Hate Speech Public Consultation

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why then, would the word terf not be equal to deadnaming or misgendering, if the person who is constantly and persistently misrepresented as a terf are offended and insulted by it?

What specifically makes it lesser harassment in your eyes?

General social acceptance that it's an insult/harassment.

I could campaign to have people calling me "right wing" to be criminalised, or banned on boards or whatever I like. I may be successful or unsuccessful.

But I do not get to unilaterally decide whats an insult and whether it should be criminalised or not. Neither do you.

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm in favour of restricting peoples ability to be hateful directly towards others. Yes.

What about you?

What is hateful about not being a big fan of sustainability? Or what you deem to be progressive?

The fact that that you associate posters who post mainly in immigration threads as automatically being 'hateful' is a clear insight into your mindset, and why these proposed laws have the opportunity to be used for nefarious purposes.

Tell me how

bewareofthedog wrote: »

Dishonesty knows no bounds. This is one example.

The lefties on this thread saying this isn't an issue and won't stifle honest discussion are very very dishonest people - they play dumb while simultaneously basting in the thoughts of "their side" being able to control the debate.

Give us a break.
What's dishonest about preferring if people aren't targeted or abused?

Tell me how

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What is hateful about not being a big fan of sustainability? Or what you deem to be progressive?

The fact that that you associate posters who post mainly in immigration threads as automatically being 'hateful' is a clear insight into your mindset, and why these proposed laws have the opportunity to be used for nefarious purposes.

I'm judging posters based on the content of what they post here as opposed to where they post it. Is that wrong, what else should I do to form an opinion about them?

AS for the sustainability part, ignoring or disregarding the likely experience future generations or people alive today in other parts of the world are having as a consequence of unsustainable practices. I would call that selfish and ignorant, but not necessarily hateful by default. But, when people refer to advocates of sustainable practices in particular ways which are hateful, I don't think that that is appropriate.

I would repeat that in relation to this point, I still don't think any of the content on Boards which I do think is hateful in nature at times will ever be targeted by this legislation.

bewareofthedog

Tell me how wrote: »

Give us a break.
What's dishonest about preferring if people aren't targeted or abused?

That's not the case though is it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/02/23/teacher-accused-misgendering-child-told-police-committed-hate/

"Teacher accused of 'misgendering' child was told by police that she committed a hate crime"

https://news.sky.com/story/woman-to-be-questioned-by-police-over-claims-she-misgendered-a-trans-woman-11670756

"A journalist has been called in for police questioning after allegedly misgendering a trans woman on Twitter.

Police want to question Caroline Farrow, a catholic and conservative commentator, over claims she used the wrong pro-nouns.

The alleged tweets, which can no longer be found, were directed at Susie Green, the chief executive of Mermaids, a charity that supports trans children."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-humber-47005937

A man has described police as using George Orwell's novel 1984 as an "operating manual" after he was investigated over alleged transphobic comments posted on social media.

An officer from Humberside Police interviewed Harry Miller by telephone after the force received complaints over his posts on Twitter.

One tweet questioned whether transgender women were real women.

Mr Miller said he was "utterly shocked" to be questioned by a police constable.

"He said even though I had committed no crime he needed to check my thinking," said Mr Miller.

Mr Justice Julian Knowles said the effect of police turning up at Mr Miller's place of work "because of his political opinions must not be underestimated".

He added: "To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom.

"In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society."

---

And on, and on, and on.

America has it right with their free speech laws, what Europe is implementing is Orwellian in nature.

If I was in the UK right now, and stated my political beliefs on twitter, there is a much >0 chance that police will show up at my door investigating so called "hate crimes".

Tell me how

bewareofthedog wrote: »

That's not the case though is it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/02/23/teacher-accused-misgendering-child-told-police-committed-hate/

"Teacher accused of 'misgendering' child was told by police that she committed a hate crime"

https://news.sky.com/story/woman-to-be-questioned-by-police-over-claims-she-misgendered-a-trans-woman-11670756

"A journalist has been called in for police questioning after allegedly misgendering a trans woman on Twitter.

Police want to question Caroline Farrow, a catholic and conservative commentator, over claims she used the wrong pro-nouns.

The alleged tweets, which can no longer be found, were directed at Susie Green, the chief executive of Mermaids, a charity that supports trans children."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-humber-47005937

A man has described police as using George Orwell's novel 1984 as an "operating manual" after he was investigated over alleged transphobic comments posted on social media.

An officer from Humberside Police interviewed Harry Miller by telephone after the force received complaints over his posts on Twitter.

One tweet questioned whether transgender women were real women.

Mr Miller said he was "utterly shocked" to be questioned by a police constable.

"He said even though I had committed no crime he needed to check my thinking," said Mr Miller.

Mr Justice Julian Knowles said the effect of police turning up at Mr Miller's place of work "because of his political opinions must not be underestimated".

He added: "To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom.

"In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society."

---

And on, and on, and on.

America has it right with their free speech laws, what Europe is implementing is Orwellian in nature.

If I was in the UK right now, and stated my political beliefs on twitter, there is a much >0 chance that police will show up at my door investigating so called "hate crimes".

Which do you think happens more, people, such as Harry Miller feel they are unfairly treated by police investigating comments they make, or people such as Jesy Nelson who has suffered through extensive online attacks?

biko

Tell me how wrote: »

people such as Jesy Nelson who has suffered through extensive online attacks?

I had to google her but didn't find anything about online attacks. Is it because she left that band?

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm judging posters based on the content of what they post here as opposed to where they post it. Is that wrong, what else should I do to form an opinion about them?

Can you think of any examples that people who are posting in this thread said in one of the immigration threads that was racist or hateful?

Tell me how wrote: »

AS for the sustainability part, ignoring or disregarding the likely experience future generations or people alive today in other parts of the world are having as a consequence of unsustainable practices. I would call that selfish and ignorant, but not necessarily hateful by default. But, when people refer to advocates of sustainable practices in particular ways which are hateful, I don't think that that is appropriate.

Such as what? What was said about Greta in that thread that you feel should have people hauled before the courts.

Me thinks the mask slightly slipped when you mentioned people not being 'in favour of progression' 'inclusion' and 'sustainability'. This comes across as simply wanting to target your political opponents. You have somewhat rolled back from these comments n fairness.

Tell me how wrote: »

I would repeat that in relation to this point, I still don't think any of the content on Boards which I do think is hateful in nature at times will ever be targeted by this legislation.

But you agree it could be though, yes? Someone already linked to a case in Britain about that journalist, or the former police officer whose case went to trial I believe. There is nothing to suggest we won't have similar cases brought before our courts.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

I did. There's no record of it.

There is post on boards about it ,

No suprise there denial , denial , denial

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

There is post on boards about it ,

No suprise there denial , denial , denial

There is a post on boards that is a repost of a Twitter claim that cannot be substantiated in any way. That Twitter thread gave 4 examples of TERF supposedly being pubkicallt declared by authorities to be an insult. 2 were demonstrably false and the one you're referring to is unverifiable.

It is based on one tweet from Court which does not.mention the judge. All we know is that this person on Twitter claimed that someone in court said that TERF was an insult. We don't know if it's true, and if it is true, it never specifies who claimed it. So claiming it is the judge is complete internet nonsense.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

There is a post on boards that is a repost of a Twitter claim that cannot be substantiated in any way. That Twitter thread gave 4 examples of TERF supposedly being pubkicallt declared by authorities to be an insult. 2 were demonstrably false and the one you're referring to is unverifiable.

It is based on one tweet from Court which does not.mention the judge. All we know is that this person on Twitter claimed that someone in court said that TERF was an insult. We don't know if it's true, and if it is true, it never specifies who claimed it. So claiming it is the judge is complete internet nonsense.

Surely reciprocation of respect, would see you not use it, the same way you would appreciate people using your preferred pronouns?

Its not too much to ask, and you don't have to believe it.

LLMMLL

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Surely reciprocation of respect, would see you not use it, the same way you would appreciate people using your preferred pronouns?

Its not too much to ask, and you don't have to believe it.

If I believed it was a genuine request I might but I strongly believe that nobody is actually offended and it's a tactic.

Those who follow the TERF ideology do not like anything that refers to them as a group. They like to pretend there's no ideology and that they're simply a "concerned individual".

I've heard all the arguments and don't buy any of them so it's really pointless trying to convince me.

suicide_circus

Delighted to see the "right to offend" judgement in the UK yesterday anyway.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

If I believed it was a genuine request I might but I strongly believe that nobody is actually offended

That makes you a bog standard troll

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

That makes you a bog standard troll

No it doesn't.

Sir Oxman

Tell me how wrote: »

I don't think anyone who is engaging in this discussion here, or who has a long term Boards account would be at risk of finding themselves being prosecuted for what they post here.

There are already systems in place and while I do think there are posters who vehemently do 'hate' people who are identifiable as belonging to a particular group or type these systems prevent them getting a continuous visible platform. Thread bans and outright site bans catch the vast majority of these already and while we do see some new accounts joining, and starting provocative threads or posting in a particular manner, such posters are generally pretty quickly zapped.

But, for those who engage in persistent or highly publicized hateful speech then this legislation will allow them to be dealt with appropriately.

I don't use FB or Instagram and am purely an observer on Twitter but I frequently see examples posted of very hurtful commentary towards others on these platforms. This legislation will probably not see Joe Soap prosecuted for such for a single comment, but, them being made aware that such posts will lead to prosecution if they insist in continuing with them is likely to see a change in their behaviour. I had a friend who lost his teenage daughter to suicide after relentless online bullying, there were no laws to prevent the people who were targeting her from doing so. Any move to help stop such things happening is a good thing in my view.

Isn't that a seperate piece of legislation in force now or very soon?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Why then, would the word terf not be equal to deadnaming or misgendering, if the person who is constantly and persistently misrepresented as a terf are offended and insulted by it?

What specifically makes it lesser harassment in your eyes?

Can anyone answer this?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can anyone answer this?

I already answered. A person feeling offended has never been the criteria for harassment.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I already answered. A person feeling offended has never been the criteria for harassment.

That wasn't the question though.

It's why do you think that someone feeling harassed for repeatedly being called something they don't identify as could be harassment when it comes to misgendering, but you dismiss it when it comes to being called a terf

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That wasn't the question though.

It's why do you think that someone feeling harassed for repeatedly being called something they don't identify as could be harassment when it comes to misgendering, but you dismiss it when it comes to being called a terf

But you are completely misrepresenting the argument so it's hard to respond. You are now using the phrase "someone feeling harassed" as if that is part of the criteria. It's not and nobody on this thread has said so.

Let me clear this up for you once and for all. "feeling harassed" or "feeling insulted" is not the criteria for whether behaviour is harassment or a word is an insult.

Nobody will be able to defend your made up criteria because nobody believes them.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

But you are completely misrepresenting the argument so it's hard to respond. You are now using the phrase "someone feeling harassed" as if that is part of the criteria. It's not and nobody on this thread has said so.

Let me clear this up for you once and for all. "feeling harassed" or "feeling insulted" is not the criteria for whether behaviour is harassment or a word is an insult.

Nobody will be able to defend your made up criteria because nobody believes them.

So what is the criteria?

Explain to me how someone feeling harassed about being called a terf is different to someone feeling harassed about being deadnamed?

If both feel harassed, when do you say, your feelings don't matter?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So what is the criteria?

Explain to me how someone feeling harassed about being called a terf is different to someone feeling harassed about being deadnamed?

If both feel harassed, when do you say, your feelings don't matter?

Did you even read the previous Post?

Feeling harassed has nothing to do with it. I never said it did. Nobody has.

In both cases feelings don't matter.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

So what is the criteria?

Explain to me how someone feeling harassed about being called a terf is different to someone feeling harassed about being deadnamed?

If both feel harassed, when do you say, your feelings don't matter?

I think one reason is that it may be that the likelihood is that the terminology for trans people is more emotive because of what they are more likely to have suffered before transitioning to their new identity.

For many trans people, they have spent their life feeling different and feeling misidentified and so when they finally get to a position where they are comfortable in their new identity, a 'deliberate' action to refer to the old one can cause them pain because they continue to feel lost or ignored or that their own desires are irrelevant.

Whereas, referring to someone as a terf is less likely (though I don't know) to refer more to their behaviour/opinion rather than their specific identity.

I will freely say I do not have strong opinions on this as I am not overly familiar with the experiences of people on either side of the above argument.

It could be said to be similar to the comparison between the use of the word black versus white when referring to someone. There are greater connotations attached to the word 'black' for historical reasons and because of the lived experience of many people and while that doesn't mean the word 'white' cannot be used in a derogatory way, it has historically been less likely that this will be the case.

You can, by all means, argue that such disparity is unfair, but if so, surely the argument would be that the use of either would be offensive rather than neither being so.

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can anyone answer this?

There won't be an answer just a game of running around a roundabout

Seathrun66

GarIT wrote: »

Our legal system is based on theirs and judgements in the UK are often used as examples in our courts.

You asked me to show where you'd brought up precedent. See above.

Strumms

What is hate speech ?

hate speech is any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin. Etc...

As long as that is held to the letter ok...

Problem is the wokies will be lining up anybody who disagrees with say any of their views and now be complaining that it’s hate speech... if someone maintains that deporting illegal immigrants is the correct thing to do... certain elements of the , well the entire wokies will want trials, guilty verdict, everything

Seathrun66

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Maybe you can explain why the given example is so irrelevant? Our legal system is the common law one which is based or has it's origins in the English legal system.

We are bound by an unbreachable constitution. The three jurisdictions of the UK are not.

We are bound by the European Convention on Human Rights 1953. The UK has decided to stop the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights having effect after the UK leaves the EU.

Our new legislation will not be following UK law nor precedent.

Seathrun66

Kivaro wrote: »

And that is what I was expecting to read next.
So it looks like this new bill could indeed encroach beyond its core principles.
There we have it folks .... from the expert's mouth: "We cannot negatively generalise."

And here's us thinking that the bill might stray from the initial focus ......

As before it's the extreme cases that will be prosecuted. You'll still be able to continue generalising about whatever you wish. For you to be prosecuted you'd need to be saying for example that 'all Norwegians are criminals' a dozen times and pushing for people to do something to hurt them. The threshold for prosecution will be very high.

Seathrun66

BattleCorp wrote: »

Our Constitution doesn't mean jack sh1t if it conflicts with EU legislation because EU legislation has superiority over National legislation.

Not true. EU law has always prevailed over national law but the important point is that it is limited to areas where member-states have conferred powers on Brussels.

This therefore will not apply to the new hate speech legislation unless the ECHR is breached.

Seathrun66

bewareofthedog wrote: »

Dishonesty knows no bounds. This is one example.

The lefties on this thread saying this isn't an issue and won't stifle honest discussion are very very dishonest people - they play dumb while simultaneously basting in the thoughts of "their side" being able to control the debate.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-surrey-47638527

A journalist claims she is being investigated by police for using the wrong pronoun for a transgender woman.

Caroline Farrow said Surrey Police wants to "conduct a taped interview under caution" because of tweets posted in October.

They were made after she was on ITV's Good Morning Britain with Susie Green, whose daughter Jackie is transgender.

Ms Green said the posts were malicious and it was "not just the misgendering" issue.

The force said it had received an allegation on 15 October "in relation to a number of tweets which were posted in October 2018".

"A thorough investigation is being carried out to establish whether any criminal offences have taken place," it said.

"A 44-year-old woman has been asked to attend a voluntary interview in relation to the allegation as part of our ongoing investigation."

You need to read more widely before assuming any one report is correct. Ms Farrow accused Susie Green of castration and mutilation. Criminal offences. She downplayed her accusations when reported to the police:

http://https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/20/catholic-journalist-investigated-by-police-after-misgendering-trans-woman