Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Speaker to Animals]

Censorship worked out pretty well for Wuhan too.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

You have to address the idea, and explain why it’s a bad one.

Yeah? Easy peasy, like that?

Hey Monte, everyone has been addressing your idea and explaining to you why it's bad... you all sorted out yet?

[StCapps]

When in doubt, Montegriffo simply airs on the side of censorship. He doesn't need an airtight case to restrict free speech, he just needs to doubt that your case against restricting free speech is airtight, and he'll still demand censorship anyway, even with that flimsy of case. That's how little regard Montegriffo has for inalienable rights and how high of a regard he has for government regulation.

[Montegriffo]

How is banning the freedom to incite hate a "drastic measure"? What do we lose?
In UK law it is a clearly defined restriction so I'm not accepting thin edge of the wedge arguments.

Because books, websites, or other forms of litterature cannot "incite hate". That's not how human beings work, how human emotions work, how societies work. The distribution or creation of racist material online or in published form, for example, does not make racists out everyone reading their material, nor does the production in of itself lead everyone in a country to suddenly consider that material something they agree with. And even if it did make everyone a racist through some magic means, racism in of itself, while stupid and pointless, does not automatically lead to violence or harassment anymore than environmentalism, veganism or egalitarianism automatically does.

The "drastic" aspect, is that it is both an overreaction to a non-existing threat, because the threat isn't coming from the reading material. The threat is the willingness by certain people to commit violence in their beliefs' names. By mis-identifying what the true threat is, you're taking away the freedom of speech of people that - while I'm sure it feels nice to call the cops on people who say racist things - are not a threat to society because of their words or what they read. They are/become dangerous as individuals the second they start threatening, harassing, or plotting to kill other members of society...or when they win a majority of parliamentary seats.

Driving over the speed limit does not make every speeder a killer. No one is suggesting that inciting hatred makes everyone commit a hate crime. That is a ridiculous standard to use to argue against a law. It only needs to be shown that it has the potential to cause harm.
Inciting hatred may only be a small factor in radicalising a person but it is still a factor. It is disingenuous to say that no one was ever incited to carry out an illegal act of hatred (violence, harassment, threatening behaviour etc) by another person's words.

I think it is important to understand how the law is defined before anyone starts talking drivel about ''hurt feelings''.

Racial hatred is defined in the legislation as hatred against a group of people defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins.

The 1986 Act makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred in the street or in a public speech. It is also an offence to display, publish or distribute written material that is threatening, abusive or insulting with intent to stir up racial hatred. In both cases, it is an offence even if there was no intent to incite hatred, but where hatred is likely to be stirred up regardless.

In the case of a publication, that publication must be considered in context by the court. Relevant factors include the nature of the publication, its circulation and target market, and any special sensitivity that might affect the readership at the time of publication. Expressing anti-racist views through editorial or letters does not excuse the publication of inflammatory racist material for the purposes of the Act.


The Public Order 1986 was amended by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which created a new offence of stirring up hatred against people on religious grounds. It is an offence to use threatening words or behaviour, and it is an offence to display, publish or distribute any written material with intent to stir up religious hatred. Furthermore, it is an offence to use threatening visual images or sounds in a broadcasted programme with intent to stir up religious hatred.

Religious hatred has been defined as hatred against a group of persons defined by their religious belief or lack of religious beliefs. It is for the courts to decide on the facts of the case what is classed as a religion or religious belief, such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism. Branches or sects within a religion can also be classed as religious beliefs.

The phrase ‘lack of religious beliefs’ in the legislation protects people who can be defined by, for example, atheism or humanism.

It is important to note that the offence applies only to words that are threatening, not simply ‘abusive’ or ‘insulting’ – this protects free speech. Therefore, the ‘discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse’ of religious beliefs are protected. Similarly, the non-threatening ‘proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system’ is not illegal.

For the purposes of an offence under the 2006 Act, the words used to stir up religious hatred must be intended to do so – recklessness as to whether the words will stir up such hatred is insufficient. This reflects the intention of Parliament that the Act was to prosecute those who seek to set one community against another, and not to stifle any criticism of religion.


Under the Public Order Act 1986 (amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) it an offence to stir up hatred against someone on the grounds of sexual orientation with intent. Note that the protection includes heterosexuals.

It is therefore an offence to use threatening words or behaviour, or to display, publish or distribute any threatening written material with the intent to stir up hatred on grounds of sexual orientation. It is also an offence to broadcast such material with intent to stir up such hatred.

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/discriminatio ... ng-hatred/

[Montegriffo]

You have to address the idea, and explain why it’s a bad one.

Yeah? Easy peasy, like that?

Hey Monte, everyone has been addressing your idea and explaining to you why it's bad... you all sorted out yet?

No, I still hate hatred and am still intolerant of intolerance.

[StCapps]

That is a ridiculous standard to use to argue against a law. It only needs to be shown that it has the potential to cause harm.

Speaking of ridiculous standards, I can show that this post has the potential to cause harm, doesn't mean it's should be banned or restricted. You fookin moron.

Ban the bible, some people who commit crimes claim religious justifications. Ban Catcher and The Rye, someone might assassinate a famous musician after reading it. Ban Marilyn Manson, someone might shoot up a school after listening to him. Fucking clown show, that shit is the dumbest standard ever. Free speech doesn't radicalize anyone, they radicalize themselves with their own thoughts, the onus is on people to not become radicalized, not on people to avoid saying anything that could potentially lead to someone eventually radicalizing, as the latter is a standard that can never be met be anyone, no matter how little hate they express themselves with.

[Speaker to Animals]

And people were thrown in prison under that law simply for informing the public about the Muslim rape gangs that infested multiple English cities while the state and corporate media refused to say anything about it, and the police were terrified to do anything about it lest they also be branded "racists".

That type of law worked the same way censorship worked out in Wuhan.

"incites hatred" is such a nebulous and broad benchmark, that abuse is guaranteed, and abuse of free speech human rights usually leads to disasters, such as the rampant spread of Muslim rape gangs in England and the delayed reaction to the epidemic in Wuhan. It would have been nice to know that those Muslim dudes hanging around your daughters were possibly rapists and it would have been nice to know prior to the Chinese New Year that Hubei was infected with a dangerous virus.

The state will always use censorship to protect themselves and that HURTS good people.


Guess what, Monte.. the TRUTH is always going to be a tough pill to swallow, and a lot of people are going to rather call it hate than let it get out. Censorship is a really, really bad idea. I dare say, any government that tries to resort to censorship to keep the shit show rolling is not long for the Earth at this point. This is not the Middle Ages. Truth gets out eventually and trust in the government will erode fast.

[StCapps]

Sticks and stones may break my bones, so ban any "hateful" words that accompany them.

Montegriffo has gone full retard.

[Montegriffo]

That is a ridiculous standard to use to argue against a law. It only needs to be shown that it has the potential to cause harm.

Speaking of ridiculous standards, I can show that this post has the potential to cause harm, doesn't mean it's should be banned or restricted. You fookin moron.

Ban the bible, some people who commit crimes claim religious justifications. Ban Catcher and The Rye, someone might assassinate a famous musician after reading it. Ban Marilyn Manson, someone might shoot up a school after listening to him. Fucking clown show, that shit is the dumbest standard ever. Free speech doesn't radicalize anyone, they radicalize themselves with their own thoughts, the onus is on people to not become radicalized, not on people to avoid saying anything that could potentially lead to someone eventually radicalizing, as the latter is a standard that can never be met be anyone, no matter how little hate they express themselves with.

The standard is not whether you can show something Capps. The standard is that it can be shown in a court of law, after due process, to the satisfaction of a magistrate.

[Montegriffo]

Sticks and stones may break my bones, so ban any "hateful" words that accompany them.

Montegriffo has gone full retard.

Whilst hateful, your words do not constitute an offense under UK law. Mere insults do not pass the threshold of incitement to hate.