I don't think you even know what a straw man argument is, as we are talking about freedom of speech, here. It's very relevant considering the discussion.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods
anasawad wrote:and it is only the beginninYou know, Hate Speech laws are nothing new, and have been around for a very long time(the 60s in Canada, the 80s in the UK, etc.). The fear-mongering is just that, given the track record and decreasing(not increasing) numbers of incidents.
anasawad wrote:I'm not as emotionally engaged in this conversation as you might thinkYou appear to be very emotional, as the facts really don't support your fears.
anasawad wrote:publishing "offensive" material not targetted at anyone (in this case quoting a rap song),Publishing material can be harmful, however, and be construed by incitement, under the right conditions, which I am sure you are ignoring.
anasawad wrote:and a case where a political opinion that was deemed offensive got the person arrested.Sure, but were they convicted?
This discussion is entering it's 11th page, you think that it would've gone this long if I didn't provide any evidence?
Publishing material can be harmful, however, and be construed by incitement, under the right conditions, which I am sure you are ignoring.
Sure, but were they convicted?
have to have evidence of intent. It's not as simple as you imply, and the conviction rate is very low.
It's not as simple as you imply
The number I gave isn't 17% going to court.
The number going to court is over 90%. The number you're referring to is the number of hate speech that isn't targetted (i.e. not harassment, nor incitement, but rather opinions).
Your final number is sound, but you got it through the wrong percentages.
The number of overall cases going to court is 94%. The number of convictions is also in the 90 percentile based on ethnic groups (all are in the 90% range for public order offences). The number of hate speech that is not targetted (this is the number you're referring to) is roughly around 15%.
So yes, from 1600 cases a year, there would be around 250 cases regarding hate speech, of which around 90% of them would lead to a conviction.
On that regard, I must also add, @Pants-of-dog, I apologize for calling you dishonest previously, I was tired and a bit angry due and some of it came out on you. It is best to establish good intentions and remove hostilities to ensure any continuation of this argument under a good light.
When you originally cited it, you incorrectly said that it was about convictions.
The 16% refers to the number of cases flagged that then proceeded to someone being charged with a crime, or receiving a summons for civil court.
It is difficult to discuss these numbers without looking at where you got them from.
In 2017/18, there were 94,098 hate crime offences recorded by the police in England and
Wales, an increase of 17% compared with the previous year.
In total, 94 per cent of hate crime flagged offences recorded in 2017/18 had been assigned an
outcome at the time the data were extracted from the Data Hub.10 The remaining six per cent were still
Analysis of the online hate crime data by offence type shows that out of the four selected offence
groups, violence against the person (VATP) had the highest proportion (6%) of online hate crimes in
2017/18 (Figure A1). Looking at the data in more detail, malicious communications offences (a
subgroup of stalking and harassment offences) accounted for the majority (86%) of the VATP online hate crime offences. Criminal damage offences were least likely to have both an online and hate crime
from 2009 to 2017, the conviction ratio (the percentage of defendants convicted out of all those prosecuted) increased for all ethnic groups, from 79.8% in 2009 to 83.7% in 2017
As an example, the reason why there is a huge backlash against the detention facilities in the US is because the same precedent was established in Germany in the 1920s when Germany was hosting massive numbers of Jewish and minority refugees from Tsarist Russia and it opened refugee camps in the same fashion these detention camps in the US are today; Although those camps in the 1920s did not hold much significance at their establishment, they became the corner stone in establishing the infamous concentration camps 2 decades latter in the late 1930s and shortly after, death camps.
The camps and the accompanying rhetoric played the initial role of driving a wedge between the German and Jewish people which would accumulate in the far right taking over after intense fighting between the far right and the far left and the resulting genocide.
This precedent is why nowadays people are making NAZI comparisons between the current US government and Germany early 20th century.
Look at surveillance for example in the US, it started small, only meant to track credible threats and required tons of procedures to be able to even track or surveil a person; 20 years later, everyone is constantly watched and the state has immense powers because of that very small law that began with a very small scope.
And now, someone like Trump has the keys to that power.
And those aren't small countries we're talking about, the UK, Germany, the US, Canada, etc are all world-leading countries, meaning the minute they go in a certain path, many countries follow.
That's why Trump's victory kicked off an entire chain of right-wing authoritarians all across.
And It's not a strawman comparing it to the early beginnings of the Baath party, read the writings of Michel Aflaq and Salah Al-Din Bitar; The laws they pushed and formulated all the way back in the 50s and 60s establishing the state's authority to censor people and media in sects-related subjects in order to reduce and prevent sectarian tensions from exploding again are the same laws that would permit Hafez Al-Assad decades latter to throw 10s of thousands in jail under the guise of keeping national unity and preventing sectarian divide, and the same laws that would cause the descent in Syria that would grow underground until it blew up in the current civil war.
I'll fire anyone at my company who is stupid enoug[…]
I think in their situations, the tension is alrea[…]
Not to mention Harris promises to confiscate guns.[…]
I see, there is no logical reason.