Slashdot Mirror
British Men Jailed For Online Hate Crimes
chrb writes "Two British men have become the first to be jailed for inciting racial hatred online. The men believed that material they published on web servers based in the United States did not fall under the jurisdiction of UK law and was protected under the First Amendment. This argument was rejected by the British trial judge. After being found guilty, the men fled to Los Angeles, where they attempted to claim political asylum, again arguing that they were being persecuted by the British government for speech that was protected under the First Amendment. The asylum bid was rejected and the two were deported back to the UK after spending over a year in a US jail."
It's an internet hate machine, you know. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY ]
is it the act of hating someone due to their racial background or sexual orientation which is illegal? or just running your mouth about it?. if its the former its thought crime and if its the latter its censorship. I don't believe in hate crime, not because I am a racist or a homofob its just that laws like that tend to be abused. Besides I like living in a free society where the government doesn't get to decide what I can legally think.
Surely 'bollocks' is more appropriate in this case?
It should be something that adults can deal with.
This is old news in Finland. We have had at least 4 convictions on dubious basis within one year. "Insulting" muslims and negroes seems to be verboten while insulting christians and white males is ok. 1984.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
Have you ever noticed how hate mongers usually look like douchebags?
"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." - Dean Steacy, Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator
There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK
It is simply a fact.
The vast majority of countries do not allow simple basic freedoms. Even the freedom for stupid people to say stupid things.
The common thread amongst racists that I've found is that they invariably want someone to blame for the state of their own lives, and they choose someone who is obviously different from them, because it's easy. These guys aren't smart, capable people; they're losers. It takes people with amazing charisma and a climate of social discontent to legitimise racially prejudicial attitudes - insulting cartoons shoved under a synagogue door don't make the grade.
Should they be imprisoned? Maybe. But I think we'd accomplish just as much by ignoring them and their malcontent existance, as one would an internet troll.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Color me impressed! This makes, what, three stories out of a thousand in this section?
(I kid because I love. Well, perhaps more accurately, I kid because I'm pleasantly surprised.)
Here we go again! If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction? Are they claiming that because English addresses received the materials that English laws are in play? Or is this another treaty driven action in an American court? And England is a hoot compared to France. France really does want to reach out and control the world.
Speech. At one time it did, but now there are limits to free speech. Both in the UK and USA now.
I guess that means we can send the KKK and Nazi groups in the USA to jail then for distributing hate speech materials. Also track down the "Anonymous" group for hate speech against Scientologists, etc.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
If you can't say something other people don't want to hear, you do not have free speech.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
I HATE ARTICLES LIKE THIS!
Publishing words that incite hatred is not "thoughtcrime". Words are not thoughts. You can think whatever hatred or whatever else you want. But speech is an action, a real act in the world that affects other people. Not all acts, not all speech or expressions, particularly in public, are protected. You do not have the right to speak in a way that harms people. And currently, as always in history, published hate speech forms links in the critical path from protected hateful thoughts to non-protected violent acts that physically harm people. Those links are on the action side of the thought/action boundary.
You can't tell someone that you're going to kill them and expect to get away with it. You likewise can't threaten everyone who's a member of a group, racial or otherwise, and expect to get away with it. You can think about genocide, but the moment you do something, including organizing or inciting others to carry it out, you've crossed the line. And that's when we have governments to protect us from you, not you from the consequences of your speech.
--
make install -not war
Israelis arrest (and indeed assassinate) enemies of Israel anywhere they like. Ditto the USA. A California couple publishes porn on the Internet in California, and is tried and convicted in Tennessee, which they have never visited. You can do something in a foreign country that's totally legal there, and your own government will still prosecute you for it -- as these guys did. It's only a matter of time before the USA starts prosecuting American citizens for smoking dope and visiting prostitutes in Amsterdam.
The fact is, if you publish it on the web, you're liable for it worldwide, regardless of where you are or where the server is. Better get used to it.
I piss off bigots.
. . . don't convicted criminals have their passports confiscated, while awaiting sentencing?
I just find it bizarre, that they can just hop on a plane to LA.
This would be a great Monty Python sketch with Eric Idle, as the bloke checking the passports on exiting the country:
"Ah, going to Los Angles, super, super! Business? No, holiday? Ah, spit, which one is it?"
"We are convicted criminals leaving the country, to apply for asylum in the United States."
"Ok, off you go then!"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
No free speech in the UK, I get that (though I strongly disagree with it!), but why not offer asylum? Don't we believe in the right to free speech ourselves? Isn't this a perfect example of a situation in which we should, when someone comes to us who is being prosecuted for a crime that we do not consider to be a crime?
Inciting sectarian hatred is not pointless there. It matters deeply and gets people killed. As it does in those large parts of the world still riven by ethnic, sectarian, and tribal divisions.
The USA is one of the few countries that can AFFORD freedom of speech.
I piss off bigots.
is beat the shit out of the shithead who said it.
This is bad for two reasons
1) It infringes on the government monopoly on violence
2) It disturbs the lives of people not involved
If you disagree, pop over here, we'll get a couple of large sticks and argue it out.
Where a UK website was accused in a (texas?) court, didn't turn up and was convicted in absentia.
Israelis arrest (and indeed assassinate) enemies of Israel anywhere they like. Ditto the USA.
But you're still walking and breathing.
Great going, Britain! As Yugoslavia has shown us, trying to suppress racial hatred through government oppression works really well!
The holocaust is not a crime to you? Most would call that a hate crime but obviously you disagree. You think spreading hate is perfectly fine because you are a white rich boy who has an extremely large army to keep him safe from hate.
You do NOT live in a free society. The many people locked up in cuba on your behalf proof that. You just life in a society that leaves you free. Not exactly the same thing.
Hate crimes exist in europe because in europe we have seen far to closely what happens if hatred is left unchecked.
Mind you, the americans think the KKK has a right to exist. In europe it is forbidden to be a member of a nazi group. Neither method seems to work in keeping people from being killed because of what race/sex/orientation they are.
But this is the UK and if the UK people want a system where racists can be locked up for spreading hatred then you that is their freedom.
The brits and most of europe choose different.
And you can THINK what you want. it is spreading what you think that is restricted.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
and sex really mellows you out. So I heard. Not that I would know.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
That is true... but this is the UK we're talking about, not a tribal society.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
There are many forms of authoritarianism. It is a belief system that is surprisingly "cross-platform"; you'll find examples in all kinds of communities, secular and religious, left-wing and right-wing, liberal and conservative.
What they have in common is a mis-trust in the governed. The governed must be repressed, and cannot be allowed to have free choice. There can be no tolerance for meaningful opposition, for that would "weaken" the community, resulting in "instability", i.e., loss of control by the governing class. It is a forced form of allegiance.
All truly free societies are built on the power of persuasion.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
What they did, they did in the UK. They then fled and attempted to request asylum, which was denied. One of two things happened after that, both legal. Either their priflege of being in the US was revoked and they were deported, or the UK voiced their claim on them and they were extradited per US/UK agreements.
Just because they put their works on a server in the US does not change the fact they were created in the UK. They UK can use this to say the crime occurred in their jurisdiction. They did what they did in the UK and it is illegal there.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
You're making the assumption that overt hate speech actually increases violence, and that suppressing hate speech reduces violence. I don't think there's much evidence for that. Quite to the contrary, I think talking (or screaming) these things out openly helps.
(Of course, since many European nations have outlawed hate speech, I wonder when people start suing Christian churches, given how much Christianity preaches hate and discrimination.)
An american recently kidnapped a dutch kid in a custody case. The was an alert out (copied for the american missing child system) that is supposed to make all airports and such look out for the kid across europe. Didn't work.
Borders are leaky as hell where board guards are asked to look at old tech passports and sort out of ten of thousand of passengers those appearing on a list with thousands of others. Exactly how is this supposed to work? It is like expecting a cop to watch 3-4 highways at once and pick out all stolen cars that have been reported.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
the internet can be a great way to incite violence. You cannot live in freedom if some creep is using the internet to incite violence against you. I think these laws are reasonable.
Hate crime occurs when harm comes to the person or group that one is prejudiced against. The law does not tell you what you can think, or what you can say, only that you cannot harm anyone else by your words or actions. Many of the posts here confuse this and unreasonably lash out against the government telling you what you can think or say, when it reality, reasonable people can distinguish between stupid harmless comments and real crime. I know, because I'm gay, and i can say firsthand that there is a distinct, discernable line that you cannot cross. I don't care what you think about me, I don't care what you say to your friends, but it starts to become and issue when your words affect other people's interpretations of me, or even worse, make me feel threatened.
Again, the law is there to protect people. In this case, posting something on the internet, in my opinion, does not deserve the punishment these men received. If they had come up to people of another race in person on the street and said these things, the determining factor about whether or not they commited a crime is the same as any kind of harassment.
Giving asylum has profound diplomatic consequences. It says to the other country that their human rights record and criminal justice system sucks. That's not something the USA really wants to say to the UK... not if the USA wants any more intelligence or other assistance.
I piss off bigots.
Their web site is called heretical.com. They apparently hate me, too.
But their writing is so discombobulated that I'd be much more concerned about the threat to my life and liberty from a government that thinks it needs to throw people in jail over this drivel than about these two nuts or their readers.
"Freedom of speech" in the US doesn't mean you can say whatever you want either. If you endanger other people by what you say (e.g. shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, incite others to murder, violence) there are consequences. If you slander someone there are consequences. If you lie under oath there are consequences.
Freedom of speech isn't a right that overrides all other laws, not should it be.
I'm amazed not only that this story was posted to /. but also that so many apparently have sympathy for these losers.
The Gay Nigger Association of America will be furious!
And believe me, you don't want to have those guys on your ass!
Check the map. Northern Ireland is very much part of the UK. And they ARE a tribal, or at least strongly sectarian, society that was until very recently was torn apart by terrorism.
I piss off bigots.
Of course overt hate speech increases violence, are you nuts? Check out history of the partition of India. In many parts of the world violence is always just below the surface, and it only takes one or two unwise remarks in public to trigger rioting.
I piss off bigots.
But the Brits initiated the action on their home turf and merely stored the information remotely.
So to meet your Amsterdam analogy they would need to smoke pot in the US, and fly to Amsterdam to exhale.
The prostitute analogy... well, that one get's a little complicated.
Actually, freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, 1689. However, keeping a freedom requires the populace to care about it. In Britain's case everyone's too busy hating Europeans (then going on holiday there), being paranoid about jails full of paedophiles and being scared of terrorists and KnifeCrime(tm) to worry about the finer points of freedom of speech. Obviously these two are a pair of scum bags, so no-one cares to defend them, for what it's worth I believe their freedom of speech should be guaranteed, but try telling that to the populace.
Here are a few ideas of w h o, and wh at, might be responsible for this situation. :)
The 1285 Statute of Westminster even gave the English people the right (actually it was a requirement) to bear arms, it was due to this -- and technologically 'advanced' longbows -- that we managed to trounce those ghaslty frogs at Agincourt, but that's another story.
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
Britain has adapted many of the things Orwell wrote about in his iconic book. The surveillance society, doublespeak, and now, thought crimes. I wonder what George would think of his country so willingly embracing all the things he tried to warn them about?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
They should never have handed over identifying information on their users without a subpoena valid to the US.
Visit the outskirts of northern London for a week, and see if you still feel the same. Just because we tend to refer to them as 'gangs' doesn't make it much less of a tribal society.
The U.K. has just as much 'freedom of speech' as the U.S. There's just more of that speech which comes with consequences, per the law, should you (ab)use that freedom. The same goes for the U.S., but in a much less government- and status-driven manner. I.e. there may not be much legal discourse* against e.g. the Westboro Baptist Church's (ab)use of the freedom of speech, but I'm sure several of its members have gotten their sentencing in the public court.
* Note that said bunch is an interesting example, as there are now laws in a few states where it is, in fact, illegal to demonstrate within a particular distance of a funeral event, and exercising one's freedom of speech in a manner that would break said law is likely to land you the consequences (month of jailtime and whatnot? fuzzy on the details and wikipedia seems to be dead.. or my DNS is, which means when I hit submit, this post will be lost. curses. *copies to clipboard*)
But you're still walking and breathing.
You don't actually know that.
I piss off bigots.
I would like to see how you manage to smoke pot on the internet. Likewise with crossing the line from peep show to prostitution (which seems physically impossible.) An interesting limitation to rule 34 (though perhaps a video of prostitution... that's still just porn in my book. Probably not particularly good porn either.)
And though they were hosting the stuff in the US, they were in the UK, as well as presumably their intended audience. So for all intents and purposes, it was in the UK. They were extradited after fleeing the country, the charges were brought against them while they were in the UK, so the court in no way overstepped their bounds.
Their efforts to claim that the UK had no jurisdiction over them failed because they were UK citizens, regardless of where they committed the crime. And the US can do the same to Americans smoking dope in Amsterdam.
I piss off bigots.
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Controls-Internet-Illusions-Borderless/dp/0195152662
it's an interesting read. it was assigned in a freshman seminar i took. talked about how the illusions people had that law was unenforceable on the internet was shattered in its early days.
still, i think the only reason the US didn't grant them asylum was because they didn't want a scandal with the UK. if those people were from, say, lebanon, i'm pretty sure the story would've had a different ending..
weinersmith
"You do not have the right to speak in a way that harms people"
Bullshit. You know how hard it is to win a libel or slander judgement in the U.S.? There is no law against bearing false witness, except under oath. And then you have to prove it.
Or what about the truth, when it hurts? Careful with that broad brush, Doc. The ends don't justify the unintended consequences. (or are they?)
Yes, speech, or the publication of thought, is an act, and some non-verbal acts are speech, too. But speech is a protected act in the U.S. "Congress shall make no law", etc. That's why the "fighting words" concept is still part of U.S. law, despite the nanny state wanting to reserve all violence, justified or not, to itself.
These clowns deserve to be horsewhipped by the nearest Jew, but silencing them, silencing speech a priori, and sticking everyone else's head up some collective politically correct ass is not only tyrannical, but myopic and dangerous. I'm sorry U.S. jurisdictions dropped the ball on this one. Obviously they are anticipating the U.S. hate crimes, cyberbullying, etc. bills.
It was a nice run while it lasted, folks.
This discussion will invariable get out the "free speech or nothing" nutcases who claim that all speech should be free, while they read and post on a moderated forum with an adblocker censoring the slashdot creators.
Americans especially have a serious amount of hypocracy in these cases. Europeans tend to know that free speech does not exist and that true free speech is far to messy to allow. Yet while in holland we recently had proposal to make holocaust (not just THE holocaust but all similar events before and since) denial an actual and specific crime. At the moment it already falls under hate crime laws. Even the liberals (think left of the most left democrat/indepedent you ever witnessed) VVD who recenly proposed that hate crimes should be gotten rid off wanted the distinction between THINKING hate and inciting/causing hate.
The reason was simple, the poor guy who suggested it was INSTANTLY shot down by everyone. Not just the WW2, but the incitement to hatred that occured in Rwanda or even more recent South Africa (where there was violent against black immigrants from native blacks, I add this because you might typical assume that racial trouble in SA would be between black and white).
Europe once again is a powder keg. Parties who have immigrants as part of their agenda (meaning, they don't want them) are on the rise and with the economic downturn it doesn't take a lot to get a sensation of deja-vu. No, this is not 1930 germany. There are a lot of differences with all sides involved but right now NOBODY wishes to allow someone to start spreading hate that might find a fertile breeding ground.
We know from history that hate speech can be a serious danger if the conditions are right. Butt should our freedom to say what we believe be curtailed for the chance that something bad might happen?
I do notice that most of the most fervent supporters of free speech on this site sound and awful lot like white, christian, hetero-sexual, middle class male. What does this group have to fear from hate speech? They control the US. It is easy to say hate speech should be free when it is not targetted against you. I have no problem with americans being allowed to carry heavy weapons. In america. Go right ahead, carry a machine gun to the mall. It doesn't affect me.
But if you are black or a muslim or a jew or a woman or any other group that is the subject of hate groups then it becomes a different story.
The murders in holland on Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn fall under hate crimes. People spoke nasty words about them, saying it would be better if they were gone and someone listened. Wait until YOU are the one under a death treath before you say free speech should be totally unrestricted.
I am fairly willing to bet that the majority of free speech spouters on slashdot would change their tune VERY quickly if they were the subject of a hate attack.
Free speech is important, but being able to say anything at all without any restrictions will be abused.
Almost everything we do is restricted. From travel (I am free to travel across the globe but only with the proper papers), to reproduction (I can only do it with women who agree) our lives are regulared. Why should speech be any different?
And americans, before you try to correct me, how come that on a recent mythbusters I saw they had SO much censorship going on that it took up 50% if the screen and made the subject invisibale (jaw breaker myth). How come there are no boobies on US tv? What is the constant bleeping?
The US, where you can't say fuck, show a boody or a brandname but you should be able to race X should be gassed. Thanks but no thanks. I take holland, where you can say fuck, show full frontal nudity on a childrens program and brandnames can be shown as long as it is not advertising for the product (and I don't think your candy exploding is a very good advertisement). Neither system is perfect.
And before you quote some founder about freedom, find out how many slaves he or his friends owned.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Maybe, just maybe if an actual crime is committed and you can link the motives of the perpetrators to speech someone else made I can see an argument for criminalizing that speech. Of course, we have conspiracy laws for that. Criminalizing speech that hasn't caused yet anyone to harm anyone is just chilling.
Conspiracy laws don't require a crime to actually occur. If you hire an undercover cop to kill somebody, you've committed conspiracy to commit murder regardless of the murder actually occurring.
If you publish something with the intent of inciting hatred which could lead to others committing violent acts, you wouldn't be charged with conspiracy -- since there is no direct link between the speech and the crime. But you will be charged for publishing hate speech, regardless of the actions (or lack thereof) resulting from what you've said, based on your intent to incite hatred and violence.
...you're liable for it worldwide...
If that's going to the case, then indeed we do need a single worldwide standard... Otherwise we are all subject to the most radical puritans that happen to have an army and a flag.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Whenever somebody makes the nonsensical claim that it is unacceptable to censor racist or homophobic propaganda because it is a free speech issue, consider the following examples.
1: You're not allowed to harass people, even if you do so by speaking.
3: You're not allowed to tell people lies in order to make them agree to things they otherwise would not ( i.e fraud ).
4: You are not allowed to print untrue stories that may damage somebody's reputation ( i.e libel ).
5: You're not allowed to damage people's reputation by spreading lies about them ( i.e slander )
The main problem with the laws against racism and homophobia is that they have been poorly named. They should have called it "The protection against harassment of minorities act" or something like it. As with all other liberties your freedom ends where mine begins, and just like freedom of movement does not entitle you to sleep in my front-yard, nor does freedom of speech entitle you to spread lies about my sexual orientation. If you seriously think that freedom of speech gives you a right to lie about and harass people, then I'm afraid you have a rather naive idea of how the world works and you may just find that a lot of people with disagree with you.
That's not something the USA is in a position to say about any other developed country, really.
> ... It's only a matter of time before the USA starts prosecuting American citizens for smoking dope and visiting prostitutes in Amsterdam...
>
Since when are Americans busted for visiting prostitutes ? Read "Mayflower Madam" and check the stats (though published in 1986, I doubt much has changed since then.)
If you can't say something other people don't want to hear, you do not have free speech.
The first amendment did not end prosecutions for libel and slander.
Truth as a defense is a late comer in American law and may not be available elsewhere: on the ground that the libel is needlessly provocative and dangerous to the public peace and order.
It's this line of thinking that leads to the conclusion that you can't be allowed to falsely and maliciously shout "Fire! in a crowded theater.
Why you can't be permitted to outshout other speakers or hog the microphone at the town meeting.
Free speech is one of our society's core values.
But we value other things no less highly - and this can be difficult for a geek, who tends - like an adolescent - to think in terms of absolutes: black and white, good and evil, all or nothing.
I can see why you might think this, but parts of the UK are *very* tribal - with deep seated rifts that go back many hundreds of years. Parts of Scotland are probably even more sectarian than Northern Ireland is.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948)
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Perhaps we should jail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sawers for breaking the UN rules?
Wow 2 posts in a row moderated as insightful which completely misrepresent the term hate crime.
Hate crime has bugger all to do with censorship, it has to do with intent behind actual crimes (just like terrorism, hate crime really is terrorism's little brother). This censorship law isn't really a hate crime law, that term is usually reserved for laws which increase punishment for what were already crimes anyway.
Actually, no, if you'd RTFA they remain in detention in the United States for 11 months while their asylum request is processed.
Communication needs to happen, but throttling it is a lot better than letting it explode all at once, because all you're doing is creating yet another event to enhance divisions.
Another poster was right - the US can afford free speech, mostly because of our wealth. In other countries more riddled with violence and with people in more fragile situations, reasonable limits on free speech can prevent things from being blown out of control.
According to recent commentators the news media played a crucial role in the [Rwandan] genocide: local print and radio media fueled the killings, while the international media either ignored or seriously misconstrued events on the ground. The print media in Rwanda is believed to have started hate speech against Tutsis which was later continued by radio stations. According to commentators anti-Tutsi hate speech "became so systemic as to seem the norm." The state-owned newspaper Kangura had a central role, starting an anti-Tutsi and anti-RPF campaign in October 1990. In the ongoing International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the individuals behind Kangura have been accused of producing leaflets in 1992 picturing a machete and asking "What shall we do to complete the social revolution of 1959?" - a reference to the Hutu revolt that overthrew the Tutsi monarchy and the subsequent politically orchestrated communal violence that resulted in thousands of mostly Tutsi casualties and forced roughly 300,000 Tutsis to flee to neighboring Burundi and Uganda. Kangura also published the infamous "10 Hutu Commandments," which called upon Hutus to massacre Tutsis, and more generally communicated the message that the RPF had a devious grand strategy (one feature article was titled "Tutsi colonization plan").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
Thoughts are words. But you're right that thought can become action. This is the point of criminalizing thought--to prevent crime before it can happen. Take away the ability to commit crimes, however, and you've taken away the ability to obey the law.
As for the whole "proud to vote for a black man" thing ... that IS racist. If you're more proud to vote for a particular candidate due to his race, you're a bigot, regardless of whether he's black, white, green, or purple.
Fuck purple people.
The USA is one of the few countries that can AFFORD freedom of speech.
You make it sound like that's just some wacky coincidence. Did the USA just get lucky?
Start with a land full of Stone Age tribes, some already warring among and raiding each other. Take the best of that land away from them, by trade if you can but by genocide when you have to. Start filling it with immigrants, some from groups that emigrated because they were hated where they came from, some from groups that the earlier immigrants hate and despise, and some violently taken into slavery. Bring them from every country that will send them, don't worry about how recently their countries were at war with each other, don't even require them to speak the same language, and then if they don't self-segregate into ghettos right away, stoke prejudices to encourage that divisiveness.
Sounds like a recipe for peace, harmony, and love, does it? No need to worry about watching people's speech there?
Hardly. The USA doesn't have free speech because we can "afford" it; that's ludicrous. The USA has free speech because it's a human right. Fortunately for us, if you have a nation founded in division, violence, and hate, and you want to turn it into a melting pot where free speech seems "affordable", it turns out that a good way to do so is to foster the belief that human rights should be respected whether the government thinks they're "affordable" or not.
The Old Testament API was deprecated by Jesus' teachings.
You can still make the calls to the Leviticus module, but dont expect them to be supported anymore.
I think the "otherwise" is superfluous there.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4428270.ece
http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?id=1778&s=latestnews
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The two men were jailed for talking about the "Holohoax". No more truth to that than to tell that the moon is made of green cheese. Yet I haven't heard of anyone going to jail for spreading lies about the moon.
1. British man hacks into US web-servers, while being on British soil. US demands extradition. UK thinks crime falls under US jurisdiction.
2. British man posts hate messages on US web server, while being on British soil. UK thinks crime falls under UK jurisdiction.
How convenient, just select the appropriate jurisdiction based on whatever suits the government at the moment.
The two things here does not compute, but unfortunately, that is exactly how the UK works at the moment.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
Already on the books. IT reads something like " it is a felony to travel to foreign countries and do things that are legal there but illegal here". The example given was a business man traveling to somewhere in Indonesia for the purpose of having sex with (according to US law, not local) 'underage' girls. He was arrested right before boarding his plane. Can you say Pre-crime????
Good-bye
Almost all countries have treaties about criminal extradition with every major country. There isn't much room to deny a properly documented and requested extradition. Most treaties say that anyone fleeing charges to another country must be returned to the country with the charges regardless of whether the any local laws were violated.
A google search on "extradition treaty" will help you determine which countries are best to flee towards. Sadly, most are countries that a European or Norte American wouldn't be welcomed in or they are "4th world" without drinking water or government. Think North Korea, Somalia - countries like that.
Whether you agree with the UK law on this case or not (I don't), isn't the point. There is a treaty that needs to be followed.
I'm surprised no one has made reference to this yet, perhaps it is time people, to voice your disapproval or approval for what they are trying to pass in the House and Senate. Time to wake up.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/show
Thank God reality isn't racist! God hates racists. Racism is a sin. Racism is worse than sodomy. Racism is worse than child molestation. Racism is of Hitler, er, I mean Satan himself!
The Jew suffered and died on the death camp for our racism.
Racists should be raped by ethnic gangs in prison and die of AIDS. This is not cruel and unusual punishment. It is God's Will.
Seastead this.
Point for point.
This discussion will invariable get out the "free speech or nothing" nutcases who claim that all speech should be free, while they read and post on a moderated forum with an adblocker censoring the slashdot creators.
That's just silly. Freedom of speech is not the same thing as the right to have everyone hang onto your lips revering every single thing you say.
Americans especially have a serious amount of hypocracy[sic] in these cases.
Hypocrisy? At least Americans are pretty much consistent (at least compared to us) and you accuse them of hypocrisy?
Europeans tend to know that free speech does not exist and that true free speech is far to messy to allow.
Sure add another overgeneralisation. I'm sure all Europeans think exactly like you do to the last comma and apostrophe. *rolls eyes* Did you know by the way that a lot of people know that the world is only 6k years old? That people "know" things proves nothing.
Yet while in holland[sic] we recently had proposal to make holocaust (not just THE holocaust but all similar events before and since) denial an actual and specific crime. At the moment it already falls under hate crime laws. Even the liberals[sic] (think left of the most left democrat/indepedent you ever witnessed) VVD who recenly[sic] proposed that hate crimes should be gotten rid off wanted the distinction between THINKING hate and inciting/causing hate.
The reason was simple, the poor guy who suggested it was INSTANTLY shot down by everyone.
You are not just oversimplifying the situation, but also misrepresenting half the Dutch people. Don't you read the papers? Public opinion was very varied, on both sides of the argument.
Not just the WW2, but the incitement to hatred that occured in Rwanda or even more recent South Africa (where there was violent against black immigrants from native blacks, I add this because you might typical assume that racial trouble in SA would be between black and white).
Violence isn't protected by the right to free speech.
Europe once again is a powder keg. Parties who have immigrants as part of their agenda (meaning, they don't want them) are on the rise and with the economic downturn it doesn't take a lot to get a sensation of deja-vu. No, this is not 1930 germany. There are a lot of differences with all sides involved but right now NOBODY wishes to allow someone to start spreading hate that might find a fertile breeding ground.
You are sensationalising. Europe isn't a powder keg, and it will only become that if we let it. For example by limiting free speech, making it impossible for people to settle their differences in the public sphere, ensuring that it will brew under the surface.
We know from history that hate speech can be a serious danger if the conditions are right.
The conditions aren't right. Also, you failed to mention that cases in recent history where the speech of someone caused nastiness, this was in large part because at the same time the opposition was censored.
Butt[sic] should our freedom to say what we believe be curtailed for the chance that something bad might happen?
I do notice that most of the most fervent supporters of free speech on this site sound and awful lot like white, christian, hetero-sexual, middle class male.
Right. Obviously black people can't post like you do (perhaps you are a little racist yourself), all those people shooting down religious "arguments" in the flamewars we wage here every now and then are just Christian trolls, and so on and so forth. Do you even read your own words before you hit "submit"?
What does this group have to fear from hate speech?
The same thing everyone else has to fear from the whole concept if it is enshrined into law. One day somethi
The amount of protection any country, but in particular the US, will give you depends on many things, citizenship being one of them. If you are not a citizen of the US and your mother country says "We want this person back," the US is probably going to send you back barring extreme circumstances. Asylum isn't granted except in special cases.
Had they been US citizens, who were just visiting the UK when they did this, it might have been different. The US might have decided that, nope, this is not something they'll extradite for since the speech is protected in the US and was on a US server. The UK would be free to ban them from coming back, but the US might well not give them up for prosecution.
However there is just no real question in a case like this. You aren't getting asylum unless you are facing genuine persecution. Thus if your country says "send them back" then back you go.
It goes:
A people who will not be ruled by just law, must be ruled by tyrants.
I believe in freedom of speech. There is a small risk that this could lead to anti-Semitism and violence, but there's a greater risk that censorship could lead to things that are as bad or worse. And I think that getting this out in the open is the best way to deal with it.
Don't the Brits still read Milton's Areopagitica and John Stuart Mill's On Liberty any more?
BTW, Simon Sheppard seems to have a case of arrested sexual development, even by Slashdot standards. http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/index.html Or maybe not by Slashdot standards.
Here's the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Sheppard_(far-right_activist) and here's his index page http://www.heretical.com/main.html#directory I believe the British term is "nutter."
Northern Ireland is governed by the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. Except in matters of defense and foreign relations they are themselves responsible.
I piss off bigots.
How many more examples do you want? "String up the niggers!" in Alabama in the 1950s, and sure enough, the niggers get strung up. "Kill the queers!" and sure enough, the queers get killed. These things seldom happen without someone talking about it first.
I piss off bigots.
First, hate speech is NOT outlawed in most of the world. It's only outlawed in a few western democracies. Second, the fact of it being outlawed is NOT the source of the violence right under the surface. The violence below the surface has existed for centuries before there were any laws about such things.
I'm sorry, but you'll never convince me that "kill the queers" and "string up the niggers" is how we work out our differences peaceably. Peace only comes when we stop using such language.
I'm not arguing for censorship. I'm pointing out that these arguments against it are ill-informed and ineffective. A liberal (in the proper sense of the word, i.e. not authoritarian) democracy must first of all agree on tolerance. Without tolerance there is no hope for peace and good governance.
I piss off bigots.
Clearly these guys are bozos, and don't deserve much pity. Even so, the point of free speech is that it is free for people whose views are not popular. If their views were popular and government-approved, there would be no need for laws guaranteeing freedom of speech. It is nonetheless ironic - but not surprising - that the same British government that has strict laws against hate speech engages in plenty of deceitful and hateful speech of its own against those whom it dislikes, and even engages in genocide against them (using the strict definition of the word, not directly by murder in most cases). It is a sad day for both the United States and Britain, but hardly remarkable of late - and that is even sadder.
I think, the belief is, we'd rather suffer through annoyances of some fools/assholes/weirdos saying stuff we don't like, than have the Government decide, what can and can not be said.
"Corporate speech" is advertising and is very restricted already — way too much, in this immigrant's opinion. They can't advertise cigarettes. They can't even tell you, their food is good for you!
As for political speech, well, that's what the First Amendment, actually, is about, even if it was misused in the past to claim the right to sell pornography. So hands off! I wish, I could shout that into the ears of Senators McCain and Feingold, when they were pushing their unconstitutional law...
Back to your statement, both political and corporate speech in the US has, in fact, been discussed and dealt with, so you are 100% wrong. Which is very unfortunate...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Why do you assume that no one on Slashdot is the target of hate speech?
I expect that many are, and in many cases are being attacked by their own governments, especially in the United States and Britain.
Free speech is only free if unpopular views are allowed to be expressed. No laws are required to ensure that subjects can parrot the views of their rulers.
And you, sir, are an ass.
All crime is hate crime. You don't commit crime on people you like.
Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage have been stirring up a lot of hate via their radio programs. Savage has even been banned from entering England. A couple of physical attacks have been linked to fans of the shows. What if this attack rate went up? Suppose 100 people a month were attacked? 1,000? 10,000? How many before laws are passed to stop or reduce it?
I didn't used to be for the "Fairness Doctrine" whereby radio stations had to present both sides (it was repealed in 1987). However, the polarization is getting ugly in this country. I notice it in my own family and relatives even. The Fairness Doctrine does not censor ideas, but merely requires alternative points of views. It may be a good middle-ground.
Table-ized A.I.
First, hate speech is NOT outlawed in most of the world. It's only outlawed in a few western democracies.
Shows what you know. Practically every country in SE Asia has laws restricting speech "to maintain public order" - i.e. don't insult or provoke ethnic group X or you'll end up in jail, just like Sheppard and Whittle.
I'm sorry, but you'll never convince me that "kill the queers" and "string up the niggers" is how we work out our differences peaceably. Peace only comes when we stop using such language.
Of course you'll never be convinced of it, you are deliberately applying tunnel-vision in order to satisfy yourself of your righteousness. Too bad that you choose to ignore the point you can't get past people THINKING "kill the queers" unless there is public debate in response to it.
I'm not arguing for censorship.
Yes you are. Funny how it is that nowadays all the pro-censorship people like to say that they aren't pro-censorship. Kinda like having a black man as a close friend.
Without tolerance there is no hope for peace and good governance.
You can not legislate tolerance. You are arguing that enforcing tolerance is good enough. Deliberately turning a blind eye to the fact that intolerance continues to seeth beneath the surface ready to explode in violence at any time.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I'm sorry, but you'll never convince me that "kill the queers" and "string up the niggers" is how we work out our differences peaceably. Peace only comes when we stop using such language.
I agree, but you're still wrong. Peace doesn't come when people stop using such language because of government oppression, it only comes when people stop using such language voluntarily.
First, hate speech is NOT outlawed in most of the world. It's only outlawed in a few western democracies ... The violence below the surface has existed for centuries before there were any laws about such things.
Nonsense. Historically and around the world, "hate speech laws" are nearly universal. Of course, in the more backwards countries and times, "hate speech" just means "anything that opposes the government or the preferred religion". And restrictions on speech are one of the primary causes of unrest and revolution.
A liberal (in the proper sense of the word, i.e. not authoritarian) democracy must first of all agree on tolerance. Without tolerance there is no hope for peace and good governance.
You're confusing tolerance and acquiescence. I tolerate lots of religions and defend people's right to practice them, but that doesn't mean that I can't tell them that I think Christ or Mohammed were frauds or draw them with bombs in their turbans if I so choose.
Besides, have you seen the vitriol that many conservatives and Catholics are heaping on liberals? Why should they have all the fun?
Can't keep your money and now you can't say what you think.
What freedom is left there?
So you're saying that pictures that make fun of Mohammed are "hate speech"? I disagree strongly. If people riot because of that, the problem is with the rioters not with the people publishing the pictures.
Short of asking people to kill each other, any other kind of offensive speech needs to be legitimate in a democracy because, sadly, the truth often offends people. Or do you think the Reformation, Enlightenment, Darwinism, or heliocentrism didn't offend people and their religious sensitivities?
But, hey, maybe we can finally get these laws to work both ways. I find what Muslim clerics and the Pope say about me highly offensive and insulting. Muslims have even called for my death. In fact, the Pope pretty much agrees with these two British men on many things. So, let's throw the Pope and Muslim clerics in jail.
Freedom of speech is the right to speak to anyone whatsoever, about anything whatsoever, true or false, without incurring any legal consequence. Cases involving the right to free speech naturally tend to concern themselves with highly controversial speech, and the outcomes tend to reflect personal and/or social biases rather than justice. Nonetheless, the U.S. Constitution makes no exception for any specific form of speech; all speech is protected. The U.S. Constitution aside, no punishment thus far proposed as a response to unwanted speech meets the simple test of being proportional to the supposed offense. No formal judgment is needed to respond in kind, and no court has the authority to hand down a disproportionate penalty for any offense, real or imagined.
In the case of fraud, certain false statements inhibit the "meeting of the minds" required for a valid contract, making any contract based on such false claims void. This is not a punishment for false speech, but rather a recognition that the contract was never valid to begin with. None of the other examples should be illegal, and making them so contradicts the First Amendment in the U.S., no matter how much certain judges and lawmakers might prefer otherwise.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Australians who travel overseas and have sex with underage children can be prosecuted in Australia, even though no crime occurred on Australian soil.
I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
They are. And the tyranny of one group is never (significantly) removed when the other comes into power.
I don't know who to hate more, the UK government for jailing men on the content of their speech or the USA government for not granting them asylum?
What happened to this land of the free and home of the brave I've heard about? The judges that did not grant asylum were spineless. They were probably more concerned about placating a supposed ally than about protecting freedom.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
in all of middle east, and a third of the rest of the world, muslim preachers are preaching hatred and discrimination in mosques every friday. that also includes many mosques in europe, especially france, netherlands and germany. so far, germany only prosecuted one, netherlands and britain and france prosecuted NONE. and germany did that because that guy went as far to immediately call for violence.
when does freedom of speech become hatred ? is preaching to masses for decades that they should be negative towards all other religious groups is okay ? wont there a certain turning point, a treshold will come that that many 'mild' discriminative preachings en masse will turn a knob and the thing will turn real ?
a warning to muslims - dont give me any bullshit, because im from a muslim country, been muslim in the past, studied religion hard.
Read radical news here
He said "God". Ha! Ha! Had us going until he admitted to insanity.
It only figures that if blacks get the idea they're regularly getting verbally and physically attacked by whites, they're going to do the same right back.
And yes, you just exposed the fallacy of the "hate crime" ... It's not applied universally. Rather, it's a tool to try to combat perceived inequalities between "minorities" and white males. (Heck, even a white female can qualify as long as she can show it was a male of ANY race who attacked her. Women are minorities too, you know....)
The way things work in society today, it's really the white male vs. all others. And until we eliminate all the favoritism based one someone's race or ethnic background, we're probably stuck with things this way for a long time to come. (Everyone believes the white male is about the only one who isn't "owed" some sort of compensation or assistance, at least here in the USA -- and if the white male happens to be homosexual, he might STILL be able to claim a need for that extra help.)
Honestly, I think the single biggest thing that might eventually tear this down is inter-racial dating. When enough of the population is asked for their race and has to check-mark "mixed", then we'll reach a crossroads where it no longer makes sense to try to categorize people by race.
of course racist speech is heinous, because of what it inevitably results in
same with drawings of children in sexual situations
but you don't outlaw either
what you do is you allow all of it, and then you TRACK the fuckers
then when the pathetic fuckers take their retarded thoughts to their inevitable conclusion, and you take them down a lot easier, because you already know who and where the losers are
what, you think my attitude is wrong? let's remind you please exactly what (certainly not who) we are dealing with here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_von_Brunn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawna_Forde
you want to talk rights?
you lose your right to be tolerated when you yourself do not tolerate
that observation trumps all other discussions on rights
what is the point of tolerating intolerance?
a tolerant society that tolerates intolerance is a short-lived society. you further tolerance in this world by fighting intolerance. tolerating intolerance merely allows it to spread
and no, this is not hypocrisy:
"i hate you because you are black": intolerance
"i fight you because you hate people for being black": intolerance of intolerance
you can't equate the two, they are logically separate
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Sigh... so many comments like this one.
The United States government has no law against consumption of controlled substances. They do have laws on possession and trafficking.
The Unites States have no binding laws at ALL on prostitution, other then compulsion (pimping), and only if that crosses state lines. Otherwise, it is a rule of law reserved to the individual states to handle. That's how Nevada works (legal licensed) and Rhode Island (simply not regulated past street walking and brothels).
Furthermore, we have extradition agreements with every country in NATO, and more besides. They want a criminal back, they get them, and we get the same deal, The basic Freedoms are outlined in the Bill Of Rights, an amendment to the Constitution and not even placed in the original document. The UK has only the Magna Carta and common law, so they have no standing protections on these ideals at all. This applies to most former colonies as well, such as Canada and Australia.
IANAL.... but damn it, I did read, I did listen to those that are, and intelligent conversation should be illuminating. Next time you hear something interesting, check up on it.
Something to consider. If you kill another person intentionally, then it is murder. If you kill him "without malice or premeditation", then it is manslaughter, which carries a lesser sentence. If you kill him in self-defense, then it may carry no sentence at all (IANAL, but I assume it would carry a sentence if there were a less harsh alternative, and you chose to kill the other person).
.
The difference between murder and manslaughter is purely about intention, so is it not thought crime to distinguish between the two?
.
The difference between murder and self-defense is both one of motive and situation. I have argued with coworkers before about whether it should be legal to shoot a man in the back if you catch him on your property and he runs away. (someone in our area got arrested for "assault" when they did this, and there was outrage that the guy had to spend an entire weekend in jail for it).
.
Just a little food for thought.
"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: [...] freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;" - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b)
John Stuart Mill once discussed the essential quality of free speech. He discusses speech that was utterly vulgar, disgusting, hateful, and otherwise devoid of any value. He wisely said that even this speech should be free, as it serves as an example of opinions that should be rejected by other people - you can show the truth by showing falsehood.
It should never be the government's job to restrict speech, no matter how disgusting and hateful. The public however has a right to confront such speech and to use their speech to drown out and show the falsehoods in hate speech, and to embarrass the morons that spew such filth. That is how a free society should and often does operate. The U.S. does plenty of wrong things, and plenty of right things - I am proud of the tradition of free speech in the United States and I hope that it serves as an example to the rest of the world.
By the way, I'm one of those far-left socialists of which the libertarians and other right-wingers on Slashdot are so terrified. We socialists love freedom as much as you, we just realize that economic freedom can be as essential as all other liberties.
Is the word you are looking for.
There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
Yup, YOUR government already controls the commerce of ideas.
They have done wonders to show the Great Satan of the US that their immoral acts have consequences for even the most remote of their decadent society!
Praise Allah!
Those 3000 people will roast an eternity in Hell while those brave fighters for religious freedom who laid down their lives for the Great Cause are sitting at the right hand of God Himself.
(fell good about free speech now?)
I've never said one thing in favor of censorship or hate speech laws. I am not pro-censorship, whether you label me as such or not.
My point is that people who think hate speech has no consequences, or is somehow beneficial, are ignorant of history and current affairs. That does not translate into an endorsement of censorship.
I am hardly turning a blind eye to the fact that intolerance continues to seethe below the surface. That was my point in the first place. Hate speech turns it into violence. Don't attempt to deny it: it is as incontrovertible as the Holocaust.
I piss off bigots.
In most cases intentional insulting a person is a crime in Finland regardless ethnic origins or religion. And even speaking truth is not absolute protection against libel/slander in Finland.
But inciting hate of a ethnic or religious group is offered special protections. And disturbing religious ceremony or intentionally insulting a religion is also illegal.
I am not sure if I agree 100 percent with these laws, because I think that criticism should also be offered official protection. But in practise this hasn't usually been problem for reasonable criticism.
It doesn't change the fact that hate speech incites violence, which is what the ignorant parent was denying.
Christians see pictures that make fun of Christ as hate speech. Remember "Piss Christ"? Muslims see pictures that make fun of Mohammed as hate speech. Get used to it.
The only way to have freedom is for people to behave responsibly within those freedoms. Those who refuse to control themselves will be controlled -- either by the government or by their outraged neighbors. Always.
I piss off bigots.
Excellent points. If the government can define "hate speech" or "terrorism" to suite themselves, then there can never be any challenge to tyranny. The definitions will be changed to defend those in power at the time.
Free speech is fundamental to freedom.
See the ACLU web site for a primer...
Robbing a bank is a crime. What if the police catches the people in the planing stages before they actually robbed the bank?... Right, it's still a crime.
If I kill someone, it's a crime. If I tell you to kill someone and you do it, I committed a crime. What if I tell you to kill someone and you don't do it?... Right, it's still a crime!
No difference between the US and Europe so far.
What if I tell an unspecific group of people to kill another group of people and they go and commit genocide? What if they don't do it? Still a crime, it doesn't matter if you were successful in reaching your goals or not.
That's what is considered a hate speech in Europe and those people can be prosecuted.
In the states, if you have someone killed, it's a crime; but if you do it on a large enough scale, it's suddenly "free speech".
The "See, I didn't give anyone money and I didn't tell anyone in particular to do it. It's not my fault that someone felt compelled to do what I asked"-defense just doesn't work in Europe.
Even in that case, the "underwhelming minority" companies run by CEOs that are race blind will still prevail and eventually end up killing their racist competitors.
The alternative you propose is a racial quota system that reinforces the idea that minorities can't ever compete equally so they get special treatment.
If you want to create racism among the majority population, giving special treatment to minorities through official channels is the perfect way to do it.
Good job, you've just institutionalized racism.
First they put away the dealers,
keep our kids safe and off the street.
Then they put away the prostitutes,
keep married men cloistered at home.
Then they shooed away the bums,
then they beat and bashed the queers,
turned away asylum-seekers,
fed us suspicions and fears.
We didn't raise our voice,
we didn't make a fuss.
It's funny there was no one left to notice
when they came for us.
If hate isn't a crime, why is inciting hatred a crime? This is one question the liberal fascists can't answer. Inciting violence is a crime, because violence is a crime, commissioning a crime is a crime. But hatred?
Liberals, not being people who like taking responsibility for their own actions, like the idea that nebulous things such as "speech" can be held responsible for events. Ergo, punish the speech.
The problem with "inciting hatred" is that it's such a nebulous term that anything can be interpreted in that way by even the most hypersensitive paranoiac and before you know it, you're not saying anything for fear of being arrested. For some people, saying that sodomy is grotesque is enough to merit a penalty.
Britain's Labour government are a sad, sad, desperate, miserable bunch of barrel scraping nation destroyers. We were owed an election years ago.
IIRC UK law already has a few extra-territorial exceptions - in theory an off-duty British cop can report a British subject for drugs overseas or underage sex (I'm not entirely sure how that works with the ages being different in each country. Perhaps it is max(money_or_camera_involved ? 18 : 16, local_age)). Also the authorities boarded ships that broadcast copyrighted music ("pirate radio ships") some time ago so that is probably still on the books.
And of course any British person can be extradited to the US without evidence on the say-so of a random local law-enforcer over there, e.g. if they support gambling on the internet or are looking at the governments files on alien spaceships.
If all these fading democracies have found to fight racism, is to throw people in jail for their opinions, I'd say there is little possibility of that being effective. If anything, thought-crime turns those people into Free Speech martyrs. Not really a good idea.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Really. You don't...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So are you saying that Holocaust survivors and their descendants don't suffer when those untruths are told?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And it is used quite affectionately, my uncle was nicknamed "El Negro" (literally the blackman) when he worked at a very senior level in a US Car company in Mexico.
I used to laugh at the idea of how he introduced himself to executives from the main office back in the US....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Northern Ireland for starters.
You have not taken your tribalism to the ultimate consequences, but having watched English football hooligans in action I know you could (once in a while these fine gentlemen bash an Asian business for practice).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Yeah, that is legally wonderfully correct.
But has not always being like that, and many people have paid with their lives as a consequence.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That is what you are failing to grasp.
Writing something is to take an active role in a campaign to harm people.
The excuse of nobody being harm by hate speech is laughable at best.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The government in Yugoslavia had ethnic cleansing in mind.
To compare both, even as a joke, is ludicrous.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That is all fine and dandy to say when you are not a Jewish person living in the UK....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The website is a side issue.
They distributed racist leaflets to a synagogue btw...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Your invoking of people elsewhere is a non issue.
The UK regularly prosecutes hate Muslim preachers, and stops them from entering the country if they are visiting from elsewhere.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You are operating under the assumption that a democracy can't be turned into a dictatorship, or that a democratic society wouldn't engage in ethnic stereotyping if fed enough propaganda.
Your assumption is incorrect.
You people (Anonymous) want to ban queers, emokids, geeks and racial minorities from the net with all your threats, bullying, and abuse, the least that could happen is some of you get arrested for all your racism, hate, death threats, attempts to make people commit suicide so you don't have to take the blame for your desire for murder, and your web sites that publish private info about people with the intent of ruining their lives. Shut up and take it like a man, son.
As much as I feel even the worst scum should have their rantings protected under the First Amendment, and as much as I find it reprehensible that the British government wanted to prosecute them, why the @$#% did they seek asylum in Los Angeles? If you were a foreign bigot looking for a place in America to seek asylum, wouldn't you be better off somewhere in Mississippi or Alabama? Were they hoping that the famously racist LA police would protect them?