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

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

On 12/5/2024 4:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

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

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.