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

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.