[666maslo666]

I wouldn't go that far, but based from what I have seen I am rather skeptical that anyone except her is going to get trouble for this... whatever it is.

If someone in a similar prominent position in the UK would tweet #killallblackmen or #killallwhitewomen, you dont think they would get in trouble? I think they would get in trouble just like her. I dont think her prosecution is fundamentally just, but it is not sexist or racist at all. She is the kind of obnoxious person who would gladly push for criminalising racism against blacks or sexism against women, so there is a certain irony that the same kind of laws are now equally being applied to her..

[Bobboau]

I think there is a more telling thing in what he said "she can't loose", no matter what happens she will be right.
Anything that can explain anything explains nothing. Her position is unfalsifiable, like "God did it".

Really, controlling undesirables? Really?

Death threats, the athmosphere of fear they create when you get hundreds of them without knowing how serious the other person on the line is, does hurt. It hurts because seeing people going trough such extreme lenghts to let you know they hate you for what other people said you did. Worse, you can never know the intent behind them - and you can argue that issuing death threats is essentially like crying wolf, but that story ended in death. It genuinely is about protecting people.

Why the **** do I even have to explain this to you?

Yes, really. I can't say anything against an individual who belongs to a protected minority group or concepts associated with a protected minority group without a accusations of *ism and that what I'm saying is hate speech and harassment. It creates a McCarthyesque climate that any disagreement those with power in the community will result in a primary color haired hate mod descending upon you and your family and your job. You have to be on your toes, you never know when a gift made by a female artist will be deemed counter revolutionary by someone who controls a feminist blog and your life's work will be threatened^[1]. Hell you don't even have to have done anything, if someone mishears part of what you say and reports it as hate speech you will have lost your job before you even get off the plane^[2]. If you're a satirist going after the wrong people you deserve to be murdered^[3]. You add speech laws into the mix now you also have to worry about ideological puritans trying to find some way to interpret anything you say in a way that goes against the law so they can imprison you. No, this is about making an example out of people so they don't speak up against making the world "better", about dragging people kicking and screaming into "better" world. I don't know about you but any world I have to be dragged kicking and screaming into I think is by definition not better.

You have to explain this to me because what I see is a return of witch trials and "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the GamerGate hashtag" and a general abandonment of reason in favor of ideological purity. You have to explain to me and other people watching from the sidelines why that's a good thing, because you have not yet managed to make questioning SocJus against the law.

and keep in mind all I'm saying is neither side should get the power to send the other to jail for the crime of speaking (or typing)

[Luis Dias]

"Ah you should grow a thicker skin"

[karajorma]

My point with the race thing was that the color of my skin, the concavity of my genitals, what I believe to be true about the universe doesn't change the truth of what I am saying (though that last one would, in a general sense, likely lead me to different conclusions it wouldn't change IF what I was say was true or not if I was saying the same thing). If you agree with that then I think we should just drop this line, though if you want to tell me why the color of my skin changes the validity of my argument I'd be interested in hearing how.

I haven't claimed anything remotely close to that. I can't even imagine where you have gotten the idea that I did. What I have claimed is that there are people in minorities who are pressurised into not speaking because of hate speech.

[MP-Ryan]

I have but a few minutes and I'm just checking in... did anyone, in the pages thus far, post the Popehat piece on this?

https://popehat.com/2015/10/06/this-royal-throne-of-feels-this-sheltered-isle-this-england/

In short:  When you wish for new laws, be very careful what you wish for.  The irony of a person who generally fits the model of the current crop of "your speech I disagree with actively harms me" reactionaries being charged is incredible.

Also, this quote of hers:

She said: "There have been charges laid against me that I am racist and sexist towards white men.

"I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender.

"Therefore, women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system.”

Good luck applying your narrow definition of sexism and racism to the legal system. It will not work out well. The acceptance of these definitions is limited to a very narrow part of feminist sociological theory, and the courts will laugh in her face.  Not that she actually deserves to face charges for unpopular (and frankly disagreeable) speech.  This whole case is a great illustration is why government restriction on speech beyond narrowly-defined hate speech, incitement, true threats, and defamation are a terrible idea.

[Luis Dias]

Well it's good to see you posting again Ryan, even if you're just repeating all of our talking points. Hell scrap that, it's always good to read sane things, no matter how many times they are repeated.

[MP-Ryan]

Well it's good to see you posting again Ryan, even if you're just repeating all of our talking points. Hell scrap that, it's always good to read sane things, no matter how many times they are repeated.

I've been busy and keep forgetting to check in.

[Phantom Hoover]

I like this popehat guy.

[Bobboau]

https://popehat.com/2015/10/06/this-royal-throne-of-feels-this-sheltered-isle-this-england/

finally got around to reading that. all I can say to it is this:

    Yup

[karajorma]

If popehat is correct over the reasons she was arrested, I'm going to have to agree that it's definitely a poor application of the law if not the law itself. Like I said before, that doesn't mean hate speech laws are inherently bad though.

[666maslo666]

Poorly defined hate speech laws are bad, tough. Maybe if these hate speech laws were much more narrowly defined, I would not be so opposed to them. Kinda like threats in the US, they are illegal, but the law really only applies to few special cases, not threats in general.

[Grizzly]

It's worth noting that only charges were made at the moment, and no one has been convicted yet. Only then we can really determine if the laws themselves are bad or the people charged with enforcing them are just idiots.

[Bobboau]

even if she is acquitted that doesn't mean the next person will be, or that it was the correct* decision this time. I think it's a useful discussion to have regardless the actual outcome.

(*in accordance with the law.)

[headdie]

this is why the world has judges and magistrates, to look at cases, throw out the BS ones, figure out the genuine ones, punish the guilty and set free the innocent.

[Luis Dias]

Let's wait and see then. My hopes are quite lower than some of yours are guys.

[666maslo666]

this is why the world has judges and magistrates, to look at cases, throw out the BS ones, figure out the genuine ones, punish the guilty and set free the innocent.

Nah, I dont agree with this approach of "lets charge them and see what sticks". Law should be defined in such a clear and narrow way that BS cases rarely even make it in front of a judge. Especially since this is probably not the first application of this law, so there should be precedents.

Otherwise the law is too broad and should be reformulated. Because it is only a matter of time until people are unjustly convicted under too broad a law. Leaving too much space for interpretation of law in courts is a dangerous policy.

[Black Wolf]

Is it the fault of the law or the enforcers if a good law is badly enforced? Want to bet that the cop that laid these charges didn't consult with the CPS beforehand? Because of they had, the crown prosecutor probably would have told them that the charge would fall over when exposed to the reasonable person test in court.

You have to remember that all of these laws exist within the context of English common law. That lays out some basic groundwork that can't simply be ignored.

[headdie]

Is it the fault of the law or the enforcers if a good law is badly enforced? Want to bet that the cop that laid these charges didn't consult with the CPS beforehand? Because of they had, the crown prosecutor probably would have told them that the charge would fall over when exposed to the reasonable person test in court.

You have to remember that all of these laws exist within the context of English common law. That lays out some basic groundwork that can't simply be ignored.

For those that dont know, the CPS is the Crown Prosecution Service, these are the guys who represent the state in criminal prosecutions and are the guys with last say before a case hits court