UK's biggest welfare family have another baby

[Ph64]

Presumably the owner of this cat doesn't live in the UK or they would have to be arrested for this obviously "hate speech" photo.

[Montegriffo]

Presumably the owner of this cat doesn't live in the UK or they would have to be arrested for this obviously "hate speech" photo.

You can misrepresent British law all you like but that photo is not hate speech unless accompanied by ''do you want to gas the Jews''.

[pineapplemike]

i think it's implied that the cat in the photo wants to gas the jews

[Kath]

Hate speech is not a fundamental human freedom. It serves no positive benefit and can lead the weak minded to commit hate crimes.
Hate is a recruitment tool for radicalisation.

The issue is that you can't ever get agreement on what constitutes hate speech. One man's hate speech is another man's truth. I will not accept a world where I can go to prison for having an opinion.

There are limits - you can't threaten someone consequence free, for example. But a threat is not an opinion.

"I hate Jerry. I wish Jerry was dead," is completely different from, "Hey Jerry, sometime soon I'm going to break into your house and strangle you to death."

You want to prosecute the guy who hates Jerry. Millions of people actively speak about how they wish anyone named Trump were dead. You would imprison them? (Or is it not hate speech because it's about Trump?)

[PartyOf5]

The issue is that you can't ever get agreement on what constitutes hate speech. One man's hate speech is another man's truth. I will not accept a world where I can go to prison for having an opinion.

Right. You have people in the USA calling MAGA hats the new KKK hoods. I have to see a single liberal loon acceptably explain how that is the case. 'Trump is a white supremacist" is not an explanation, because they have no explanation for why Trump is that other than because he wants to secure the borders.

[clubgop]

Danny Baker has expressed his deep regret at the Twitter storm that led to his sacking on Thursday, describing it as "one of the worst days of his life".

The former BBC Radio 5 Live presenter was sacked over his chimp tweet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's baby.

The 61-year-old tweeted on Friday that "it was a genuine, naive and catastrophic mistake."

He admitted he was "foolish" to later try and make light of it.

The tweet showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: "Royal Baby leaves hospital".

Baker denies that there was racist intent behind the post but admits he is now "paying the price... and rightly so".He wrote: "Following one of the worst days of my life I just want to formally apologise for the outrage I caused and explain how I got myself into this mess.

"I chose the wrong photo to illustrate a joke. Disastrously so.

"In attempting to lampoon privilege and the news cycle I went to a file of goofy pictures and saw the chimp dressed as a Lord and thought, 'That's the one!' Had I kept searching I might have chosen General Tom Thumb or even a a baby in a crown. But I didn't. God knows I wish had."

He added: "Minutes later I was alerted by followers that this royal baby was of course mixed race and waves of panic and revulsion washed over me... What had I done?

"I needed no lessons on the centuries slurs equating simians and people of colour. Racism at it's basest."But it was a genuine, naive and catastrophic mistake. There is of course little media/twitter traction in such a straight-forward explanation. The picture in context as presented was obviously shamefully racist. It was never intended so - seriously who on earth would 'go there'?

"Anyway i am now paying the price for this crass & regrettable blunder and rightly so. Probably even this final word from me will extend the mania. ('Dog whistle' anyone?) I would like to thank friends on here for their kinder words and once again - I am so, so sorry."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48226247
Now that is what you call an apology, no mealy-mouthed ''sorry if I caused offence''. No ''it's a joke get over it''. No bullshit about the right to offend.

So where's the prosecution? He committed a crime and now has written a full confession. Surely, if you put this law on par with speeding, assault with a deadly weapon, reporting on the trial of a bunch of pedophiles like you, and all other comparisons you made, clearly an apology is not sufficient. Subservience to the state is not enough, punishment must be meted. Prove your consistent, prove your standards, prove your principles. if not you just a fascist power hungry bitch.

[clubgop]

Presumably the owner of this cat doesn't live in the UK or they would have to be arrested for this obviously "hate speech" photo.

You can misrepresent British law all you like but that photo is not hate speech unless accompanied by ''do you want to gas the Jews''.

Are those the magic words? Can you cite that in the law?

[Speaker to Animals]

It would be fine if instead he said "do you want to firebomb London??

[Montegriffo]

Hate speech is not a fundamental human freedom. It serves no positive benefit and can lead the weak minded to commit hate crimes.
Hate is a recruitment tool for radicalisation.

The issue is that you can't ever get agreement on what constitutes hate speech. One man's hate speech is another man's truth. I will not accept a world where I can go to prison for having an opinion.

There are limits - you can't threaten someone consequence free, for example. But a threat is not an opinion.

"I hate Jerry. I wish Jerry was dead," is completely different from, "Hey Jerry, sometime soon I'm going to break into your house and strangle you to death."

You want to prosecute the guy who hates Jerry. Millions of people actively speak about how they wish anyone named Trump were dead. You would imprison them? (Or is it not hate speech because it's about Trump?)

The law specifically states that hate speech is speech intended to incite hatred towards a particular race, religion or sexual preference.
Since neither Jerry or Trump is a race, religion or sexual preference (even to Mrs Trump ) then neither of your examples is hate speech under UK law.

This is one of the common mistakes made by those who don't understand the law. It is skirting close to being a strawman and doesn't represent the law as it is worded.
I wish Jerry was dead could possibly be interpreted as incitement to violence though and as such could face prosecution even in the land of liberty.


Ps. I hate Jerry too, he's a dick.

[Montegriffo]

Hate speech laws in England and Wales are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_spee ... ed_Kingdom