Re: [OT] Anatomy of a "non crime hate incident"

On Dec 6, 2024 at 2:29:31 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 12/5/2024 9:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

 On Dec 5, 2024 at 2:20:45 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

 On 12/5/2024 4:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

   On Dec 5, 2024 at 1:26:49 PM PST, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
   wrote:
  

   I recently posted about the existence of "non-crime hate incidents" as a
   new class of offence in Britain and got some fairly perplexed reactions,
   especially when I mentioned that such offences could make you eligible
   for significant jail time.
 
   I just noticed this video which does a deep dive into one such
   "non-crime hate incident", this one being a journalist's tweet. It has
   made the headlines in Britain and brought the police into even greater
   disrepute than they already had.
 
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jiTv1duFKo [1 hour, 15 minutes]
 
   Along the way, the journalist shares how these offences first came into
   existence and how even the new Labour government, which clearly supports
   this sort of thinking, is distancing itself from the idea as the
   reaction to this incident circulates.

  
   Not only does the UK have non-criminal crimes, but they also have specific
   category of speech that can be censored even though it's legal under
British
   law. It's called "legal but harmful content" (also sometimes referred
to as
   "lawful but awful") where the government basically admits the speech in
   question is legal under British law but nevertheless thinks it causes some
   amorphous undefined 'harm' and so may be legally censored.
  
   Being a lawyer in the the UK must be like Alice finding herself in
 Wonderland
   where everything's a contradiction.

 
 Can't you conceive of speech as harmful as a brickbat?

 
 I can't conceive of government rationally saying something is perfectly
legal
 but we're not going to let you say it anyway.

 
E.g., something could be legal in isolation but intolerable in quantity.

Then it should be made illegal. If it's legal, then the government can't
arrest the 100th person who does it merely because he's the 100th person.