The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

[Kritias]

Nope. Harassment, labor laws, libel, copy right etc. are almost entirely separate areas of the speech code. The fact that you believe that there is some intersection between "hate speech" and harassment/cyber bullying/stalking legislation is fundamentally irrelevant. These are all legally and philosophically distinct entities.

You don't understand a basic premise of law, Ep1c. Since by no means a lawmaker can be exhaustive to cover the entire spectrum of human criminality or predict future trends or future technologies to adapt criminal trends the lawmakers and lawyers utilize a legal concept bridging the differences between the existing legal statures and the case. This bridge, acting on the spirit of the law, takes a case and breaks it down to its fundamental elements: these elements, covered by various legislations, are then judged upon seperately. In the case of hate speech, while it's not judged on that exact premise, the courts will carve up its components regarding the context and act accordingly. The fact that you fail to understand this basic function of the law makes me worried on how you think freedom of expression really works, and that's why I keep repeating it doesn't work as you think it does.

You also seem to fail to grasp the meaning of precedent. The Supreme Court's role is to gate keep the exercise of law, upholding or overturning decisions of the various regional courts if and when they are asked. The goal here is to maintain uniformity in law, that is to be able to pinpoint that the spirit of the law remains constant to the founding principles of law ie the constitution and other less-binding legal documents. In this case, the Supreme Court rules on whether something is in breach of the constitution or not and here the precedent is fundamental. In the case of freedom of expression, either through action or words, the Supreme Court has ruled that a) if the action/words pose an immediate threat or harassment on a person, and b) any sound-minded individual would see these immediate threats as such or harassment as such, then it's punishable by law. Racism due to its historic background as discriminatory and violent towards those it targeted falls under this category. To overcome this, some racists will utter or communicate things as far as insinuating racism but not actually spelling it out. This is based on the common understanding we all share of these concepts so insinuation is enough to make someone think the rest of the way to the racist comment a person really tries to make. This, though able to infuriate some is not an illegal activity. But in the case of overt racism, the court will decide whether its a misdemeanor or something more serious depending on the context. That's why you're required by law during broadcasting to not utter or repeat the n-word for example. It's because it will land you a fine at best.

The "intersection" as you call it is nothing else than the legal bridge binding different elements of the same case together. So, no. It's not irrelevant if you understand the fundamental operation of the legal system.

[Infidel144]

@Aexodus, Ep1c_Fa1l, Infidel,
What I said is that in the US due to the obstacle of the first ammendment, the lawmakers have taken the long route and broken down how to deal with hate speech by partitioning its definition to harrassment, sexual harrassment, victimization, mobbing, intimidation and a score of other crimes and misdemeanors, depending on the context.

What you said was:
"How can you possibly think that freedom of speech is allowing you to say someone is inferior to you because of their ethnicity, color, religion, culture? Anywhere in the world freedom of speech carries with it special duties and responsibilities and is subject to restrictions. The form of freedom of speech you advocate for doesn't exist. This is just fact." (Post 124)
and
"Has it crossed your mind that since legislation on Hate crime exists in the US, it's therefore not in conflict with the first amendment otherwise the supreme court would have ruled against that particular conflict? Your freedom of expressions stops when you cuss or swear against somebody; this is legislation on profanity. Similarly, and from a legal standpoinit wierdly, using racial insults that would probably be more suited under profanity laws gets you in hot water due to Hate speech laws." (Post 133)
The source you provided (post 128) notes:
"Hate speech in the United States is not regulated"
"The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017, when the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment."
Hate speech not regulated, no hate speech exception to the first amedment.
I provided the US code on Hate Crimes.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249
Nothing in it about "speech".

As you can see from the Oxford Constitutional law I provided, the term hate speech is very rare in constitutional texts, mainly found in some states' constitutions as of the late 2ooos.

What state constitutions?

Infidel, the Court of Virginia had dismissed the case of the two men who went and burnt a cross on a man's yard on the basis of freedom of expression, and that decision was over-turned by the Supreme Court.

No. They were found guilty in the Virginia court.
From your own source:
"During the rally a cross was lit. Black was arrested and charged with violating a Virginia statute outlawing cross burnings. All defendants were found guilty."
On appeal the Supreme Court partially struck down the statute that resulted in the conviction.
From your own source:
"Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), is a First Amendment case decided in the Supreme Court of the United States. Three defendants were convicted in two separate cases of violating a Virginia statute against cross burning. In this case, the Court struck down that statute to the extent that it considered cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate."

On the case of Carlin, dismissal of the case doesn't mean there's no legal ground for the case. Most dismissals are based on technicalities like a missing signature, a mistep on the prosedure, an arrest instead of of serving a notice (which was Carlin's case for dismissal) and other minor technicalities which, if the case went to court, would ruin it.

The case did go to court. The Judge struck it down citing free speech.
Per The Gaurdian as linked above:
"a Wisconsin judge dismissed the case, saying it was indecent but citing free speech and the lack of any disturbance"

Carlin's case is an important parallel to Meecham since on the former the network that aired the uncensored version was fined, while in the UK the creator was fined instead of the network. In both cases, we're discussing about a fine on the case of profanity and the case of grossly offensive statements repsectively, not an Orwellian limitation on freedom of expression.

Again Pacifica case limited, civil not criminal and public broadcast by licensee. Entirely different than Meecham.
And Pacifica was not fined, as I already noted and sourced when you claimed this the first time.
Again what US law would Meecham be prosecuted under?

So, let's put things into context again, please. Just keep in mind the Supreme Court's ruling as a rule of thumb

What do you mean by SCOTUS ruling as a "rule of thumb"?

From what I can understand from your arguments so far, the problem lies a) in the fact that you don't really understand how the legal system works and you're very distrustful of it, b) a widened undestanding of what you can do under the law.

Laughable, particularly when considering your own sources disagree with what you assert.

This distrustfullness translates into looking at the handful of controversial cases you're presented here as important signifiers of societal censure or an unforgivable infringement on the freedom of expression. In this, you echo several publications like Bretibart, and several networks like Fox News. And now we can go back to discussing how this Orwellian machine of repression doesn't exist.

Correcting Kritias false assertions is 'echoing Breitbart and Fox News' (neither of which I have cited).

[Cope]

You don't understand a basic premise of law, Ep1c. Since by no means a lawmaker can be exhaustive to cover the entire spectrum of human criminality or predict future trends or future technologies to adapt criminal trends the lawmakers and lawyers utilize a legal concept bridging the differences between the existing legal statures and the case. This bridge, acting on the spirit of the law, takes a case and breaks it down to its fundamental elements: these elements, covered by various legislations, are then judged upon seperately. In the case of hate speech, while it's not judged on that exact premise, the courts will carve up its components regarding the context and act accordingly. The fact that you fail to understand this basic function of the law makes me worried on how you think freedom of expression really works, and that's why I keep repeating it doesn't work as you think it does.

You also seem to fail to grasp the meaning of precedent. The Supreme Court's role is to gate keep the exercise of law, upholding or overturning decisions of the various regional courts if and when they are asked. The goal here is to maintain uniformity in law, that is to be able to pinpoint that the spirit of the law remains constant to the founding principles of law ie the constitution and other less-binding legal documents. In this case, the Supreme Court rules on whether something is in breach of the constitution or not and here the precedent is fundamental. In the case of freedom of expression, either through action or words, the Supreme Court has ruled that a) if the action/words pose an immediate threat or harassment on a person, and b) any sound-minded individual would see these immediate threats as such or harassment as such, then it's punishable by law. Racism due to its historic background as discriminatory and violent towards those it targeted falls under this category. To overcome this, some racists will utter or communicate things as far as insinuating racism but not actually spelling it out. This is based on the common understanding we all share of these concepts so insinuation is enough to make someone think the rest of the way to the racist comment a person really tries to make. This, though able to infuriate some is not an illegal activity. But in the case of overt racism, the court will decide whether its a misdemeanor or something more serious depending on the context. That's why you're required by law during broadcasting to not utter or repeat the n-word for example. It's because it will land you a fine at best.

The "intersection" as you call it is nothing else than the legal bridge binding different elements of the same case together. So, no. It's not irrelevant if you understand the fundamental operation of the legal system.

No. There is a fundamental difference in the way that speech is treated in the US vs. most of Europe. Simply stating that "hate speech" is covered by harassment/cyber bullying/libel/fighting words etc. is incorrect. All of the states which have "hate speech" legislation also have statutes/judicial precedents covering harassment/cyber bullying/libel/copy right etc. precisely because these are completely different issues with different enforcement provisions and legal ramifications. You can write your walls of text all you want, but you are wrong and will remain wrong. Your argument that all racism is automatically treated as harassment or an incitement to violence in the US on the basis of its "historic background" is laughably untrue.

[Infidel144]

You also seem to fail to grasp the meaning of precedent.

Laughable, coming from someone who cited Lenny Bruce as precedent, and continued to do so in the face of Miller.

That's why you're required by law during broadcasting to not utter or repeat the n-word for example. It's because it will land you a fine at best.

Provide the law.

[Cope]

Laughable, coming from someone who cited Lenny Bruce as precedent, and continued to do so in the face of Miller.


Provide the law.

He doesn't know what he's talking about Infidel; I just don't have the time or in the inclination to eviscerate him fully. He doesn't understand that racism isn't actionable in the US (outside of civil cases involving labor laws) - it's the harassment/slander or incitement which is.

[Infidel144]

In the case of freedom of expression, either through action or words, the Supreme Court has ruled that a) if the action/words pose an immediate threat or harassment on a person, and b) any sound-minded individual would see these immediate threats as such or harassment as such, then it's punishable by law.

The Brandenburg test is not "immediate threat or harrassment".
The Brandenburg test is a two part requirement both of which must be met:
"Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444

"The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:
1.The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
2.The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

"Harassment" is not mentioned in Brandenburg.

Racism due to its historic background as discriminatory and violent towards those it targeted falls under this category.

You can, no doubt, provide the Supreme Court ruling that puts racism under Brandenburg...
Or perhaps you should read Brandenburg.

[Kritias]

Unsuprisingly, you willfully misrepresent what I say. Let me make it clear for you.

a) We're discussing about hate speech in online communications based on the Meecham incident. We are NOT discussing about racism/hate speech in general, or in private life ie what is said between mates, even though depending the context as I have shown they too can be prosecuted. While you have the right to be a racist in your private life, you cannot express your views in a broadcast, either television or social media, and not get fined/banned from use etc depending on the context of your communication. This is fact. The difference between the Carlin case and Meecham case was when the incident was broadcasted the former led to a legal action in the form of a fine against the network, the latter to a legal action in the form of a fine against the creator. Suing companies and workers by the government for making racist comments is also a vey important indicator that you are dead wrong. Even Trump was censured by Congress for racist tweets against the four congresswomen.

b) While social media has diluted the lines between what is said publicly and what is said privately, a general rule of thumb is that using the social media to express racist views will get you in trouble. All social platforms ban language that promote hate as you can see in the case of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter. Posts in these platforms promoting racist commentary have also real-life reprecussions even in America, like the sacking of Justine Sacco, the firing of Rosseane Barr and the firing of Jonathan Friedland from Netflix. If these cases were an encroachment on freedom of expression all of these cases would have been overturned; instead, they were all upheld. Why is that, if what Ep1c says is true and racism isn't actionable in the US? If racism isn't actionable, then the act of firing these people is against anti-discrimination laws. But its not and they were fired. Period.

c) Harrassment by racial slurs through the internet is treated under harrassment laws and will get you a fine because it's a misdemeanor. There's one case where this doesn't happen which Aexodus correctly brought up, and that the case where the receiving party is part of the government in any capacity. The reason for this is that it's indistiguishable whether the hate directed was the outcome of someone's role as a government agent (protected from the 1A) or stemming from racial hatred (not protected by 1A).

c) In that sense, since the US doesn't have a unified system of laws codifying online hate speech, which is the concept of this discussion, cyberharrassment or hostile workplace environment or other provisions are usually used, depending on the context. The way this works I explained in full detail over a a few posts. It doesn't even matter if the hate was directed at someone in particular; if you express racist beliefs in America, you will loose your job and depending on your actions you can even be prosecuted for harrassment. This is fact. Period.

d) You can air your racist views in public only in the case you've secured a permit to hold a demonstration and you do it in a designated public space under a specific manner. Incitement to violence due to your speech may land you a prosecution if it can be established you presented a security threat to lawful and orderly conduct.

e) Your position on how freedom of expression works isn't new, or uninfluenced by propaganda. It's so prevalent a phenomenon in fact, that even the academic community is debunking it constantly.

In the US, cyberlibertarians (Godwin, 1998) view the Internet and regulation as antithetical to principles of the US constitution that they interpret as guaranteeing an absolute
right to free speech, regardless of content (Becker et al., 2000). This view holds that racist speech online is a trivial concern compared to the regulation of racist speech online,which is viewed as a more serious threat. The European model adopts a human rights framework that values free speech as a fundamental right, but conceptualizes the need to balancing that right against the important human right of being free from discrimination or harassment based on race (Hicks et al., 2000).

The difference between EU and US legislation is on the basis of human rights, as I pointed out earlier on this thread. The EU recognizes the unalienable right for people to not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, skin color, religion or gender (thus recognizing the harm in racism, even in speech). The US incorporate hate speech under political speech which is generally protected by 1A, unless threats, harrassment or fighting words are uttered. This means that for the US legal system, all citizens are treated equally under the law and the same prerequisites are necessary between white and non-white groups to seek redress. While some are critical of this point and ask for its change due to the fact that packing provisions to seek redress when you're the victim of racism is a dishonest way to keep promoting racism, what it essentially means is that hate speech is broken down in its components like any insult thrown at a white person. And as a white person can seek redress and win the court case, so a non-white person can seek redress when insulted and win the case. Conclusion: You are not living in a racist paradise. Rejoice!

[Cope]

Unsuprisingly, you willfully misrepresent what I say. Let me make it clear for you.

a) We're discussing about hate speech in online communications based on the Meecham incident. We are NOT discussing about racism/hate speech in general, or in private life ie what is said between mates, even though depending the context as I have shown they too can be prosecuted. While you have the right to be a racist in your private life, you cannot express your views in a broadcast, either television or social media, and not get fined/banned from use etc depending on the context of your communication. This is fact. The difference between the Carlin case and Meecham case was when the incident was broadcasted the former led to a legal action in the form of a fine against the network, the latter to a legal action in the form of a fine against the creator. Suing companies and workers by the government for making racist comments is also a vey important indicator that you are dead wrong. Even Trump was censured by Congress for racist tweets against the four congresswomen.

b) While social media has diluted the lines between what is said publicly and what is said privately, a general rule of thumb is that using the social media to express racist views will get you in trouble. All social platforms ban language that promote hate as you can see in the case of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter. Posts in these platforms promoting racist commentary have also real-life reprecussions even in America, like the sacking of Justine Sacco, the firing of Rosseane Barr and the firing of Jonathan Friedland from Netflix. If these cases were an encroachment on freedom of expression all of these cases would have been overturned; instead, they were all upheld. Why is that, if what Ep1c says is true and racism isn't actionable in the US? If racism isn't actionable, then the act of firing these people is against anti-discrimination laws. But its not and they were fired. Period.

c) Harrassment by racial slurs through the internet is treated under harrassment laws and will get you a fine because it's a misdemeanor. There's one case where this doesn't happen which Aexodus correctly brought up, and that the case where the receiving party is part of the government in any capacity. The reason for this is that it's indistiguishable whether the hate directed was the outcome of someone's role as a government agent (protected from the 1A) or stemming from racial hatred (not protected by 1A).

c) In that sense, since the US doesn't have a unified system of laws codifying online hate speech, which is the concept of this discussion, cyberharrassment or hostile workplace environment or other provisions are usually used, depending on the context. The way this works I explained in full detail over a a few posts. It doesn't even matter if the hate was directed at someone in particular; if you express racist beliefs in America, you will loose your job and depending on your actions you can even be prosecuted for harrassment. This is fact. Period.

d) You can air your racist views in public only in the case you've secured a permit to hold a demonstration and you do it in a designated public space under a specific manner. Incitement to violence due to your speech may land you a prosecution if it can be established you presented a security threat to lawful and orderly conduct.

e) Your position on how freedom of expression works isn't new, or uninfluenced by propaganda. It's so prevalent a phenomenon in fact, that even the academic community is debunking it constantly.



The difference between EU and US legislation is on the basis of human rights, as I pointed out earlier on this thread. The EU recognizes the unalienable right for people to not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, skin color, religion or gender (thus recognizing the harm in racism, even in speech). The US incorporate hate speech under political speech which is generally protected by 1A, unless threats, harrassment or fighting words are uttered. This means that for the US legal system, all citizens are treated equally under the law and the same prerequisites are necessary between white and non-white groups to seek redress. While some are critical of this point and ask for its change due to the fact that packing provisions to seek redress when you're the victim of racism is a dishonest way to keep promoting racism, what it essentially means is that hate speech is broken down in its components like any insult thrown at a white person. And as a white person can seek redress and win the court case, so a non-white person can seek redress when insulted and win the case. Conclusion: You are not living in a racist paradise. Rejoice!

This post made me laugh, especially the part I highlighted. In the United States, racist/offensive (or perceived racist/offensive) expressions are not criminally actionable in and of themselves; the fact that they might intersect with instances of harassment or threats is, as I've now explained on multiple occasions, utterly irrelevant. As to your point about social consequences, it is clear to everyone that the First Amendment only protects individuals from state encroachment. It has nothing to do with private contracts/agreements between employers and employees or businesses and their customers and no one has made the argument that it does.

As to the Meechan case, what is really most shocking is that a man was convicted in a criminal for posting a video which wasn't even offensive enough to get it removed from YouTube - a private business which has sweeping anti-hate speech policies and is under no legal compulsion to host anyone's content. On the face of it, that means that British law, incredibly, is less tolerant of "offensive" content than a mainstream social media platform which isn't restricted by due process. And you wonder why I call legislation which allows such lunacy authoritarian garbage.

[Aexodus]

Unsuprisingly, you willfully misrepresent what I say. Let me make it clear for you.
a) We're discussing about hate speech in online communications based on the Meecham incident. We are NOT discussing about racism/hate speech in general, or in private life ie what is said between mates, even though depending the context as I have shown they too can be prosecuted.

Criminally prosecuted?

While you have the right to be a racist in your private life, you cannot express your views in a broadcast, either television or social media, and not get fined/banned from use etc depending on the context of your communication. This is fact.

The FCC does not censor any opinion racist or not on live tv broadcast. Hate speech on the internet is not regulated at all, therefore Mark Meecham would not be prosecuted in America.

The difference between the Carlin case and Meecham case was when the incident was broadcasted the former led to a legal action in the form of a fine against the network, the latter to a legal action in the form of a fine against the creator. Suing companies and workers by the government for making racist comments is also a vey important indicator that you are dead wrong.

Carlin’s bit was considered to be indecent and was a civil case. Not a case of criminal hate speech. The FCC cannot and does not totally ban indecent material, it is only banned before the watershed to protect children. The two are not the same. One is criminal one is not. Indeed, why wasn’t YouTube sued for allowing that video to be available in the UK?

Even Trump was censured by Congress for racist tweets against the four congresswomen.

And? They can condemn anything they want, it doesn’t make racist tweets illegal.

b) While social media has diluted the lines between what is said publicly and what is said privately, a general rule of thumb is that using the social media to express racist views will get you in trouble.

Not in America.

All social platforms ban language that promote hate

No they don’t. What about Gab. Or Minds. Or bitchute. Or any number of forums like 4chan.

as you can see in the case of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter. Posts in these platforms promoting racist commentary have also real-life reprecussions even in America, like the sacking of Justine Sacco, the firing of Rosseane Barr and the firing of Jonathan Friedland from Netflix. If these cases were an encroachment on freedom of expression all of these cases would have been overturned; instead, they were all upheld. Why is that, if what Ep1c says is true and racism isn't actionable in the US? If racism isn't actionable, then the act of firing these people is against anti-discrimination laws. But its not and they were fired. Period.

This entire paragraph is irrelevant because there was no criminal case against anyone, unlike Meecham.

c) Harrassment by racial slurs through the internet is treated under harrassment laws and will get you a fine because it's a misdemeanor. There's one case where this doesn't happen which Aexodus correctly brought up, and that the case where the receiving party is part of the government in any capacity. The reason for this is that it's indistiguishable whether the hate directed was the outcome of someone's role as a government agent (protected from the 1A) or stemming from racial hatred (not protected by 1A).

Racial hatred is protected by 1A. It’s harassement that’s not.

c) In that sense, since the US doesn't have a unified system of laws codifying online hate speech, which is the concept of this discussion, cyberharrassment or hostile workplace environment or other provisions are usually used, depending on the context. The way this works I explained in full detail over a a few posts. It doesn't even matter if the hate was directed at someone in particular; if you express racist beliefs in America, you will loose your job and depending on your actions you can even be prosecuted for harrassment. This is fact. Period.

Criminally prosecuted like Meecham was?

d) You can air your racist views in public only in the case you've secured a permit to hold a demonstration and you do it in a designated public space under a specific manner.

Sauce?

Incitement to violence due to your speech may land you a prosecution if it can be established you presented a security threat to lawful and orderly conduct.

Nothing to do with hate speech or Mark Meecham, who was given a criminal record for being ‘grossly offensive’.

e) Your position on how freedom of expression works isn't new, or uninfluenced by propaganda. It's so prevalent a phenomenon in fact, that even the academic community is debunking it constantly.

They’re wrong. The 1st amendment protects racist speech online. The internet should honestly have little to no direct state regulation, it should be a free platform, in that China style censorship of websites is off limits.

The difference between EU and US legislation is on the basis of human rights, as I pointed out earlier on this thread. The EU recognizes the unalienable right for people to not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, skin color, religion or gender (thus recognizing the harm in racism, even in speech).

Calling someone a racial slur isn’t the same as racial discrimination for a job, or a student place, or similar. The EU laws do not protect free speech. Exhibit A: Calling Prophet Muhammad a pedophile does not fall within freedom of speech: European court

That’s a literal religious blasphemy law right there. EU law thinks that’s compatible with freedom of speech. However EU wasn’t what Meecham was criminally prosecuted under.

The US incorporate hate speech under political speech which is generally protected by 1A, unless threats, harrassment or fighting words are uttered.

So...

racial insults are protected by the 1st Amendment, but in the UK racial insults are not protected. In both countries, threats, intimidation and incitement are crimes.

This means that for the US legal system, all citizens are treated equally under the law and the same prerequisites are necessary between white and non-white groups to seek redress.

What does racial equality along an arbitrary white Euro/everyone else basis have to with 1A.

While some are critical of this point and ask for its change due to the fact that packing provisions to seek redress when you're the victim of racism is a dishonest way to keep promoting racism, what it essentially means is that hate speech is broken down in its components like any insult thrown at a white person. And as a white person can seek redress and win the court case, so a non-white person can seek redress when insulted and win the case. Conclusion: You are not living in a racist paradise. Rejoice!

What does someone being white have to do with anything.

At any rate, the pug video is still up on Count Dankula’s YouTube channel despite you wanting the creator to be criminalised. Actually here’s a video of a Jewish man showing the video to a live audience. As you can see the pug video spurred the audience members who can’t think for themselves to gas the jews.

[Kritias]

This post made me laugh, especially the part I highlighted. In the United States, racist/offensive (or perceived racist/offensive) expressions are not criminally actionable in and of themselves; the fact that they might intersect with instances of harassment or threats is, as I've now explained on multiple occasions, utterly irrelevant. As to your point about social consequences, it is clear to everyone that the First Amendment only protects individuals from state encroachment. It has nothing to do with private contracts/agreements between employers and employees or businesses and their customers and no one has made the argument that it does.

As to the Meechan case, what is really most shocking is that a man was convicted in a criminal for posting a video which wasn't even offensive enough to get it removed from YouTube - a private business which has sweeping anti-hate speech policies and is under no legal compulsion to host anyone's content. On the face of it, that means that British law, incredibly, is less tolerant of "offensive" content than a mainstream social media platform which isn't restricted by due process. And you wonder why I call legislation which allows such lunacy authoritarian garbage.

So, you can understand the difference between getting prosecuted by the state and getting prosecuted by an individual? How curious! Because you have been denying this for the last ten posts or so. I told you, again and again, that

a) Even though the federal government doesn't prosecute hate speech per se, that doesn't mean hate speech isn't prosecutable by individuals in a civil case ending with you having to pay a lot of money. Again, I will direct you to the Oxford Constitutional law review I provided earlier in this thread.

b) Even though the 1A protect manifestations of racism under the guise of 'freedom of speech', there are instances where these racist manifestations are even prosecuted by the Federal government. These include: harassment via immediate threats, libel, profanity, incitement to violence and others. To think that hate speech is some speech form completely unconnected to the rest of the speech phasm and not carrying within it elements of other speech forms is naive at best and dishonest at worst. A characteristic example is that racism can and has been prosecuted in the past under the group libel law, which states that there can be criminal speech in the cases "which ... portrays depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens, which ... exposes the citizens of any race, color, creed or religion to contempt, derision, or obloquy or which is productive of breach of the peace or riots." You can read more in the University of Missury Law School (here) and Cornell Law Review (here).

c) Comments intended as specific and immediate threats brush up against A1 protection of freedom of speech, regardless of a person’s race or religion. So do personal, face-to-face comments meant to incite imminent lawlessness, such as a fight ot riot. This has been so ever since the Chaplinsky v New Hampshire case of 1942, where ironically a Jehova's witness had called a city marshall a 'damned fascist'. This is the case that got Chaplinsky prosecuted at a federal level; that's all he said. And it's what has constituted the "fighting words" doctrine ever since.

It's also very curious that reading the PBS article here, you can see everything I have said so far stands to scrutiny. However, you have repeatedly said I don't know what I say and that you would "eviscerate" me if you weren't bored or something to that effect. Why is that?

d) It's also very telling that during the years 2011 to 2017, hate crimes precentages have gone up by about 11,2%. In 2011 according to federal database the cases of racially motivated hate crimes were about 46,9% while in 2017 it had skyrocketed to 58,1%. So again, I am going to bring up studies to point out that this rise in hate crime is correlated to hate speech [here, here, here].

Regarding to Meecham,

As you know Meecham was sentenced on the 28th of April, 2018. YouTube's new policy to restrict hateful material did not come until June 5th of this year, 2019; so saying that YouTube did not take the video down even though it has sweeping anti-hate laws is incorrect because the video was uploaded at least a year before the announcement of these sweeping anti-hate regulations. What's more concerning is that you claim that British law is more intolerant than a social media platform based on your erroneous assertion that YouTube didn't take the video down with their new anti-hate regulation. Also, as Aexodus can point out to you British law and Scottish law are not the same thing; the United Kingdom is the collection of four different countries, not one.

The fact is that Meecham acted against the law, probably because he did not really understand what he can and cannot do under that law, and got fined for it. It was an 8oo pounds fine. The problem is that Meecham's case was highly broadcasted in American outlets to instill fear and disgust (which you clearly exhibit, point being the comment of authoritarian garbage and lunacy) in American viewers, in an ongoing campaign by some outlets to scare and outrage American viewers. This case has nothing to do with the US; this case was not a breach of US laws because it's not under US jurisdiction. So why do you bring it up?

Also, the elephant in the room has not yet been addressed. The United Kingdom adheres to the EU laws pertaining to Holocaust denial, which are summarized as follows,

- Publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising- crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin, and
- crimes defined by the Tribunal of Nuremberg (Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, London Agreement of 1945) directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.
Member States may choose to punish only conduct which is either carried out in a manner likely to disturb public order or which is threatening, abusive or insulting.

Do you claim that Meecham did not trivialize the Holocaust with his video? I would think not. Also, according to the judiciary review of PF v Meechan, the judge states

You deliberately chose the Holocaust as the theme of the video. You purposely used the command “Gas the Jews” as the centrepiece of what you called the entire joke, surrounding the “Gas the Jews” centrepiece with Nazi imagery and the Sieg Heil command so there could be no doubt what historical events you were referring to. You accepted that the phrase “Gas the Jews” was anti-Semitic though not, you said, when used as part of a joke. You said you used the phrase “Gas the Jews” because it was so extreme. You said the video content was horrific, but not when used as a joke. You told a newspaper reporter that the video was very offensive. You intended the video to be as offensive as you could make it and you posted it on your own unrestricted publicly accessible video channel which on your own description: “provides offensive social comedy and skits that get people thrown in prison”

According to what I was telling Aexodus on the financial benefit, the Judge also raised the issue here,

You had no need to make a video if all you wanted to do was to train the dog to react to offensive commands. You had no need to post the video on your unrestricted, publicly accessible, video channel if all you wanted to do was annoy your girlfriend. Your girlfriend was not even a subscriber to your channel. You posted the video, then left the country, the video went viral and thousands viewed it before she had an inkling of what you were up to. You made no effort to restrict public access or take down the video.

[Aexodus]

Also, as Aexodus can point out to you British law and Scottish law are not the same thing; the United Kingdom is the collection of four different countries, not one.

The crime of causing gross offence is UK wide. Federal law, if you will.

The fact is that Meecham acted against the law, probably because he did not really understand what he can and cannot do under that law, and got fined for it. It was an 8oo pounds fine. The problem is that Meecham's case was highly broadcasted in American outlets to instill fear and disgust (which you clearly exhibit, point being the comment of authoritarian garbage and lunacy)

I mean I feel the same way as Epic. This law is authoritarian garbage which has no place in our laws.

[sumskilz]

a) Even though the federal government doesn't prosecute hate speech per se, that doesn't mean hate speech isn't prosecutable by individuals in a civil case ending with you having to pay a lot of money. Again, I will direct you to the Oxford Constitutional law review I provided earlier in this thread.

No, you can't be "prosecuted" by an individual in the US under any circumstances. That's why the person or party who filed the civil suit is referred to as the "plaintiff" or "claimant" rather than the "prosecution". In such a case one is not prosecuted for hate speech, but sued for damages. The issue is not the hate speech (which is protected speech) but whether or not the defendant had caused loss or injury to the plaintiff. Meechan could not be prosecuted in the US. Someone could file a lawsuit against him, if their lawyer was willing to put themselves at risk of being held in contempt of court for frivolous litigation.

[Cope]

So, you can understand the difference between getting prosecuted by the state and getting prosecuted by an individual? How curious! Because you have been denying this for the last ten posts or so. I told you, again and again, that

a) Even though the federal government doesn't prosecute hate speech per se, that doesn't mean hate speech isn't prosecutable by individuals in a civil case ending with you having to pay a lot of money. Again, I will direct you to the Oxford Constitutional law review I provided earlier in this thread.

1. The defendant isn't usually said to be being "prosecuted" in civil cases (lol); that term almost always refers to criminal cases.
2. I specifically told you that my opposition to hate speech legislation related to state encroachment on individual liberties. You've been arguing with yourself about potential civil liabilities.
3. "Hate speech" isn't actionable in civil cases unless it exists in a contractual agreement between two parties.

b) Even though the 1A protect manifestations of racism under the guise of 'freedom of speech', there are instances where these racist manifestations are even prosecuted by the Federal government. These include: harassment via immediate threats, libel, profanity, incitement to violence and others.To think that hate speech is some speech form completely unconnected to the rest of the speech phasm and not carrying within it elements of other speech forms is naive at best and dishonest at worst. A characteristic example is that racism can and has been prosecuted in the past under the group libel law, which states that there can be criminal speech in the cases "which ... portrays depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens, which ... exposes the citizens of any race, color, creed or religion to contempt, derision, or obloquy or which is productive of breach of the peace or riots." You can read more in the University of Missury Law School (here) and Cornell Law Review (here).

I've explained this to you at least three times now, so this will be the final time. There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Instances of harassment, incitement or slander may involve racially abuse language but racially abusive language is not actionable in and of itself. It is the harassment or incitement which actionable, not the racism/offensive language. I'm sorry that you cannot seem to understand this basic point.

c) Comments intended as specific and immediate threats brush up against A1 protection of freedom of speech, regardless of a person’s race or religion. So do personal, face-to-face comments meant to incite imminent lawlessness, such as a fight ot riot. This has been so ever since the Chaplinsky v New Hampshire case of 1942, where ironically a Jehova's witness had called a city marshall a 'damned fascist'. This is the case that got Chaplinsky prosecuted at a federal level; that's all he said. And it's what has constituted the "fighting words" doctrine ever since.

No one has claimed that incitement is legal.

It's also very curious that reading the PBS article here, you can see everything I have said so far stands to scrutiny. However, you have repeatedly said I don't know what I say and that you would "eviscerate" me if you weren't bored or something to that effect. Why is that?

You're eviscerating yourself; you are constantly raising irrelevant points which have been debunked.

d) It's also very telling that during the years 2011 to 2017, hate crimes precentages have gone up by about 11,2%. In 2011 according to federal database the cases of racially motivated hate crimes were about 46,9% while in 2017 it had skyrocketed to 58,1%. So again, I am going to bring up studies to point out that this rise in hate crime is correlated to hate speech [here, here, here].

Irrelevant. The relation between reported hate crimes and reported instances of hate speech has nothing to do with the speech code. This has been explained to you repeatedly.

As you know Meecham was sentenced on the 28th of April, 2018. YouTube's new policy to restrict hateful material did not come until June 5th of this year, 2019; so saying that YouTube did not take the video down even though it has sweeping anti-hate laws is incorrect because the video was uploaded at least a year before the announcement of these sweeping anti-hate regulations. What's more concerning is that you claim that British law is more intolerant than a social media platform based on your erroneous assertion that YouTube didn't take the video down with their new anti-hate regulation.

YouTube is constantly updating its hate speech policies, but your point is irrelevant because the policy can (and has been) be applied retroactively. The original video still has not been removed.

Also, as Aexodus can point out to you British law and Scottish law are not the same thing; the United Kingdom is the collection of four different countries, not one.

Meechan was prosecuted under the Communications Act 2003 which is a Westminster statute. That means it's British law. Stop wasting my time with this nonsense.

The fact is that Meecham acted against the law, probably because he did not really understand what he can and cannot do under that law, and got fined for it. It was an 8oo pounds fine. The problem is that Meecham's case was highly broadcasted in American outlets to instill fear and disgust (which you clearly exhibit, point being the comment of authoritarian garbage and lunacy) in American viewers, in an ongoing campaign by some outlets to scare and outrage American viewers. This case has nothing to do with the US; this case was not a breach of US laws because it's not under US jurisdiction. So why do you bring it up?

No one claimed that the Meechan case had anything to do with the US. This is simply more irrelevant prattle from you.

Also, the elephant in the room has not yet been addressed. The United Kingdom adheres to the EU laws pertaining to Holocaust denial, which are summarized as follows

Irrelevant, Meechan did not deny the Holocaust, nor was he prosecuted for doing so.

Do you claim that Meecham did not trivialize the Holocaust with his video? I would think not. Also, according to the judiciary review of PF v Meechan, the judge states

Irrelevant. Meechan wasn't prosecuted for "trivializing" the Holocaust.

[Kritias]

@Ep1c,

Dude, incitement to violence and harrassment are part of the term. It's obvious we have an issue over terms here. Hate speech, according to Cambridge Dictionary, is

public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.):

According to Merriam Webster, Hate speech is

speech that is intended to insult, offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait (as race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability)

I've been telling you, again and again, that according to the context of what happened a person can be prosecuted for it due to harassment, due to incitement to violence etc The obvious issue is that the US doesn't recognize hate speech as a seperate legal definition. What it does recognize is fighting words, libel, slander, harrassment, incitements to violence etc. If you hurl racial slurs on someone then you are throwing insults at them and as such you're committing a misdemeanor, just like the case of Virginia v Chaplinsky. So, if you're being openly racist towards someone you will can prosecuted for "fighting words" depending on the context. It's so simple. Get it through your head that if you insult someone you can go to court in a civil action, and if its proven your words harrassed or intimidated someone you can get criminally prosecuted. As I have been saying time and time again, context matters on whether something goes to civil action or criminal court.

Just to make clear what harrassment is: verbal abuse, threats of physical abuse, stalking, sexual assault, or serious harassment by someone you have not dated and do NOT have a close family relationship with, like a neighbor, a roommate, or a friend (that you have never dated). The civil harassment laws say “harassment” is:

Unlawful violence, like assault or battery or stalking, OR a credible threat of violence, AND the violence or threats seriously scare, annoy, or harass someone.

“Credible threat of violence” means intentionally saying something or acting in a way that would make a reasonable person afraid for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family. A “credible threat of violence” includes following or stalking someone or making harassing calls or sending harassing messages (by phone, mail, or e-mail) over a period of time (even if it is a short time).

@sumskilz,

According to Oxford Constitutional Law Review here, "a victim of hate speech may seek redress under criminal law, civil law, or both." So an individual can file for a criminal prosecution. If it weren't the case I believe Oxford, one of the greatest universities, wouldn't make that statement in its Constitutional Law Review regarding to the US legal system. So, apparently there's something missing here. Again, I raise two points: First an individual can file for a criminal prosecution as evident from the previous sentence. Secondly, a person can file for civil action. In both cases, uttering racial epithets or promoting hate speech in some of its manifestations will get you prosecuted under criminal law, sued under civil law or both. According to the same document,

This line of cases has contributed to an assumption in comparative constitutional law of a clash between Europe and the US on hate speech regulation. The majority opinion in Snyder v. Phelps specifically declares, ‘as a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate’ (Snyder v Phelps et al (2011) Part IV (US)).

They key terms here being public issue and public debate - this right does not extend to a private individual insulting/harrasssing or inciting to violence on another person.

@Ep1c,

Again the gross offence was found on the basis of offending the Jewish community as a whole according to evidence provided by the Jewish community representative. As obvious from the words of the Judge, the case has everything to do with trivializing the Holocaust in why it was found grossly offensive. Otherwise he wouldn't have said this,

You deliberately chose the Holocaust as the theme of the video. You purposely used the command “Gas the Jews” as the centrepiece of what you called the entire joke, surrounding the “Gas the Jews” centrepiece with Nazi imagery and the Sieg Heil command so there could be no doubt what historical events you were referring to. You accepted that the phrase “Gas the Jews” was anti-Semitic though not, you said, when used as part of a joke. You said you used the phrase “Gas the Jews” because it was so extreme. You said the video content was horrific, but not when used as a joke. You told a newspaper reporter that the video was very offensive. You intended the video to be as offensive as you could make it and you posted it on your own unrestricted publicly accessible video channel which on your own description: “provides offensive social comedy and skits that get people thrown in prison”

[Aexodus]

To bring everything back here, mine and others’ contention is that the communications act 2003 infringes on Mark Meecham’s freedom of speech, citing the USA as a country with freedom of speech protected unlike the UK. We thought it was Orwellian because it infringed on free speech.

Kritias, is your contention that Meecham’s joke wasn’t free speech, or that it isn’t Orwellian to censor him, or both?

[Common Soldier]

So, you can understand the difference between getting prosecuted by the state and getting prosecuted by an individual? How curious! Because you have been denying this for the last ten posts or so. I told you, again and again, that

a) Even though the federal government doesn't prosecute hate speech per se, that doesn't mean hate speech isn't prosecutable by individuals in a civil case ending with you having to pay a lot of money. Again, I will direct you to the Oxford Constitutional law review I provided earlier in this thread.

Being involved in a civil law suit isn't quite the same as being prosecuted. People can sue for pretty much for.any reason they want.

b) Even though the 1A protect manifestations of racism under the guise of 'freedom of speech', there are instances where these racist manifestations are even prosecuted by the Federal government. These include: harassment via immediate threats, libel, profanity, incitement to violence and others. To think that hate speech is some speech form completely unconnected to the rest of the speech phasm and not carrying within it elements of other speech forms is naive at best and dishonest at worst. A characteristic example is that racism can and has been prosecuted in the past under the group libel law, which states that there can be criminal speech in the cases "which ... portrays depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens, which ... exposes the citizens of any race, color, creed or religion to contempt, derision, or obloquy or which is productive of breach of the peace or riots." You can read more in the University of Missury Law School (here) and Cornell Law Review (here).

It is not speech itself, per se, but particular aspects of the speech that are being prosecuted. Freedom of speech does not allow you the right to be "Fire" in a crowded theater.

c) Comments intended as specific and immediate threats brush up against A1 protection of freedom of speech, regardless of a person’s race or religion. So do personal, face-to-face comments meant to incite imminent lawlessness, such as a fight ot riot. This has been so ever since the Chaplinsky v New Hampshire case of 1942, where ironically a Jehova's witness had called a city marshall a 'damned fascist'. This is the case that got Chaplinsky prosecuted at a federal level; that's all he said. And it's what has constituted the "fighting words" doctrine ever since.

Those types of speech are design to promote specific actionsm

d) It's also very telling that during the years 2011 to 2017, hate crimes precentages have gone up by about 11,2%. In 2011 according to federal database the cases of racially motivated hate crimes were about 46,9% while in 2017 it had skyrocketed to 58,1%. So again, I am going to bring up studies to point out that this rise in hate crime is correlated to hate speech [here, here, here].

The rise in reported hate crimes do not necessarily represent an actual rise in the number of such crimes, but a change in the way such crimes are classified. I recall that the Trayvon shooting was called by many as a hate crime and tested as such by many Obama officials, even though there was no basis for those claims, either by Zimmer speech or behaviour - apparently, any shooting by white Hispanic of a black is automatically labeled a hate crime, whilenthe reverse is not true. So black neighborhood watchman Roderick Scott shooting of an unarmed white student who had not even assaulted him was not regarded as a hate crime. Neither was the horific torture and murder of Cannon Christian and Christopher Newson, Jourdan Bobbish and Jaccob Kudos, even the murder of Jourdan and Jaccob shouted Black Lives Matter and showed no remorse or concern of his own brutal murder. I can't think of any major crime where the black suspect was charged with a hate crime. There is a definitely a political element in calling something a hate crime, it is not being used as some neutral term.

So simply because some statistics seem to show a rise in the crimes called hate crimes does necessarily mean there is an actual rise in reality. We see no major increase in the percentage of blacks killed by whites, nor whites killed by blacks. Unlike detdrming whether a.crine was a hate crime or not, which can be subjective tonsome extent, determine the race of victim and offender is straight, and less subjective.

Regarding to Meecham,

As you know Meecham was sentenced on the 28th of April, 2018. YouTube's new policy to restrict hateful material did not come until June 5th of this year, 2019; so saying that YouTube did not take the video down even though it has sweeping anti-hate laws is incorrect because the video was uploaded at least a year before the announcement of these sweeping anti-hate regulations. What's more concerning is that you claim that British law is more intolerant than a social media platform based on your erroneous assertion that YouTube didn't take the video down with their new anti-hate regulation. Also, as Aexodus can point out to you British law and Scottish law are not the same thing; the United Kingdom is the collection of four different countries...

YouTube is banning more than white supremacists. They also banned speech by Louis Farrakhan, I believe, the opposite of white sprmacist. As a private business, they have a right to ban certain speech and content they seem in appropriate. I know that YouTube has demontarized certain videos that talked about weapons by posters that discuss medieval weapons and such, weapons in question were not necessarily even modern ones.

As a company, YouTube has to be concerned about potential lawsuits by people claiming that posting some video led to somenaft or loss. Lawsuits don't have to have merit to be filed or even won, and YouTube could be successfully sued even though the video posted really had nothing to do with h whatever violent act the video was alleged to have promoted. In the US, it is a about whoever has the deep financial pockets you can get money from.

[Common Soldier]

To bring everything back here, mine and others’ contention is that the communications act 2003 infringes on Mark Meecham’s freedom of speech, citing the USA as a country with freedom of speech protected unlike the UK. We thought it was Orwellian because it infringed on free speech.

Kritias, is your contention that Meecham’s joke wasn’t free speech, or that it isn’t Orwellian to censor him, or both?

Orwell and 1984 wasn't about censorship per se - that is not what makes something Orwellian. Censorship has been around for a long time.

No what makes something Orwellian is not he way terms are redefined, and how something that seems innocent actually is not. For example, using hate speech and hate crimes to promote social agendas , and redefine then o be anything being anything that is not politicall correct. For example, if you looknpoint outn

[Kritias]

To bring everything back here, mine and others’ contention is that the communications act 2003 infringes on Mark Meecham’s freedom of speech, citing the USA as a country with freedom of speech protected unlike the UK. We thought it was Orwellian because it infringed on free speech.

Kritias, is your contention that Meecham’s joke wasn’t free speech, or that it isn’t Orwellian to censor him, or both?

That's correct on both questions. What Meechan did was to publicly trivialize the Holocaust, as you can see from the reasoning of the Judge who first states

You deliberately chose the Holocaust as the theme of the video. You purposely used the command “Gas the Jews” as the centrepiece of what you called the entire joke, surrounding the “Gas the Jews” centrepiece with Nazi imagery and the Sieg Heil command so there could be no doubt what historical events you were referring to. You accepted that the phrase “Gas the Jews” was anti-Semitic though not, you said, when used as part of a joke. You said you used the phrase “Gas the Jews” because it was so extreme. You said the video content was horrific, but not when used as a joke. You told a newspaper reporter that the video was very offensive. You intended the video to be as offensive as you could make it and you posted it on your own unrestricted publicly accessible video channel which on your own description: “provides offensive social comedy and skits that get people thrown in prison”

You had no need to make a video if all you wanted to do was to train the dog to react to offensive commands. You had no need to post the video on your unrestricted, publicly accessible, video channel if all you wanted to do was annoy your girlfriend. Your girlfriend was not even a subscriber to your channel. You posted the video, then left the country, the video went viral and thousands viewed it before she had an inkling of what you were up to. You made no effort to restrict public access or take down the video.

His reasoning is specifically based on the use of the Holocaust and he specifically states the offence of a joke on the gassing of the Jews. I can't think of another reason if not for the trivialization of the Holocaust. Even when he discusses the intention of the video, since Meechan said that the intention was to piss off his girlfriend, he stresses the fact of its dubious use on the platform due to it being unrestricted, publicly accessible and that he made no effort to restrict access to it or even take it down (self-regulation). Therefore it is obvious that the communication was found offensive specifically due to its content, and not some unknown Orwellian cause.

The difference of course lies in the fact that the Holocaust happened in Europe and not in the US, which is why there's no legislation outlawing the denial of the Holocaust in the US or the American continent in general and there is in Europe. The fact is we Europeans are more sensitive to it is because we lived through it; so its denial has taken legal form to prevent it from happening again or advocating for it, or making light of it. What's so Orwellian about that? The facts are that Meechan trivialized it through a video, he was in opposition to law and he paid a fine for that.

The problem I see here is that the EU laws on Hate Speech are being seriously misrepresented here. Equally misunderstood is the concept of Hate Speech and what is considered to be criminal about it under EU law. In fact, the differences between the US and EU on this front are very slight. According to 2008/913/JHA, 28.11.2008, these actions constitute an illegal activity under the EU statures


a) publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.




b) publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court.




According to EU General Policy No15 hate speech is the following,

the use of one or more particular forms of expression – namely, the advocacy, promotion or incitement of the denigration, hatred or vilification of a person or group of persons, as well any harassment, insult, negative stereotyping, stigmatization or threat of such person or persons and any justification of all these forms of expression – that is based on a nonexhaustive list of personal characteristics or status that includes “race”, colour, language, religion or belief, nationality or national or ethnic origin, as well as descent, age, disability, sex, gender, gender identity and sexual orientation”

The EU laws passed under the GP15 promote the following,


a) Incitement to violence based on racial, skin color, language, religion or belief, nationality or ethnic origin as well as gender, gender identity and sexual orientation is a crime. The only difference with the Supreme Court is that while the EU recognize incitement to violence as a crime de facto, the US statures require "an immediate and true threat of violence" to proclaim a crime.


b) The raising of public awareness through political and civilian personnel to educate on hate crime and demonstrate the falsity of the ideological foudations upon which is based, and its unacceptability. This is happening in the US as well, so no difference.


c) endeavour to help through counceling, raise awareness of causes to redress over the judiciary system, encourage the reporting of hate speech and sanction online harrassment. Same as above.


d) provide support for self-regulation with the promotion of codes of conduct, monitoring of misinformation, public condemnation of hate speech. Again, self regulation is happening in the US as well, so there's nothing different.


e) withdraw all financial and other forms of support by public bodies from political parties and other organisations that use hate speech or fail to sanction its use by their members and provide, while respecting the right to freedom of association.


f) take appropriate and effective action against the use, in a public context, of hate speech which is intended or can reasonably be expected to incite acts of violence, intimidation, hostility or discrimination against those targeted by it through the use of the criminal law provided that no other, less restrictive, measure would be effective and the right to freedom of expression and opinion is respected.


e) use regulatory powers with respect to the media (including internet providers, online intermediaries and social media), to promote action to combat the use of hate speech and to challenge its acceptability, while ensuring that such action does not violate the right to freedom of expression and opinion. And here's the jackpot! and why this whole thing is an issue - the EU passed laws to fine corporations like Facebook, Youtube and Twitter for allowing hate speech on their platforms in clear violation of their terms of service. While a person is not fined or prosecuted and the content gets its fair exposure over 24h, or 7 days for less offensive content, the corporations have to take it down after that time or face a fine by the EU.

With the exception that the EU (1) denies financial assistance to racist, or neo-nazi parties, and (b) asks for the social media platforms to self-regulate and impose their own terms of service on penalty of a fine, there's no great disimilarity between the way the EU approaches the subject of hate speech.

What's criminal in the US, namely incitement to violence, is also criminal to the EU. The difference is that the Supreme Court demands an immediate threat to call it a crime while the EU takes incitement to violence to be a de facto crime. Other manifestations of hate speech such as libel, slander, harrassment etc are equally punished between the EU and the US with the difference being that the US doesn't acknowledge the fact that its citizens can be part of "protected" groups. The law in the US covers all illegalities the same way. The sole exception not found in the US is that the EU also has incorporated laws to criminalize the denials of genocides as the Holocaust and the promotion of anti-semitism which, historically, makes perfect sense for the continent.

[Heathen Hammer]

You saying that a country doesn't respect their own citizens requires more backing up than simply your opinion. For the rest, read what I replied to Ep1c_Fa1l - you make roughly the same argument.

The free marketplace of ideas does not work this way; I can't convince you otherwise if a) you do not bring any contradicting evidence other than your own personal opinion and b) you keep on reverting to the same argument over and over. I've debated this with you on two threads already, check my arguments from there.

If they prosecute citizens for saying things, then they don't respect their citizens overall - otherwise such laws wouldn't be in place. Existence of such archaic and barbaric laws is evidence in itself.
If an idea being expressed is incorrect, then nothing prevents you to debate it. There is no reason why any idea, however crazy or unrealistic, should be suppressed, since it creates mechanisms for suppression of truth overall, while incorrect ideas can always be easily countered with proper arguments, and in that process truth can be reached.
Your opinion on how free market of ideas is simply incorrect - as the analogy you made (government "subsidizing" failed ideas, which I didn't suggest in the first place as it would be up for an individual to express them) is flawed and isn't properly applied. I already explained why this is the case in my above post.

[Aexodus]

Trivialising or even denying the Holocaust is free speech, because it does not infringe on the rights of others.