August 05, 2020, 05:28:24 PM

Author Topic: Free speech (or not) - and some tea  (Read 3434 times)

Offline Bender

Re: Free speech (or not) - and some tea
« Reply #60 on: April 20, 2020, 04:15:18 AM »
She keeps winning by bigger and bigger margins. With Labour suffering badly in their heartlands, it's a compromise to retain their biggest few winners by giving them status. Not that shadow ministers actually do anything!
"I shall hunt your firstborn children and laugh with glee as I tell them of your death in terrible detail, with many unpleasant adjectives!" - M-Bot

"Who needs science when you have a dragon?" - Neil DeGrasse Tyson in Sharknado 6

Offline Rostum

Re: Free speech (or not) - and some tea
« Reply #61 on: April 20, 2020, 05:17:36 PM »
I remember when Labours heartlands were Scotland a party massively in decline and still wheeling out the out of touch and ridiculously wealthy to say the man sorry person in the street doesn't understand what they voted for because it's not what we want.


Edit: Just seen the You Clap For Me Now video. what a nasty, sick making, polarizing piece of identity propaganda exploiting the current crisis. I used to say the political right forgets we are all human, but ever increasingly it's the left.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2020, 05:39:46 PM by Rostum »

Offline Rostum

Re: Free speech (or not) - and some tea
« Reply #62 on: May 04, 2020, 11:43:21 AM »
SNP have taken the opportunity to role out a hate speech bill with maximum sentances of 7 years for hurting someones feelings. You would probably get less time for knifing them.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/scotland-blasphemy-law-repeal-new-speech-restrictions-replace-old-ones/

We are in a wonderful place where freedom of speech cannot survive the tinkering and meddling and holding protected individuals and groups as being more important than others under the law. The hate crime laws brought in by Blair were meddled with by Browns a couple of years later and will be reviewed if Scotlands bill passes.

A FOI request has revealed that the police in England have recorded 120,000 noncrime hate incidents in the past 5 years. These are not illegal but are on your permanent record and may affect an enhanced CRB check and your career as a result. Presumably it is easier to overstep the mark and ruin lives where no crime is committed that it is to you know actually do something about say knife crime or investigate when the public call them rather than just give a crime number for the insurance.


Offline Skip

Re: Free speech (or not) - and some tea
« Reply #63 on: May 04, 2020, 06:07:14 PM »
Libel and slander law goes back centuries. The article is a textbook example of special pleading, posing rhetorical questions to lead the reader in a particular direction. Hmph, sez I. Scotland is in thrall? Tell that to the Scots!

I also note the article provides no reference and no link to the actual text of the law and no citation of the passage in Mill the author claims is illustrative. That's just lazy journalism.

Speech has never been utterly free nor is it without consequences. It's all a matter of which consequences and what shade of restrictions one finds acceptable (or even commendable). That's fine. Opinions differ. But to pretend there's some universal standard by which we can judge individual laws, that there's some absolute definition of "free" from which societies can deviate only willfully is mere posturing, trying to sell a political agenda wrapped in philosophy and general principles. Fiddle, sez I.

Offline Rostum

Re: Free speech (or not) - and some tea
« Reply #64 on: May 14, 2020, 01:28:22 PM »
If you really want it

https://beta.parliament.scot/bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill

Humza Yousaf who is driving the bill has been quick to point out that the law will not criminalize critics of the Scottish government so long as they stay within the confines of the law. This is an 'oh wow' for me. Scotland is devolved from the UK has a one party political system (the Scottish National Party) with a decline in support but a massive majority and is generous enough to say its OK to criticize us so long as you do it within the laws we decide and pass and can change without opposition.

It’s also noted misogyny becomes a crime but misandry isn’t. So a two tier legal system where a gender can commit a crime that is lawful by a different gender must be a good thing right? The definitions given seem to be as vague as possible. So what could possibly go wrong?

Offline Skip

Re: Free speech (or not) - and some tea
« Reply #65 on: May 14, 2020, 05:18:34 PM »
Thanks. That was interesting reading. One can see the effects of the Internet on how a law like this has to be constructed. While the text is not the actual bill (which is still being drafted), I thought the language was pretty typically careful. Just for others who might be reading about this, the law addresses aggravation of an assault, and does not seek to define the underlying assault (which are covered by other laws). Basically, if there's an assault, it's possible for prosecutors to add hateful speech or behavior based on religion or sexual orientation etc. as an aggravation of that assault. Leastways, that's how I read it.

I'm no lawyer nor ever wanted to be, but as a historian laws have always interested me.
Visit Altearth

Offline Rostum

Re: Free speech (or not) - and some tea
« Reply #66 on: May 14, 2020, 09:36:47 PM »
I believe the people we are told are progressives are actually puritans but unless we have a new world to send them off to when we realise what a tiresome bunch of factionalising troublemakers they really are you are welcome to them. Would you care for some more zealots if we send the Mayflower II across?

This idea that feelings are more important than freedoms is the ultimate outcome for people who are so far removed from the very real problems within their Nation.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2020, 10:41:50 PM by Rostum »

Offline Skip

Re: Free speech (or not) - and some tea
« Reply #67 on: May 15, 2020, 05:22:48 AM »
Sure, send 'em on over. We take all kinds. Or we used to. Less so these past few years (though, admittedly, we've had a habit of falling into a panic over foreigners every generation or two).

I didn't really see anything in the law about feelings. It was about assault and conditions by which a prosecutor could add a charge of aggravated assault. But y'all are welcome to read it differently. Free speech &allthat.

Offline NedMarcus

Re: Free speech (or not) - and some tea
« Reply #68 on: May 15, 2020, 05:25:00 AM »
Humza Yousaf who is driving the bill has been quick to point out that the law will not criminalize critics of the Scottish government so long as they stay within the confines of the law. This is an 'oh wow' for me. Scotland is devolved from the UK has a one party political system (the Scottish National Party) with a decline in support but a massive majority and is generous enough to say its OK to criticize us so long as you do it within the laws we decide and pass and can change without opposition.

How do you see the proposed law stopping people from criticising the Scottish government?

Online Magnus Hedén

  • High Lord of commas and Grand Master of semicolons
  • Ambient Mage
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Total likes: 327
  • Gender: Male
  • My name is Magnus. I make stuff up.
    • View Profile
    • My Patreon
Re: Free speech (or not) - and some tea
« Reply #69 on: May 15, 2020, 07:41:52 AM »
Because the definition of progressive is "people who want to stop free speech because people's feelings are getting hurt". It's easy to dislike a group of people if you're allowed to define what they believe for them.

To me, both extremes are bad. I'm not of the belief that anything that's offensive should be illegal or that laws should be formulated based on fuzzy definitions of "feelings getting hurt".

But I don't think that people should just be able to say whatever hateful shit they want regardless of the context or time span, either, for reasons (stated in earlier posts) related to the real harm it can and does cause. Imagine for a moment that's it's possible to hold an opinion that's not extreme.

You're happy to bunch up all the people who disagree with you into some imagined group of... puritans? Really? Come on. How do you expect people to engage with you in a serious discussion when that's your stance? And then you casually drop the idea that these "puritans" should be sent away. What the actual fuck? Some proponent of freedom of speech you are when you suggest those who disagree with you should be deported.
You can find stories on my Patreon
I'm also on Twitter and the Book of Faces

Offline Skip

Re: Free speech (or not) - and some tea
« Reply #70 on: May 15, 2020, 02:03:24 PM »
>How do you see the proposed law stopping people from criticising the Scottish government?

I would like to read that proposal. Got a link? A quick search came up empty.
Visit Altearth

Offline Matthew

Re: Free speech (or not) - and some tea
« Reply #71 on: May 15, 2020, 02:20:05 PM »
I would like to read that proposal. Got a link? A quick search came up empty.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/hate-crime-bill-what-it-will-do/

I doubt it will have any real affect on criticising politicians though.

Offline Skip

Re: Free speech (or not) - and some tea
« Reply #72 on: May 15, 2020, 04:52:27 PM »
That's the same bill, right? As I said above, the bill is clearly about defining certain types of aggravations for the charge of aggravated assault. There must first be the assault. Someone clonks an MP with their umbrella, that's assault. They shout a racial slur while doing so, that's aggravated assault. Even shouting (or writing) hate speech that leads to an assault could produce a charge of aggravated assault.

The summary actually explicitly excepts criticizing, with examples for religion and one of the other ones, I forget which. Presumably the actual bill will follow form.

Offline NedMarcus

Re: Free speech (or not) - and some tea
« Reply #73 on: May 16, 2020, 02:39:55 AM »
>How do you see the proposed law stopping people from criticising the Scottish government?

I would like to read that proposal. Got a link? A quick search came up empty.

Possible misunderstanding here. I was asking in what way Rostum believed that the amendments to the law he was talking about may prevent people from criticising the Scottish government.

Offline Matthew

Re: Free speech (or not) - and some tea
« Reply #74 on: May 16, 2020, 11:12:44 AM »
Someone clonks an MP with their umbrella, that's assault. They shout a racial slur while doing so, that's aggravated assault.

This is something I somewhat struggle with. While I am willing to accept a mitigating factor in a minor crime (stealing food to feed your family, etc), I don't believe that the more serious offenses should have that applied, in either direction. By this I mean I'd no more mitigate a mugging because of drug addiction than I would want to see an assault have greater sentencing because of the motivation behind it.

Assault is assault, if someone comes up and whacks me with an umbrella I'd expect them to have the same sentence as someone who whacks one of these persecuted groups with an umbrella. That is dismissing one person's suffering and legally stating that the other has suffered worse, when they haven't. And before you say they suffered worse because of the lasting psychological damage I'll add that all crime can leave scars like that, I still get worried about walking certain places after someone tried to stab me as a kid.

Edit: Besides which, how can you know for sure whether the racial slur was them actively attacking because of race or just something to shout during the attack, a battle cry if you will. I've known a lot of people who will be obscene when angry. To make an example, if you were punching a fat man and called them fat while you were in the fight, would you be accused of hating fat people?

Edit2: And what happens when there's no words? Does the case go back to assault, or do people just assume it must have been bigoted and try to find justification for a trumped up charge? This also applies to the first edit, where people may well end up serving longer sentences for a 'hate crime' they didn't actually commit just because the victim happened to be 'persecuted'...
« Last Edit: May 16, 2020, 11:20:42 AM by Matthew »