[demonrail666]

Yeah, Count Dankula, 100% true. He did it to piss off his girlfriend who thought the dog could do no wrong so he wanted it to look as evil as possible. So it wasn't even a pro-Nazi thing. Quite the opposite.

Then you have the teenaged girl, Chelsea Russell, who paid a tribute to her friend who'd died in a car crash by posting lyrics to his favourite song on Instagram. It was a Snoop Dogg song, which included the N-word. This was classed as a hate crime for which she got a £500 fine, was placed under an 8 week curfew and given a criminal record.

Scary, ah?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Yeah, Count Dankula, 100% true. He did it to piss his girlfriend who thought the dog could do no wrong so he wanted the it to look as evil as possible, so it wasn't even a pro-Nazi thing. Quite the opposite.

Then you have the teenaged girl, Chelsea Russell, who paid a tribute to her friend who'd died in a car crash by posting lyrics to his favourite song on Instagram. It was a Snoop Dogg song, which included the N-word. This was classed as a hate crime for which she got a £500 fine, was placed under an 8 week curfew and given a criminal record.

Scary, ah?

you guys are fucked.

can you call the queen names, like we do with the vile fucking orange dotard?

[demonrail666]

Yeah, the queen's fair game. She represents everything that those promoting these laws hate, so she gets no protection at all.

Here's a graphic breakdown of how it works, from the government's own website ...

 

So violence and damage to property is pretty easy to establish, but how to you properly legislate for hostility, harassment or intimidation? Especially when you're talking about stuff posted on social media, when the person reporting it doesn't even have to be the person or persons it was intended for. All they have to have done is read it. And it doesn't matter if the person posting it never meant to offend or be hostile to anyone. So long as the person who reads it is offended, that's enough. Which was exactly what happened to Chelsea Russell.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Yeah, the queen's fair game. She represents everything that those promoting these laws hate, so she gets no protection at all.

but how does the... don’t you guys have... why don’t the tories... how in the fuck?

when did this shit start? new labo(u)r?

[demonrail666]

Here's the police's official definition of a hate crime:

Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity.

The key words there are 'perceived' and 'or any other person'.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

which is perceived by the victim or any other person, .

how the fuck does one...

im not even...

PERCEIVED

fucks sakes!

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

The key words there are 'perceived' and 'or any other person'.

yeah i got that immediately. it’s fucking absurd. how is it even legal?

[demonrail666]

It get's better. Here's their definition of hostility:

There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.

So anyone who's a vocal atheist and shows contempt for a religion is essentially a criminal. Just as anyone who adheres to core tenets of their religion and thinks that, say, homosexuality is a sin, is also a criminal. And you may as well throw every comedian in jail, just to save time.

You tell me.

[demonrail666]

And in case you think I'm making all this up, here's a link to the page all that came from

https://www.cps.gov.uk/hate-crime

[!@#$%!]

yeah i believe ya, i saw the web address. fucked uuuuuuup.

then i went looking into wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_s...United_Kingdom

says the first hate speech legislation is from 1986. thatcher?? how in the world??

continued in 94–john major?

finished in 2006 by blair on his way out

how does this work??

[!@#$%!]

was that intended to stop the skinheads?

i don’t understand

[demonrail666]

The amendments have expanded the amount of groups protected and types of 'speech', which now includes social media. Before that it was difficult to police because spoken words are hard to prove in court, but a statement on social media, even if it's just a 'like' on facebook, is concrete evidence. That was the point when it started getting really scary.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

was that intended to stop the skinheads?

i don’t understand

Dunno about skinheads but I read somewhere it had something to do with football fans so, in a roundabout way maybe. But I wouldn't say it was a motivatig factor. More a way of getting it through parliament. Heysel happened the year before and football fans were easy law and order scapegoats.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

The amendments have expanded the amount of groups protected and types of 'speech', which now includes social media. Before that it was difficult to police because spoken words are hard to prove in court, but a statement on social media, even if it's just a 'like' on facebook, is concrete evidence. That was the point when it started getting really scary.

social media is the pits and should be dismantled lol.

anyway i watched the nazi dog video, which has been mirrored for posterity.

the “sieg heil” bit actually made me laugh, it was so silly, but the repetition of “gas the jews” was insensitive and in terrible taste and not funny at all.

however, failed humor and insensitivity and bad taste should not be a crime. i would rather call him a stupid motherfucker or satirize him than arrest and fine him. but that’s how your legal system operates.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Dunno about skinheads but I read somewhere it had something to do with football fans so, in a roundabout way maybe. But I wouldn't say it was a motivatig factor. More a way of getting it through parliament. Heysel happened the year before and football fans were easy law and order scapegoats.

i see.

well i suppose that protesting about universities is a bit short sighted here. you have a much bigger problem, which is the social acquiescence to limit the marketplace of ideas “for the greater good” or whatever.

the fact that this limitation has now reached the universities is just one effect of those larger currents. by protesting it in isolation you’re now trying to cover the sun with one finger. too late if you ask me.

first they came for the football fans and i said nothing...

so, do you have any non-nazi politicians trying to protect free speech and free thought? or are your free speech advocates just nazis trying to get a platform?

[demonrail666]

None of the actual politicians appeal but everything's focused on Brexit right now and they're all positioning themselves in relation to that, so it's anyone's guess where most of them stand on anything else.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

None of the actual politicians appeal but everything's focused on Brexit right now and they're all positioning themselves in relation to that, so it's anyone's guess where most of them stand on anything else.

i went to search for “uk liberal democrats free speech” assuming they’d espouse some sort of platform and found this

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-21194991

then they came for david ward and i didn’t say anything because i wasn’t david ward...

you guys are fuuuuuuucked fucked fucked

i had not realized this before

damn. you’re fucked.

i don’t know what to tell you. honestly. don’t even know where to begin.

but how come you haven’t become a “free speech absolutist” at this point? (our first amendment is not “absolute” btw, but that’s for another day).

[demonrail666]

I know some people can be really literal when it comes to 'absolutes'. Generally I'd say anything goes unless there's a really good common sense reason why it shouldn't.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I know some people can be really literal when it comes to 'absolutes'.

i perceive this to be offensive against my person. i ask that you be taken away in handcuffs

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I Generally I'd say anything goes unless there's a really good common sense reason why it shouldn't.

common sense? my sense is anything but common. so another person has perceived this as discriminatory. we ask that you be levied a fine.

==

lmao. insane.

im still trying to wrap my head about the bullshit condition of your laws. am i insulting the honor of your past parliaments when i say this? is this offensive? are you offended?

holy fucking shit. my mind is blown.

i think you need to become radicalized lmao. this is beyond your universities i swear. you’re all being muzzled and anyone can claim control of the leash by proclaiming themselves a victim. you’re going to muzzle each other into irrelevancy.

[tw2113]

Picked up:


Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep - Philip K. Dick
Girl In A Band - Kim Gordon
The Time Machine/The Invisible Man - H.G. Wells
Treasure Island - Robert Louis Stevenson


Reading:
Horns - Joe Hill

[SonicSleuth]

Excerpts from Ulysses for Bloomsday.