Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rscoots 1633 days ago
It actually does precisely mean freedom from legal consequences, yes.
2 comments

Except it doesn’t. Go onto the street and hurl racist abuse at the nearest minority in a way that can be considered “calling for imminent harm” and you’ll find out quickly if there are consequences, legal or otherwise.
Sounds kind of racist to imply minorities will attack me with street violence if I say words they don’t like.

I’ll have to report this to the authorities mate, hope you’re not a big football fan.

Edit: you stealth edited your post to include the “imminent harm” part. Sorry bro I’ve already sent the evidence to your friends Boris Johnson and the police who you trust to vet what is and isn’t racist.

Try and not get so heated in future discussions.

The courts, and a jury of peers, decide what is and is not considered hate speech. In the USA the courts have decided that calling for imminent harm on someone (racially motivated or otherwise) is illegal.

Therefore the USA doesn’t have free speech and you live in a totalitarian police state nightmare?

Lol what did I say that was ‘heated’? Your first reply to me was a defense of street violence against me.

Threatening violence is a whole different topic and these laws encompass a lot more than “imminent violence” so not sure why you’ve brought that up.

Whoever makes the legal decision, I hope you have a good lawyer because the police should be knocking on your families’ door abt your racist post soon now. Cheers, I’m about to get rate limited by HN so might not reply.

> Threatening violence is a whole different topic

The conclusion to which can be summed up as: Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.

Threats are prosecuted as intent to commit another crime, not ‘u said a naughty word.’ That’s why slogans such as “kill all men” would never lead to legal conviction in the US (they might in the UK!)

More importantly, the laws in this article are not about threats. Myself nor any freedom of conscious supporters I know of would claim verbal intent to commit a crime should be protected from legal consequence.

So unless you can name any, this is not only off topic but also a straw man.

Why, is the government running football now?
The article is about government legislation.
Legislation that has existed for decades for the purpose of making football stadiums a safer place for all people to attend, and to cut down on hooliganism. People who would get several years' worth of bans if they used their hate speech in a stadium will now get the same bans from sports venues if they are caught doing that online too.