Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: [OT] Anatomy of a "non crime hate incident"
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 02:09:16 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <vitmcc$1v890$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vit5qi$1q1b0$2@dont-email.me> <vit7k0$1run1$2@dont-email.me> <vit8vt$1s9o6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2024 03:09:17 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bf49f63cce92189621f3799349222b0a";
	logging-data="2072864"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/s38YJ6izX3/umX/QFBj7p"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:U2ZLbVY0r1CyYBXafBdvlf9xNbg=
Bytes: 2881

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.