Non-crime hate incidents - yet another not-at-all-Orwellian reality

[ChristineM]

Who gets to decide what insulting speech is ? .. and what may not be insulting to you .. may be insulting to someone else .. you having mixed raced children having no relevance to the question ... of how far the thought police should go to effect compliance.

How is having mixed raced children relevant to your apology for totalitarianism .. a totalitarianism which will affect both mixed race children and non mixed race children negatively .. see their essential liberty eroded .. find them living in a police state .. where they are looked on as the criminal.

No need to decide anything

Insulting is defined as disrespectful or scornfully abusive.

How? My children and i have both been the recipients verbal and physical hate crime. Sorry you don't approve of human decency, enough said.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Who gets to decide what insulting speech is ?

Those who are insulted by it.

Typically, it's not difficult to avoid being uncivil: You use insulting speech, someone calls it out, you apologize, folks move on. But when there is a widespread problem with marginalized groups concerning hate speech that is clearly impacting fundamental rights of that group and social, non-governmental intervention is shown to be ineffectual, it would not be "totalitarianism" for legislation to be made regarding the mitigation of the erosion of that group's fundamental rights to safety in a community.

 

[icehorse]

It is prone to bias, and perhaps the only way to minimise that is to have it judged by a panel of trained minds.

I would probably define it along the lines of speech which causes demonstrable harm, but ultimately im neither a lawyer nor a politician, so the exact wording would be above my personal pay grade.

I'll get back to my earlier question: Who would you trust to decide what YOU are not allowed to hear?

I wouldn't trust many people, certainly not the government.

 

[icehorse]

No need to decide anything

Insulting is defined as disrespectful or scornfully abusive.

How? My children and i have both been the recipients verbal and physical hate crime. Sorry you don't approve of human decency, enough said.

Well you've had no problem insulting me many times on this forum, so...

As for physical hate crime, that's a TOTALLY different topic, way off base for this thread.

 

[icehorse]

Those who are insulted by it.

Typically, it's not difficult to avoid being uncivil: You use insulting speech, someone calls it out, you apologize, folks move on. But when there is a widespread problem with marginalized groups concerning hate speech that is clearly impacting fundamental rights of that group and social, non-governmental intervention is shown to be ineffectual, it would not be "totalitarianism" for legislation to be made regarding the mitigation of the erosion of that group's fundamental rights to safety in a community.

And that gets us back to micro-aggressions, and limiting what others get to hear.

I'll ask you the same question: Who do you trust to decide what YOU can not hear?

 

[Sargonski]

No need to decide anything

Insulting is defined as disrespectful or scornfully abusive.

How? My children and i have both been the recipients verbal and physical hate crime. Sorry you don't approve of human decency, enough said.

That is absurd criteria - completely arbitrary in nature.. and this is not about "hate crime in case you did not get the message. And who is the one who does not approve of human decency ? The one who wants to give the Gov't arbitrary powers .. thats who .. and that who .. is you

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'll get back to my earlier question: Who would you trust to decide what YOU are not allowed to hear?

I wouldn't trust many people, certainly not the government.

But this isn't about censorship as much as it is protecting people's rights... IOW, their liberty.

So the question for you is this: how much infringement of your rights by private citizens are you willing to tolerate before you overcome your paranoia about government?

 

[ChristineM]

That is absurd criteria - completely arbitrary in nature.. and this is not about "hate crime in case you did not get the message. And who is the one who does not approve of human decency ? The one who wants to give the Gov't arbitrary powers .. thats who .. and that who .. is you

Read the title of the thread, yes it's about hate crime.
Abuse is not decency .
You don't like UK law then keep out of the UK

 

[icehorse]

But this isn't about censorship as much as it is protecting people's rights... IOW, their liberty.

So the question for you is this: how much infringement of your rights by private citizens are you willing to tolerate before you overcome your paranoia about government?

What rights are infringed if someone insults me? (And I should know, I get insulted all the time on RF )

 

[icehorse]

Read the title of the thread, yes it's about hate crime.
Abuse is not decency .
You don't like UK law then keep out of the UK

No, this thread is about "non-crime hate incidents".

 

[ChristineM]

No, this thread is about "non-crime hate incidents".

WhIch are in my view, hate crimes glossed over and polished by the giver, the far right, racists, misogynists etc.

Who decides which is hate and which is non hate?

 

[icehorse]

WhIch are in my view, hate crimes glossed over and polished by the giver, the far right, racists, misogynists etc.

Who decides which is hate and which is non hate?

So this is interesting. I want to circle back to one of our long standing disagreements: I think that a lot of what trans activists push is hateful, misogynistic, and homophobic.

So should I get to have those trans activists shut down? After all, I find them extremely offensive.

 

[ChristineM]

So this is interesting. I want to circle back to one of our long standing disagreements: I think that a lot of what trans activists push is hateful, misogynistic, and homophobic.

So should I get to have those trans activists shut down? After all, I find them extremely offensive.

You can try

 

[PureX]

If there is no crime, there is no prosecution. But that doesn't mean that we should not take note of speech that advocates for crime, or for ideals that our laws are intended to thwart as a society, for the sake of our own peace and security. Willful ignorance is not a form of free speech. Nor is it a necessity of free speech. We can have free speech and impose reasonable responsibility for our speech at the same time.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is absurd criteria - completely arbitrary in nature.. and this is not about "hate crime in case you did not get the message. And who is the one who does not approve of human decency ? The one who wants to give the Gov't arbitrary powers .. thats who .. and that who .. is you

Everyone knows that we need more government
control over our interactions, speech, & acts.
How else can we be as safe & secure as people
in China are? Look how orderly their society is.

 

[icehorse]

You can try

Can we get back to the actual discussion? I'm curious to know your answer. You brought up misogyny (and I think we're agreed that we ought to fight against misogyny), so should my anti-misogyny, anti-trans-activists opinions be censored (or entered into the police logs), because you think it's hate speech? Should I be able to report you for hateful misogyny and homophobia when you support trans-activists?

 

[Sargonski]

Those who are insulted by it.

Typically, it's not difficult to avoid being uncivil: You use insulting speech, someone calls it out, you apologize, folks move on. But when there is a widespread problem with marginalized groups concerning hate speech that is clearly impacting fundamental rights of that group and social, non-governmental intervention is shown to be ineffectual, it would not be "totalitarianism" for legislation to be made regarding the mitigation of the erosion of that group's fundamental rights to safety in a community.

Holy Carp - that is an absolutely horrible justification for law -- far beyond rational on close inspection .. and anathema to the principles of Justice. Did you think out how that would work .. if all I need do is say that I felt insulted by something .. for that speech to be made illegal .. the person making arrested and punished at what ever the going rate is for such crime .. I see Rudy was ordered to pay over 100 million in damages for insulting the two election workers .. thats right in line with -- Rule of Law principle "punishment should fit the crime" but if the crime and its effect is completely arbitrary .. totally subjective on the basis of each individual .. guess the punishment should be too .. in the perfect world of the woke collectivist .. operating in fallacious utilitarianism mode.

Apologize for the Jargon .. but, you could use a lesson or two in this area so go look it up.

"Erosion of fundamental Right to safety in a community" --- Reeking of utilitarian justification for law .. on the basis of increasing happiness/decreasing harm to the collective.

Sounds like a similar fallacious utilitarian justification for the Vax mandate .. similarly fallacious. Giving the ability for each individual to arbitrarily make law on the basis of something they feel insulted by will not make the community more safe .. but more dangerous for everyone .. who at any time could be accused of insulting someone and criminally charged .. and punished .. for something you had no idea you was insulting.

So this is not even a good utilitarian argument -- doing the reverse -- making the collective less safe .. hence the term fallacious utilitarianism .. aside the numerous other reasons why this justification for law fails

 

[Sargonski]

Everyone knows that we need more government
control over our interactions, speech, & acts.
How else can we be as safe & secure as people
in China are? Look how orderly their society is.

Right ... and what is wonky .. is that the folks who wish to arbitrarily increase Gov't powers --trampling on individual liberty in the name of "Whats best for the collective .. in that person's opinion" ands that this is a fine justification for law because every person's opinion should matter right ? are telling me I am the bad guy for wanting to block the betterment of humanity.


I say "who gets to decide what is offensive or insulting" .. Guitar cry says .. Those who are insulted" .. Oh .. what lovely justification for law- if all I need do is say that I felt insulted by something .. for that speech to be made illegal .. the offending person arrested and punished at what ever the going rate is for such crime .. I see Rudy was ordered to pay over 100 million in damages for insulting the two election workers .. thats right in line with -- Rule of Law principle "punishment should fit the crime" but if the crime and its effect is completely arbitrary .. totally subjective on the basis of each individual .. guess the punishment should be too .. in the perfect world of the woke collectivist .. operating in fallacious utilitarianism mode.

 

[ChristineM]

Can we get back to the actual discussion? I'm curious to know your answer. You brought up misogyny (and I think we're agreed that we ought to fight against misogyny), so should my anti-misogyny, anti-trans-activists opinions be censored (or entered into the police logs), because you think it's hate speech? Should I be able to report you for hateful misogyny and homophobia when you support trans-activists?

You live in America, you can say whatever you want without responsibility for running your mouth off.

Law in the UK is not American law. In the uk any speach that
demonstrates hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity can be prosecuted.





Personally that suites me.

 

[icehorse]

You live in America, you can say whatever you want without responsibility for running your mouth off.

Law in the UK is not American law. In the uk any speach that
demonstrates hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity can be prosecuted.





Personally that suites me.

Ok, so if you lived in the UK, someone could report a non-crime hate incident against you for some of your pro-trans-activist stances.

Does that suit you?