one small goose-step closer to thirteen o'clock

Great Debates
141

(And it’s cool how you keep saying I didn’t respond, when it’s perfectly clear I did, you just didn’t like the response.)

Why is America soooo invested in condemning every little thing the world chooses to do differently? As long as we democratically choose to have hate speech laws what do you care? Why so hot? It’s not your country, no one expects you to abide.

America is the freest country, you get to say any vile thing without consequence, so awesome for you!
(Other nations see value in restricting ‘Gas The Jews’, as hate speech.)

America is the freest country, every citizen can get a gun, double awesome!
(Other nations see value in prohibiting the wide distribution of weapons.)

America has the best healthcare, but leaves out 23 million citizens, awesome cause ‘Best’!
(Other nations have taken a different path with a diffferent outcome.)

America has the best universities, though poor neighbourhoods get shitty schools, oh well.
(Other nations value equally funding public education for all, over premier universities with world recognition.)

These nations are not sliding into chaos or tyranny as a result of not strictly adhering to the American model, as far as I can see.

Possibly sooner, but probably later, America may recognize that their way isn’t the ONLY way that has value.

142

On a related note, my wife recently used “Vaguebooking” to describe an in-person conversation, and I totally understood what she meant even as I giggled. So when I say your post is Vaguebooking I bet a lot of folks will understand :).

143

I hope so. I looked up the relevant court when this case was first decided, and its website said that only particularly notable judgments and opinions get published. I hope that this case is considered worthy of such attention.

144

It is really quite simple. In some countries have laws that criminalize opinions that society finds offensive.

In the UK this takes form of the laws like one invoked in this case the2003 communications act:

In Thailand there is the law of Lese majeste:

In both cases the the laws encroach the right to free speech to a degree that is you cannot claim free speech is a meaningful right in those countries. If simple opinions are not protect from state prosecution then you don’t have free speech. In both cases the rational intelligent society involved has decided that abolishing the right of free speech is acceptable. They objectively less free, more oppressive societies because of this.

Stating this fact does not mean I think think US is not some perfect shining example of good governance where no ones rights are ever infringed. It does show that having a small well defined set of right that are protected from bad laws is a good idea.

145

This isn’t criminalization of opinion, it’s criminalization of expressing that opinion.

Thing is, “It was a joke” isn’t a defense in my book. “Gas the Jews! Hah, hah, it’s a joke! Gas the Jews! Why don’t you Jews get my sense of humor! It’s a joke, get it? Seriously though, gas the Jews, I’m not kidding. Just kidding!”

When your free speech martyrs are screaming “Gas the Jews”, well, it’s a little bit hard to feel that much outrage. Advocate mass murder, then claim it’s a joke? Yeah, no.

Also the notion that free speech is all or nothing is ludicrous.

In one country it’s against the law to advocate gassing the Jews.

In another country it’s against the law to insult religion, insult the ruler, publish a newspaper without permission of the government, bypass the national internet firewall, complain about government officials, support a religion other than the majority religion, advocate for unfair laws to be overturned, or petition the government for redress of grievances, and the penalty for all these is death.

Both countries are equally fascist, right?

That isn’t to say that I think the law in this particular case in Scotland is helpful, and I wouldn’t advocate for such a law in the United States, and such a law were proposed here I’d oppose it. Not because it’s fascism, but because it probably won’t work the way it’s intended, and it will mostly be ignored for the vast majority of cases and only enforced selectively to make an example of certain types of people.

But it’s a pretty minor infringement of free speech to criminalize advocating gassing the Jews.

146

Which (in the absence of mind reading technology) is what is meant by “criminalization of opinion”

I never said anything about being fascist. Neither the UK or Thailand are fascist dictatorships. But they both criminalize opinions they deem offensive. One says opinions deemed racist are illegal, one says opinions deemed insulting to the king are illegal. They both passed laws that took away their citizen’s right to free speech, to avoid the damage they thought would result.

The US form of government is better (in this particular example) not because Americans are the awesomest freedom lovers who would never thing of such thing (clearly there are plenty of people who would pass laws that would take away the freedom of speech). It is better because the US has a small well defined set of rights (defined in the constitution) that stops laws from being passed (or at least strikes them down as unconstitutional after they are passed).

147

Not that is relevant to the OP but I thought it was was pretty messed up when I read about this. I had no idea that it was possible under Scottish law for someone to be sentenced and convicted in open court without the details of charges and judgement being publicly available.

148

You can carry on…

America starts and ends with the letter A.
(Other nations start with different letters, EVEN consonants!)

America has had 8 left handed heads of state
(Other nations have NEVER had left handed head of state)

These are also super relevant to OP.

149

No-one in this case advocated mass murder; not even the judge who found the man guilty thinks that.

Do you think it is ever be possible to use those words in a humorous context? any offensive words in a humorous context?

Plus you got it the wrong way round. He stated it up front clearly what he was doing and why he was doing it. The claim of the joke came before the offensive words.

150

Threats represent an intent to do physical harm. Threats are a crime whether they involve weapons or words. I’m not sure why you’re having problems understanding the difference between a threat and an opinion.

151

In some countries threats are not criminally prosecuted. This particular thread is not about opinions. You can’t change someones opinions by sending them to jail. It’s about speech. I understand the difference. Many in here do not, including you.

152

I would like a cite of a country where threats are not prosecuted.

153

Japan. Police will actually protect you if you hold a demonstration and call for all the Chinese to be killed.

154

“The Hate Speech Act of 2016 is a Japanese law dealing with hate speech. It was enacted on 25 May 2016 by Japan’s National Diet. However, it does not ban hate speech and sets no penalty for committing it. The act was passed in order to comply with a United Nation”

Here is what I think is the relevant Scottish law from the Communications Act 2003:
Improper use of public electronic communications network
.

(1)

A person is guilty of an offence if he—
.

(a)

sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
.

(b)

causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
.

(2)

A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
.

(a)

sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
.

(b)

causes such a message to be sent; or
.

(c)

persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

This is all about communication (speech), not opinion. So long as you keep your opinions to yourself, you are fine. But I think the law is overly restrictive, as, I assume, do you.

155

For countries that don’t have access to telepathy technology (all of them last time I checked), opinions are a sub-set of speech. Both the Japanese and British laws clearly criminalize opinions.

156

Maybe, I’m not an expert. But in this case do you think his opinion was that Jews should be gassed? Even if it were, after having read the Scottish law he was convicted under, do you think his opinion was the issue?

157

??? What? Where?

158

this is not a cite. If you’re referring to your next post then it states threats are prosecuted:

“These people view that the law as ineffective because it only involves threats to someone’s body and threats to people’s lives”

159

In the text of the law. Where do they exclude opinions from the messages they criminalize? If you criminalize messages that are offensive, that goes for all kinds of message opinions or otherwise.

I can’t speak for the Japanese law, but the very similarly worded British law has clearly been used in cases where the offensive message was an opinion.

160

You foprgot this part　“Since the law does not have a penalty for committing any hateful act or speech, many people oppose the new law”。
No penalties. So you cannot be convicted.