Well, yes, that’s true–because your definition was insufficient. You artificially limit what you’re gonna call free speech in order to exclude the speech you think is dangerous but to include the speech that others think is dangerous and you don’t.
Again, this is not what I dispute. Your poor claim is that it’s a binary situation, where you either have free speech or you don’t. That’s true only in the most trivial of senses; in any meaningful sense, free speech works on a continuum.
This is bullshit with a pretty bow on it. If someone thinks you’re a complete fucktard and says so that’s their opinion. If you get butt hurt over it that doesn’t constitute a danger.
There is a huge benefit to allowing this in public. It exposes those who think you’re a fucktard for who they are. That opinion can be addressed. Otherwise it’s a secret society of elbows disparagers. that is not something that can easily be addressed. It’s better to know who you’re dealing with up front.
Free speech amounts to thoughts you can hear. Taking it away is nothing short of thought restriction and make no mistake there will come a day when we can access those thoughts without the spoken word.
“There will come a day”? What the hell do you think is going on here?
So it’s okay for every American to pack heat, feeling a threat from marauders or tyrannical rulers. But if another country should feel a threat in hate speech, well, they’re just doing it wrong altogether.
Is that about it?
It’s hard to hold up the US great example of good governance right now but this (along with things like this) really shows that a constitution like the US’s based on a few well defined fundamental rights, is significantly and objectively better than the alternatives in other countries.
Plenty of people in the US (the POTUSspecifically) would love to bring laws like the one in the OP that blatantly and explicitly go against the 1st Amendment (though I suspect he’d be OK with Nazi stuff somehow). But even the most partisan republican (or democrat, for laws at the other end of the spectrum) appointed judge would throw it without a second thought.
While this doesn’t make the US a perfect eutopia where no ones’ rights are ever trampled (American exceptionalism is BS) it does make the US freer less oppressive place in a concrete way.
No it clear is a binary situation. You either have free speech or you don’t. If nasty offensive speech is not protected you don’t have free speech.
You can’t verbally threaten your president so therefore you have no free speech.
Crimes can involve speech (in a few well defined areas: threats, conspiracy, obstruction of justice) that doesn’t mean you are (necessarily) taking anyone’s right to free speech.
You don’t have free speech if you don’t have the right to air rude, offensive opinions, that the majority of society would consider unpleasant and shocking. Whether the opinion is something racist or that the head of state is a idiot.
And other countries have agreed to laws moderating speech that criticizes the royal family, for all the same reasons
Both sets of countries are objectively less free, and more oppressive, than countries that have constitutions that protect these things.
Threats are speech. You are not free to make them. Your definition of free is wrong according to English.
But they aren’t opinions. When opinions are outlawed you have no free speech.
You are experiencing cognitive dissonance because you have bought in to the national narrative myth that you are completely free.
You are not completely free.
Opinions are not outlawed. You are not arguing reasonably by changing the topic all the time.
Clearly these are objectively untrue statements (I am not American and I literally stated I didn’t believe that two posts ago)
Yes they are. The British hate crime laws that are the subject of this thread make any word that is deemed be “abusive” illegal, whether or not the words are an opinion.
O.K.
And you are playing along, being equally coy and feigning ignorance because every single person in this thread knows what the word is, you do, I do, Elbows does. And knowing that, and knowing why it matters I’m sure everyone has seen the reluctance to use it and can draw their own conclusions from it. Elbows still hasn’t responded to it even after being asked twice.
The simple fact is that there is no such thing as a context-free word or phrase. Context is the only thing that actually matters. If you claim free use of the phrase “gas the jews” when reporting on activities and rightly claim that it is stripped of hateful meaning when doing so, you are also tacitly admitting that the meaning of phrase can change.
When and how you use it gives it meaning. Screaming it in the face of people coming out of a synagogue is very different from reporting it in this thread or…I would argue…using it in humour (however offensive you may find that humour).
Very worryingly the judge in this case does not seem to think that the context or intent matters and that is something that should worry you.
Good news! Even based on the partial reports on the case, this is not what the sheriff seems to think. It’s pretty clear that the sheriff does think context matters. He simply doesn’t accept that the context was that presented by the defence.
The defence put forward the argument that the video was a joke intended to wind up Meechan’s girlfriend. That defence was tested in court. It failed. The sheriff, in his role as finder of fact, found that the video was motivated by anti-Semitic prejudice and was not, as claimed, intended as a joke. He made this finding based on the totality of evidence presented including, I imagine, examination and cross-examination of Meechan.
Probably, the sheriff knows better than we do on this point what with having heard all the evidence and arguments from both sides.
This is not a ruling that if you make a joke that uses the words “gas the jews” then you are guilty of hate-speech. It is a ruling that if you use the words “gas the jews” in an anti-Semitic video published online then *claim *that it was a joke, you are guilty of using a communications network to broadcast material that is grossly offensive.
Context does matter. But this case doesn’t turn on context, except insofar as the court didn’t take the defendants word for what the context was.
It’s worth adding that we haven’t seen the full judgement from the sheriff, nor the full complaint from the Procurator Fiscal - that is, the detailed charges and evidence to support them. I understand they’ll be published at sentencing. The sheriff’s summation of the arguments presented, the evidence put forward and his judgement about what was reliable and what was not will add a lot of valuable context to our opinion about the verdict.
It’s cool how you just negate what I say and repeat the idea that I was refuting, without offering any additional rationale, and expect anyone to care.
Interesting game, but how do you score when the goalposts are moving faster than the players?
Countries that have laws like this are, in some ways, less free than the US. In other ways, they’re more free. No country is perfect, and usually we can’t even tell what “perfect” is.