'hate speech' laws are a slippery slope.
https://blossom.primal.net/985023c3b5aed16870f350d844b5b9899cc3ac67bd5483814fb10aeb53a120f9.mp4
For those interested, I stand by my position on hate speech, but earlier in the hearing there were posts by this person encouraging people to smash the hotel in question which is probably actionable even in the united states:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Jordan-Parlour.-Media-Posts.-Final.pdf
Thanks for clarifying. I read the report and he was inciting violence and attacks.
Ya that's unnacceptable. But there are other examples where there is no incitment and people getting jailtime, which is fucked. This video is misleading in that sense.
Ya that's unnacceptable. But there are other examples where there is no incitment and people getting jailtime, which is fucked. This video is misleading in that sense.
the post got six likes
Yes, I get it, and the sentence should reflect whether it actually precipitated any actual harm or violence, but if I go into the street and start chanting "burn this building fuck these people burn this building..."etc. I can and should be arrested even if no one gives a shit I'm saying that.
Thereβs a big gulf between βcanβ and βshould.β
Yes, I get it, and the sentence should reflect whether it actually precipitated any actual harm or violence, but if I go into the street and start chanting "burn this building fuck these people burn this building..."etc. I can and should be arrested even if no one gives a shit I'm saying that.
did he actually βsmash the hotelβ
No but it was a literal incitement to violence which is its own crime, separate from the conduct of the crime. I donβt know if it would be prosecuted in the states but its different than the quotations from the video which was much less.
If that hotel were housing child rapists, I'd want to shut it down too.
