False. I showed you stats showing that Hate Speech is on a decline and provided a source
You showed stats, if you bothered looking at the stats references and cited in the article ( you didn't), you'd notice two things: First is that cyber hate crime part which around a third of these "crimes" are hate speech, not threats or incitement or harassment, but hate speech, and second, you'd notice that they also mention under reporting and why these stats are understated.
Now, why does this prove my point and shows that you're wrong?
First, it shows that these laws do exist, which you're arguing that they don't.
And second, it proves another point I made earlier which is that states are actively seeking to expand efforts to crack down on "hate speech", meaning this will get worse.
You're pussyfooting around your unsupported argument.
Ooh, my unsupported argument that even your own source proves.
2500 Londoners over 5 years.
So about 500 per year, out of a population of 8 million people.
Wow. Definitely a real problem.
The percentage of the total population is irrelevant, as long as the scope of the laws are expanding and the various states promising to crack down and expand the effort, those numbers will keep getting larger.
You really don't see how flawed that numbers' logic is?
So if the state decided to hang 500 people every year for petty crimes, or no crimes at all, because a new law said it should; Would that be ok? I mean after all, 500 out of millions is nothing so it can't be a big problem right? is that the argument you really want to use?
Also, arrested do not mean convicted.
Ooh, so the argument now turns from police raids and logged cases doesn't mean arrests, to arrests doesn't mean convictions. Nice.
I guess a couple of more pages we'll arrive at the expected already hinted at the conclusion that yes there were arrests and yes, people were convicted but it's not a big number.
See, that's why I said authoritarianism; I've heard this exact type of apologies, excuses, and defenses, using the exact same patterns from Baathists, from Nasrallah's followers after Hezbollah's recent split, from clerics' supporters in Iran during the last election cycle, and on daily basis from Putin's supporters in Russia.
It always starts like this, it's just a few little stuff, minor restrictions on liberties, some censorship here and there, but never too big to make people too angry or worried, and it gradually grows until it gets out of control, and when people start having a problem with it, it's already too late. We've seen this happen in dozens of countries thus far, and many western countries are going down the exact same paths with different themes of the exact same policies and different themes of the exact same reasoning and apologetics.
Also, the article mentions that 857 people were detained, and the punishment for it is 6 months in prison or 5k pound fine. Noting that even if a case did not result in a conviction, just like the referenced case in the article, it would cost thousands of dollars (or pounds in this instance) for the person to hire a defense, which means that, at the very least, saying something that might in any way be deemed offensive by any group and being unlucky enough to be reported would costs you thousands of dollars, mostly money you wont have because of the current economic conditions all around, even if whatever you posted did not target anyone, did not call for anything, did not incite anything, rather simply an opinion or a joke.