You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Hate crimes: Fresh guidance on online offences
November 22 2024 5.28pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Hate crimes: Fresh guidance on online offences

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 3 of 3 << First< 1 2 3

  

Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards Hrolf The Ganger Flag 21 Aug 17 1.08pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Apparently not to the far right and right wing, who seem to often be equating them. I find it odd that anything called antifa exists. Surely its fascists and apologists for fascists and everyone else in the world.

In terms of free speech, I don't really have a problem with restricting the free speech of the very far left and very far right, as neither really believe in free speech anyway.

Nazism, Fascism, Communism are as pointless to debate as feudalism and agrarianism. They're dead ideas, that have been proven to be morally and ethically bankrupt.


I agree with paragraph one and three but the right to free speech cannot be a question of consensus. It has to be absolute in terms of ideology. That is not the same as saying you should have the right to insight violence for example.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
npn Flag Crowborough 21 Aug 17 1.22pm Send a Private Message to npn Add npn as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Because there is a difference between crimes in relation to rehabilitation and protecting the public.

For example, I get sent down for assault from a fight in a pub because of an argument over a girlfriend. Easy rehabilitation, specific events and the danger to the public.

I go out an assault someone because they're black. Very different picture in terms of rehabilitation and danger to the public.

Sort of, but what about the mindless thuggery (of which there still seems to be plenty)? People who smack someone in the mouth because he's looked at them funny, or 'disrespected them' (normally that means not let them walk all over him), or just because they're pissed and it's Saturday night and they fancy a row?

I can see how attacking someone for a reason such as race or sexuality is more severe than a specific reason like a perceived sleight, but surely attacking someone for no reason at all is even more severe than that? Yet those types seem to be left alone until they do some real damage to someone

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
hedgehog50 Flag Croydon 21 Aug 17 1.32pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

No one, I believe is the ideal. I hate some ideas that people have, such as far right ideas, but that doesn't mean I hate the person.

The only people I think I have any real hate for, are all dead or spending very long terms in prison.

So we are allowed to hate ideas but not people? Can we express our hatred of ideas then? If you can say that you hate far right ideas, presumably as expressed by whom you see as crypto-fascists, can someone say they hate far right ideas of extreme Islam? If someone says that all forms of Islam have some far right aspects, wouldn't he or she (or indeterminate) be committing 'hate crime' against Muslims?

 


We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
wordup Flag 21 Aug 17 2.57pm

-

Edited by wordup (22 Aug 2017 3.28pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
NKEagle Flag Pyongyang 21 Aug 17 3.47pm Send a Private Message to NKEagle Add NKEagle as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Because there is a difference between crimes in relation to rehabilitation and protecting the public.

For example, I get sent down for assault from a fight in a pub because of an argument over a girlfriend. Easy rehabilitation, specific events and the danger to the public.

I go out an assault someone because they're black. Very different picture in terms of rehabilitation and danger to the public.

Now in terms of online hate crime - I think its a tricky subject, because you have to balance the notion of free speech with the reality of the offence. Now if you're going around posting threats against people, yeah then that's a crime.

Also, all rape should be considered a hate crime.

But what if you really hate the guy your girlfriend is doing on the side?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 21 Aug 17 5.11pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger


I agree with paragraph one and three but the right to free speech cannot be a question of consensus. It has to be absolute in terms of ideology. That is not the same as saying you should have the right to insight violence for example.

What about the right of free speech to restrict the legal rights of other citizens, based on false information - i.e. lies.

For example, should it be legal to say that gays are paedophiles in support of political agendas aimed at shutting down gay rights? Like the Aussie propaganda doing the rounds claiming 92% of children of gay parents are abused?

Now I don't think that's a hate crime per se, but its such a blatant abuse of free speech to promote a agenda that's linked to hate crime against a minority.

Personally, I think people who believe that speech can truly be free, tend to be clinging to a naïve ideology based on the misbelief that people won't just use it as a means of attacking other peoples rights.

Kind of like how the far right, who most certainly don't believe in free speech, use it to just stay within the law whilst promoting agendas aimed at minority groups they know don't have the capacity to reply.

Take Alex Jones, he can spew all manner of false, malicious and dangerous nonsense that feeds into the 'alt-right' and far right paranoia - and there is no counter-point available - its just manufactured content to appeal specifically to a demographic - little more than propaganda that isn't even available to the mainstream.

The right to free speech, is a nice idea, and its great if your white, straight and male, because it isn't really ever going to be used as a means of inciting 'covert hate' against you.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 21 Aug 17 5.12pm

Originally posted by NKEagle

But what if you really hate the guy your girlfriend is doing on the side?

Then I hate only one person, not an entire race. Again rehabilitation and protection of the public is geared towards one person. Not one race / gender etc.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 21 Aug 17 5.14pm

Originally posted by npn

Sort of, but what about the mindless thuggery (of which there still seems to be plenty)? People who smack someone in the mouth because he's looked at them funny, or 'disrespected them' (normally that means not let them walk all over him), or just because they're pissed and it's Saturday night and they fancy a row?

I can see how attacking someone for a reason such as race or sexuality is more severe than a specific reason like a perceived sleight, but surely attacking someone for no reason at all is even more severe than that? Yet those types seem to be left alone until they do some real damage to someone

Arguably such people are a different kind of problem - but if you keep doing it, in theory, your past crimes will result in longer sentences.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 21 Aug 17 5.19pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

So we are allowed to hate ideas but not people? Can we express our hatred of ideas then? If you can say that you hate far right ideas, presumably as expressed by whom you see as crypto-fascists, can someone say they hate far right ideas of extreme Islam? If someone says that all forms of Islam have some far right aspects, wouldn't he or she (or indeterminate) be committing 'hate crime' against Muslims?

Not really what I said, I was thinking more in terms of myself.

I don't think I really hate anyone. I hate fascism, neo-Nazism, communism, religion that impinges on other peoples freedom, conservatism - but I have friends and know people who are very right wing (inc being people who were in the NF), hard line communists, Christians and Muslims with fairly strict views, and even had a friend who was a Tory Counciller who I got on with.

So who do you hate?

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
NKEagle Flag Pyongyang 21 Aug 17 6.20pm Send a Private Message to NKEagle Add NKEagle as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Then I hate only one person, not an entire race. Again rehabilitation and protection of the public is geared towards one person. Not one race / gender etc.

You clearly haven't dated the same sort of women I have

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
hedgehog50 Flag Croydon 21 Aug 17 6.57pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Not really what I said, I was thinking more in terms of myself.

I don't think I really hate anyone. I hate fascism, neo-Nazism, communism, religion that impinges on other peoples freedom, conservatism - but I have friends and know people who are very right wing (inc being people who were in the NF), hard line communists, Christians and Muslims with fairly strict views, and even had a friend who was a Tory Counciller who I got on with.

So who do you hate?

Graham Norton mainly.

 


We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 3 of 3 << First< 1 2 3

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Hate crimes: Fresh guidance on online offences