrested in France. Great News. *****Mr Durov was arrested at an airport north of Paris under a warrant for offences related to the app, according to officials. The investigation is reportedly about insufficient moderation, with Mr Durov accused of failing to take steps to curb criminal uses of Telegram.****** Which is a crime in France - Go France! Do you think end to end encryption of messaging services should be allowed or not? Not unless you give access to law enforcement. There’s a reason why telegram has been used for the distribution of child pornography." You can't give access to law enforcement if it's encrypted. That's the very definition of encryption. The whole point of encryption is to stop government from snooping into private messages. So you are either supportive of privacy from government's eyes or you sacrifice it for the sake of safety. You can't have both. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh an authoritarian left wing government suppressing a platform where most right wingers are? I am shocked!! Meanwhile Pavel Durov is arrested in France.
When did suppressing freedom of speech ever improve people lives?"It improves the lives of some far right and far left authoritarians who can't handle verbal debates and would rather have opposite opinions suppressed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is." You can't have democracy without free speech. In a democracy, everyone should have the freedom to voice their opinions. If the majority group in a country vote and decide that minority shouldn't be allowed to talk politics, would you admit it? It's a paradox to decide democratically to take away people's freedoms. But it's a frequently used tactic by authoritatians to hold on to power. And certain group of people would celebrate this authoritatianism as long as it's the opinions that they hate that gets government. What these governments are doing is nothing different from what Putin or CCP does. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As in the UK, French judicial process can only access encrypted messages by warrant. Even then, it is doubtful they could decrypt such messages. But he was arrested for 'not having adequate moderation of hate speech in the wild', et-al. Which is a crime in France. Not encrypted messages. How can he moderate the messages when he can't read it? The reason why he ran out of Russia in the past was that Russia wanted to snoop-in on all messages. Now when France wants to snoop-in on messages under the guise of "moderating messages", it's suddenly a good thing? I have already said: He WASN'T arrested for encrypted messages - read above ^^^^ He was arrested for not moderating messages. But encrypted messages cannot be moderated by definition. For the last time - 'HE WAS NOT ARRESTED FOR NOT MODERATING ENCRYPTED MESSAGES' He WAS arrested for not moderating messages 'in the wild'. The whole legal framework around this sounds stupid to me. They are basically saying that if messages are encrypted, you can't moderate and that's cool. But if they aren't, they have to be moderated? So it's ok to send bad stuff to each other as long as it's encrypted? "If it's encrypted - prove they sent bad stuff. That's called Police work. Don't assume people are doing bad things, prove they are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. How would you define hate speech? Pretty much the same way Oxford dictionary does: ___________________________________ hate speech noun noun: hate speech abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds. __________________________________
Is that a crime?
As defined in law.
Do you think it should be a crime?"Yes. There’s no room for that sort of behaviour in a civilised society. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. No and no. I expect politicians to protect liberty not feelings. Freedom of speech,thought,expression. I do not expect them to take it from us because someone is offended. Anyone can be offended by anything said. That being the case there is potentially no limit to what speech the politicians could limit by criminalizing it. " That’s a stretch, you’re going way beyond the scope of the definition given above, trying to persuade yourself that there is a problem where there isn’t one. Or trying to justify hate speech saying it’s just people pretending they’re taking offence? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. No and no. I expect politicians to protect liberty not feelings. Freedom of speech,thought,expression. I do not expect them to take it from us because someone is offended. Anyone can be offended by anything said. That being the case there is potentially no limit to what speech the politicians could limit by criminalizing it. So saying 'I think all -pick a religion a race a gender- should be killed' is just a thing that hurts feelings and that's all okay? Time to grow up in your societal understanding and realise that words actually kill people.
"He seems to be trying to water down hate speech, saying it’s just people taking offences and that the right to “free speech” should trump people taking offence. He keeps aiming to trivialise hate speech | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. No and no. I expect politicians to protect liberty not feelings. Freedom of speech,thought,expression. I do not expect them to take it from us because someone is offended. Anyone can be offended by anything said. That being the case there is potentially no limit to what speech the politicians could limit by criminalizing it. So saying 'I think all -pick a religion a race a gender- should be killed' is just a thing that hurts feelings and that's all okay? Time to grow up in your societal understanding and realise that words actually kill people.
Is anyone physically harmed? Being unpleasant isn't a crime, is it?
I think you're the one who needs to grow up. Stop being a cry baby,suck it up,accept hurty words and grow a thicker skin."You don’t see the link between hate speech and physical harm? Once again, seeking to trivialise hate speech as “hurty words”. Dangerous | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. No and no. I expect politicians to protect liberty not feelings. Freedom of speech,thought,expression. I do not expect them to take it from us because someone is offended. Anyone can be offended by anything said. That being the case there is potentially no limit to what speech the politicians could limit by criminalizing it. So saying 'I think all -pick a religion a race a gender- should be killed' is just a thing that hurts feelings and that's all okay? Time to grow up in your societal understanding and realise that words actually kill people.
Is anyone physically harmed? Being unpleasant isn't a crime, is it?
I think you're the one who needs to grow up. Stop being a cry baby,suck it up,accept hurty words and grow a thicker skin.
You don’t see the link between hate speech and physical harm?
Once again, seeking to trivialise hate speech as “hurty words”.
Dangerous "Ok. Then give us a clear definition of "hate speech". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. " Not really. It is generally well understood and defined | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. No and no. I expect politicians to protect liberty not feelings. Freedom of speech,thought,expression. I do not expect them to take it from us because someone is offended. Anyone can be offended by anything said. That being the case there is potentially no limit to what speech the politicians could limit by criminalizing it. So saying 'I think all -pick a religion a race a gender- should be killed' is just a thing that hurts feelings and that's all okay? Time to grow up in your societal understanding and realise that words actually kill people.
Is anyone physically harmed? Being unpleasant isn't a crime, is it?
I think you're the one who needs to grow up. Stop being a cry baby,suck it up,accept hurty words and grow a thicker skin.
You don’t see the link between hate speech and physical harm?
Once again, seeking to trivialise hate speech as “hurty words”.
Dangerous
Ok. Then give us a clear definition of "hate speech". "If you look further up the thread someone has provided the legal definition. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile Pavel Durov is arrested in France. Great News. *****Mr Durov was arrested at an airport north of Paris under a warrant for offences related to the app, according to officials. The investigation is reportedly about insufficient moderation, with Mr Durov accused of failing to take steps to curb criminal uses of Telegram.****** Which is a crime in France - Go France! Do you think end to end encryption of messaging services should be allowed or not? Not unless you give access to law enforcement. There’s a reason why telegram has been used for the distribution of child pornography. You can't give access to law enforcement if it's encrypted. That's the very definition of encryption. The whole point of encryption is to stop government from snooping into private messages. So you are either supportive of privacy from government's eyes or you sacrifice it for the sake of safety. You can't have both." The point of encryption is security rather than avoiding government “snooping” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that sometimes people aren’t actually screaming about freedom of speech…. What some people actually want is freedom from the consequences of said speech " Freedom in political terms actually means freedom from consequence. If government can take action against you, it's not freedom. Seriously, people have to stop using variations of "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". It's the most idiotic slogan I have ever heard. If someone says "Freedom to sexual orientation doesn't mean freedom from consequences. The government might jail you for being gay", would you consider that freedom? You know who first used this line about freedom of speech not meaning freedom from consequences? Fucking Idi Amin. Do you really want to be associated with that guy's political views? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. You can't have democracy without free speech. In a democracy, everyone should have the freedom to voice their opinions. If the majority group in a country vote and decide that minority shouldn't be allowed to talk politics, would you admit it? It's a paradox to decide democratically to take away people's freedoms. But it's a frequently used tactic by authoritatians to hold on to power. And certain group of people would celebrate this authoritatianism as long as it's the opinions that they hate that gets government. What these governments are doing is nothing different from what Putin or CCP does." Hate speech is very well defined and understood. You feel that it is ok for people to express hatred of other religions or races? Comparison to putin is farcical. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile Pavel Durov is arrested in France. Great News. *****Mr Durov was arrested at an airport north of Paris under a warrant for offences related to the app, according to officials. The investigation is reportedly about insufficient moderation, with Mr Durov accused of failing to take steps to curb criminal uses of Telegram.****** Which is a crime in France - Go France! Do you think end to end encryption of messaging services should be allowed or not? Not unless you give access to law enforcement. There’s a reason why telegram has been used for the distribution of child pornography. You can't give access to law enforcement if it's encrypted. That's the very definition of encryption. The whole point of encryption is to stop government from snooping into private messages. So you are either supportive of privacy from government's eyes or you sacrifice it for the sake of safety. You can't have both. The point of encryption is security rather than avoiding government “snooping” " What? End to end Encryption in messaging by definition means no one except sender and receiver can read a message. That includes governments. It's particularly used as a tool against authoritarian governments from snooping. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that sometimes people aren’t actually screaming about freedom of speech…. What some people actually want is freedom from the consequences of said speech " Exactly. They want “freedom” to say whatever they want, without any accountability or consequences. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. You can't have democracy without free speech. In a democracy, everyone should have the freedom to voice their opinions. If the majority group in a country vote and decide that minority shouldn't be allowed to talk politics, would you admit it? It's a paradox to decide democratically to take away people's freedoms. But it's a frequently used tactic by authoritatians to hold on to power. And certain group of people would celebrate this authoritatianism as long as it's the opinions that they hate that gets government. What these governments are doing is nothing different from what Putin or CCP does. Hate speech is very well defined and understood. You feel that it is ok for people to express hatred of other religions or races? Comparison to putin is farcical. " It's not well defined and understood. If it is, define it to me. CCP and Putin don't censor stuff telling people that they are doing it because they are authoritarians. They do it under some lame justification to make it sound like they are doing it for the good of the people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that sometimes people aren’t actually screaming about freedom of speech…. What some people actually want is freedom from the consequences of said speech Exactly. They want “freedom” to say whatever they want, without any accountability or consequences. " That's quite a spicy take on Charlie Hebdo | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. No and no. I expect politicians to protect liberty not feelings. Freedom of speech,thought,expression. I do not expect them to take it from us because someone is offended. Anyone can be offended by anything said. That being the case there is potentially no limit to what speech the politicians could limit by criminalizing it. So saying 'I think all -pick a religion a race a gender- should be killed' is just a thing that hurts feelings and that's all okay? Time to grow up in your societal understanding and realise that words actually kill people.
Is anyone physically harmed? Being unpleasant isn't a crime, is it?
I think you're the one who needs to grow up. Stop being a cry baby,suck it up,accept hurty words and grow a thicker skin.
You don’t see the link between hate speech and physical harm?
Once again, seeking to trivialise hate speech as “hurty words”.
Dangerous
Ok. Then give us a clear definition of "hate speech".
If you look further up the thread someone has provided the legal definition."I am asking your definition. If the government decides that criticising Christianity is hate speech, would you abide by it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile Pavel Durov is arrested in France. Great News. *****Mr Durov was arrested at an airport north of Paris under a warrant for offences related to the app, according to officials. The investigation is reportedly about insufficient moderation, with Mr Durov accused of failing to take steps to curb criminal uses of Telegram.****** Which is a crime in France - Go France! Do you think end to end encryption of messaging services should be allowed or not? Not unless you give access to law enforcement. There’s a reason why telegram has been used for the distribution of child pornography. You can't give access to law enforcement if it's encrypted. That's the very definition of encryption. The whole point of encryption is to stop government from snooping into private messages. So you are either supportive of privacy from government's eyes or you sacrifice it for the sake of safety. You can't have both. The point of encryption is security rather than avoiding government “snooping” What? End to end Encryption in messaging by definition means snoopi no one except sender and receiver can read a message. That includes governments. It's particularly used as a tool against authoritarian governments from snooping." I was replying to the note that said “the whole point of encryption is to stop government from snooping into private messages”. That is NOT the primary aim of encryption. I use encryption tools for sending and receiving sensitive or confidential business information … a normal security message and nothing whatsoever to do with government “snooping” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile Pavel Durov is arrested in France. Great News. *****Mr Durov was arrested at an airport north of Paris under a warrant for offences related to the app, according to officials. The investigation is reportedly about insufficient moderation, with Mr Durov accused of failing to take steps to curb criminal uses of Telegram.****** Which is a crime in France - Go France! Do you think end to end encryption of messaging services should be allowed or not? Not unless you give access to law enforcement. There’s a reason why telegram has been used for the distribution of child pornography. You can't give access to law enforcement if it's encrypted. That's the very definition of encryption. The whole point of encryption is to stop government from snooping into private messages. So you are either supportive of privacy from government's eyes or you sacrifice it for the sake of safety. You can't have both. The point of encryption is security rather than avoiding government “snooping” What? End to end Encryption in messaging by definition means snoopi no one except sender and receiver can read a message. That includes governments. It's particularly used as a tool against authoritarian governments from snooping. I was replying to the note that said “the whole point of encryption is to stop government from snooping into private messages”. That is NOT the primary aim of encryption. I use encryption tools for sending and receiving sensitive or confidential business information … a normal security message and nothing whatsoever to do with government “snooping” " What do you think about end to end encryption then? That wouldn't allow governments to snoop people's messages. Do you think it must be banned so that we can catch and jail people doing "hate speech"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. It must be awful being so scared all the time, how do you cope?" That's just it I'm not. So when I point out the obvious I get try-hard trolls like yourself slithering out with nothing to say but hissing noise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. Not really. It is generally well understood and defined " Yeh not so much, it is open to interpretation and whatever whim befits the judge and the string pullers behind his curtain at the time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As in the UK, French judicial process can only access encrypted messages by warrant. Even then, it is doubtful they could decrypt such messages. But he was arrested for 'not having adequate moderation of hate speech in the wild', et-al. Which is a crime in France. Not encrypted messages. How can he moderate the messages when he can't read it? The reason why he ran out of Russia in the past was that Russia wanted to snoop-in on all messages. Now when France wants to snoop-in on messages under the guise of "moderating messages", it's suddenly a good thing? I have already said: He WASN'T arrested for encrypted messages - read above ^^^^ He was arrested for not moderating messages. But encrypted messages cannot be moderated by definition. For the last time - 'HE WAS NOT ARRESTED FOR NOT MODERATING ENCRYPTED MESSAGES' He WAS arrested for not moderating messages 'in the wild'. What does 'in the wild' mean? In the open, publicly available by anyone to see, read etc. " Telegram posts are publicly available? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. Not really. It is generally well understood and defined Yeh not so much, it is open to interpretation and whatever whim befits the judge and the string pullers behind his curtain at the time." Would love to see you prove that, other than 'It's just a thing that you are saying'.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. It must be awful being so scared all the time, how do you cope? That's just it I'm not. So when I point out the obvious I get try-hard trolls like yourself slithering out with nothing to say but hissing noise." It's funny when the lefties too scared of someone's opinions that they want to ban it using government force calling other people scared. I don't mind these people wanting ban on free speech. I am not a moral absolutist. What I can't stand is that these people saying that they want to ban speech they don't like AND saying it's still free speech. Making lame arguments like "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". If they want to be authoritarian, they must at least have the balls to admit it. I would respect them if they did so. Saying that they believe in liberal values and then going on to shamelessly simp for governments trying to curb speech just because it's the kind of speech they don't like is laughable. The whole idea behind "I disapprove of what you say. But I will defend to the death your right to say it" seems to have lost on some people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As in the UK, French judicial process can only access encrypted messages by warrant. Even then, it is doubtful they could decrypt such messages. But he was arrested for 'not having adequate moderation of hate speech in the wild', et-al. Which is a crime in France. Not encrypted messages. How can he moderate the messages when he can't read it? The reason why he ran out of Russia in the past was that Russia wanted to snoop-in on all messages. Now when France wants to snoop-in on messages under the guise of "moderating messages", it's suddenly a good thing? I have already said: He WASN'T arrested for encrypted messages - read above ^^^^ He was arrested for not moderating messages. But encrypted messages cannot be moderated by definition. For the last time - 'HE WAS NOT ARRESTED FOR NOT MODERATING ENCRYPTED MESSAGES' He WAS arrested for not moderating messages 'in the wild'. What does 'in the wild' mean? In the open, publicly available by anyone to see, read etc. Telegram posts are publicly available?" Oh do stop being silly - you know exactly what it means. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As in the UK, French judicial process can only access encrypted messages by warrant. Even then, it is doubtful they could decrypt such messages. But he was arrested for 'not having adequate moderation of hate speech in the wild', et-al. Which is a crime in France. Not encrypted messages. How can he moderate the messages when he can't read it? The reason why he ran out of Russia in the past was that Russia wanted to snoop-in on all messages. Now when France wants to snoop-in on messages under the guise of "moderating messages", it's suddenly a good thing? I have already said: He WASN'T arrested for encrypted messages - read above ^^^^ He was arrested for not moderating messages. But encrypted messages cannot be moderated by definition. For the last time - 'HE WAS NOT ARRESTED FOR NOT MODERATING ENCRYPTED MESSAGES' He WAS arrested for not moderating messages 'in the wild'. What does 'in the wild' mean? In the open, publicly available by anyone to see, read etc. Telegram posts are publicly available? Oh do stop being silly - you know exactly what it means." Are Telegram posts 'in the wild' or not? If not, how do they come up with that charge? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. Not really. It is generally well understood and defined Yeh not so much, it is open to interpretation and whatever whim befits the judge and the string pullers behind his curtain at the time. Would love to see you prove that, other than 'It's just a thing that you are saying'. "Here is a quote from the CPS website. "There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike." Took me less than a minute to find. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As in the UK, French judicial process can only access encrypted messages by warrant. Even then, it is doubtful they could decrypt such messages. But he was arrested for 'not having adequate moderation of hate speech in the wild', et-al. Which is a crime in France. Not encrypted messages. How can he moderate the messages when he can't read it? The reason why he ran out of Russia in the past was that Russia wanted to snoop-in on all messages. Now when France wants to snoop-in on messages under the guise of "moderating messages", it's suddenly a good thing? I have already said: He WASN'T arrested for encrypted messages - read above ^^^^ He was arrested for not moderating messages. But encrypted messages cannot be moderated by definition. For the last time - 'HE WAS NOT ARRESTED FOR NOT MODERATING ENCRYPTED MESSAGES' He WAS arrested for not moderating messages 'in the wild'. What does 'in the wild' mean? In the open, publicly available by anyone to see, read etc. Telegram posts are publicly available? Oh do stop being silly - you know exactly what it means. Are Telegram posts 'in the wild' or not? If not, how do they come up with that charge?" *****While Telegram messages can be encrypted, meaning that only the sender and recipient can view them, this is not activated by default and has to be manually switched on to private chats.******* If they are not encrypted - they are therefore 'in the wild' and do not need to be unencrypted to read. Got it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile Pavel Durov is arrested in France. Great News. *****Mr Durov was arrested at an airport north of Paris under a warrant for offences related to the app, according to officials. The investigation is reportedly about insufficient moderation, with Mr Durov accused of failing to take steps to curb criminal uses of Telegram.****** Which is a crime in France - Go France! Do you think end to end encryption of messaging services should be allowed or not? Not unless you give access to law enforcement. There’s a reason why telegram has been used for the distribution of child pornography. You can't give access to law enforcement if it's encrypted. That's the very definition of encryption. The whole point of encryption is to stop government from snooping into private messages. So you are either supportive of privacy from government's eyes or you sacrifice it for the sake of safety. You can't have both. The point of encryption is security rather than avoiding government “snooping” What? End to end Encryption in messaging by definition means snoopi no one except sender and receiver can read a message. That includes governments. It's particularly used as a tool against authoritarian governments from snooping. I was replying to the note that said “the whole point of encryption is to stop government from snooping into private messages”. That is NOT the primary aim of encryption. I use encryption tools for sending and receiving sensitive or confidential business information … a normal security message and nothing whatsoever to do with government “snooping” What do you think about end to end encryption then? That wouldn't allow governments to snoop people's messages. Do you think it must be banned so that we can catch and jail people doing "hate speech"?" Encryption tools are perfectly valid tools for the handling of sensitive and confidential personal and business information. Are you actually saying something different? That transferring hate-filled and illegal information is ok as long as it’s encrypted ? Say what you think instead of dancing around the edges and asking half questions. It saves time and reduces the scope for misunderstanding | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. Not really. It is generally well understood and defined Yeh not so much, it is open to interpretation and whatever whim befits the judge and the string pullers behind his curtain at the time. Would love to see you prove that, other than 'It's just a thing that you are saying'.
Here is a quote from the CPS website.
"There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike."
Took me less than a minute to find. "hahaha - really funny how much you ignored above to get to that final paragraph though huh? Hate crime The law recognises five types of hate crime on the basis of: Race Religion Disability Sexual orientation Transgender identity Any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has either: demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity Or been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity Someone can be a victim of more than one type of hate crime. These crimes are covered by legislation (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020) which allows prosecutors to apply for an uplift in sentence for those convicted of a hate crime. The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes: "Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity." There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. Not really. It is generally well understood and defined Yeh not so much, it is open to interpretation and whatever whim befits the judge and the string pullers behind his curtain at the time." So now you are alleging that the judiciary are corrupt, and simply do what politicians tell them? You need to get out more … | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile Pavel Durov is arrested in France. Great News. *****Mr Durov was arrested at an airport north of Paris under a warrant for offences related to the app, according to officials. The investigation is reportedly about insufficient moderation, with Mr Durov accused of failing to take steps to curb criminal uses of Telegram.****** Which is a crime in France - Go France! Do you think end to end encryption of messaging services should be allowed or not? Not unless you give access to law enforcement. There’s a reason why telegram has been used for the distribution of child pornography. You can't give access to law enforcement if it's encrypted. That's the very definition of encryption. The whole point of encryption is to stop government from snooping into private messages. So you are either supportive of privacy from government's eyes or you sacrifice it for the sake of safety. You can't have both. The point of encryption is security rather than avoiding government “snooping” What? End to end Encryption in messaging by definition means snoopi no one except sender and receiver can read a message. That includes governments. It's particularly used as a tool against authoritarian governments from snooping. I was replying to the note that said “the whole point of encryption is to stop government from snooping into private messages”. That is NOT the primary aim of encryption. I use encryption tools for sending and receiving sensitive or confidential business information … a normal security message and nothing whatsoever to do with government “snooping” What do you think about end to end encryption then? That wouldn't allow governments to snoop people's messages. Do you think it must be banned so that we can catch and jail people doing "hate speech"? Encryption tools are perfectly valid tools for the handling of sensitive and confidential personal and business information. Are you actually saying something different? That transferring hate-filled and illegal information is ok as long as it’s encrypted ? Say what you think instead of dancing around the edges and asking half questions. It saves time and reduces the scope for misunderstanding " I am not dancing like you people dancing around authoritarianism while calling it freedom. WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted by default. So if someone sends what you consider as "hate speech", no one can moderate it or take legal action. Government cannot snoop. Do you think we should stop WhatsApp from using end to end encryption because we need to catch people sharing hate speech? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. Not really. It is generally well understood and defined Yeh not so much, it is open to interpretation and whatever whim befits the judge and the string pullers behind his curtain at the time. Would love to see you prove that, other than 'It's just a thing that you are saying'.
Here is a quote from the CPS website.
"There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike."
Took me less than a minute to find.
hahaha - really funny how much you ignored above to get to that final paragraph though huh?
Hate crime
The law recognises five types of hate crime on the basis of:
Race
Religion
Disability
Sexual orientation
Transgender identity
Any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has either:
demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Or
been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Someone can be a victim of more than one type of hate crime.
These crimes are covered by legislation (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020) which allows prosecutors to apply for an uplift in sentence for those convicted of a hate crime.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike."Hate crime and hate speech are two different things | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. It must be awful being so scared all the time, how do you cope? That's just it I'm not. So when I point out the obvious I get try-hard trolls like yourself slithering out with nothing to say but hissing noise. It's funny when the lefties too scared of someone's opinions that they want to ban it using government force calling other people scared. I don't mind these people wanting ban on free speech. I am not a moral absolutist. What I can't stand is that these people saying that they want to ban speech they don't like AND saying it's still free speech. Making lame arguments like "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". If they want to be authoritarian, they must at least have the balls to admit it. I would respect them if they did so. Saying that they believe in liberal values and then going on to shamelessly simp for governments trying to curb speech just because it's the kind of speech they don't like is laughable. The whole idea behind "I disapprove of what you say. But I will defend to the death your right to say it" seems to have lost on some people." So, feeling that people should be accountable for what they say means I support authoritarianism? I disagree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. Not really. It is generally well understood and defined Yeh not so much, it is open to interpretation and whatever whim befits the judge and the string pullers behind his curtain at the time. Would love to see you prove that, other than 'It's just a thing that you are saying'.
Here is a quote from the CPS website.
"There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike."
Took me less than a minute to find.
hahaha - really funny how much you ignored above to get to that final paragraph though huh?
Hate crime
The law recognises five types of hate crime on the basis of:
Race
Religion
Disability
Sexual orientation
Transgender identity
Any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has either:
demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Or
been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Someone can be a victim of more than one type of hate crime.
These crimes are covered by legislation (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020) which allows prosecutors to apply for an uplift in sentence for those convicted of a hate crime.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
Hate crime and hate speech are two different things "Go on then prove, that to me? Maybe with a half-delivered quote? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile Pavel Durov is arrested in France. Great News. *****Mr Durov was arrested at an airport north of Paris under a warrant for offences related to the app, according to officials. The investigation is reportedly about insufficient moderation, with Mr Durov accused of failing to take steps to curb criminal uses of Telegram.****** Which is a crime in France - Go France! Do you think end to end encryption of messaging services should be allowed or not? Not unless you give access to law enforcement. There’s a reason why telegram has been used for the distribution of child pornography. You can't give access to law enforcement if it's encrypted. That's the very definition of encryption. The whole point of encryption is to stop government from snooping into private messages. So you are either supportive of privacy from government's eyes or you sacrifice it for the sake of safety. You can't have both. The point of encryption is security rather than avoiding government “snooping” What? End to end Encryption in messaging by definition means snoopi no one except sender and receiver can read a message. That includes governments. It's particularly used as a tool against authoritarian governments from snooping. I was replying to the note that said “the whole point of encryption is to stop government from snooping into private messages”. That is NOT the primary aim of encryption. I use encryption tools for sending and receiving sensitive or confidential business information … a normal security message and nothing whatsoever to do with government “snooping” What do you think about end to end encryption then? That wouldn't allow governments to snoop people's messages. Do you think it must be banned so that we can catch and jail people doing "hate speech"? Encryption tools are perfectly valid tools for the handling of sensitive and confidential personal and business information. Are you actually saying something different? That transferring hate-filled and illegal information is ok as long as it’s encrypted ? Say what you think instead of dancing around the edges and asking half questions. It saves time and reduces the scope for misunderstanding I am not dancing like you people dancing around authoritarianism while calling it freedom. WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted by default. So if someone sends what you consider as "hate speech", no one can moderate it or take legal action. Government cannot snoop. Do you think we should stop WhatsApp from using end to end encryption because we need to catch people sharing hate speech?" Yet another message making it clear that you are ok with hate speech | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. Not really. It is generally well understood and defined Yeh not so much, it is open to interpretation and whatever whim befits the judge and the string pullers behind his curtain at the time. Would love to see you prove that, other than 'It's just a thing that you are saying'.
Here is a quote from the CPS website.
"There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike."
Took me less than a minute to find.
hahaha - really funny how much you ignored above to get to that final paragraph though huh?
Hate crime
The law recognises five types of hate crime on the basis of:
Race
Religion
Disability
Sexual orientation
Transgender identity
Any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has either:
demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Or
been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Someone can be a victim of more than one type of hate crime.
These crimes are covered by legislation (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020) which allows prosecutors to apply for an uplift in sentence for those convicted of a hate crime.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike."Le sigh, I didnt ignore it. You asked, I answered. What I quoted is far more relevant than the above blurb about specifics. Recently there has been talk of making 'misogyny' a hate crime. Considering how vague claims of misogyny are, and the basis for what counts as misogyny... It only goes to show how the definitions of what make 'hate crime', really have no bearing. So please, go ahead and laugh again, and make no further comment other than I chose to ignore paragraphs, when I didn't. I chose to include them, as they were not relevant and held no impact on the point I was making. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. Not really. It is generally well understood and defined Yeh not so much, it is open to interpretation and whatever whim befits the judge and the string pullers behind his curtain at the time. Would love to see you prove that, other than 'It's just a thing that you are saying'.
Here is a quote from the CPS website.
"There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike."
Took me less than a minute to find.
hahaha - really funny how much you ignored above to get to that final paragraph though huh?
Hate crime
The law recognises five types of hate crime on the basis of:
Race
Religion
Disability
Sexual orientation
Transgender identity
Any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has either:
demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Or
been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Someone can be a victim of more than one type of hate crime.
These crimes are covered by legislation (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020) which allows prosecutors to apply for an uplift in sentence for those convicted of a hate crime.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
Hate crime and hate speech are two different things "They are part of the same fabric. They are not unrelated | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. Not really. It is generally well understood and defined Yeh not so much, it is open to interpretation and whatever whim befits the judge and the string pullers behind his curtain at the time. Would love to see you prove that, other than 'It's just a thing that you are saying'.
Here is a quote from the CPS website.
"There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike."
Took me less than a minute to find.
hahaha - really funny how much you ignored above to get to that final paragraph though huh?
Hate crime
The law recognises five types of hate crime on the basis of:
Race
Religion
Disability
Sexual orientation
Transgender identity
Any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has either:
demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Or
been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Someone can be a victim of more than one type of hate crime.
These crimes are covered by legislation (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020) which allows prosecutors to apply for an uplift in sentence for those convicted of a hate crime.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
Le sigh, I didnt ignore it.
You asked, I answered.
What I quoted is far more relevant than the above blurb about specifics. Recently there has been talk of making 'misogyny' a hate crime.
Considering how vague claims of misogyny are, and the basis for what counts as misogyny... It only goes to show how the definitions of what make 'hate crime', really have no bearing.
So please, go ahead and laugh again, and make no further comment other than I chose to ignore paragraphs, when I didn't. I chose to include them, as they were not relevant and held no impact on the point I was making.
"Keep believing that hahaha | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. Not really. It is generally well understood and defined Yeh not so much, it is open to interpretation and whatever whim befits the judge and the string pullers behind his curtain at the time. So now you are alleging that the judiciary are corrupt, and simply do what politicians tell them? You need to get out more … " Considering the disparity of sentences given out for the crimes committed, yeh I'd say the entire system is void of justice and is wholly corrupt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Keep believing that hahaha" Good argument, well made. I've changed my mind. /sarcasm. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. Not really. It is generally well understood and defined Yeh not so much, it is open to interpretation and whatever whim befits the judge and the string pullers behind his curtain at the time. Would love to see you prove that, other than 'It's just a thing that you are saying'.
Here is a quote from the CPS website.
"There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike."
Took me less than a minute to find.
hahaha - really funny how much you ignored above to get to that final paragraph though huh?
Hate crime
The law recognises five types of hate crime on the basis of:
Race
Religion
Disability
Sexual orientation
Transgender identity
Any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has either:
demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Or
been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Someone can be a victim of more than one type of hate crime.
These crimes are covered by legislation (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020) which allows prosecutors to apply for an uplift in sentence for those convicted of a hate crime.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
Le sigh, I didnt ignore it.
You asked, I answered.
What I quoted is far more relevant than the above blurb about specifics. Recently there has been talk of making 'misogyny' a hate crime.
Considering how vague claims of misogyny are, and the basis for what counts as misogyny... It only goes to show how the definitions of what make 'hate crime', really have no bearing.
So please, go ahead and laugh again, and make no further comment other than I chose to ignore paragraphs, when I didn't. I chose to include them, as they were not relevant and held no impact on the point I was making.
"The actual proposal that I read re misogyny was not to set it up as a new crime, but to consider it as an aggravating factor when sentencing for other crimes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. Not really. It is generally well understood and defined Yeh not so much, it is open to interpretation and whatever whim befits the judge and the string pullers behind his curtain at the time. So now you are alleging that the judiciary are corrupt, and simply do what politicians tell them? You need to get out more … Considering the disparity of sentences given out for the crimes committed, yeh I'd say the entire system is void of justice and is wholly corrupt. " So you genuinely believe that politicians instruct judges on what to say and do, and instruct them on severity of sentencing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So prove that hate crime and hate speech are NOT the same thing?" What? That is not even the argument I am making, nor is the reverse. Have you got the people in this thread mixed up? Or you've entirely missed the plot/point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So prove that hate crime and hate speech are NOT the same thing? What? That is not even the argument I am making, nor is the reverse. Have you got the people in this thread mixed up? Or you've entirely missed the plot/point." Who was talking to you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. Not really. It is generally well understood and defined Yeh not so much, it is open to interpretation and whatever whim befits the judge and the string pullers behind his curtain at the time. So now you are alleging that the judiciary are corrupt, and simply do what politicians tell them? You need to get out more … Considering the disparity of sentences given out for the crimes committed, yeh I'd say the entire system is void of justice and is wholly corrupt. So you genuinely believe that politicians instruct judges on what to say and do, and instruct them on severity of sentencing? " "So you" What it is with forum and "So you", followed by failed interpretations of what people say as if they were the actual thing people say and think. Seriously, I come here for horny good times with sexy people, and on the side the odd discussion on real world matters, yet there rarely is a discussion, its just devolves into straw-manning, troll baiting and gas lighting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So prove that hate crime and hate speech are NOT the same thing? What? That is not even the argument I am making, nor is the reverse. Have you got the people in this thread mixed up? Or you've entirely missed the plot/point. Who was talking to you? " As your post came after mine, and had no quote... hum | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. Not really. It is generally well understood and defined Yeh not so much, it is open to interpretation and whatever whim befits the judge and the string pullers behind his curtain at the time. So now you are alleging that the judiciary are corrupt, and simply do what politicians tell them? You need to get out more … Considering the disparity of sentences given out for the crimes committed, yeh I'd say the entire system is void of justice and is wholly corrupt. So you genuinely believe that politicians instruct judges on what to say and do, and instruct them on severity of sentencing? "So you" What it is with forum and "So you", followed by failed interpretations of what people say as if they were the actual thing people say and think. Seriously, I come here for horny good times with sexy people, and on the side the odd discussion on real world matters, yet there rarely is a discussion, its just devolves into straw-manning, troll baiting and gas lighting. "I’m just summarising the views that you have expressed, alleging wholesale corruption of the judiciary, and that they take instructors from politicians. Which bit did I get wrong? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. Not really. It is generally well understood and defined Yeh not so much, it is open to interpretation and whatever whim befits the judge and the string pullers behind his curtain at the time. So now you are alleging that the judiciary are corrupt, and simply do what politicians tell them? You need to get out more … Considering the disparity of sentences given out for the crimes committed, yeh I'd say the entire system is void of justice and is wholly corrupt. So you genuinely believe that politicians instruct judges on what to say and do, and instruct them on severity of sentencing? "So you" What it is with forum and "So you", followed by failed interpretations of what people say as if they were the actual thing people say and think. Seriously, I come here for horny good times with sexy people, and on the side the odd discussion on real world matters, yet there rarely is a discussion, its just devolves into straw-manning, troll baiting and gas lighting.
I’m just summarising the views that you have expressed, alleging wholesale corruption of the judiciary, and that they take instructors from politicians.
Which bit did I get wrong? "Which bit did I get wrong? "They take instructors from politicians." I've a date to get ready for soon. I may reply, but I probably wont. Peace. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. It must be awful being so scared all the time, how do you cope? That's just it I'm not. So when I point out the obvious I get try-hard trolls like yourself slithering out with nothing to say but hissing noise. It's funny when the lefties too scared of someone's opinions that they want to ban it using government force calling other people scared. I don't mind these people wanting ban on free speech. I am not a moral absolutist. What I can't stand is that these people saying that they want to ban speech they don't like AND saying it's still free speech. Making lame arguments like "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". If they want to be authoritarian, they must at least have the balls to admit it. I would respect them if they did so. Saying that they believe in liberal values and then going on to shamelessly simp for governments trying to curb speech just because it's the kind of speech they don't like is laughable. The whole idea behind "I disapprove of what you say. But I will defend to the death your right to say it" seems to have lost on some people. So, feeling that people should be accountable for what they say means I support authoritarianism? I disagree. " If you think people should face legal action for spoken words, you are an authoritarian. The question is to what extent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. Not really. It is generally well understood and defined Yeh not so much, it is open to interpretation and whatever whim befits the judge and the string pullers behind his curtain at the time. So now you are alleging that the judiciary are corrupt, and simply do what politicians tell them? You need to get out more … Considering the disparity of sentences given out for the crimes committed, yeh I'd say the entire system is void of justice and is wholly corrupt. So you genuinely believe that politicians instruct judges on what to say and do, and instruct them on severity of sentencing? "So you" What it is with forum and "So you", followed by failed interpretations of what people say as if they were the actual thing people say and think. Seriously, I come here for horny good times with sexy people, and on the side the odd discussion on real world matters, yet there rarely is a discussion, its just devolves into straw-manning, troll baiting and gas lighting.
I’m just summarising the views that you have expressed, alleging wholesale corruption of the judiciary, and that they take instructors from politicians.
Which bit did I get wrong?
Which bit did I get wrong?
"They take instructors from politicians."
I've a date to get ready for soon. I may reply, but I probably wont.
Peace."Who else would the “string pullers behind the curtains” be? Please clarify. These vague allegations leave a lot of room for misunderstanding. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So prove that hate crime and hate speech are NOT the same thing? What? That is not even the argument I am making, nor is the reverse. Have you got the people in this thread mixed up? Or you've entirely missed the plot/point. Who was talking to you? As your post came after mine, and had no quote... hum " The semantics of conversation are that if you didn't say what a poster wrote and asked for an answer to, then absolutely it wasn't you who they were talking to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. It must be awful being so scared all the time, how do you cope? That's just it I'm not. So when I point out the obvious I get try-hard trolls like yourself slithering out with nothing to say but hissing noise. It's funny when the lefties too scared of someone's opinions that they want to ban it using government force calling other people scared. I don't mind these people wanting ban on free speech. I am not a moral absolutist. What I can't stand is that these people saying that they want to ban speech they don't like AND saying it's still free speech. Making lame arguments like "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". If they want to be authoritarian, they must at least have the balls to admit it. I would respect them if they did so. Saying that they believe in liberal values and then going on to shamelessly simp for governments trying to curb speech just because it's the kind of speech they don't like is laughable. The whole idea behind "I disapprove of what you say. But I will defend to the death your right to say it" seems to have lost on some people. So, feeling that people should be accountable for what they say means I support authoritarianism? I disagree. If you think people should face legal action for spoken words, you are an authoritarian. The question is to what extent." That doesn’t tally in any way with my understanding of what an authoritarian regime means. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Meanwhile Pavel Durov is arrested in France. Great News. *****Mr Durov was arrested at an airport north of Paris under a warrant for offences related to the app, according to officials. The investigation is reportedly about insufficient moderation, with Mr Durov accused of failing to take steps to curb criminal uses of Telegram.****** Which is a crime in France - Go France! Do you think end to end encryption of messaging services should be allowed or not? Not unless you give access to law enforcement. There’s a reason why telegram has been used for the distribution of child pornography. You can't give access to law enforcement if it's encrypted. That's the very definition of encryption. The whole point of encryption is to stop government from snooping into private messages. So you are either supportive of privacy from government's eyes or you sacrifice it for the sake of safety. You can't have both. The point of encryption is security rather than avoiding government “snooping” What? End to end Encryption in messaging by definition means snoopi no one except sender and receiver can read a message. That includes governments. It's particularly used as a tool against authoritarian governments from snooping. I was replying to the note that said “the whole point of encryption is to stop government from snooping into private messages”. That is NOT the primary aim of encryption. I use encryption tools for sending and receiving sensitive or confidential business information … a normal security message and nothing whatsoever to do with government “snooping” What do you think about end to end encryption then? That wouldn't allow governments to snoop people's messages. Do you think it must be banned so that we can catch and jail people doing "hate speech"? Encryption tools are perfectly valid tools for the handling of sensitive and confidential personal and business information. Are you actually saying something different? That transferring hate-filled and illegal information is ok as long as it’s encrypted ? Say what you think instead of dancing around the edges and asking half questions. It saves time and reduces the scope for misunderstanding I am not dancing like you people dancing around authoritarianism while calling it freedom. WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted by default. So if someone sends what you consider as "hate speech", no one can moderate it or take legal action. Government cannot snoop. Do you think we should stop WhatsApp from using end to end encryption because we need to catch people sharing hate speech? Yet another message making it clear that you are ok with hate speech " I have made my views clear. There is certain speech I don't like. Hate speech could be it(no one has defined it clearly). But I don't like it doesn't mean I want to make it illegal. You are the one running around like a chicken instead of answering my question. Do you think end-to-end encrypted must be banned so that we can arrest people for hate speech! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So prove that hate crime and hate speech are NOT the same thing? What? That is not even the argument I am making, nor is the reverse. Have you got the people in this thread mixed up? Or you've entirely missed the plot/point. Who was talking to you? As your post came after mine, and had no quote... hum The semantics of conversation are that if you didn't say what a poster wrote and asked for an answer to, then absolutely it wasn't you who they were talking to. "Semantics 😂😂 Would have been better to not rmtry and backtrack at all. 🤣 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So prove that hate crime and hate speech are NOT the same thing? What? That is not even the argument I am making, nor is the reverse. Have you got the people in this thread mixed up? Or you've entirely missed the plot/point. Who was talking to you? As your post came after mine, and had no quote... hum The semantics of conversation are that if you didn't say what a poster wrote and asked for an answer to, then absolutely it wasn't you who they were talking to.
Semantics 😂😂
Would have been better to not rmtry and backtrack at all. 🤣"Or speak in English sentences perhaps? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. Not really. It is generally well understood and defined Yeh not so much, it is open to interpretation and whatever whim befits the judge and the string pullers behind his curtain at the time. So now you are alleging that the judiciary are corrupt, and simply do what politicians tell them? You need to get out more … Considering the disparity of sentences given out for the crimes committed, yeh I'd say the entire system is void of justice and is wholly corrupt. So you genuinely believe that politicians instruct judges on what to say and do, and instruct them on severity of sentencing? "So you" What it is with forum and "So you", followed by failed interpretations of what people say as if they were the actual thing people say and think. Seriously, I come here for horny good times with sexy people, and on the side the odd discussion on real world matters, yet there rarely is a discussion, its just devolves into straw-manning, troll baiting and gas lighting.
I’m just summarising the views that you have expressed, alleging wholesale corruption of the judiciary, and that they take instructors from politicians.
Which bit did I get wrong?
Which bit did I get wrong?
"They take instructors from politicians."
I've a date to get ready for soon. I may reply, but I probably wont.
Peace.
Who else would the “string pullers behind the curtains” be? Please clarify. These vague allegations leave a lot of room for misunderstanding. "Perhaps you "should get out more..." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So prove that hate crime and hate speech are NOT the same thing?" One involves physical violence and one doesn't. The problem is you are hiding behind legal definitions, thereby admitting that you would accept whatever definition that the government gives. If the government decides that criticising and making fun of religion is hate speech, would you agree with it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So prove that hate crime and hate speech are NOT the same thing? What? That is not even the argument I am making, nor is the reverse. Have you got the people in this thread mixed up? Or you've entirely missed the plot/point. Who was talking to you? As your post came after mine, and had no quote... hum The semantics of conversation are that if you didn't say what a poster wrote and asked for an answer to, then absolutely it wasn't you who they were talking to.
Semantics 😂😂
Would have been better to not rmtry and backtrack at all. 🤣
Or speak in English sentences perhaps?"Sorry, I was laughing so hard I fumbled my phone keyboard. Thanks, was a good chuckle. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. It must be awful being so scared all the time, how do you cope? That's just it I'm not. So when I point out the obvious I get try-hard trolls like yourself slithering out with nothing to say but hissing noise. It's funny when the lefties too scared of someone's opinions that they want to ban it using government force calling other people scared. I don't mind these people wanting ban on free speech. I am not a moral absolutist. What I can't stand is that these people saying that they want to ban speech they don't like AND saying it's still free speech. Making lame arguments like "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". If they want to be authoritarian, they must at least have the balls to admit it. I would respect them if they did so. Saying that they believe in liberal values and then going on to shamelessly simp for governments trying to curb speech just because it's the kind of speech they don't like is laughable. The whole idea behind "I disapprove of what you say. But I will defend to the death your right to say it" seems to have lost on some people. So, feeling that people should be accountable for what they say means I support authoritarianism? I disagree. If you think people should face legal action for spoken words, you are an authoritarian. The question is to what extent. That doesn’t tally in any way with my understanding of what an authoritarian regime means. " Authoritarianism is taking away people's freedom by threat of legal action. If you take away more and more of free speech, you get more and more authoritarian. It's not that difficult. If you really want government to take action against people based on whatever they define as "hate speech", at least be honest and admit that you support authoritarianism | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So prove that hate crime and hate speech are NOT the same thing? What? That is not even the argument I am making, nor is the reverse. Have you got the people in this thread mixed up? Or you've entirely missed the plot/point. Who was talking to you? As your post came after mine, and had no quote... hum The semantics of conversation are that if you didn't say what a poster wrote and asked for an answer to, then absolutely it wasn't you who they were talking to.
Semantics 😂😂
Would have been better to not rmtry and backtrack at all. 🤣
Or speak in English sentences perhaps?
Sorry, I was laughing so hard I fumbled my phone keyboard.
Thanks, was a good chuckle."It's good that you can laugh at yourself. It makes for a well rounded personality.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's good that you can laugh at yourself." Ignorance is bliss eh? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. No and no. I expect politicians to protect liberty not feelings. Freedom of speech,thought,expression. I do not expect them to take it from us because someone is offended. Anyone can be offended by anything said. That being the case there is potentially no limit to what speech the politicians could limit by criminalizing it. So saying 'I think all -pick a religion a race a gender- should be killed' is just a thing that hurts feelings and that's all okay? Time to grow up in your societal understanding and realise that words actually kill people.
Is anyone physically harmed? Being unpleasant isn't a crime, is it?
I think you're the one who needs to grow up. Stop being a cry baby,suck it up,accept hurty words and grow a thicker skin.
You don’t see the link between hate speech and physical harm?
Once again, seeking to trivialise hate speech as “hurty words”.
Dangerous
Ok. Then give us a clear definition of "hate speech".
If you look further up the thread someone has provided the legal definition.
I am asking your definition. If the government decides that criticising Christianity is hate speech, would you abide by it?"Are the government planning on banning criticism of religion? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. No and no. I expect politicians to protect liberty not feelings. Freedom of speech,thought,expression. I do not expect them to take it from us because someone is offended. Anyone can be offended by anything said. That being the case there is potentially no limit to what speech the politicians could limit by criminalizing it. So saying 'I think all -pick a religion a race a gender- should be killed' is just a thing that hurts feelings and that's all okay? Time to grow up in your societal understanding and realise that words actually kill people.
Is anyone physically harmed? Being unpleasant isn't a crime, is it?
I think you're the one who needs to grow up. Stop being a cry baby,suck it up,accept hurty words and grow a thicker skin.
You don’t see the link between hate speech and physical harm?
Once again, seeking to trivialise hate speech as “hurty words”.
Dangerous
Ok. Then give us a clear definition of "hate speech".
If you look further up the thread someone has provided the legal definition.
I am asking your definition. If the government decides that criticising Christianity is hate speech, would you abide by it?
Are the government planning on banning criticism of religion?"No. OP seems to be fine with the government defining what hate speech means. One could actually make a case that jokes against religion offends the religious people and hence should be called a hate speech. Would you agree with it or not? The problem here is that the moment you allow the government to randomly decide what speech should be allowed and what should not be allowed, you are allowing people with majority opinion to control speech of people with minority opinions because the government is elected by the majority. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No. OP seems to be fine with the government defining what hate speech means. " Wrong - and quoting myself from higher up . . . _______________________________ ***********Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is.****************** ______________________________ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. It must be awful being so scared all the time, how do you cope? That's just it I'm not. So when I point out the obvious I get try-hard trolls like yourself slithering out with nothing to say but hissing noise. It's funny when the lefties too scared of someone's opinions that they want to ban it using government force calling other people scared. I don't mind these people wanting ban on free speech. I am not a moral absolutist. What I can't stand is that these people saying that they want to ban speech they don't like AND saying it's still free speech. Making lame arguments like "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". If they want to be authoritarian, they must at least have the balls to admit it. I would respect them if they did so. Saying that they believe in liberal values and then going on to shamelessly simp for governments trying to curb speech just because it's the kind of speech they don't like is laughable. The whole idea behind "I disapprove of what you say. But I will defend to the death your right to say it" seems to have lost on some people. So, feeling that people should be accountable for what they say means I support authoritarianism? I disagree. If you think people should face legal action for spoken words, you are an authoritarian. The question is to what extent. That doesn’t tally in any way with my understanding of what an authoritarian regime means. Authoritarianism is taking away people's freedom by threat of legal action. If you take away more and more of free speech, you get more and more authoritarian. It's not that difficult. If you really want government to take action against people based on whatever they define as "hate speech", at least be honest and admit that you support authoritarianism " No, I don’t support authoritarianism. Nor do I accept your definition or portrayal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No. OP seems to be fine with the government defining what hate speech means. Wrong - and quoting myself from higher up . . . _______________________________ ***********Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is.****************** ______________________________ "Says I am wrong and goes on to defend government defining free speech just because it's a democracy. Democracy isn't a perfect system. It's a tyranny of majority opinion. If a country with white nationality majority vote for a party to ban any discussion about racism, would you accept it just because it's a democratic choice? Freedom of speech means the government should not be legislate and take action on whatever they believe is wrong, even if the government is democratic. In fact, the government staying away from what is legal speech is a necessity for democracy itself. Because that's the only way to protect minority opinions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. No and no. I expect politicians to protect liberty not feelings. Freedom of speech,thought,expression. I do not expect them to take it from us because someone is offended. Anyone can be offended by anything said. That being the case there is potentially no limit to what speech the politicians could limit by criminalizing it. So saying 'I think all -pick a religion a race a gender- should be killed' is just a thing that hurts feelings and that's all okay? Time to grow up in your societal understanding and realise that words actually kill people.
Is anyone physically harmed? Being unpleasant isn't a crime, is it?
I think you're the one who needs to grow up. Stop being a cry baby,suck it up,accept hurty words and grow a thicker skin.
You don’t see the link between hate speech and physical harm?
Once again, seeking to trivialise hate speech as “hurty words”.
Dangerous
Ok. Then give us a clear definition of "hate speech".
If you look further up the thread someone has provided the legal definition.
I am asking your definition. If the government decides that criticising Christianity is hate speech, would you abide by it?
Are the government planning on banning criticism of religion?
No. OP seems to be fine with the government defining what hate speech means. One could actually make a case that jokes against religion offends the religious people and hence should be called a hate speech. Would you agree with it or not?
The problem here is that the moment you allow the government to randomly decide what speech should be allowed and what should not be allowed, you are allowing people with majority opinion to control speech of people with minority opinions because the government is elected by the majority. "Hate speech is not simply anything that might cause offence. It is abusive and threatening speech that expresses extreme prejudice, encouraging hate or violence Another attempt to trivialise and minimise wist hate speech is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. It must be awful being so scared all the time, how do you cope? That's just it I'm not. So when I point out the obvious I get try-hard trolls like yourself slithering out with nothing to say but hissing noise. It's funny when the lefties too scared of someone's opinions that they want to ban it using government force calling other people scared. I don't mind these people wanting ban on free speech. I am not a moral absolutist. What I can't stand is that these people saying that they want to ban speech they don't like AND saying it's still free speech. Making lame arguments like "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". If they want to be authoritarian, they must at least have the balls to admit it. I would respect them if they did so. Saying that they believe in liberal values and then going on to shamelessly simp for governments trying to curb speech just because it's the kind of speech they don't like is laughable. The whole idea behind "I disapprove of what you say. But I will defend to the death your right to say it" seems to have lost on some people. So, feeling that people should be accountable for what they say means I support authoritarianism? I disagree. If you think people should face legal action for spoken words, you are an authoritarian. The question is to what extent. That doesn’t tally in any way with my understanding of what an authoritarian regime means. Authoritarianism is taking away people's freedom by threat of legal action. If you take away more and more of free speech, you get more and more authoritarian. It's not that difficult. If you really want government to take action against people based on whatever they define as "hate speech", at least be honest and admit that you support authoritarianism No, I don’t support authoritarianism. Nor do I accept your definition or portrayal. " You can't be both. It's like Stalin saying he supports free speech but not just the kind of speech that's not good for the country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. No and no. I expect politicians to protect liberty not feelings. Freedom of speech,thought,expression. I do not expect them to take it from us because someone is offended. Anyone can be offended by anything said. That being the case there is potentially no limit to what speech the politicians could limit by criminalizing it. So saying 'I think all -pick a religion a race a gender- should be killed' is just a thing that hurts feelings and that's all okay? Time to grow up in your societal understanding and realise that words actually kill people.
Is anyone physically harmed? Being unpleasant isn't a crime, is it?
I think you're the one who needs to grow up. Stop being a cry baby,suck it up,accept hurty words and grow a thicker skin.
You don’t see the link between hate speech and physical harm?
Once again, seeking to trivialise hate speech as “hurty words”.
Dangerous
Ok. Then give us a clear definition of "hate speech".
If you look further up the thread someone has provided the legal definition.
I am asking your definition. If the government decides that criticising Christianity is hate speech, would you abide by it?
Are the government planning on banning criticism of religion?
No. OP seems to be fine with the government defining what hate speech means. One could actually make a case that jokes against religion offends the religious people and hence should be called a hate speech. Would you agree with it or not?
The problem here is that the moment you allow the government to randomly decide what speech should be allowed and what should not be allowed, you are allowing people with majority opinion to control speech of people with minority opinions because the government is elected by the majority.
Hate speech is not simply anything that might cause offence.
It is abusive and threatening speech that expresses extreme prejudice, encouraging hate or violence
Another attempt to trivialise and minimise wist hate speech is. "If someone says all religious Christians are idiots, is it hate speech? Should that person be punished? It's abusive and expresses extreme prejudice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No. OP seems to be fine with the government defining what hate speech means. Wrong - and quoting myself from higher up . . . _______________________________ ***********Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is.****************** ______________________________
Says I am wrong and goes on to defend government defining free speech just because it's a democracy. Democracy isn't a perfect system. It's a tyranny of majority opinion. If a country with white nationality majority vote for a party to ban any discussion about racism, would you accept it just because it's a democratic choice?
Freedom of speech means the government should not be legislate and take action on whatever they believe is wrong, even if the government is democratic. In fact, the government staying away from what is legal speech is a necessity for democracy itself. Because that's the only way to protect minority opinions."Ah, another “if”. “If”, followed by a wild imaginary scenario. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No. OP seems to be fine with the government defining what hate speech means. Wrong - and quoting myself from higher up . . . _______________________________ ***********Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is.****************** ______________________________
Says I am wrong and goes on to defend government defining free speech just because it's a democracy. Democracy isn't a perfect system. It's a tyranny of majority opinion. If a country with white nationality majority vote for a party to ban any discussion about racism, would you accept it just because it's a democratic choice?
Freedom of speech means the government should not be legislate and take action on whatever they believe is wrong, even if the government is democratic. In fact, the government staying away from what is legal speech is a necessity for democracy itself. Because that's the only way to protect minority opinions."Spoken like a true tyranical dictator lol. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hate speech will soon be any speech that causes offence. It must be awful being so scared all the time, how do you cope? That's just it I'm not. So when I point out the obvious I get try-hard trolls like yourself slithering out with nothing to say but hissing noise. It's funny when the lefties too scared of someone's opinions that they want to ban it using government force calling other people scared. I don't mind these people wanting ban on free speech. I am not a moral absolutist. What I can't stand is that these people saying that they want to ban speech they don't like AND saying it's still free speech. Making lame arguments like "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". If they want to be authoritarian, they must at least have the balls to admit it. I would respect them if they did so. Saying that they believe in liberal values and then going on to shamelessly simp for governments trying to curb speech just because it's the kind of speech they don't like is laughable. The whole idea behind "I disapprove of what you say. But I will defend to the death your right to say it" seems to have lost on some people. So, feeling that people should be accountable for what they say means I support authoritarianism? I disagree. If you think people should face legal action for spoken words, you are an authoritarian. The question is to what extent. That doesn’t tally in any way with my understanding of what an authoritarian regime means. Authoritarianism is taking away people's freedom by threat of legal action. If you take away more and more of free speech, you get more and more authoritarian. It's not that difficult. If you really want government to take action against people based on whatever they define as "hate speech", at least be honest and admit that you support authoritarianism No, I don’t support authoritarianism. Nor do I accept your definition or portrayal. You can't be both. It's like Stalin saying he supports free speech but not just the kind of speech that's not good for the country." I’m not saying I’m “both”. What you are suggesting is a completely false premise. I don’t accept your definitions, so your “both” alternative is meaningless to me. Once again, if people stay away from hate speech, no problem. If they engage in hate speech, they need to be grown up enough to accept that there are consequences. As others have pointed out, the country has had laws moderating “free speech” for centuries. By your definition, every government for the past few hundred years has been an authoritarian regime, which is a ludicrous suggestion, rendering the word authoritarian redundant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No. OP seems to be fine with the government defining what hate speech means. Wrong - and quoting myself from higher up . . . _______________________________ ***********Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is.****************** ______________________________
Says I am wrong and goes on to defend government defining free speech just because it's a democracy. Democracy isn't a perfect system. It's a tyranny of majority opinion. If a country with white nationality majority vote for a party to ban any discussion about racism, would you accept it just because it's a democratic choice?
Freedom of speech means the government should not be legislate and take action on whatever they believe is wrong, even if the government is democratic. In fact, the government staying away from what is legal speech is a necessity for democracy itself. Because that's the only way to protect minority opinions."BTW. the ONLY way that your notions would survive to become the core part of any nation would to have no government at all. But having said that. This democracy allows you to say it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No. OP seems to be fine with the government defining what hate speech means. Wrong - and quoting myself from higher up . . . _______________________________ ***********Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is.****************** ______________________________
Says I am wrong and goes on to defend government defining free speech just because it's a democracy. Democracy isn't a perfect system. It's a tyranny of majority opinion. If a country with white nationality majority vote for a party to ban any discussion about racism, would you accept it just because it's a democratic choice?
Freedom of speech means the government should not be legislate and take action on whatever they believe is wrong, even if the government is democratic. In fact, the government staying away from what is legal speech is a necessity for democracy itself. Because that's the only way to protect minority opinions.
BTW. the ONLY way that your notions would survive to become the core part of any nation would to have no government at all.
But having said that. This democracy allows you to say it. "You can have a government that doesn't arrest people for spoken words. Why is it impossible? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No. OP seems to be fine with the government defining what hate speech means. Wrong - and quoting myself from higher up . . . _______________________________ ***********Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is.****************** ______________________________
Says I am wrong and goes on to defend government defining free speech just because it's a democracy. Democracy isn't a perfect system. It's a tyranny of majority opinion. If a country with white nationality majority vote for a party to ban any discussion about racism, would you accept it just because it's a democratic choice?
Freedom of speech means the government should not be legislate and take action on whatever they believe is wrong, even if the government is democratic. In fact, the government staying away from what is legal speech is a necessity for democracy itself. Because that's the only way to protect minority opinions.
Ah, another “if”. “If”, followed by a wild imaginary scenario. "It's not really a wild imaginary scenario. There are numerous democratic religious countries which have blasphemy laws. Basically atheists cannot express their opinions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No. OP seems to be fine with the government defining what hate speech means. Wrong - and quoting myself from higher up . . . _______________________________ ***********Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is.****************** ______________________________
Says I am wrong and goes on to defend government defining free speech just because it's a democracy. Democracy isn't a perfect system. It's a tyranny of majority opinion. If a country with white nationality majority vote for a party to ban any discussion about racism, would you accept it just because it's a democratic choice?
Freedom of speech means the government should not be legislate and take action on whatever they believe is wrong, even if the government is democratic. In fact, the government staying away from what is legal speech is a necessity for democracy itself. Because that's the only way to protect minority opinions.
BTW. the ONLY way that your notions would survive to become the core part of any nation would to have no government at all.
But having said that. This democracy allows you to say it.
You can have a government that doesn't arrest people for spoken words. Why is it impossible?"People don't get arrested for spoken words unless those words are outlined in well defined Hate Speech Laws. To keep ignoring that fact is the fatal flaw in your argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No, I don’t support authoritarianism. Nor do I accept your definition or portrayal. You can't be both. It's like Stalin saying he supports free speech but not just the kind of speech that's not good for the country. I’m not saying I’m “both”. What you are suggesting is a completely false premise. I don’t accept your definitions, so your “both” alternative is meaningless to me. Once again, if people stay away from hate speech, no problem. If they engage in hate speech, they need to be grown up enough to accept that there are consequences. As others have pointed out, the country has had laws moderating “free speech” for centuries. By your definition, every government for the past few hundred years has been an authoritarian regime, which is a ludicrous suggestion, rendering the word authoritarian redundant. " As I have told numerous times before, "free speech" means the government not taking actions against people's speech. If it takes action, you don't have free speech. Yes, UK never had free speech to begin with. The US doesn't have absolute free speech either. But they are way ahead of UK when it comes to free speech. Again, it's ok to say that you are against free speech because free speech means some people would spread hate speech and you don't like hate speech. Don't tell us that you are pro-free speech but...... I want government to take action of something called "hate speech" that the government can define whatever way they want. If you ask CCP, they would also say that they support free speech but they just hate "fake news". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No. OP seems to be fine with the government defining what hate speech means. Wrong - and quoting myself from higher up . . . _______________________________ ***********Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is.****************** ______________________________
Says I am wrong and goes on to defend government defining free speech just because it's a democracy. Democracy isn't a perfect system. It's a tyranny of majority opinion. If a country with white nationality majority vote for a party to ban any discussion about racism, would you accept it just because it's a democratic choice?
Freedom of speech means the government should not be legislate and take action on whatever they believe is wrong, even if the government is democratic. In fact, the government staying away from what is legal speech is a necessity for democracy itself. Because that's the only way to protect minority opinions.
BTW. the ONLY way that your notions would survive to become the core part of any nation would to have no government at all.
But having said that. This democracy allows you to say it.
You can have a government that doesn't arrest people for spoken words. Why is it impossible?
People don't get arrested for spoken words unless those words are outlined in well defined Hate Speech Laws.
To keep ignoring that fact is the fatal flaw in your argument. "I am not ignoring it. Saying that "you have free speech but you are legally banned to say these things" is a contradictory statement. By banning some kind of speech, you are already against free speech. The more you ban, the more authoritarian you are. As I said above, the Chinese would also say that "We have free speech unless your words are outlined in our well defined fake news laws". Do you think the Chinese have free speech? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No. OP seems to be fine with the government defining what hate speech means. Wrong - and quoting myself from higher up . . . _______________________________ ***********Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is.****************** ______________________________
Says I am wrong and goes on to defend government defining free speech just because it's a democracy. Democracy isn't a perfect system. It's a tyranny of majority opinion. If a country with white nationality majority vote for a party to ban any discussion about racism, would you accept it just because it's a democratic choice?
Freedom of speech means the government should not be legislate and take action on whatever they believe is wrong, even if the government is democratic. In fact, the government staying away from what is legal speech is a necessity for democracy itself. Because that's the only way to protect minority opinions.
BTW. the ONLY way that your notions would survive to become the core part of any nation would to have no government at all.
But having said that. This democracy allows you to say it.
You can have a government that doesn't arrest people for spoken words. Why is it impossible?
People don't get arrested for spoken words unless those words are outlined in well defined Hate Speech Laws.
To keep ignoring that fact is the fatal flaw in your argument.
I am not ignoring it. Saying that "you have free speech but you are legally banned to say these things" is a contradictory statement. By banning some kind of speech, you are already against free speech. The more you ban, the more authoritarian you are.
As I said above, the Chinese would also say that "We have free speech unless your words are outlined in our well defined fake news laws". Do you think the Chinese have free speech?"Okay give me a plausable argument that says writing/saying 'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' is 'a great thing to have' as a right to free speech? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No. OP seems to be fine with the government defining what hate speech means. Wrong - and quoting myself from higher up . . . _______________________________ ***********Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is.****************** ______________________________
Says I am wrong and goes on to defend government defining free speech just because it's a democracy. Democracy isn't a perfect system. It's a tyranny of majority opinion. If a country with white nationality majority vote for a party to ban any discussion about racism, would you accept it just because it's a democratic choice?
Freedom of speech means the government should not be legislate and take action on whatever they believe is wrong, even if the government is democratic. In fact, the government staying away from what is legal speech is a necessity for democracy itself. Because that's the only way to protect minority opinions.
BTW. the ONLY way that your notions would survive to become the core part of any nation would to have no government at all.
But having said that. This democracy allows you to say it.
You can have a government that doesn't arrest people for spoken words. Why is it impossible?
People don't get arrested for spoken words unless those words are outlined in well defined Hate Speech Laws.
To keep ignoring that fact is the fatal flaw in your argument.
I am not ignoring it. Saying that "you have free speech but you are legally banned to say these things" is a contradictory statement. By banning some kind of speech, you are already against free speech. The more you ban, the more authoritarian you are.
As I said above, the Chinese would also say that "We have free speech unless your words are outlined in our well defined fake news laws". Do you think the Chinese have free speech?
Okay give me a plausable argument that says writing/saying 'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' is 'a great thing to have' as a right to free speech?"That's something that even US bans because it's a direct call for violence. That's where the US does better. Direct calls for violence are illegal no matter who it is about. They don't define anything vague like "hate speech". Anyway, a free speech absolutist could argue that we should arrest the ones indulging in violence and not the ones who called for it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BTW we are not talking about the USA or China. We are talking about Free Speech in the UK." Free speech is a well defined concept. By your argument, even China has free speech because they defined that's free speech right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. No and no. I expect politicians to protect liberty not feelings. Freedom of speech,thought,expression. I do not expect them to take it from us because someone is offended. Anyone can be offended by anything said. That being the case there is potentially no limit to what speech the politicians could limit by criminalizing it. So saying 'I think all -pick a religion a race a gender- should be killed' is just a thing that hurts feelings and that's all okay? Time to grow up in your societal understanding and realise that words actually kill people.
Is anyone physically harmed? Being unpleasant isn't a crime, is it?
I think you're the one who needs to grow up. Stop being a cry baby,suck it up,accept hurty words and grow a thicker skin.
You don’t see the link between hate speech and physical harm?
Once again, seeking to trivialise hate speech as “hurty words”.
Dangerous
Ok. Then give us a clear definition of "hate speech".
If you look further up the thread someone has provided the legal definition.
I am asking your definition. If the government decides that criticising Christianity is hate speech, would you abide by it?
Are the government planning on banning criticism of religion?
No. OP seems to be fine with the government defining what hate speech means. One could actually make a case that jokes against religion offends the religious people and hence should be called a hate speech. Would you agree with it or not?
The problem here is that the moment you allow the government to randomly decide what speech should be allowed and what should not be allowed, you are allowing people with majority opinion to control speech of people with minority opinions because the government is elected by the majority. "If the government doesn’t get to decide what the laws are, what’s the point in government? I don’t recall you getting annoyed when the government changed the law to say Rwanda is safe, when the courts ruled to the contrary. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"BTW we are not talking about the USA or China. We are talking about Free Speech in the UK. Free speech is a well defined concept. By your argument, even China has free speech because they defined that's free speech right? " It's not defined by 'MY' argument. It's defined by the government we elect. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's also called 'Defining Hate Speech in Law' Which we do. Assuming you support that fact - not to say, 'let's kill people of a certain whatever' . . . Then you support controls on certain elements of speech. "Seriously it's not that hard to understand. If a country has absolute free speech, it means government cannot take legal action on what people speak. They can't legislate and make some kind of words. In the US, they drew a well defined line in constitution - Direct calls for violence and libel. Remember it must be a direct call for violence. Even dogwhistles cannot be punished. It's close to impossible for a government to change this line. Why did they do it? To protect minorities - both in terms of immutable characteristics and in terms of opinions. No matter what your opinion is, you must be able to say it. Others who don't like what you say have the right to argue against you. So, US doesn't have absolute free speech but it's the closest you can get. Even a democratically elected government cannot do much to change it. In the UK, there is no such protection. A democratically elected government can ban any kind of speech. If 60% of the people decide that the opinions of the remaining 40% of people should be banned, it could be banned. "Hate speech" is a massively misleading term. The definition is not clear. This means officials can interpret it anyway they want and charge people. If you think a democratically elected government can choose to define it whatever way they want and arrest people for speaking those words, it's totally fine. But it's authoritarianism and you are being supportive to this kind of authoritarianism. Don't say that you believe in free speech. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'll ask you again: Give me a plausible argument that says writing/saying 'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' is 'a great thing to have' as a right to free speech? And don't change the subject to another country. " Lame strawman argument. It's not "a great thing". But it doesn't have to be illegal either. Something can be bad but perfectly legal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If the government doesn’t get to decide what the laws are, what’s the point in government? I don’t recall you getting annoyed when the government changed the law to say Rwanda is safe, when the courts ruled to the contrary." I am not saying government shouldn't make any laws. But if a government can make laws to control what you can and cannot speak, it's an authoritarian government and the country doesn't have freedom of speech. Why is this hard to understand? If the government makes homosexuality illegal, you don't have freedom of sexuality. If the government makes it illegal to speak certain things, you don't have freedom of speech. Yes, the government can make these things illegal. But that's an authoritarian government and supporting this makes you authoritarian. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For crying out loud, we are NOT in the USA. Give me a plausible argument that says writing/saying 'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' is 'a great thing to have' as a right to free speech? In the UK. " I answered it numerous times. Here I go again: It's not a great thing to say. But that doesn't mean it has to be illegal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'll ask you again: Give me a plausible argument that says writing/saying 'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' is 'a great thing to have' as a right to free speech? And don't change the subject to another country. Lame strawman argument. It's not "a great thing". But it doesn't have to be illegal either. Something can be bad but perfectly legal. " You are really saying that to be able write/say'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' should be legal? That's your stance and your belief? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'll ask you again: Give me a plausible argument that says writing/saying 'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' is 'a great thing to have' as a right to free speech? And don't change the subject to another country. Lame strawman argument. It's not "a great thing". But it doesn't have to be illegal either. Something can be bad but perfectly legal. You are really saying that to be able write/say'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' should be legal? That's your stance and your belief? " In a society with absolute free speech, it would be legal. Only the people actually doing the killing would be arrested. But I never said I am a free speech absolutist. I am ok with drawing a line at direct calls for violence. I also admit that it's a bit authoritarian and also goes against freedom of speech. Would you admit that letting the government arbitrarily define what "hate speech" means makes it even more authoritarian and puts us in a danger of losing our right to free speech at the whims of the government? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No. OP seems to be fine with the government defining what hate speech means. Wrong - and quoting myself from higher up . . . _______________________________ ***********Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is.****************** ______________________________ "There's one problem with changing your vote if who you voted for does something you disagree with. If you're successful in getting a new Govt, it's very rare for them to undo laws that were passed by the previous one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'll ask you again: Give me a plausible argument that says writing/saying 'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' is 'a great thing to have' as a right to free speech? And don't change the subject to another country. Lame strawman argument. It's not "a great thing". But it doesn't have to be illegal either. Something can be bad but perfectly legal. You are really saying that to be able write/say'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' should be legal? That's your stance and your belief? In a society with absolute free speech, it would be legal. Only the people actually doing the killing would be arrested. But I never said I am a free speech absolutist. I am ok with drawing a line at direct calls for violence. I also admit that it's a bit authoritarian and also goes against freedom of speech. Would you admit that letting the government arbitrarily define what "hate speech" means makes it even more authoritarian and puts us in a danger of losing our right to free speech at the whims of the government?" They don’t make “arbitrary” decisions though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'll ask you again: Give me a plausible argument that says writing/saying 'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' is 'a great thing to have' as a right to free speech? And don't change the subject to another country. Lame strawman argument. It's not "a great thing". But it doesn't have to be illegal either. Something can be bad but perfectly legal. You are really saying that to be able write/say'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' should be legal? That's your stance and your belief? In a society with absolute free speech, it would be legal. Only the people actually doing the killing would be arrested. But I never said I am a free speech absolutist. I am ok with drawing a line at direct calls for violence. I also admit that it's a bit authoritarian and also goes against freedom of speech. Would you admit that letting the government arbitrarily define what "hate speech" means makes it even more authoritarian and puts us in a danger of losing our right to free speech at the whims of the government? They don’t make “arbitrary” decisions though. " Tell me which of these lines fall under hate speech and whoever says these have to be arrested: "All religious Christians are idiots" "All religious Muslims are idiots " "All brown people are idiots" "All religious Hindus are casteist bigots" "We need to stop Islamic immigration" "I wouldn't let a Chinese people inside my home" Some nasty words directed at a God For the last one, think about every religion and tell me if the consequences I face will the same for all religions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'll ask you again: Give me a plausible argument that says writing/saying 'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' is 'a great thing to have' as a right to free speech? And don't change the subject to another country. Lame strawman argument. It's not "a great thing". But it doesn't have to be illegal either. Something can be bad but perfectly legal. You are really saying that to be able write/say'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' should be legal? That's your stance and your belief? In a society with absolute free speech, it would be legal. Only the people actually doing the killing would be arrested. But I never said I am a free speech absolutist. I am ok with drawing a line at direct calls for violence. I also admit that it's a bit authoritarian and also goes against freedom of speech. Would you admit that letting the government arbitrarily define what "hate speech" means makes it even more authoritarian and puts us in a danger of losing our right to free speech at the whims of the government? They don’t make “arbitrary” decisions though. Tell me which of these lines fall under hate speech and whoever says these have to be arrested: "All religious Christians are idiots" "All religious Muslims are idiots " "All brown people are idiots" "All religious Hindus are casteist bigots" "We need to stop Islamic immigration" "I wouldn't let a Chinese people inside my home" Some nasty words directed at a God For the last one, think about every religion and tell me if the consequences I face will the same for all religions." Personally anything denigrating someone because of something they have no control over (race for instance) is hateful So you're 'all brown people' and 'no Chinese' is hate speech The other statements denigrate people's religion, which is an intellectual choice as opposed to an immutable aspect of themselves, so these would be fine | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Who defines what's "hate speech"? Who defines what's "hate speech"?" The government of the day define what hate speech is - in the western world, it's a democratically elected government (usually). So it's the 'people' who put them there that really define it. If you don't approve of that government, and it's definition of hate speech, then unselect them by voting for a new one. Other places in the World need to get control of the thugs that have power over them and develop democracy and then define for themselves what hate speech is. When did political parties ever state what hate speech means to them in their manifestos? They just decide without consulting us. Have you ever written or contacted to your MP about a bill that the government is discussing that you disagree with. Or do you expect your MP to write or contact everyone in their constituency and discuss their individual opinion on each bill being discussed. Exactly We the People. Represented by the Government we elect.
Did sunak or Starmer tell you they were going to suppress freedom of speech?"What would you like to say that you feel you can't..? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'll ask you again: Give me a plausible argument that says writing/saying 'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' is 'a great thing to have' as a right to free speech? And don't change the subject to another country. Lame strawman argument. It's not "a great thing". But it doesn't have to be illegal either. Something can be bad but perfectly legal. You are really saying that to be able write/say'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' should be legal? That's your stance and your belief? In a society with absolute free speech, it would be legal. Only the people actually doing the killing would be arrested. But I never said I am a free speech absolutist. I am ok with drawing a line at direct calls for violence. I also admit that it's a bit authoritarian and also goes against freedom of speech. Would you admit that letting the government arbitrarily define what "hate speech" means makes it even more authoritarian and puts us in a danger of losing our right to free speech at the whims of the government? They don’t make “arbitrary” decisions though. Tell me which of these lines fall under hate speech and whoever says these have to be arrested: "All religious Christians are idiots" "All religious Muslims are idiots " "All brown people are idiots" "All religious Hindus are casteist bigots" "We need to stop Islamic immigration" "I wouldn't let a Chinese people inside my home" Some nasty words directed at a God For the last one, think about every religion and tell me if the consequences I face will the same for all religions. Personally anything denigrating someone because of something they have no control over (race for instance) is hateful So you're 'all brown people' and 'no Chinese' is hate speech The other statements denigrate people's religion, which is an intellectual choice as opposed to an immutable aspect of themselves, so these would be fine" But the hate speech laws in UK cover religion too. One of the numerous reasons why it's arbitrary and up to interpretation. Is saying "White people are oppressors" hate speech? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'll ask you again: Give me a plausible argument that says writing/saying 'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' is 'a great thing to have' as a right to free speech? And don't change the subject to another country. Lame strawman argument. It's not "a great thing". But it doesn't have to be illegal either. Something can be bad but perfectly legal. You are really saying that to be able write/say'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' should be legal? That's your stance and your belief? In a society with absolute free speech, it would be legal. Only the people actually doing the killing would be arrested. But I never said I am a free speech absolutist. I am ok with drawing a line at direct calls for violence. I also admit that it's a bit authoritarian and also goes against freedom of speech. Would you admit that letting the government arbitrarily define what "hate speech" means makes it even more authoritarian and puts us in a danger of losing our right to free speech at the whims of the government? They don’t make “arbitrary” decisions though. Tell me which of these lines fall under hate speech and whoever says these have to be arrested: "All religious Christians are idiots" "All religious Muslims are idiots " "All brown people are idiots" "All religious Hindus are casteist bigots" "We need to stop Islamic immigration" "I wouldn't let a Chinese people inside my home" Some nasty words directed at a God For the last one, think about every religion and tell me if the consequences I face will the same for all religions. Personally anything denigrating someone because of something they have no control over (race for instance) is hateful So you're 'all brown people' and 'no Chinese' is hate speech The other statements denigrate people's religion, which is an intellectual choice as opposed to an immutable aspect of themselves, so these would be fine But the hate speech laws in UK cover religion too. One of the numerous reasons why it's arbitrary and up to interpretation. Is saying "White people are oppressors" hate speech?" I think saying 'religious people are stupid' and 'religious people should be killed (or harmed in any way) are very different statements and should be treated differently For instance, islam calls for death to apostates. Hate speech | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'll ask you again: Give me a plausible argument that says writing/saying 'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' is 'a great thing to have' as a right to free speech? And don't change the subject to another country. Lame strawman argument. It's not "a great thing". But it doesn't have to be illegal either. Something can be bad but perfectly legal. You are really saying that to be able write/say'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' should be legal? That's your stance and your belief? In a society with absolute free speech, it would be legal. Only the people actually doing the killing would be arrested. But I never said I am a free speech absolutist. I am ok with drawing a line at direct calls for violence. I also admit that it's a bit authoritarian and also goes against freedom of speech. Would you admit that letting the government arbitrarily define what "hate speech" means makes it even more authoritarian and puts us in a danger of losing our right to free speech at the whims of the government? They don’t make “arbitrary” decisions though. Tell me which of these lines fall under hate speech and whoever says these have to be arrested: "All religious Christians are idiots" "All religious Muslims are idiots " "All brown people are idiots" "All religious Hindus are casteist bigots" "We need to stop Islamic immigration" "I wouldn't let a Chinese people inside my home" Some nasty words directed at a God For the last one, think about every religion and tell me if the consequences I face will the same for all religions. Personally anything denigrating someone because of something they have no control over (race for instance) is hateful So you're 'all brown people' and 'no Chinese' is hate speech The other statements denigrate people's religion, which is an intellectual choice as opposed to an immutable aspect of themselves, so these would be fine But the hate speech laws in UK cover religion too. One of the numerous reasons why it's arbitrary and up to interpretation. Is saying "White people are oppressors" hate speech? I think saying 'religious people are stupid' and 'religious people should be killed (or harmed in any way) are very different statements and should be treated differently For instance, islam calls for death to apostates. Hate speech " Direct calls for violence is a clear line that can be drawn and I agree that it's a reasonable stance to take. But "hate speech" covers much more than that. No one has a clear idea of what it means in practice. So you have police and judiciary can apply it whatever way they want. For example, when a Quran was damaged in a school in Wakefield, it was recorded as a hate incident. Pretty sure you can do it with other any other religious book and it wouldn't be called a hate incident. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For crying out loud, we are NOT in the USA. Give me a plausible argument that says writing/saying 'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' is 'a great thing to have' as a right to free speech? In the UK. " It's a moot point what free speech brings us anyway. I used to live in China where almost all Western apps and channels are blocked. No inflammatory or abusive online whatsoever. But then I could walks the streets of Shanghai safely at 2am in the morning. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For crying out loud, we are NOT in the USA. Give me a plausible argument that says writing/saying 'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' is 'a great thing to have' as a right to free speech? In the UK. It's a moot point what free speech brings us anyway. I used to live in China where almost all Western apps and channels are blocked. No inflammatory or abusive online whatsoever. But then I could walks the streets of Shanghai safely at 2am in the morning." Unless you were overheard criticising the government... In which case you were not safe in Tiananmen Square at midday... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For crying out loud, we are NOT in the USA. Give me a plausible argument that says writing/saying 'kill people of a certain religion/creed/race' is 'a great thing to have' as a right to free speech? In the UK. It's a moot point what free speech brings us anyway. I used to live in China where almost all Western apps and channels are blocked. No inflammatory or abusive online whatsoever. But then I could walks the streets of Shanghai safely at 2am in the morning. Unless you were overheard criticising the government... In which case you were not safe in Tiananmen Square at midday..." True! No system is perfect I suppose. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
