[dogemaster2028]

- Jon Richelieu-Booth for posting a picture of himself with a gun in the US

- Jordan Parlour for Facebook posts that were deemed ‘hateful.’

- Bernadette Spofforth for a post with a “mild inaccuracy”

- Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine, after raising concerns in a private parents’ WhatsApp group about the hiring process of their daughter’s school

- Lucy Connolly, for a post calling for mass deportation and to set fire to hotels housing immigrants

- Norbert Gyurcsik, for having “extreme right wing music”

Germany, you too.

[ponector]

Don't you think people should have consequences for the hate speech?

[dogemaster2032]

Everything that a certain population of the US correlated with the color Blue dislikes is considered hate speech by them, so things become impractical. Thankfully there are fewer and fewer snowflakes.

[beedeebeedee]

The trump administration is labeling people against fascism as domestic terrorists. Please don’t make this website Reddit with your idiotic views about ‘snowflakes’

[dogemaster2032]

People can be terrorists regardless of what they are against. You can be against anything you want, just don’t terrorize and nobody would call you a terrorist. And by the way many are foreigners, not domestic.

[DaSHacka]

When "hate speech" is defined as "all speech the government does not approve of", no.

[nness]

I mean, a quick search of all of these people, and you can find something which absolutely warranted police investigation. That's the police doing what they're meant to do — investigate and ensure public safety.

- Jon Richelieu-Booth was investigated for stalking and making threats. The gun photo was not part of the police investigation.

- Jordan Parlour was charged for suggesting attacking hotels housing asylum seekers.

- Bernadette Spofforth was investigated for distributing misinformation with the intent to incite violence.

- Lucy Connolly for exactly what you say, inciting violence

- Norbert Gyurcsik had and was selling terrorist materials. (Just because you pair something illegal in a melody doesn't change its content...)

(With the exception of Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine, which was an unlawful arrest and they were had restitution for it.)

[vidarh]

> - Jon Richelieu-Booth for posting a picture of himself with a gun in the US

A quick search suggests that the photo with the gun wasn't the sole cause of the arrest, given there were stalking allegations "involving serious alarm or distress" from someone he had a conflict with, where the gun was one part of what caused the complainint to (claim to) feel threatened. Police may well have overreacted due to the gun post, but your framing leaves out rather relevant details.

> - Jordan Parlour for Facebook posts that were deemed ‘hateful.’

Appears to have incited violence by advocating an attack on a hotel, something he pleaded guilty to.

> - Bernadette Spofforth for a post with a “mild inaccuracy”

Was arrested for posting a fake name for an attacker, but released and faced no further action.

Calling potentially putting a target on the back of someone innocent by connecting them to a violent crime a "mild inaccuracy" is at best wildly misleading.

> Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine

These people did get a wrongful arrest payout, but the claim was most certainly not just raising concerns in a private parent's WhatsApp group. The claims including harassment, and causing a nuisance on the school premises. The claim was still wrong, and the payout reflects that the police should not have been so quick to believe the allegations before making an arrest. But your claim is still hyperbole.

> - Lucy Connolly, for a post calling for mass deportation and to set fire to hotels housing immigrants

At least in this one you admitted the arrest was over incitement to violence.

> - Norbert Gyurcsik, for having “extreme right wing music”

No, for buying and distributing albums whose lyrics breach terrorism legislation and intended to incite racial hatred.

I have plenty of issues with UK terror legislation, which I believe is being abused to shut down legitimate speech at times, but framing this the way you did is again wildly misleading and hyperbolic.

But even if none of your claims were wildly misleading, none of them support your initial claim:

> You are allowed to say it. Unlike UK, you won’t be arrested. But you won’t be allowed in.

... about a comment referring to criticism of the government.

None of the cases above were relevant to that. Most of them are relating to classes of speech that are not protected in the US either.