The New, and very Dangerous "Left" - Page 14 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15040116
@Pants-of-dog
I have already explained what the graph is about.

Your explanation was wrong, the report already explains what each graph is about.

Now, do you have that number, or do you just have more percentages?

The number of hate crimes is 94,098. The percentages are from that number.
And there are many tables inside the report.
For the year 2018, there were 1605 cases regarding online hate speech.

And the numbers for London alone are already quoted previously. You'd know if you didn't ignore all the stats and continued in your logical fallacies.

Forgot that percentages don't count now. :knife:


Though, it's, as you said, amusing how you're running in circles trying to move the goal post instead of actually responding.

Finally, when did written hate speech become illegal in the Uk? Section 127 is about online speech. The answer is 1986, not 2003.

Hate speech, in its current form and scope, became illegal in 2003.
The relevant legal text was already quoted.

The 1986 law addresses incitement, not offence and hate speech as a whole.
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—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.


The 1994 expansion addressed harassment;
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states, in part:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_spee ... ed_Kingdom

The 2003 communication act is not limited to online material.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents



Anyways, I'm tired of this discussion.
8 pages of having to deal with you continuously ignoring every data provided, misrepresenting, twisting, and strawmaning everything, along with countless red herrings and endless narrative pushing is about enough.
When you have an argument that is more than logical fallacies, we'll continue.
#15040190
anasawad wrote:@Pants-of-dog Anyways, I'm tired of this discussion.
8 pages of having to deal with you continuously ignoring every data provided, misrepresenting, twisting, and strawmaning everything, along with countless red herrings and endless narrative pushing is about enough.
When you have an argument that is more than logical fallacies, we'll continue.

I am tired of Pants-of-dog's nonsense, PERIOD.
#15040745
So, now let us look at the quote in context:

    Online Flag
    From April 2015, it became mandatory for forces to apply the online flag to provide a national and local picture of the extent to which the internet and digital communications technology are being used to commit crimes. The flag should be used to identify cases where it is believed that an offence was committed, in full or in part, through a computer, computer network or other computer-enabled device. Whether an offence was in part or totally committed online may require more investigative resource than some other flags, so it is thought that the use of the online flag is prone to a higher degree of undercounting that other flags.
    The analysis presented in this annex is based on data supplied by 30 out of 44 forces where the quality was deemed adequate.
    Online hate crime by type of offence
    In 2017/18, two per cent (1,605 offences) of all hate crime offences were indicated as having an online element, the same proportion as all police recorded crime24 in the year ending March 2018.

So that number is not the number of crimes, or number of people charged, nor is it number of arrests.

It is the number of possible cases of online hate speech.

We have already seen that less than 20% of all hate crimes go to a charge or summons, so the maximum number of people charged must be less than 300.
#15040837
You guys were the ones who presented the total number of flagged offenses, and the percentage that go to charges or summons.

If we multiply those two numbers, we get the total number of flagged offenses that went to charges or summons.
#15040840
The total number for the year of 2018 alone.

The number in London alone averages at 500 a year.

And the percentage is for the overall, not just the ones flagged online.

EDIT:
It's only logical that for the online sub-niche the rate will be higher since it's written record when it comes to online cases.
#15040841
I already quoted the text showing that the nunber you gave was for all flagged offences.

I then multiplied it by the percent you have for those that go on to charges and summons.
#15040844
Read the last line of the text you quoted.

The number (1605) is all flagged offences in one year, and considering that online cases all can be proven with a written record, they logically have a higher rate than all other cases.

Also, considering that the charge\summons rate for public order offences ranges in the 90s percentile as shown previously (it varies between ethnic groups) , and the 94% of all flagged cases in general of both on and off line were assigned an outcome (i.e. charges and summons), then the average of 500 a year fits perfectly within the provided rates in the government stats.

EDIT:
Correction:
Your number is valid once we rule out the average rate for the targetted offences.

Though, in general, it still stands against your case since you just admitted that there are arrests for hate speech.
:lol:
#15040863
@anasawad regardless of the number, it is an extremely tiny amount convicted of hate speech and that number is actually decreasing, in some places. Your fears are unwarranted. Feelings are the driving force in your argument.
#15040869
Godstud wrote:@anasawad regardless of the number, it is an extremely tiny amount convicted of hate speech and that number is actually decreasing, in some places. Your fears are unwarranted. Feelings are the driving force in your argument.

There would be no convictions for hate speech, if there was true freedom of speech.
#15040872
:lol: @Hindsite For an older guy you sure are Admin Edit: Rule 3 Violation. Get it thru your head now. There is no true free speech. Even in America, where they like to pretend they have the most, they actually do not.

There are anti-defamation laws. You cannot simply say what you want about another person without consequences, particularly if it causes harm to either the person's reputation, or to their physical being.

Try yelling fire a bunch in a crowded theaters some time and explain your freedom of speech to the American cops when they haul your butt to jail.

However, in neither Canada nor the United States is freedom of speech absolute. The debate is over where to draw the line. Each country has laws prohibiting such things as incitement to violence, libel, and copyright infringement. However, the definition of “freedom of speech” becomes problematic when it comes to “hate speech.” Upon which side of the line of permissibility does such expression fall?

Canada and the United States have chosen two significantly different approaches to hate speech. This represents the fundamental difference in official Canadian and American interpretations of freedom of speech. The Supreme Court of Canada upholds anti-hate speech laws, whereas, the United States Supreme Court consistently overturns laws barring expression of “hateful” opinions.

The United States Supreme Court historically and consistently strikes down laws which restrict speech — including hate speech — unless it falls into one of the categorical exceptions noted, e.g. incitement where there is an imminent danger of physical violence.Even hate-filled speech which merely advocates use of force (but does not cause, or threaten to cause, imminent violence) is not sufficient to warrant an exception to the First Amendment (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969).

#15040885
@anasawad

Again, I am simply multiplying two numbers that YOU gave me.

One is the number of possible offenses: 1605.
The other is the percent that actually move to a charge or summons: 17%

17% of 1605 is a little over 270.

So, the number of cases that were actually taken to court was less than 300.
#15040917
Godstud wrote::lol: @Hindsite For an older guy you sure are naive. Get it thru your head now. There is no true free speech. Even in America, where they like to pretend they have the most, they actually do not.

Straw man argument, as usual for you. I hope you haven't forgotten how to understand English by living in Thailand. I did not say America has true free speech. You have apparently forgotten the meaning of the little word "if". :lol:
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16

Please provide evidence that this money went to […]

Lots of dictators start as such. No. No, they do[…]

Another school shooting

Of course. But requiring someone to pay a fee so[…]

Yes, I did, and you know it. See the title of th[…]