Are Hate Speech Laws a good or bad idea?

I would be very wary of legislation which attempts to regulate speech. I'd rather see freedom of speech enshrined in the Constitution. I've little time for anyone who says "you can't say that" when they should be saying "this is where you're wrong".
 
They're a good idea as long as everyone agrees with what I have to say as I am right !

I get the principle of the laws but I think the courts are going to have great fun for the next few years defining and deciding on precedent and putting some boundries around the law.
 
Purple said:
The proposed new law will not criminalise opinions; Only someone who sets out to deliberately or recklessly stir up hatred against someone on the basis of one of the protected characteristics will be liable for prosecution under the Act, but should we have laws limiting speech at all?
Click to expand...

The IT asked the Department of Justice what the aims of the bill are. Lovely. The Department drafted the bill, of course they will say it only has the highest aims.

I wonder if the bill makes it an offence to rage against lazy and stupid journalism.

Section 7 says:
a person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if—
  1. (a) the person—
    (i) communicates material to the public or a section of the public, or
    (ii) behaves in a public place in a manner,
    that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics, and
(my emphasis). Well incitement to violence seems straightforward enough. I see no problem in criminalising that.

But what on earth is incitement to hatred ?

These things seem only to be offences against persons on account of their protected characteristics.

So 'lets all hate michaelm' is not a crime, whereas 'lets all hate Purple' is. Colour is one of the protected characteristics.

Section 9 says:
A person may be found guilty of an offence under section 7 or 8 irrespective of whether the communication of material or behaviour the subject of the offence was 20 successful in inciting another person to violence or hatred

and goes on to say

(the person) made the material available on a platform that is or may be accessible by the public or a section of the public,

Comments on AAM included it seems.

In my opinion incitement to hatred is too open to interpretation and creeping interpretation, and the idea of protected characteristics offends me. If it is wrong to incite to hatred, and despite my misgivings about the definition of hatred I think it is, it should be wrong to incite hatred against anyone, not just those who fall into one of the protected categories.

Here is the bill in full.

 
cremeegg said:
The IT asked the Department of Justice what the aims of the bill are. Lovely. The Department drafted the bill, of course they will say it only has the highest aims.

I wonder if the bill makes it an offence to rage against lazy and stupid journalism.

Section 7 says:
a person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if—
  1. (a) the person—
    (i) communicates material to the public or a section of the public, or
    (ii) behaves in a public place in a manner,
    that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics, and
(my emphasis). Well incitement to violence seems straightforward enough. I see no problem in criminalising that.

But what on earth is incitement to hatred ?

These things seem only to be offences against persons on account of their protected characteristics.

So 'lets all hate michaelm' is not a crime, whereas 'lets all hate Purple' is. Colour is one of the protected characteristics.

Section 9 says:
A person may be found guilty of an offence under section 7 or 8 irrespective of whether the communication of material or behaviour the subject of the offence was 20 successful in inciting another person to violence or hatred

and goes on to say

(the person) made the material available on a platform that is or may be accessible by the public or a section of the public,

Comments on AAM included it seems.

In my opinion incitement to hatred is too open to interpretation and creeping interpretation, and the idea of protected characteristics offends me. If it is wrong to incite to hatred, and despite my misgivings about the definition of hatred I think it is, it should be wrong to incite hatred against anyone, not just those who fall into one of the protected categories.

Here is the bill in full.

Click to expand...
The 7 protected characteristics are:
  • gender
  • civil status
  • family status
  • sexual orientation
  • disability
  • religion
  • age
  • race
  • membership of the Traveller community
I have a gender, a sexual orientation, a family status and an age. I'm quite sure we all have those.
I have a disability, according to my kids anyway.
I'm not sure what race is, let alone what mine is as I'm a mongrel mix of Norman and Celtic and whatever else got thrown in along the way.
I don't have a religion.
I'm not a member of the travelling community.

I think I'll be okay though as Trade Union activism and Sinn Fein membership is not included ;)
 
All very silly and very self indulgent. Are there any examples of folk who might have been found guilty in the past? Only one I can think of is Ian Paisley. Any of the usual suspects are never so crude but use what are called "dog whistles". Peter Casey, Donald Trump, Le Penn come to mind. Are the courts going to interpret "dog whistles"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top