Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: [OT] Anatomy of a "non crime hate incident"
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 15:11:41 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <viv47d$2d5i3$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vit5qi$1q1b0$2@dont-email.me> <vit7k0$1run1$2@dont-email.me> <vit8vt$1s9o6$1@dont-email.me> <vitmcc$1v890$2@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2024 16:11:42 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="01439002a9100456b6f55cb04c86c555";
	logging-data="2528835"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+vTLazFjAQUSzwd16/hLMwFSnSxRhJVnE="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JNDmPdmh9+FW2fkM/857XZXOGvw=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 2865

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>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. 

That's why we have moviePig, to explain government action irrationally!