[lukan]

"as almost anything now can be interpreted as 'offensive' or 'hate speech'"

Are you serious here?

In russia you get problems for calling a war a war and worse problems if you say it is a bad war.

In UK you certainly can call a war a war and you can critize the government or other people all day long. What you cannot do is calling for violence against them. Or do you have counterexamples?

[esperent]

I've been hearing lots of crazy things about people getting arrested in the UK for posting "memes" or things like that. So I decided to look for examples. All the examples I can find are clearly hate speech, policed more strongly than I would prefer but not that much more strongly, if I'm honest.

The most egregious case I could find was someone arrested for a meme of a pride flag morphing into a swastika. Probably not arrest worthy but perhaps it was the last straw for someone with a history of hate speech.

It's also hard to find examples because everyone writing about this has an agenda. So if anyone can find examples of people being arrested for things that are clearly jokes or memes rather than clearly hate speech, I'm curious to see them as well.

[passing_by_and]

Why on earth would you support arresting people for any speech, hate or otherwise? It is just so obviously a terrible idea that has been regurgitated over and over for thousands of years, countless books, wars, philosophical treatise and here we are. No wonder we aren't going to make it.

[ben_w]

> Why on earth would you support arresting people for any speech, hate or otherwise?

Historical examples, including just about within living memory, where freedom of speech was used to gain the power to kill.

[lukan]

Can you define a clear line between free speech and call for murder?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...

I am very much pro free speech, but I do draw the line with implicit or explicit threats of violence. And this line is debatable, sure, but saying any words are just free speech? To escalate the example, Hitler giving the order to exterminate the jews was just free speech?

[passing_by_and]

No, and no one can.

My real point here is that this discussion specifically has been so thoroughly debated by brilliant people that I have trouble understanding why this hasn't been simply closed as proven like we do in math. Eventually you reach a level of argument where there is simply nothing left. We have reached it. Curtailing speech and thought simply never works as intended and always brings greater harms than the alternative.

[graemep]

> I am very much pro free speech, but I do draw the line with implicit or explicit threats of violence. And this line is debatable, sure, but saying any words are just free speech?

Hard to say without evidence of the intent and records of the context.

> Hitler giving the order to exterminate the jews was just free speech?

That is clear but. It was directly ordering murder.

Direct calls to violence have been crimes for a long time, so has conspiracy to organise violence. Hate speech laws go far beyond that.

[TacticalCoder]

> I've been hearing lots of crazy things about people getting arrested in the UK for posting "memes" or things like that.

Several (christians) people in the UK have been arrested for "praying in their heads" outside of an abortion facility.

I don't find it classy to go pray for unborn babies that are getting "killed" but that's being arrested for a thought crime and it's not OK.

But then hundreds of muslims regularly openly praying in the streets even though the country is covered with mosques: not an issue. Nothing to see here. All perfectly normal.

The pro-muslim / anti-christian two-tier policy in the UK is just wild.

[esperent]

It's illegal to protest outside of abortion centers for very good reason, because it targets vulnerable women going through a difficult medical procedure. These people were arrested for protesting outside an abortion clinic. They can go and "pray in their heads" literally anywhere else in the entire country and they won't get arrested. They can even stage full on peaceful protests against abortion and they won't get arrested. They just can't do it next the actual clinics.

[graemep]

The first part of what you say is true. You can be arrested for what silent prayer with no outward sign - in other words for what was going in in your head. It is a thought crime. There are also arrests for reasonable free speech - for example holding up a placard offering to talk to women who were coerced into having an abortion.

The second part is nonsense. Anyone of any religion or none doing the same thing would be committing the same crime. It is perfectly legal to pray in the street except close to a place offering abortions.

[wizzwizz4]

If there's no outward sign, then there's no evidence. I don't know what actually happened in this situation, but I know that's a misrepresentation.

[poszlem]

The flaw in your argument is that it assumes a clear and workable distinction between "a joke" and "obvious hate speech." Yet one of the strongest objections to the very concept of "hate speech" is precisely that we lack a reliable way to stop the term from expanding indefinitely.

The case of Count Dankula is a textbook example: it is plainly a joke, and interpreting it as Nazi promotion or hate speech requires an extraordinary degree of bad faith. And yet, that is exactly how it was treated. https://www.vice.com/en/article/youtube-count-dankula-mark-m...

[esperent]

This is what I mean by everywhere having an agenda. Because if you just read that Vice article you'll come away thinking he's a "Scottish comedian" who was just joking around to annoy his girlfriend. And after all, they're well known to like off color jokes, the Scottish. This is clearly unfair.

But if you dig a bit deeper, you'll find out that he soon after became a member of the far right UKIP party and was considering running for MEP. Also, his YouTube channel had over a million subscribers, of which his girlfriend was not one. So the reality is not that he's just a Scottish comedian, but rather he's also a far right political wannabe using his platform to spread anti-Semitic hate speech in the form of "jokes".

So perhaps "making anti-Semitic jokes for your girlfriend" should be treated differently than "making anti-Semitic jokes for your million YouTube followers"? At the very least, that is what happened here.

It's also important to note the context that there is a massive and growing online hate speech problem and has been for several decades now.

The arrest does seem to have radicalized this guy. But he's just one person, and he was popular enough to get support from a ton of famous people, and no doubt his million YouTube followers. I would need to see more data before I can form an well founded opinion on whether these arrests work or not. Perhaps they do work as a deterrent for the kinds of people that don't get Ricky Gervais publicly standing up for them.

[Ray20]

So we come to the conclusion that this is not just a violation of freedom of speech, but also persecution of political opponents? The situation didn't look any better.

[poszlem]

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the state arrests someone for a joke, and that person, feeling persecuted, joins an anti-establishment or far-right group, the state cannot then say, "See? We were right to arrest him because he's now a member of that group."

You are using Meechan’s political actions in 2018 and 2019 to justify a legal conviction for a video made in 2016 (which you said happened "soon after").

[esperent]

This one person did appear to get radicalized, yes. Although I'm willing to bet the radicalizers found fertile ground.

But we'd need to see statistical analysis across the whole population of arrests to see whether it's generally a deterrent or not.

[lukan]

"The flaw in your argument is that it assumes a clear and workable distinction between "a joke" and "obvious hate speech"

That is usually easy derived from the context and the cases I know of "missunderstanding a joke" was rather deliberate misinterpretation of the law to get someone out of line.

Your example seems like this as well.

[phatfish]

Ah yes, that famous "joke" which evolves a Nazi salute after antisemitic phrases are said. I think Israel is undermining the Jewish cause with their current label-everything-we-dont-like-as-antisemitic rhetoric. But this "joke" is probably where the line should be drawn for actual antisemitic behaviour.

Whether the person was an antisemite or not, just don't go there. There is no reason to. As a joke between you and your girlfriend, maybe. But not broadcasting it to the whole world on Youtube.

[darubedarob]

Israel is surrounded by a ocean of minority genociding imperialist islamo supremacists using proxies and petrodollars to subvert the umbilical keeping it alive. Up to and including pushing narratives about a genocide that never happened.

It has ever right to be worried and frankly seeing how much activist media and the west republished terrorist propaganda.. they are right.

[phatfish]

The "the UK is a police state" meme is something amplified by the US right wing (it's always people from the US going nuts about it on HN, or those that consume too much American media). Like you say, it's dumb that the police are wasting their time moderating Twitter, but if someone (or a group) was verbally abusing another person enough in real life they would be arrested.

The law should be changed to somehow accommodate assholes on social media abusing people. Probably by forcing the social media platforms to moderate their shit. What little moderation there was, was all thrown out when the Trump second term started. Either to curry favour (Zuckerberg, probably) or just to create chaos for governments (Elon).

There is an explicit strategy from the US right wing to undermine centre ground politics in Europe. This comes directly from the Whitehouse via Vance and Trump.

[graemep]

I agree with you this is greatly exaggerated by the US right wing - along with much else about the UK.

However, there are serious issues with hate speech laws. They go a long way beyond preventing abuse - threatening behaviour and similar were illegal before hate speech laws were passed. What hate speech laws made illegal were things that were not illegal, bit views that were judged unpleasant. We also now have criminalisation of behaviour such as silent prayer, or offering help in the wrong place.

On top of that we have "non-crime hate incidents" where the police investigate and record people for doing things that are legal.

IMO it actually helps racist groups such as the BNP as they can hint to the worst of their supporters that they would like to say things that are more racist by the law prevents them, while at the same time not frightening off more moderate supporters by using extreme language.

Racists and xenophobes have a lot of gain from ambiguity. Not only not frightening off supporters from the ethnic majority by being too extreme, but also using bigotry between minorities. There are European immigrants who hate non-whites, there are Islamphobic Jews (a group the EDL works with), antisemitic Muslims and more.

[esperent]

> We also now have criminalisation of behaviour such as silent prayer, or offering help in the wrong place.

These are the kinds of examples that I keep seeing given as to why the law is bad. But nobody ever shares specific examples. Can you give specific examples of people being arrested, or even just warned, for "offering help in the wrong place"?

[antonymoose]

In Germany you can receive a suspended sentence for raping a minor and then an actual jail sentence for insulting the rapist.

I’ve seen similar outrageous arrests for mean tweets in the UK.

Europe has lost its mind about right and wrong.

[lukan]

I am german and live here, but am not aware of such rulings. Please provide sources.

[sanskritical]

Because this thread started in a discussion about the United Kingdom, I think it is relevant to cite how this exact scenario did happen in the United Kingdom.

https://www.facebook.com/piersmorganuncensored/videos/elizab...

Elizabeth Kinney was arrested for a homophobic slur used privately in a text message to a third party -- not even a public comment -- against a man who physically beat her. The man served no jail time for beating her.

[onraglanroad]

What really happened:

"The defendant and the victim in this matter had been friends but had a falling out which resulted in an incident on the October 27, 2024 whereby abusive and homophobic text messages were sent to the victim causing her alarm and distress."

[sanskritical]

Yes, the prosecutor defined the "victim" in this case as the third party receiving the text messages. They were so harmed by hearing someone who beat the defendant until she had a brain injury called a slur that the only remedy was bust into her house with a swat team to put her in a jail cell, instead of having the "victim" block and cut ties with the sender.

[onraglanroad]

So you knew the details and chose to misrepresent the situation.

We don't have SWAT teams in the UK. She'd have been sent a letter telling her to appear in court on a certain date.

If you feel the need to lie continually, you shouldn't really consider yourself a Christian.

[santoshalper]

Do you have a credible source?

[sanskritical]

IBTimes: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/terrified-naked-mum-four-arrested-...

Daily Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15302729/Assault-vi...

The Sun: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37356128/mum-convicted-hate-cr...

MSN: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/crime/general/terrified-and-naked-...

Inkl: https://www.inkl.com/news/terrified-and-naked-mum-of-four-ar...

Revolver News: https://revolver.news/2025/12/uk-mother-arrested-faced-10-ye...

[daveguy]

So, no.

[actionfromafar]

Thank you so much! NASA + aliens coverup!

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nasa-lies-claims-spark-fury-public...

[samuel]

Is this source trustable? (I have no idea, I'm not german)

https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/kriminalitaet/article2521783...

[lukan]

The source is somewhat trustable mainstream but not really good, as already the headline is wrong. The other person was not jailed for insults against the rapists, but threats of violence. And that is a attack on the state monopol of violence itself, hence the harsh sentence.

But indeed, the rulings against the rapists don't seem allright and very much out of balance with the other sentence.

[phkx]

It appears that the ruling regarding the rapes was not so straight forward [1], certainly not something that you can use as a one-line argument. There are also other articles describing what presumably happened there in 2020.

Regarding the case of 'Maja R.', here's a summary [2] (e.g. she didn't show up for the first two hearings [3] - that would certainly raise the anger of the righteous if somebody not in their favor did that).

I'm in doubt whether this one case is sufficient to prove the downward spiral that some people claim to perceive (it was also brought up in context of migration here on HN recently, and from the sources which I could find I‘m not sure it fully qualifies there either).

[1]: https://www.mopo.de/hamburg/details-aus-dem-prozess-darum-ka... [2]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/57113 [3]: https://www.mopo.de/hamburg/ehrloses-vergewaltigerschwein-20...

[antonymoose]

The “Maja R” case would be a good start.

[lukan]

Threats of violence, not insults.

[peterhadlaw]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc

[vluft]

Maja R.

[aljgz]

As upvotes are not visible, I also ask for a few occurrences of this.

[Der_Einzige]

re: "Europe has lots its mind about right and wrong", at least the majority of europoors don't mutilate their baby boys at birth.

Until US circumcision rates are below 30% of male babies, the US has literally no moral high ground what-so-ever.

[jjgreen]

Try holding a piece of paper bearing "I support Palestine Action" anywhere near a plod.

[orbital-decay]

South Korea had ID-based web for two decades, everything you say is recorded and tied to your identity, forever. Please do educate yourself about the state of the political speech in the Korean part of the web.

[realityfactchex]

Ok, here are some starting links and summaries:

In 2012, South Korean judges found the following to be unconstitutional [0], e.g. based on the person who complained about not being allowed to comment anonymously on YouTube and other sites (since Korean YouTube and other sites needed them to identify their real identity first):

1. Act to Promote Use of Communications Network and to Protect Information (as amended by Act No. 9119 of 13 June 2008)

2. Article 29 and Article 30, Paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act (as amended by the Presidential Decree No 21278 of 28 January 2009)

Also, the Korean "Real Name" requirement was "rolled back", as reported at [1], which describes that "Article 44-5 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Data Protection, etc. (the 'ICN Act') was enacted in 2007... It required large-scale portal sites with more than 100,000 visitors on average a day to record the real name identities of visitors posting comments, usually via the poster's resident registration number (RRN).".

  [0] "Constitutional Court of Korea, 2010 Heon Ma 47, 252 (consolidated), Re: Confirmation of unconstitutionality", https://www.opennetkorea.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Korean-real-name-law-decision-english.pdf
  [1] "Korea Rolls Back ‘Real Name’ and ID Number Surveillance" (2012), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2187232

[nephihaha]

South Korea was under the Park dictatorship for a big chunk of its history. Most of Europe was under dictatorship of one kind or another within living memory. Seems some people can't lose that mentality.

[poszlem]

Lol. How about "praying silently outside of an abortion clinic"? - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gze361j7xo

How about calling a natal male a "he" - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arre...

Or perhaps: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/graham...

OBVIOUSLY there is a difference between Russia and the UK, obviously Russia is worse. But saying "the only thing you can't do is call for violence against them" is a completely dishonest characterisation of the situation, when we've seen documented cases of police overreach and people being arrested for thought crimes.

[kolektiv]

Ok, there's some context missing from those summaries though, no? In the first case it's not just "arrested for praying" it's "arrested for being in an exclusion zone specifically designated to try and stop you harassing people undertaking a lawful activity". They would have been arrested regardless of activity, it's effectively a restraining order and describing it as "for praying" is nonsense.

In the second case, it was not about misgendering someone - they were accused of a campaign of persistent harassment, something which the Daily Mail fails to mention except as a minor aside near the end of the article (not untypical of the Mail, naturally).

The Linehan case was debatable, and the approach taken probably wrong in some forms by the police (as admitted) but they were not arrested for simply voicing an opinion, but for behaviour which was sufficiently threatening and/or assaulting for the police to believe that a crime may have been committed and thus warrant further action.

There are cases of overreach, that applies outside of the speech issue as well - and indeed for any country with a reasonably effective policing system, it's never perfect. But these cases are not the simple slam-dunk that people will try and paint them as.

[naasking]

> In the first case it's not just "arrested for praying" it's "arrested for being in an exclusion zone specifically designated to try and stop you harassing people undertaking a lawful activity". They would have been arrested regardless of activity, it's effectively a restraining order and describing it as "for praying" is nonsense.

I think part of the absurdity being pointed out is that "just standing there with your eyes closed and silently praying" is considered "harassment" at all. It just stretches the meaning of the word part the point where it seems meaningful.

Edit: I think this ultimately becomes a Sorites paradox. Obviously a whole mob of people gathered around an abortion clinic and silently praying while you're trying to enter is intimidating and should qualify as harassment, but one person doing that clearly is not. There is no point at which the number of people become "a mob" though.

[graemep]

> bviously a whole mob of people gathered around an abortion clinic and silently praying while you're trying to enter is intimidating and should qualify as harassment, but one person doing that clearly is not.

The case I know of all involve individuals.

Apart from silent prayer, a woman was arrested for holding up a sign saying that coercion was a crime and offering to talk to anyone who wanted to. Is that intimidating?

[lukan]

"Apart from silent prayer, a woman was arrested for holding up a sign saying that coercion was a crime and offering to talk to anyone who wanted to. Is that intimidating?"

Depends on the context. Body language etc. But the main context is probably they were gathering in a place where it is forbidden to gather. Not arrested for praying or holding up signs.

[kolektiv]

Precisely this - it's the being there that was forbidden, not the act of praying - I'm not aware of any modern case where such a thing has been proscribed (at a guess, I would have said the last time was probably around the era of Cromwell, without checking).

Being there was forbidden for a specific group of people because they had a track record of harassing behaviour, much like a restraining order will likely be granted if someone has a track record of abusive behaviour towards another person. The praying thing is always mentioned as it makes it sound like some astonishing intervention in personal religion, while in reality, it's a complete red herring designed to rile people of a pre-existing viewpoint.

[graemep]

> Ok, there's some context missing from those summaries though, no? In the first case it's not just "arrested for praying" it's "arrested for being in an exclusion zone specifically designated to try and stop you harassing people undertaking a lawful activity"

How is standing by the road side saying and doing nothing harassing someone? The law is clearly not intended to prevent harassment (which was already illegal). Its purpose is to prevent women from being offered alternatives to abortion (e.g. accommodation, financial help, awareness of avaiable help and benefits)

> The Linehan case was debatable, and the approach taken probably wrong in some forms by the police (as admitted) but they were not arrested for simply voicing an opinion

They? Lineham definitely identifies as "he" so you are deliberately misgendering him

[kolektiv]

> How is standing by the road side saying and doing nothing harassing someone?

If you're standing by an abortion clinic, and you're a prominent anti-abortion campaigner, who has been known to harass people in the past, it was considered that your presence there is, in and of itself, intimidating to people who wish to access a legal service without undue interference. The ruling is not intended to prevent any of the things you mention, there are still plenty of ways that organisations can make those things generally known if they wish to, just not a particular group of people directly outside a clinic where they have a history of illegal behaviour.

In terms of misgendering Linehan, singular they has been around since the 14th century at the latest, and many style guides are more than happy with the usage for an individual where either gender is unknown, or where gender is considered irrelevant to the case in point. In this case, I would say the latter applies, but I am happy to acknowledge that Linehan identifies as "he" - significantly happier than he is to afford others similar courtesy.

[poszlem]

Saying they were "just in an exclusion zone" is kind of a self-justifying excuse. It’s the same logic you see in authoritarian countries, like when Russian police arrest people for holding blank signs because they’re technically standing in a prohibited area.

If the government can simply label certain places off-limits and turn ordinary, non-violent behaviour into a crime, then the rule of law stops being a protection and starts being a way to selectively shut people up.

[kolektiv]

First of all, this is not, in any meaningful sense "the government" - the UK has an independent judiciary interpreting laws defined by parliament, but this was not at the behest of government in any reasonable sense.

Secondly, this is not the blanket labelling of a place as "off-limits" - it's off-limits to a specific group of people who have prior examples of harassing people in that location. It's no different in concept to a restraining order. A restraining order does not make the relevant locations unavailable to everyone, only those to whom the order applies, and the bar for one being granted is not, generally, negligible.

There are genuinely concerning cases where the right to protest has been curtailed (or is trying to be) in the UK at the moment. Some of the laws proposed around restriction of protest are illiberal and overreaching. This is not one of those instances though.

[sanskritical]

> What you cannot do is calling for violence against them.

This is blatantly disingenuous. The Public Order Act 1986, Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 all criminalize "insulting" and "abusive" words, or any public display of literature that is "insulting" or "abusive" -- much more than calls for violence:

> A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

> (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III/crossh...

British jurisprudence has consistently put the likelihood of racial hatred being stirred up to the whims of the presiding judge. If the unaccountable bureaucrat feels like your comments could likely stir up racial hatred to even a single one of your cousins, even if there was no evidence of any stirred, then you are guilty.

What exactly constitutes "abusive" or "insulting" is not only vague but applied solely to white Christians. Certainly a document that says polytheists should be murdered (Quran 9:5) or one that says Hebrews should "completely consume" all the people that they get control of "with no pity" (Deuteronomy 7:16) could be considered not only insulting and abusive, but outright threatening. But these statutes are only used to attack people saying "I don't like how many foreigners are in my country and they should be rounded up and shipped back." Whatever your position on this kind of jingoistic nationalist sentiment, you should be able to recognize that the hypocrisy and lack of liberty is stupid and dangerous and is going to eventually result in genocide (either of the native Britons by the new arrivals, or the latter in the backlash).

Elizabeth Kinney certainly did not "call for violence" against the man who beat her. She simply, minutes after being physically beaten, used a slur in a private text message to a friend, and was arrested for it:

https://www.facebook.com/piersmorganuncensored/videos/elizab...

It is extremely suspect that every thread that Hacker News and other prominent and influential platforms has on these statutes gets flooded by people spreading deliberate pro-government misinformation, claiming that people are only being arrested for "calls for violence".

Threatening violence against parties is generally punished by a separate, far more severe statute (Serious Crime Act 2007, which replaced the traditional mechanism for incitement so that it could be vaguely applied to overeager online comments) that is virtually never invoked for Facebook posts, because none of elderly people arrested under this statute are threatening violence. They are posting something considered unacceptable by the powers that be, because limitless immigration was rammed down the throat of the English without any regard to democratic will or desires.

[CraigJPerry]

>> What you cannot do is calling for violence against them.

> This is blatantly disingenuous. The Public Order Act 1986 ... <snip>... criminalize "insulting" and "abusive" words ...

Do you know what i find disingenuous here, you hooked me with the words i quoted above so i went to the legislation:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64

And the thing to stand out was the change of meaning when the full quote is provided:

____

Fear or provocation of violence. (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

____

If you have to rely on this kind of disingenuous trickery to make a point, then you don't have a point.

The GP is correct in their statement:

>> What you cannot do is calling for violence against them.

You are incorrect in yours:

> This is blatantly disingenuous.

[lurk2]

You aren’t quoting the same statute the grandparent comment is referencing.

Grandparent is quoting Part III 18 Use of words or behaviour or display of written material.

You are quoting Part I 4 Fear or provocation of violence.

[sanskritical]

The statute says "or" and an a) b) c) bullet point listing in a statute also means "or". Maybe you are unfamiliar with boolean logic, but I was listing the relevant lines of the statute which allow someone who did not call for violence to be prosecuted, and the standard interpretation used by prosecutors to prosecute people for non-violent, non-threatening, insulting speech.

What about Elizabeth Kinney, arrested for a simple slur in a private text message to a friend about the man who assaulted her, minutes after being beaten? What about the tens of thousands of people arrested who did not threaten violence?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c703e03w243o

Just like Elizabeth Kinney, this man did not threaten violence at all. He just said "they should not be allowed to live here."

[CraigJPerry]

> The statute says "or" and an a) b) c) bullet point

There is no c) bullet point, the part you misinterpreted as an or is an AND:

"with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him..."

>> A plasterer who admitted to stirring up racial hatred...

Admitted?

[sanskritical]

> There is no c) bullet point,

I was giving an example of the format. That you think that it is necessary for a c) to exist for the example to be valid belies your absurd lack of understanding of the subject matter, whether incidental or willful.

And that doesn't even matter, because the text of the a) part explicitly says or at the end:

> (a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/III/crossh...

It clearly is not disingenuous nor deceptive to clip out a) when I highlighted the b) part explicitly showing that it was merely one bullet point, and that a) contains or at the end (meaning that you do not have to commit the behavior described in a to be guilty under the statute). I was being helpful, showing only the relevant parts of the statute for readers that don't want to waste their time. You responded by posting more legalese not relevant to the point, potentially maliciously to try to complicate and confuse readers.

"Admitted" in journalist speak means he pled guilty. It doesn't lend credence to the idea this idea:

> "with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him..."

There's no way to go from "they should not be allowed to live here" to the idea that he is making people subject to "immediate unlawful violence". I stand in awe that there is anyone that can argue that with a straight face. This thread is about whether the statute covers behavior that is violently threatening. Admitted spreading of "racial hatred" in the form of simple statements opposed to migrant presence is not violent or threatening. It is an inherently peaceful form of political lobbying.

[santoshalper]

I googled it and couldn't find anything credible about this. At this point, I don't believe it actually happened the way it is being discussed.

[sanskritical]

The UK is extremely litigious in regards to libel. Her lying would be an act of public libel against the crown prosecutor. She went on TV to talk about it. It's been well covered in everything from the IB Times to The Sun to the Daily Mail (as linked above), as well as fully televised on Piers Morgan. Naturally the team you obviously root for can just refuse to cover any prosecutions which are embarrassing for them and you can simply smugly say "well it's not in any source I trust so it didn't happen."

At this point, assertions such as these are a form of ad hominem fallacy against half of society. You are discrediting the multitude of sources who have covered this story because of the nature of the speaker while no hardline liberal outlets have covered this story at all and presented a counterargument. If you want to have an alternative narrative, you need to link a major outlet showing her to be a liar. The case has been presented to the public. You don't like the people presenting the case. That doesn't invalidate the case. You must, at this point, present a member of your team making a reasonable, evidenced based deconstruction of her claims. The fact that there isn't any coverage from your side at all of this incredibly well televised and written embarrassment for the legitimacy of crown prosecutors speaks volumes.

[delaminator]

So you are asserting that the 12,000 arrests in England/Wales (not the UK) were for direct threats of violence?