Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > International Forum
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

International Forum Discuss Criminalising ‘hate speech’ in homes proposed in England at the Political Forums; in the UK, 1984 is a creeping reality. Freedom of speech is, in many ways, already effectively dead there already. ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2020, 01:23 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,236
Thanks: 11,242
Thanked 7,390 Times in 4,946 Posts
Default Criminalising ‘hate speech’ in homes proposed in England

in the UK, 1984 is a creeping reality. Freedom of speech is, in many ways, already effectively dead there already. These proposals are next insane step. But it's just a proposal so, no worries right?

Criminalising ‘hate speech’ in homes in England and Wales proposed by Law Commission

https://www.christian.org.uk/news/cr...aw-commission/
Private conversations in the home about controversial issues such as same-sex marriage or transgender ideology could result in police intervention under new hate crime proposals for England and Wales.
In a 540-page consultation document, the Law Commission has laid out its plans to lower the threshold for hate crimes to be committed, including criminalising so-called “hate speech” even in private dwellings.
There is currently a ‘dwelling defence’ in law which protects conversations in the home from police intervention. The Law Commission, which advises the Government, believes this should change.
Similar plans have also been put forward in Scotland, where Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has come under fire for the extreme proposals.
Free speech campaigners have warned that the Scottish Government’s hate crime Bill leaves out the dwelling defence currently included in legislation in England and Wales, but Yousaf insists that ‘hateful speech’ in the home deserves to be criminalised.

The Christian Institute’s Deputy Director for Communications Ciarán Kelly commented: “The Scottish Government has drawn criticism from all corners for its sinister hate crime legislation, but the Law Commission for England and Wales appears to have paid no notice.
“Restricting free speech, and policing ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ views, sows division and resentment. The Government would do well to ignore this report.”
Harry Miller, a former police officer who founded Fair Cop, which opposes hate crime legislation, said: “If the private home law is adopted by Government, a comment over the dinner table about a huge range of people could lead to a prison sentence.”
He said human rights laws protecting privacy and family life would be “in the bin” adding that the proposed changes “will generate unfriendliness between different communities where there is none”.
Family law barrister Sarah Phillimore agreed: “I cannot believe the Government is being asked to consider surveillance of citizens in their own home. How will the evidence of such hate crimes be collected? Will we have an East German-style secret police like the Stasi?”
Yesterday, the Home Secretary Priti Patel told police chiefs: “As a general principle, while it is the job of the police to maintain order, we also look to you to uphold the law, which in this country has freedom at its heart.
“Freedom of speech is obviously a cornerstone of our democracy, and a right that we must all defend.”
link to "Law Commission Consultation Paper"
https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/l...nal-report.pdf


But hey it will never happen here.
Biden, AOC, Kamala, facebook, twitter, Youtube, schools, colleges and the left all believe in freedom of speech... i mean it's in the constitution... so ... we're all good

Were all good if we fight back.
I'm past cooked and done with everyone that wants to selectively shut Down free speech. I weary of the lame excuses and outright lies people use to cover their brand of suppression.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2020, 04:47 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 83,620
Thanks: 56,102
Thanked 26,491 Times in 18,983 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Criminalising ‘hate speech’ in homes proposed in England

perhaps this is just a lead in to get home surveillance which I'm sure is coming.
but maybe folks can do their hate speech while they pray. just a thought.
__________________
...
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2020, 04:57 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 55,947
Thanks: 2,307
Thanked 36,699 Times in 20,841 Posts
Default Re: Criminalising ‘hate speech’ in homes proposed in England

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
But hey it will never happen here.
Biden, AOC, Kamala, facebook, twitter, Youtube, schools, colleges and the left all believe in freedom of speech... i mean it's in the constitution... so ... we're all good
Nope...A Biden official is the driver of the "F**k Free Speech" express...

Quote:
Biden Transition Official Believes the First Amendment Has a 'Design Flaw' -- His Remedy Is to Curb Free Speech


Quote:
Richard Stengel, according to the New York Post, “is the Biden transition ‘Team Lead’ for the US Agency for Global Media, the U.S. government media empire that includes Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.” He is also a menace to our constitutional protections and to free society in general. If he is any indication of what is coming, we’re in for a rough four years, or longer.

Stengel wrote last year in a Washington Post op-ed that the freedom of speech must be restricted, for “all speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting ‘thought that we hate,’ but not speech that incites hate.”

What kind of speech “incites hate”? As far as Stengel is concerned, the answer is any speech that Muslims find offensive. He wrote: “Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?”

Well, maybe because a law forbidding criticism (including mockery) of any group establishes that group as a protected class that cannot be questioned, and that in turn would allow this group to do whatever it wanted without fear of any opposition even being allowed to articulate its case. The freedom of speech is, in sum, our foremost protection against tyranny. Without it, a tyrant can work his will without any fear of his opponents uttering even one cross word.

But instead of explaining and defending the freedom of speech, Stengel agreed with his “sophisticated Arab diplomats,” answering their query about Qur’an-burning with this: “It’s a fair question. Yes, the First Amendment protects the ‘thought that we hate,’ but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.”

Many other nations are fixing that “design flaw,” according to Stengel, and so the U.S. should also: “Since World War II, many nations have passed laws to curb the incitement of racial and religious hatred. These laws started out as protections against the kinds of anti-Semitic bigotry that gave rise to the Holocaust. We call them hate speech laws, but there’s no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is. In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation.”

The destruction of the freedom of speech is an idea whose time has come, says Stengel. “I think it’s time to consider these statutes. The modern standard of dangerous speech comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and holds that speech that directly incites ‘imminent lawless action’ or is likely to do so can be restricted. Domestic terrorists such as Dylann Roof and Omar Mateen and the El Paso shooter were consumers of hate speech. Speech doesn’t pull the trigger, but does anyone seriously doubt that such hateful speech creates a climate where such acts are more likely?”
Under Stengel's logic, anyone who punches someone in the face because of what that person SAID is justified...
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2020, 04:57 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 55,947
Thanks: 2,307
Thanked 36,699 Times in 20,841 Posts
Default Re: Criminalising ‘hate speech’ in homes proposed in England

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
But hey it will never happen here.
Biden, AOC, Kamala, facebook, twitter, Youtube, schools, colleges and the left all believe in freedom of speech... i mean it's in the constitution... so ... we're all good
Nope...A Biden official is the driver of the "F**k Free Speech" express...

Biden Transition Official Believes the First Amendment Has a 'Design Flaw' -- His Remedy Is to Curb Free Speech

Quote:
Richard Stengel, according to the New York Post, “is the Biden transition ‘Team Lead’ for the US Agency for Global Media, the U.S. government media empire that includes Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.” He is also a menace to our constitutional protections and to free society in general. If he is any indication of what is coming, we’re in for a rough four years, or longer.

Stengel wrote last year in a Washington Post op-ed that the freedom of speech must be restricted, for “all speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting ‘thought that we hate,’ but not speech that incites hate.”

What kind of speech “incites hate”? As far as Stengel is concerned, the answer is any speech that Muslims find offensive. He wrote: “Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?”

Well, maybe because a law forbidding criticism (including mockery) of any group establishes that group as a protected class that cannot be questioned, and that in turn would allow this group to do whatever it wanted without fear of any opposition even being allowed to articulate its case. The freedom of speech is, in sum, our foremost protection against tyranny. Without it, a tyrant can work his will without any fear of his opponents uttering even one cross word.

But instead of explaining and defending the freedom of speech, Stengel agreed with his “sophisticated Arab diplomats,” answering their query about Qur’an-burning with this: “It’s a fair question. Yes, the First Amendment protects the ‘thought that we hate,’ but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.”

Many other nations are fixing that “design flaw,” according to Stengel, and so the U.S. should also: “Since World War II, many nations have passed laws to curb the incitement of racial and religious hatred. These laws started out as protections against the kinds of anti-Semitic bigotry that gave rise to the Holocaust. We call them hate speech laws, but there’s no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is. In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation.”

The destruction of the freedom of speech is an idea whose time has come, says Stengel. “I think it’s time to consider these statutes. The modern standard of dangerous speech comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and holds that speech that directly incites ‘imminent lawless action’ or is likely to do so can be restricted. Domestic terrorists such as Dylann Roof and Omar Mateen and the El Paso shooter were consumers of hate speech. Speech doesn’t pull the trigger, but does anyone seriously doubt that such hateful speech creates a climate where such acts are more likely?”
Under Stengel's logic, anyone who punches someone in the face because of what that person SAID is justified...
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 11-15-2020, 06:51 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 83,620
Thanks: 56,102
Thanked 26,491 Times in 18,983 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Criminalising ‘hate speech’ in homes proposed in England

Quote:
but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw
I see nothing wrong with this statement.
yelling 'fire' when there isn't one is not in the constitution either.
we would all agree it is wrong and causes harm sometimes unto death.
so does telling people the lie that the election was stolen.
so does hate speech against muslims, mexicans and others.
__________________
...
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2020, 06:48 AM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,236
Thanks: 11,242
Thanked 7,390 Times in 4,946 Posts
Default Re: Criminalising ‘hate speech’ in homes proposed in England

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
I see nothing wrong with this statement.
yelling 'fire' when there isn't one is not in the constitution either.
we would all agree it is wrong and causes harm sometimes unto death.
so does telling people the lie that the election was stolen.
so does hate speech against muslims, mexicans and others.
MSM LIED about Russians stealing the electing for 3.5 years.
the KKK has had Free speech since it's founding and somehow we've survived.
CRIMES of violence are prosecuted. TALK of real Violence should be investigated.
Rhetoric of dislike and disagreement should be tolerated as FREE SPEECH.

And the problem is many people think that many Bible verses or the Bible as a whole is "yelling fire".
That saying there are 2 genders is "yelling fire".
That saying there's no hard evidence that mask work , here are the studies, is "yelling fire".
That whatever they "feel" is offensive or don't agree with at the moment is in fact "yelling fire" Salt.

"Hate Speech" is in the eye of the beholder... and whoever is sitting as judge in court that day.
Since "Hate Speech" laws can be stretched to cover literally anything.

Yelling "FIRE" is very clear and direct.
Yelling "KILL THEM" is very clear and direct.
But is a Poster that has a drawing of George Bush or Trump or Clinton or Obama sitting in an electric chair for crimes, real or imagined, "Free Speech" or "Hate Speech"?

And the Bottom line here is this, In Practice Hate Speech laws are simply used to silence conservative and alternative voices (left, libertarian, "conspiracy" , religious etc.). The establishment left are the only ones that are truly allowed "free speech".
Everyone else's must watch their words or be BANNED or potentially be charged with a BS "hate" crime.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

Last edited by mr wonder; 11-16-2020 at 06:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2020, 07:23 AM
GetAClue's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,508
Thanks: 9,218
Thanked 6,613 Times in 3,799 Posts
Default Re: Criminalising ‘hate speech’ in homes proposed in England

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
I see nothing wrong with this statement.
yelling 'fire' when there isn't one is not in the constitution either.
we would all agree it is wrong and causes harm sometimes unto death.
so does telling people the lie that the election was stolen.
so does hate speech against muslims, mexicans and others.
People in this country that are eligible to vote and yet don't understand the basic tenants of our Constitution and the protections it provides, will be the death of this country. It is people like this that will gladly give away their freedoms for some sense of security.

Quote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine

A lie doesn't become truth, a wrong doesn't become right, and Evil doesn't become good, just because it is accepted by the majority. - Booker T Washington
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GetAClue For This Useful Post:
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2020, 08:26 AM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 13,311
Thanks: 11,532
Thanked 9,613 Times in 5,916 Posts
Default Re: Criminalising ‘hate speech’ in homes proposed in England

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
I see nothing wrong with this statement.
yelling 'fire' when there isn't one is not in the constitution either.
we would all agree it is wrong and causes harm sometimes unto death.
so does telling people the lie that the election was stolen.
so does hate speech against muslims, mexicans and others.
Of course you see nothing wrong with this statement. You have made your opinion clear that US citizens should not be able to think differently then you, voice opinions differently then you, and should accept the loving, helping hand of the government in realigning any thinking outside to prescribed train of thought.


People like you are WHY the 1st Amendment exists.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you don't laugh at yourself, a whole bunch of people will volunteer to do it for you
I never lose. I either win, or I learn....
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GottaGo For This Useful Post:
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 11-16-2020, 09:22 AM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,983
Thanks: 662
Thanked 6,904 Times in 4,949 Posts
Default Re: Criminalising ‘hate speech’ in homes proposed in England

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
perhaps this is just a lead in to get home surveillance which I'm sure is coming.
but maybe folks can do their hate speech while they pray. just a thought.
Maybe Americans need to read the Declaration of Independence again. Anybody remember this part:

But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Does any sane person think the despot lovers will not attempt to delete that from the Declaration?

Whines from the left that it refers only to England will be ignored.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 11-17-2020, 09:56 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 18,733
Thanks: 12,166
Thanked 13,087 Times in 7,654 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Criminalising ‘hate speech’ in homes proposed in England

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
I see nothing wrong with this statement.
yelling 'fire' when there isn't one is not in the constitution either.
we would all agree it is wrong and causes harm sometimes unto death.
so does telling people the lie that the election was stolen.
so does hate speech against muslims, mexicans and others.
Falsely telling "fire" in a crowded theater is not political speech. Just like they want to do with the 2A Progressive fascists seek to expand any regulation into authoritarian Federal control.

Back in the dark ages before we got "woke" censorship of so-called hate speech was recognized for what it is a heckler's veto. The anticipated reaction of some person or group doesn't justify prior restraint nor does it authorize violence like we see daily from Leftist street mobs. Free speech is inherently "dangerous" to those with political power particularly those socialist authoritarians controlling the Democrat party.

Democrats have claimed for 4 years Trump with Russian help stole the 2016 election despite failing to produce evidence. That was deemed patriotic but lawsuits backed by evidence exposing fraudulent election results in 2020 are hate speech.

With firm control of the media Democrats want to censor political speech of their opponents to protect "victims" of hate from offense. Never mind that Trump outperformed every Republican Presidential candidate with Hispanic voters including some Texas border counties, he is guilty of hate speech.
__________________
What is a 30 something year old single man with a rock in one hand and a Honduran flag in the other?

An asylum seeker.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
criminalising, england, homes, proposed, speech’, ‘hate

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0