Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[StCapps]

Monte, walk the walk. Your posts are inciting hatred here. If you truly believe words inciting hatred need to be stopped, you need to STFU.

You are not a magistrate, your opinion carries no weight in law.
Hating me for having an opinion you oppose is not the same as me inciting hatred.
All it is is ankle-biting.
Ankle biters are not a group protected by UK law. The law defines racial, national, religious, sexual preferences and disabled persons as the protected groups in cases of incitement to hate.

You are criticizing people who are white, the only reason you would do that is because they are white, hate speech. Ankle biting is not why you are criticizing them, you are doing it because you hate white people. That's the kind of shit the gets past your magistrates, with your vague ass hate speech laws, great system.

[Montegriffo]

Monte, walk the walk. Your posts are inciting hatred here. If you truly believe words inciting hatred need to be stopped, you need to STFU.

You are not a magistrate, your opinion carries no weight in law.
Hating me for having an opinion you oppose is not the same as me inciting hatred.
All it is is ankle-biting.
Ankle biters are not a group protected by UK law. The law defines racial, national, religious, sexual preferences and disabled persons as the protected groups in cases of incitement to hate.

You are criticizing white people, the only reason you would do that is because they are white, hate speech. Ankle biting is not why you are criticizing them, you are doing it because you hate white people. That's the kind of shit the gets past your magistrates, great system.

Except it doesn't, you are just making shit up now.
The criticism is of ankle biters, I don't even know for certain what colour skin this particular ankle biter has. Ankle biters are not defined in law as a protected group. Neither are arseholes, I could not be prosecuted for inciting hatred against arseholes no matter how many times I called you one. Now, if I suggested that you were an arsehole because you are a Canadian and all Canadians are arseholes that would be different. I would never say that though because it would be as stupid as saying all Muslims are terrorists or all priests are pedophiles.

[BjornP]

I don't see the relevance of ''quantity'' in making laws. To continue the speeding analogy, there are countless millions of cases of speeding every day but only a tiny fraction of these cases end up causing accidents. This is no reason to abandon laws against speeding. Driving too fast clearly has the potential to cause injury as does incitement to hatred. As with most things the devil is in the detail. The accused is afforded all the means available to defend himself in court. The laws were passed, with amendments, by our legally elected representatives in Parliament. This is not Nazi show trials happening here in the UK it is how modern societies function under rule of law.

The logical problem with your speeding analogy is that whereas speeding is a direct and verifiably proven imminent threat to people's lives, charging someone for insulting some group in a way that may "incite hate" relies on alot more steps, assumptions or premises that need to be(come) true in order to finally talk of hateful, racist speech being an imminent threat. For the analogy to really be similar in nature, there'd have be both a law against speeding AND a law against some factor legislators believe "incites" speeding. Let's say that's having an attractive woman (or man if homosexual) on the passenger seat. Henceforth that's illegal because a panel who looked at certain selected correlations concluded having attractive female passengers "incites speeding", which again they argue is because young men want to impress their women. Therefore Brits are now only allowed ugly people in the passenger seat or someone who they're verifiably unattracted to. Arguing against this law is now considered the same as arguing against speeding...

How reasonable would that strike you? Not disputing that you have a rule of law. I am arguing that in this case your rule of law isn't guided by particularly sound reasoning.

[Montegriffo]

I don't see the relevance of ''quantity'' in making laws. To continue the speeding analogy, there are countless millions of cases of speeding every day but only a tiny fraction of these cases end up causing accidents. This is no reason to abandon laws against speeding. Driving too fast clearly has the potential to cause injury as does incitement to hatred. As with most things the devil is in the detail. The accused is afforded all the means available to defend himself in court. The laws were passed, with amendments, by our legally elected representatives in Parliament. This is not Nazi show trials happening here in the UK it is how modern societies function under rule of law.

The logical problem with your speeding analogy is that whereas speeding is a direct and verifiably proven imminent threat to people's lives, charging someone for insulting some group in a way that may "incite hate" relies on alot more steps, assumptions or premises that need to be(come) true in order to finally talk of hateful, racist speech being an imminent threat. For the analogy to really be similar in nature, there'd have be both a law against speeding AND a law against some factor legislators believe "incites" speeding. Let's say that's having an attractive woman (or man if homosexual) on the passenger seat. Henceforth that's illegal because a panel who looked at certain selected correlations concluded having attractive female passengers "incites speeding", which again they argue is because young men want to impress their women. Therefore Brits are now only allowed ugly people in the passenger seat or someone who they're verifiably unattracted to. Arguing against this law is now considered the same as arguing against speeding...

How reasonable would that strike you? Not disputing that you have a rule of law. I am arguing that in this case your rule of law isn't guided by particularly sound reasoning.

It would be impossible to prove that driving at excessive speed on an empty motorway in the middle of the night is going to lead to accident but it doesn't make speeding laws unjustified.
I don't see the need for incitement to hatred to prove an imminent threat to public order. It only seems necessary (to me) that it is a likely/possible threat to it.
I would say it was indisputable logic to conclude that singling out a particular group for abuse, especially lies intended to alienate them, can lead to discrimination against them. Sooner or later someone is going to be influenced by claims that Muslims are taking over Europe and establishing no go zones and in their paranoid state could end up targetting innocent Muslims guilty of nothing more than smoking flavoured tobacco in public.
Likewise, if an Islamic cleric is allowed to preach hatred against the West and blame them for all the problems currently being experienced in the ME, sooner or later one of his congregation is likely to feel that he is justified in driving at high speed into a crowd guilty of nothing more than shopping.
I think the duty of the law is to protect people from possible harm, caused by others, and that this outweighs anyone's right to incite hatred.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I don’t want a law enforcing it, I just think YouTube should allow it.

Why "should"?

I'm all for your right to say nigger in public. Same as me being for anyone's free speech right to walk up to your kids and convince them you and their mother died in a horrific car crash, followed by the asshole insulting your kids' physical appearance. But I'd not invite that sort of person into my house, and if they were there already, I'd kick them out. Even if I don't particularly know you all that well. Freedom of speech ain't, nor should be, freedom from any social consequence. It should be the freedom from government consequence, but you're not supposed to just say whatever you want without any sort of consequence, even if that consequence is simply becoming marginalized in your local (or online) community.

Social enforcement of social norms. This is what I’m talking about.

He should have the ‘legal right’ to say anything to my kids. And the rest of us should have the legal right to shun him, and exclude him from anything we are in control of.

[BjornP]

I don’t want a law enforcing it, I just think YouTube should allow it.

Why "should"?

I'm all for your right to say nigger in public. Same as me being for anyone's free speech right to walk up to your kids and convince them you and their mother died in a horrific car crash, followed by the asshole insulting your kids' physical appearance. But I'd not invite that sort of person into my house, and if they were there already, I'd kick them out. Even if I don't particularly know you all that well. Freedom of speech ain't, nor should be, freedom from any social consequence. It should be the freedom from government consequence, but you're not supposed to just say whatever you want without any sort of consequence, even if that consequence is simply becoming marginalized in your local (or online) community.

Social enforcement of social norms. This is what I’m talking about.

He should have the ‘legal right’ to say anything to my kids. And the rest of us should have the legal right to shun him, and exclude him from anything we are in control of.

Excatly. And what YT is doing falls into the social enforcement of social norms category, where people have a legal right to say whatever they like, but cannot expect to be welcomed (back) into your house if they said something too disrespectful.

[Montegriffo]

I don’t want a law enforcing it, I just think YouTube should allow it.

Why "should"?

I'm all for your right to say nigger in public. Same as me being for anyone's free speech right to walk up to your kids and convince them you and their mother died in a horrific car crash, followed by the asshole insulting your kids' physical appearance. But I'd not invite that sort of person into my house, and if they were there already, I'd kick them out. Even if I don't particularly know you all that well. Freedom of speech ain't, nor should be, freedom from any social consequence. It should be the freedom from government consequence, but you're not supposed to just say whatever you want without any sort of consequence, even if that consequence is simply becoming marginalized in your local (or online) community.

Social enforcement of social norms. This is what I’m talking about.

He should have the ‘legal right’ to say anything to my kids. And the rest of us should have the legal right to shun him, and exclude him from anything we are in control of.

That's clearly not true. You wouldn't, for example, think that he should have the legal right to say something that would put your children in danger. If someone was stood at a pedestrian crossing telling children that they should cross the road when the light shows red you wouldn't support their right to ''free speech''. Nor would you wait for an accident to occur before you backed a policeman's actions to prevent them from doing it.
Clearly, not all free speech should be protected.
''Words never hurt anyone'' is demonstrably untrue.

[PartyOf5]

You are not a magistrate, your opinion carries no weight in law.
Hating me for having an opinion you oppose is not the same as me inciting hatred.
All it is is ankle-biting.
Ankle biters are not a group protected by UK law. The law defines racial, national, religious, sexual preferences and disabled persons as the protected groups in cases of incitement to hate.

You are criticizing white people, the only reason you would do that is because they are white, hate speech. Ankle biting is not why you are criticizing them, you are doing it because you hate white people. That's the kind of shit the gets past your magistrates, great system.

Except it doesn't, you are just making shit up now.
The criticism is of ankle biters, I don't even know for certain what colour skin this particular ankle biter has. Ankle biters are not defined in law as a protected group. Neither are arseholes, I could not be prosecuted for inciting hatred against arseholes no matter how many times I called you one. Now, if I suggested that you were an arsehole because you are a Canadian and all Canadians are arseholes that would be different. I would never say that though because it would be as stupid as saying all Muslims are terrorists or all priests are pedophiles.

Your hate speech wasn't of ankle biters. You have consistently shown hatred towards Trump and his supporters. That speech that is inciting hatred. You also made hateful comments towards me in the past, calling me various names and saying I contributed nothing of value. Impressionable people like the shooter in Germany may read that and come after me. Therefore, according to your own beliefs, you must stop posting here for the good of humanity.

Walk the walk Monte.

[PartyOf5]

Monte, walk the walk. Your posts are inciting hatred here. If you truly believe words inciting hatred need to be stopped, you need to STFU.

You are not a magistrate, your opinion carries no weight in law.
Hating me for having an opinion you oppose is not the same as me inciting hatred.
All it is is ankle-biting.
Ankle biters are not a group protected by UK law. The law defines racial, national, religious, sexual preferences and disabled persons as the protected groups in cases of incitement to hate.

I don't think he sees what he just walked into.

[BjornP]

It would be impossible to prove that driving at excessive speed on an empty motorway in the middle of the night is going to lead to accident but it doesn't make speeding laws unjustified.
I don't see the need for incitement to hatred to prove an imminent threat to public order. It only seems necessary (to me) that it is a likely/possible threat to it.

It is possible to prove that speeding causes accidents, which serves as justification. There'd be little to no point in having laws against speeding if there was no verifiable risk involved.

And if we were talking about, say, driving with the lights off or driving very fast where you haven't caused a crash but are likely to cause one, that would be a case of where imminent threat and likely threat are nearly identitical. However, how one responds to a piece of writing, vs. what one's response time is when speeding, is neither as scientifically quantifiable or universal.

I have no real problem with you having laws simply aimed at things you believe that simply don't fit in society. Same with how Saudi Arabia doesn't think homosexuality fits into their society, you don't feel certain forms of expression shouldn't be legal. Simply because it is too offensive, too improper, that it is something that doesn't fit into your society. I got no problem with that line of reasoning. I'm not a liberal, nor am I a universalist. I just don't accept the part of your line of argumentation that justifies the ban on insulting (not talking about outright threatening) writings/expressions/videos/art, based on "it will incite hatred" or violence.

I would say it was indisputable logic to conclude that singling out a particular group for abuse, especially lies intended to alienate them, can lead to discrimination against them. Sooner or later someone is going to be influenced by claims that Muslims are taking over Europe and establishing no go zones and in their paranoid state could end up targetting innocent Muslims guilty of nothing more than smoking flavoured tobacco in public.
Likewise, if an Islamic cleric is allowed to preach hatred against the West and blame them for all the problems currently being experienced in the ME, sooner or later one of his congregation is likely to feel that he is justified in driving at high speed into a crowd guilty of nothing more than shopping.
I think the duty of the law is to protect people from possible harm, caused by others, and that this outweighs anyone's right to incite hatred.

It won't affect me or thousands of others in that way. You want to treat reading or publishing a racist pamplet like stepping on the gas pedal. But the reason you want to ban hateful speech is because you think that it is as likely to lead to violence as stepping on the gas pedal is for speeding. It isn't. That someone might get influenced by ridiculous conspiracy theories and therefore starting mass murdering people should an argument for solving why those people, those particular someones commit those crimes, and how to reduce their types of crimes.

I think part of the duty of the law is to protect the people from possible harm as well. Doesn't mean that the people who make those laws have crafted their laws to best, most intelligently, serve that purpose.