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."

Comments

God forbid they meet Annonymous

[Aphonia]

It's an internet hate machine, you know. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY ]

whats the crime in hate crime?

[biscon]

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.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[RsG]

"Hate crime" is a blanket term for laws that regulate speech with the intent of suppressing racism. More recently this has expanded to include homophobia. How those laws are viewed largely depends on whether the viewer feels more strongly about bigotry or censorship; whether you see a greater evil in suppression of speech or unreasoning hatred.

I'd call censorship the greater evil, but despite that I'm ambivalent about this particular case. On the one hand, I do not think such a law ought to exist at all, on the other hand, I just can't muster any outrage at a neo-Nazi getting jailed. I suspect that it's cases like this that allow such laws to remain in effect - try to oppose the law on principle and you'll find yourself in the position of having to defend the bigots, something that even those most committed to free speech find repellent.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[clarkkent09]

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.

I don't believe in hate speech crime, not because I am a racist or a homophobe but because I believe in the right of individuals to think and to say whatever the fuck they want without somebody shutting their mouth by force or putting them in jail for it. Laws prohibiting hate speech don't have to be abused to be wrong, they are also wrong when functioning as intended. If you disagree with racists or homophobes feel free to say so, but don't use the force of government to shut them up because you are replacing one evil with a greater one. And besides, is there an easier thing to argue against and to ridicule than the irrational and primitive nonsense that such people tend to say. Why would you even need such laws is beyond me. I am only sorry that the US government is not willing to step up and protect people from other countries, however odious their beliefs might be, who are persecuted at home for no greater crime than speaking their mind and who seek refuge here.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I don't believe in hate crime...

Well, most people do. And these days, that's all you need to throw someone in jail forever: The consent of the people.

It's easy to get that consent as well. You just need to own a few newspapers and get a few people to cry on television. Gets 'em every time.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[DittoBox]

But the government loves you, and wants you to be happy. Why do you hate the government? Maybe you should go through a program to rehabilitate you. If you hate the government and it's policies then you obviously hate other races and such.

[/sarcasm]

Therein lies the problem. This is exactly why thought-crime is such a dangerous notion.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Cederic]

Count this one as censorship. They were found guilty of 'inciting racial hatred'.

That doesn't mean it's illegal to hate someone because of their racial heritage (i.e. thoughtcrime) it's illegal to incite such hatred in others.

Still right on the edge of suppression of free speech, and without knowing exactly what these guys printed/posted I'm not sure whether this is something I need to be concerned about or not.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[hedwards]

I disagree, the legal standard is fairly high as to when the police can intervene. It leaves more than enough room for exercising ones first amendment rights. There's all kinds of things that one can say which are protected, even though they are definitely noxious at best.

The hate crimes legislation comes into play, at least in the US, when it crosses from just expression to incitement of violence or represents a threat to other people's safety. This isn't really that fine of a line, I'm not aware of cases going forward where it wasn't terribly obvious that it had crossed the line sometime previously.

That being said, that's in the US, the various EU states are much more aggressive about it than we are, to the point, where you really can't seriously suggest that there is a real freedom of speech in many parts of the EU.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

Hate crime laws don't suppress racism... they might suppress public expression of racism, but people will still hate privately, likely using the hate crime laws themselves as a valid excuse to promote hate to others. "Look at James Byrd, they gave two of the three white guys that dragged him to death the death penalty and the other life, while the three black guys that did the same thing to Ken Tillery got 15, 20 and 70 years..." It's hard to enforce the law equally when the purpose of the law is to setup specific protected classes and that will result in more division.

IMO, it's much better to get people to express themselves publicly since it gives them an avenue to vent while simultaneously allowing you to deflate their arguments before they can spread the hate.

I live in NY... and you'll hear lots of people saying they were proud to vote for a black man for President, but those same people moved when blacks started encroaching on their white neighborhoods, send their kids to mostly white private schools, etc. While they publicly talk a good game, they still don't want to be around "those kind of people" privately. That undertone of racism is allowed to go unchallenged though, largely because as long as the racism isn't overtly public, it "isn't" really racism. I'd argue refusing to let your kids go to school with someone of a different color isn't much different from beating someone else up for being a different color. The same hate exists, just expressed differently... Sure, one is a violent crime which deserves a penalty in its own right, but the other goes completely unpunished and undiscussed.

Ultimately, if we want racism (and sexism, homophobia, etc) to end, we need to stop drawing lines to divide people into different camps and giving special treatment to "the right groups." Anything short of equal treatment breeds a hate itself.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[bitt3n]

whether you see a greater evil in suppression of speech or unreasoning hatred.

I think the case can be made that suppression of speech is a potent means of perpetuating unreasoning hatred. One is unlikely to change a person's mind by preventing him from speaking it.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[bhima]

It least where I live these days "Hate Speech" is a blanket term for that for laws that regulate speech which has the design of inciting men to violence. That and we have laws specifically about glorifying the Drittes Reich or Nationalsozialismus; denying the holocaust; and generally attempting to relive the mistakes of the past. As far as I can tell these laws are pretty useful because to a man all that have been prosecuted have been intent on goading others to do violence, part of violent groups, done violence themselves, or all of the above. And like you, I have a hard time getting worked up seeing those people prosecuted.

I've also lived in the US for nearly 20 years and I am not sure that the tolerance of hate speech in the US has had the result of creating a freer & safer society or a freer or more effective press. As far as I can tell, the laws and public opinion about freedom of speech issues are dysfunctional.

Also I'm absolutely convinced that corporate speech and political speech is more dangerous than hate speech. And the US has completely failed to deal with them... or for that matter even discuss them openly and honestly.

One last thing. It's a far cry from Hate Speech (public speech with a call to action) & Hate Crime (Violence motivated by Bigotry) to Thought Crime (muttering to yourself as women & children cross the street to avoid you)... which is what the parent was referring to and which I think has at least at basis for argument & discussion with regard to US and UK anti-terror laws.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the term "homophobia" being tossed around so much? It is totally misused. I do not fear homos. I intensely dislike them because they choose to be deviant and abnormal. This is not fear.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Your definition of "thought crime" as "muttering to yourself" is completely bogus trivializing.

As for the tolerance of "hate speech" creating a freer and safer society here - the difference between the US and most of the rest of the world is we let it all hang out - the good, the bad and the ugly so that we get public discourse and an eventual meeting of the minds, even if it does take a generation or two and a lot of nasty words to get there. We are the most ethnic and culturally integrated country in the world in part because of that - contrast that to all the states with laws against insulting groups, your immigrants are far, far less integrated into mainstream society.

You can't fight bad words with censorship, only good words in response to bad words can do that. Censorship just takes away the opportunity for someone to respond with good words.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[AP31R0N]

The legal aspect of the term hate crime was invent to make sure such crime were actually PROSECUTED. Not long ago, crime A by person type B against person type C was no big deal. Stomp a fag to death, burn a cross on a nigger's lawn, no problem. The people enforcing the laws were the same as the people breaking them, so often the crimes were unpunished. Enter hate crimes. Now it's harder to get away with it.

Some hate crimes are meant to terrorize, which makes them actually WORSE than the act itself. For instance, swastikas on the synagogue. If some kids painted smiley faces, it's just graffiti, destruction of private property. The swastikas imply... "get out or we'll come back with something worse".

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Psyborgue]

But a court could find almost anything likely to "incite". A court could find a Big Mac likely to "incite" obesity. Where the hell is personal responsibility?

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[clarkkent09]

Well yes, I happen to disagree with any outright prohibition of free speech, whether true or false, including yelling fire in a crowded theater - although, let those injured or the owner of the theater sue the culprit if they suffer any damages from it. While that's a minority position, you are going too far in the other direction. Are you really saying that making false claims about president's position on gun control ought to be a crime because some nutcase might decide to shoot somebody because of it? If so, then if you think my position is "dangerous" it's nothing compared to yours. There is practically no limit to government control of free speech if any false statement that might conceivably cause some psycho to go off can be prohibited. In my opinion, the only guilty parties in those shootings, as in Klan bombings, are the shooters and bombers themselves. They could have easily ignored those who "egged them on" but they chose not to.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[c6gunner]

I live in NY... and you'll hear lots of people saying they were proud to vote for a black man for President, but those same people moved when blacks started encroaching on their white neighborhoods, send their kids to mostly white private schools, etc. While they publicly talk a good game, they still don't want to be around "those kind of people" privately.

That's complete nonsense. They don't live in those neighborhoods and send their children to those schools because they want racial segregation - they do it because those neighborhoods and those schools are upper-class environments where their children can prosper without having to worry excessively about crime or violence, and because those schools tend to offer a better quality of education. Parents who can afford to send their kids to a private school don't start the selection process by saying "hrm, let's see which school has the fewest negros" - they send their children to the best school they can find. Unfortunately, due to the economic discrepancy between the races, those schools tend to have fewer black students, but you're confusing correlation with causation.

You know, it's like you went out to a rich neighborhood, looked at the kind of cars most of them drive, and then concluded that rich people must be massively pro-German. It makes no sense.

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.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, most people do. And these days, that's all you need to throw someone in jail forever: The consent of the people.

Who are "most people"? Do you have a cite or statistics to back this up? I didn't think so.

The fact of the matter is (and I'm a centrist Democrat) that minority groups of various persuasions have squealed to the media about hate motivated crimes and laws have been put through by self-righteous cappuccino Dems while vilifying anybody who dares oppose it.

I'm from Cincinnati (yeah, we've got one hell of a past, check dangerous neighborhood listings and witness our #1 glory) and I've seen it happen: five white guys beat the shit out of a black guy and it's a hate crime. Five black guys beat the shit out of a white guy and it's just a "crime"... in fact it's business as usual. I work in the engineering field and I personally know three engineers (including a female) who have been assaulted while trying to get to data centers on off-hours calls. Hint: all the perps were black and all the victims were white.

You can bleat anecdote and I can show you trends.

There are just as many black racists here as there are white. I lost count of how many times I've been called cracker, honkey, casper, etc. Just for walking down the street. I've spoken to others, and yes, it's the norm. I'm a pretty big guy so nobody ever acts on it (and I'm a prior military CCW if they do), but for more "average" people you're pretty much screwed.

And remember, when you're getting your teeth kicked out in the gutter for being a stupid white motherfucker in "our" part of town during the night, it's not a hate crime. We just don't like you straight white folks.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Psyborgue]

Or maybe suppression of the speech will drive it underground, make it taboo, and in a sense, make it more appealing to those who are lonely and looking for a sense or subversive belonging. Think Streisand Effect, teenage rebellion, and drug prohibition rolled into one.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[lgw]

The hate crimes legislation comes into play, at least in the US, when it crosses from just expression to incitement of violence or represents a threat to other people's safety. This isn't really that fine of a line, I'm not aware of cases going forward where it wasn't terribly obvious that it had crossed the line sometime previously.

I agree completely Citizen! The fact that it was already illegal to incite violence was inadequate - that only protected public safety, and did nothing to deter BadThink. We must trust the Leaders to guide us towards GoodThink at all times! Inciting violence because you lack thought process approved by our Leader is far, far worse than otherwise inciting violence, because it's more important to stop BadThink than violence any day.

Jailing MPs who argue in parliament against the positions of the ruling party could only happen in the UK, here our Leaders are firm supporters of free speech and would never abuse power in any way!

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[shaitand]

'I live in NY... and you'll hear lots of people saying they were proud to vote for a black man for President, but those same people moved when blacks started encroaching on their white neighborhoods, send their kids to mostly white private schools, etc.'

I'm sorry but that is not racism. They aren't moving because blacks are moving into their neighborhood they are moving because the culture that prevails in black neighborhoods is encroaching on their own. The same is true of the schools.

I'm sorry to all of those who want to call it the 'new racism' but opposing your children being influenced by a culture of rap/hip hop that romanticizes abuse of women, use of dangerous drugs like crack, gang violence, and the idea that people should be loud, rude, and obnoxious in their interaction with others is perfectly valid. The fact that people are afraid to express that idea openly and publicly without fear of being called racist is a sign that the public face of "white" america is diseased not their thoughts behind closed doors.

Why were people willing to elect Obama (your votes are still private not public actions like you seem to suggest)? They elected Obama because his race is irrelevant what is important is that he didn't show signs of being a part of that culture and because he doesn't speak ebonics (which is superficial but to anyone who didn't grow up speaking ebonics it simply sounds like the broken English of the uneducated).

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[timeOday]

I think the US and UK must have different definitions of "hate crime." In the US, it's an act that would have been a crime anyways, but motivated by any of a specific list of taboos. In the UK, apparently the speech is a crime in itself, even if nobody gets hurt.

Though the US version seems ripe for abuse, it still seems more sensible than the UK version, and I don't think the US version is totally unreasonable. Take the recent holocaust museum shooting... a white man murders a black guard in an attack on a symbol of Judaism. Clearly it was a hate crime - not against blacks, even though that's the only person he murdered - but against Jews. But he didn't just think about hating Jews, he took forcible action to terrorize them, so I can at least see the rationale in some extra punishment for that, on top of murdering a guy.

Speaking of the murder of the guard, cop killers get harsher sentences too, likely including death, since cops represent a symbolic group with extra risks - in other words, a hate crimes. I wonder if all those against special protections for minority groups are also against harsher penalties for killing cops, assassinating heads of state, etc?

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[RsG]

I agree completely Citizen! The fact that it was already illegal to incite violence was inadequate - that only protected public safety, and did nothing to deter BadThink. We must trust the Leaders to guide us towards GoodThink at all times! Inciting violence because you lack thought process approved by our Leader is far, far worse than otherwise inciting violence, because it's more important to stop BadThink than violence any day.

The trouble with busting out 1984 references and parodies every time this happens is it cheapens them to the point of irrelevance. If every infringement upon liberty, no matter how significant, is called tyranny, than what shall real tyranny be called?

Orwell would probably be troubled by the direction we're heading in. He'd also probably be appalled at how silly we've made his (legitimate) concerns look to the world.

1984 is a chilling look at how the world could become if we let it, it is not raw material for constructing alarmist strawmen.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Hubbell]

"A significant amount of bigotry finds its way onto places like Fox News, there is no need for more rights considering how far one can go already without being harassed by law enforcement."


This is always one of the numerous shittalking points people have for fox news...yet I watch it and have never heard any of this bigotry. Please provide examples. It's just like people saying rush and levine etc all spout hatespeech constantly, yet noone can ever point out exact examples.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[TubeSteak]

I don't believe in hate speech crime...
...
I am only sorry that the US government is not willing to step up and protect people from other countries, however odious their beliefs might be, who are persecuted at home for no greater crime than speaking their mind and who seek refuge here.

Call it what it is: inciting violence.
The fundamental crime is not "hate," it's the inciting of violence towards [people].
The hate part just adds extra jail time because they're targeting someone for something that isn't necessarily a choice like race/skin color/religion/etc.

To be clear... saying "I want to kill soldiers and you should to"
and "I want to kill nigger soldiers and you should to" is already a crime.
The only difference is that we, as a society, have decided the latter is more
odious to our culture and that the punishment should be greater as a result.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[shaitand]

The problem goes beyond the success or failure of hate crime. The problem is the idea that the government should be taking a stance on issues like racism in the first place. It doesn't matter if I make decisions based on racism, fiscal views, political stances, etc. People are entitled to think as they will and justify what they do to themselves however they wish. All that matters is their actions and the results.

If CEO Y believes that minority A are lazy and don't work well then ultimately his company will fail compared with CEO X who believes that all races perform equally. Maybe not on a single example Y vs X example since there are other factors but over time a statistically significant sample will develop and prove itself. At which point CEO's who follow the money will win, regardless of which stance that is.

In the end valid views will produce results and invalid ones will not. It doesn't matter whether the view in question is racism or anything else. Equal opportunity laws are an example of things gone wrong. Baseball is an example of things allowed to unfold properly. In baseball, ultimately racism failed not because someone said they couldn't recruit based on race but because minorities demonstrated exceptional performance and proved racism invalid.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[c6gunner]

Who said they were rich?

Relatively rich.

When I moved to Canada, my family didn't have much money and we lived in one of the worst areas in the city. We had plenty of neighbors of all sorts of races and religions, and it didn't bother me a bit - I was mainly worried about the daily robberies and assaults, the drug addicts in the stairwells, and dog-shit being left in the hallways. So as soon as we saved enough money to afford better accommodations, we moved.

We moved again, 3 more times in the following 10 years. During each move, our new area was less "diverse" than the last one. According to your world-view, that means we're horrible bigots who hate minorities. In reality it's just a case of us being able to accumulate wealth, and preferring to live in a cleaner, safer environment, surrounded by people who care about their neighborhood. I wouldn't give a damn if 90% of my neighbors were black as long as the quality of the people and the maintenance of the area remained the same. Race isn't the problem - crime, violence, and shitty attitudes are. If I lived in an all-white neighborhood where I had to worry about crime, violence, drug addicts in the stairwells and dog-shit in the the hallways, I'd move out of that area too. What would that make me - a Self-Hating-Caucasian?

And no, neither I nor the rest of my family is "rich" even now, but we are a hell of a lot better off than we were when we got here, and could certainly be considered rich when compared to the people who still inhabit our original neighborhood.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[shaitand]

Agreed. A good example is the militia movement in the 90's. There was a very loud and oft repeated national call to violence as people were getting more and more upset with the government. But that doesn't mean everyone involved in those movements is guilty or wrong because Timothy McVey used it as an excuse to firebomb children in a civilian target.

In fact, ultimately inciting violence is fundamental to freedom of speech because its most basic purpose is to incite violence against corrupt government in the manner that our founders did. Whether your motivations in your call to arms are legitimate or illegitimate is beside the point everyone acts or does not act is responsible for their own actions, your right to say they should act is protected.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[MaskedSlacker]

Actually from what you presented in your post, there is no evidence whatsoever that the museum shooting was a hate crime. A white man goes and shoots a black man at the holocaust museum. There is nothing in the act itself that suggests a hate crime (any more than someone knocking over a 7-11 with a sikh cashier is likely to be a hate crime against sikhs).

The problem with hate crime laws is that it is near impossible to actually prove that the crime was motivated by racial or other prejudice (except for particular cases where say, the culprit specifically told someone that's why he was going to do it). Even if a person is publicly known to hate members of another group, and he murders a member of that group, that is not proof that his prejudice was the motivator, but it will very likely get him convicted under the hate crime law.

In effect, the burden of proof is so low on the 'hate motive' that it becomes no different from the UK's law. It makes certain thoughts illegal, just in the US case you only get charged if you commit an actual crime as well--then the prosecutor says, "Not only did he murder John Doe, but he hates people like John Doe, so that must have been why," with no evidence that this was actually a factor.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Kjella]

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.

If you think that he deserves the position, but in the past you wouldn't have voted for him anyway but now you do, then that's something to be proud over. Sure you might say that you're just doing the right thing you should have done all along, though I disagree. Overcoming your bigotry is hard and cause for pride.

Of course, if you didn't really think he was the best candidate only that the country needed a token black precident as a racial feelgood measure then I agree. Then you've just clouded your judgement again with a new kind of bigotry.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[d3ac0n]

The problem with your point of view is that it does not take into account the political strategy called "Incrementalism".

That is; By restricting liberty in small and seemingly innocuous steps, that taken individually seem logical and generally harmless, one can slowly reduce a society under absolute tyranny and the majority of the people will say nothing until it is far too late to stop the change.

This is the strategy of the far left in most of the world. Having found that outright military takeover has only worked in a limited number of instances, and that military Juntas are notoriously unstable, far leftists such as William Ayers, author of "Rules for Radicals" (which outlines this very strategy) and a close personal friend of a certain American President, have decided that the Incremental strategy is far superior for slowly wiping out Liberty in the West and replacing it with Tyrannical Socialist government. Thus, you begin to see the loss of personal freedoms, talk of "hate speech" laws, "fairness" laws of varying kinds, etc. etc.

THIS is how a real life "1984" starts. Not through nuclear war and subsequent social collapse, but through slow small steps, each designed to not raise an alarm. Eventually Freedom as it once was is gone, replaced by total control by the State. We are already very far along this road, it may already be too late to go back. I pray we are not, but with Leftists in control in America, there is little to stop it.

God help us all.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[timeOday]

I agree about the potential risks, but not in this case. The Holocaust Museum shooting perpetrator is a poster child for prejudice, with a 60 year self-avowed history of anti-semitism. Furthermore, the Holocaust Museum has such overt symbolism that he could not possibly have attacked it without knowing exactly what message he would send. Are you arguing it's just a coincidence he attacked there?

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[RsG]

Right, the argument that begins with a metaphor. If you put a frog in boiling water, it leaps out; put it in warm water and boil it incrementally, and it cooks alive.

Trouble is, the metaphor has it exactly backwards. In real life, the frog getting dropped into boiling water dies swiftly, while the one in the slowly heating pot jumps clear when the temperature rises beyond its comfort level.

Same applies in real life. I can't think of a single genuinely totalitarian regime in the past century that came into being incrementally without something disastrous to accompany it. Nazi Germany had the lingering aftereffects of WWI coupled with a failed economy, same applies to Soviet Russia, China was recovering from an invasion, as were too many other parts of southeast Asia to count. Lets not even get into the myriad tyrants in the middle east, all rising amidst local turmoil.

You get totalitarian regimes in the wake of wars (especially losing ones), societal collapses, economic depressions, massive social injustice or other transitory crises. Things go wrong and the government "steps in", taking power with the promise of giving it back when the trouble has passed, which only happens occasionally.

Impose tyranny gradually and the opposition to tyranny will also rise gradually to meet it. Impose it all at once, under the guise of necessary sacrifices in the face of adversity, and the opposition can be silenced swiftly.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Foobar of Borg]

Very good. My only complaint about your post is that, at least in the States, the far right has the same strategy. The far left gives us tyranny in one way, while the far right gives us tyranny in a different way. It's as though they are playing for the same team.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[WNight]

No, you don't fear the homosexual, you fear homosexuality.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

In the US, hate crimes are generally an extra charge tacked onto a crime that has been committed, so as to dole out extra punishment. However, they're appended in a very arbitrary manner and not equally enforced, which only strengthens the undertones of hate in some communities. White men are frequently charged even if hate wasn't a motivator, while very often minorities who attack those white men usually aren't charged with them.

See the cases of James Byrd, Jr and Ken Tillery which I referenced. Both were dragged to death in the same town four years apart, but the perpetrators were charged differently.

What the laws amount to, is trying to determine the motivation behind why someone committed their crime... and frankly, that motivation is a thought, so hate crime legislation borders on outlawing certain thoughts. And since motivations aren't frequently ascribed equally, there is a question of whether or not it is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal treatment under the law.

Racists use the capriciousness in the application of the law as one of the reasons to hate, so the question becomes, does the selective applicatin foster more hate than the legislation is intended to punish? Further, if the law can't be applied uniformly, isn't it in violation of the Constitution?

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[RsG]

Rather than rehash my previous arguments, I'll simply link to them:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1299639&cid=28663451

Simplified: Tyrants do not rise to power in vacuum. They're given power in crises, usually because people are afraid and want the tyrant to protect them. The erosion of rights is also present, but it's not the be-all and end-all of how you get from a free society to a totalitarian one, and fixating too heavily on it makes every unjust law appear to be a sinister conspiracy by the powers-that-be.

You or I can oppose an unjust law on the basis of its injustice, without resorting to calling its proponents "Big Brother".

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[DJRumpy]

The only problem there is that racism is a learned response. If you prevent public displays of it, the distribution of hate speech, and the dissemination of such practices, you prevent societies' young from learning and eventually deifying that type of behavior. Hate crimes do not police people's thoughts. They help to prevent such people from spreading that hate, or inflicting it on others due to stiffer penalties. As a result, people are less likely to commit such a crime. Even with hate crimes bills, you can go your entire life despising a race or a sexual orientation and never have an issue with a hate crimes law. They affect only those that break the law in such a specific way that it is classified as a hate crime, meaning that the offender specifically went out of their way to commit a crime against a specific race, nationality, sexual orientation, gender, etc. They are not automatically classified as hate crimes. They must determine that the offender purposely chose to commit a hate crime due to bias. They send a strong message to the public in general as to what is socially acceptable.

Simply allowing this type of behavior in the open air obviously does not work. Our nation went for hundreds of years on that premise. If our nations young do not see this as acceptable and they are not inundated with it their entire lives, then it's possible they can break the cycle passed down from their parents.

A "Nip it in the bud" method if you will.

Every criminal act is given a severity and a punishment. These hate crime laws simply expand on that punishment for a very specific subset of criminals. I'm of two minds about the punishment though. If someone burns down a house and kills the person living there, should he/she get the same punishment as someone who actively seeks out the home of a black man and burns his house down simply because the man was black? The second seems more malicious to me, but the end result is the same.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[PopeRatzo]

slowly wiping out Liberty in the West and replacing it with Tyrannical Socialist government.

Pal, I don't think you have any idea what "Tyrannical" or "Socialist" really means. You're just parroting corporate-sponsored Right-Wing AM radio talking points. You think that because you jump up and salute every time Rush or Hannity or Sarah Palin or some UK neo-nazi hollers is showing some sort of "love of Freedom", but you're really just reacting to a careful marketing plan put in place by corporate powers who feel cheated when someone on the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder makes ten cents more per hour. If we give everyone health care, after all, how are we going to force them to keep working for wages? If we educate people, after all, how are we going to fill the factories with minimum wage workers? If people stop believing in their patriarchal God the Father, expecting to go to heaven, they're going to expect better lives now and want to keep from fouling their planet, which would be bad for profits.

When you try to suggest that any Western European or North American country is headed for "Tyrannical Socialism" you display the kind of ignorance that you'd expect from someone who uses a sig like "Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". You're ready to believe any kind of crap that you're told, as long as it comes with a heaping dose of hatred of people with darker skin or funny accents.

You say that the idea of "hate speech" laws are a tool to take away our freedoms. What do you think of laws that use the word "terrorism" to do the same? It's OK, because those laws are aimed at the muslims, but hate speech laws are aimed directly at your own hate-filled self. Your misplaced fear is not that hate crime acts are going to take away your freedom, but that your very world-view is called into question. You're so in love with your own hatred and ignorance that you're afraid someone's going to take it away like a favorite blanket.

You'd be pitiful if you weren't such a danger. You have this notion that there was some magical period in our history when we were "Free" and had "Liberty" and even though you can't point to any such period on a time-line, you're eager to turn the clock back as long as it means that you can go back to feeling superior to the wogs.

And don't try to say "You don't know me," because I've spent enough time in red state America and the rural UK to know folk like you like the back of my own hand.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[DMUTPeregrine]

I am of Jewish heritage. My great grandparents were shot by the Nazis. Part of my family is Argentinian, as they were forced to flee there to escape the death camps. I don't like Nazis of any sort. But I still think the freedom of speech is more important. Suppressing someone's beliefs, through any means is wrong. If that means is hate crime laws or death camps, it's still wrong.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[countvlad]

You've made an excellent distinction, but both systems are in error.

I think class-based law is hypocritical in a nation "Where all men are created equal." Having a tiered law system smacks of "separate but equal" combined with a form of hyper-political correctness, neither of which are healthy for an open, democratic society. Discrimination is a property of Humanity, to deny it is foolhardy; all points of view have a place but are not all equal, to equate them all tips the scale in favor of anarchy over order. The concept that skinheads murdering a black man is a "hate crime", as if it were any worse than skinheads murdering anyone else, appalls me: murder is murder and the punishment for murder should be based on that fact alone. You shouldn't be punished for who you target, but for what actions you take and the consequences thereof - yet "hate crime" legislation does just the opposite.

I believe in equal protection and equal punishment. That includes things like killing law enforcers or heads of state - the balance is in the fact that we give police rights above and beyond that of ordinary citizens to protect themselves and we provide private or military security for heads of state. So you can stop wondering about that.

Lady Justice is blind, not telepathic, and we do disservice to ourselves and our society by pretending otherwise.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope your God one day deigns to assist you in gaining some perspective.

First of all, Obama is not anything like a Socialist. European states that any reasonable political scientist would describe as essentially capitalist have socialized many more industries than will ever fall under government ownership in the US (this is true even under the assumption that every policy Obama wants to see implemented is implemented, which is unlikely).

Second of all, tyranny will never again manifest in the way it did in the first half of the 20th century. Totalitarianism very clearly failed as a means to suppress a population, because citizens of totalitarian nations were aware at all times whom their enemy was. The system implemented currently in the US, from which I don't think we'll see much deviation barring a first order natural or political disaster, is much more tenable: a corporate oligarchy that uses their financial power to control a changing cast of politicians and their market saturation to encourage mass complacency. This system results in the illusion of democracy and freedom, and it ensures that the average citizen has too much at stake to consider any sort of revolutionary activity.

So, the end of that slippery slope? We're there. The sled ride is over. It's not so bad if you're solvent, but you're not really free. The Left and the Right aren't really the bogeymen, so you should get over that. If this sounds like conspiracy theory, it's not, because there is no centrally organized conspiracy. The system has its own inertia, and it enables those with the means to take advantage of those without.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The US is not the most multicultural or well integrated society in the world...

Really? Name two with a broader range of ethnic populations. I expect you want to point to countries like Sweden and Belgium which rate near the top of EU countries for integration but the number of sizable distinct ethnic groups in those countries is tiny compared to the USA.

I've never heard the assertion of societies which allow people "to insult groups" causes better integration into that society. Frankly that is more bogus and trivializing than my flippant characterization of thought crime.

One man's insult is another man's truth. If you don't allow insults then all you do is drive the insults underground where there is no one to rebuke them and thus gain even further legitimacy.

Furthermore, If you think that the public discourse in the United States is some how creating a meeting of the minds or such (and you live in the United States), you are deceiving yourself.

I do and history is on my side. I expected you to make the error of using too small of a timescale.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[rohan972]

It's somewhat like saying that during the 20s and 30s when the Klan was at the height of its power that it's OK to repeat Klan talking points, just don't be the one that's actually throwing the bombs.

and yet the klan is no longer at the height of it's power, despite the US having no hate speech laws. How did that happen? Let's do more of that, rather than abridge freedom of speech.

The first amendment has never been absolute, there's always been prohibitions on things such as threats, libel and slander allowing for an extra penalty for the extra damage that hate speech does when it crosses the line is perfectly reasonable.

We had a case here in Australia of two christian guys been done over in court (eventually overturned on appeal) over inciting religious hatred against Muslims. Most people would probably find these guys to be over the top. However, during the case they were apparently asked to stop reading from the Koran because it was vilifying to muslims. (Apparently, because I can't find the source reference, only mention of it on blogs, jihadwatch etc, http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001050.php)

Case can be found here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2003/1753.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2004/2510.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2005/1159.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2006/284.html

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[mi]

If you prevent public displays of it, the distribution of hate speech, and the dissemination of such practices, you prevent societies' young from learning and eventually deifying that type of behavior.

Yes, because it worked so well against drug abuse...

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Psyborgue]

I think it's a combination of your opinion and grandparent in US society. It's a series of small crises (real, imagined, or exaggerated), within each a different freedom slightly eroded. The right erodes a certain set of civil liberties and the left erodes a different set. Power shifts hands, sure, but the freedoms generally don't come back once they're gradually taken away. Look at how second amendment rights have been gradually eaten away or how the right has somehow managed to establish authority over what people put in their own bodies, something Jefferson was explicitly opposed to.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Ironsides]

The problem with your point of view is that it does not take into account the political strategy called "Incrementalism".

I believe this is also known as "the slippery slope".

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[SpinyNorman]

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.

Rubbish. You don't need to be color blind not to be racist.

I think the sentiment more expressed, or felt, than "proud to vote for a black man" was "proud that we (Americans) elected a black man", and you have to be totally ignorant of American history to see why people would not be proud of this and the progress it represents. The pride wasn't in electing a man because he's black (which would be racist), but in electing him despite it.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[TeXMaster]

If CEO Y believes that minority A are lazy and don't work well then ultimately his company will fail compared with CEO X who believes that all races perform equally. Maybe not on a single example Y vs X example since there are other factors but over time a statistically significant sample will develop and prove itself. At which point CEO's who follow the money will win, regardless of which stance that is.

Except when the vast majority of employers share the view of CEO Y and thus almost nobody will hire people from minority A which will then have to resort to some other form of survival, which will generally be crime or social welfare, thus reinforcing the stereotype that justifies the view that put them in the situation in the first place.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[narfspoon]

far leftists such as William Ayers, author of "Rules for Radicals" (which outlines this very strategy) and a close personal friend of a certain American President,...

You're a huge tool.
The author is Saul Alinsky. http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Saul-Alinsky/dp/0679721134
All the spoon-fed propaganda you read from your right-wing echo chamber has really made you too lazy to check basic facts.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[rainsford]

Moving out of a crappy area isn't racism, but blaming "black culture" for the quality of the area sure as hell is.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Psyborgue]

And somehow you think that attacking religion in the same fell swoop is going to convince anybody that what you say isn't out of your own far-left bias. With language like "people like you" and so forth, are you really any better than the prejudice you claim to oppose? Consider this honestly: if hate speech laws were applied a little bit differently, and you were in the UK, could your message render you a target for prosecution? That's the danger right there.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Bob Gelumph]

You say that the idea of "hate speech" laws are a tool to take away our freedoms. What do you think of laws that use the word "terrorism" to do the same?

I'd say that both sets of laws are generally bad. I would think that a law against directly and effectively inciting violence would be better. If a person is just ranting, rather than actually trying to organise people to go hurt others, then as despicable as their speech may be, I'd prefer them to be able to say it.
My thoughts on the matter boil down to this: People have the right to be jerks, but we should be creating a world where people don't want to be jerks.
These neo-Nazis are exercising their rights, and society has failed because they have chosen to exercise them in this way.
These guys don't seem to have actually hurt anybody, so I'd prefer to see them get counselling to deal with the root cause of why they feel the way they do. A reformed neo-Nazi would be a better instrument against Nazism that someone who never thought about it one way or the other.
For you U.S. citizens out there, you should be opposed to these guys being jailed, because if they were jailed for the same act in the U.S., it would be unconstitutional, and by applauding it, you would be effectively saying that you are opposed to the first amendment. And if you believe that the constitution is so good for you, then you should be striving for others to have the freedoms that you have.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[shutdown -p now]

Apparently you're a racist then, because GP didn't call it "black culture". He called it "a culture of rap/hip-hop" - and gave a very accurate assessment of what that is - and noted that "it prevails in black neighborhoods" - which is certainly also true.

It doesn't imply that the culture has a valid claim on being a "black culture", whatever that's supposed to mean. In U.S., at least, I'd hope that Whites and Blacks (and others) share a single common American culture.

Re:whats the crime in hate crime?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Don't confuse large populations of only a handful of groups with a large number of groups.

Bollocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely 'bollocks' is more appropriate in this case?

Thought crime

[Werrismys]

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.

Re:Thought crime

[oneirophrenos]

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.

As a fellow Finn I must say that I have not heard of such dubious convictions, and would be interested in seeing some proof of such. I would also like to point out that those who insult "muslims and negroes" in this country are overwhelmingly white Christian males. If there were widespread racism on the part of the non-white non-Christian population toward the ethnic majority, I can assure you that the yellow press would be all over it. It would be too lucrative for them to downplay it. So far, there has been no word of such, so I have a hard time stomaching your allegation that "insulting christians and white males is ok."

Also worthy of note is that insulting Muslims, Christians, Blacks or Whites is perfectly allowed and legal in this country, as long as you don't insult them for being Muslims, Christians, Blacks or Whites.

Re:Thought crime

[Seumas]

Of course, you can't choose the color of your skin, but you CAN choose your mythology. So it's a little unfair to compare the two.

Also -- "negroes"? What the fuck, man. 1984? Are you sure you're not stuck in 1884?

Have you ever noticed....

[seeker_1us]

Have you ever noticed how hate mongers usually look like douchebags?

We've heard this before

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

[number6x]

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.

Re:There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK

[D-Cypell]

There is no free speech anywhere, just people that harp on that they have it and others dont.

There are certainly things you could say in the US that would mean that you would end up in jail. It might be for some other reason, but if you started publically praising the 9/11 hijackers (for example), you can expect the authorities to start looking into your business pretty closely. You had better be whiter than white. Most likely you would end up incarcerated (assuming you lived long enough to get there), for some other thing, and it is possible that the 'other thing' could be fabricated. None of this would have happened if you had kept your mouth shut. So in truth no real 'free speech'.

The difference between so called 'free countries' and oppressive ones, is how your rights scale on the basis of you not being an idiot in how you decide to use them. In free countries it is possible to make pretty much any point, and stay free of any serious persecution if you do it the right way, in the right context.

Re:There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK

[c6gunner]

There is no free speech anywhere, just people that harp on that they have it and others dont.

When I was a kid I tried using that argument on my parents when they insisted that I clean my room. "There's no sch thing as a clean room, only different levels of messiness". They weren't terribly impressed with that approach, and now, reading your comment, I can see why.

Re:There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK

[Daniel Dvorkin]

here in the US we acknowledge that actions committed in other countries fall under the laws of that country

LOL!

Oh, wait, you were serious, weren't you?

BWAHAHAHA!

Re:There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK

[idlemachine]

I don't know about the UK but here in the US we acknowledge that actions committed in other countries fall under the laws of that country.

Oh, really?

So the US would never extradite a British citizen from their legal residence in Australia for criminal acts that weren't performed on American soil?

And I'm guessing you believe the US would never declare that it could kidnap foreign citizens if they were unable to extradite them because the country in which they resided didn't view their actions as extraditable offences?

Unfortunately, those of us who live outside the US can't afford to be so delusional.

What do they hope to accomplish?

[Kell Bengal]

I never understand what people like this hope to accomplish. Inciting racial hatred... really, it's like internet trolling - it just gets people flustered and angry, and they do it for 'teh lulz'. It's pathetic. Nothing changes; nobody is going to be swayed by their infantile invective, they aren't ever going to have the people they dislike evicted from their country. Even if they did, would it really make their life any better?

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.

Apparently Free Speech rights do not cover Hate

[Orion Blastar]

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.

Re:Apparently Free Speech rights do not cover Hate

[rolfwind]

At one time it did, but now there are limits to free speech. Both in the UK and USA now.

While the USA is getting there, it's still easily the best, any laws on the books probably will be struck down before the Supreme Court (although having that as my last line of defense does not reassure me).

Most countries with "Freedom of Speech" have so many exceptions to the rule that it's worthless, see Germany. Popular speech doesn't have to be protected but that's all they seem to try to protect. That is pretty ironic as the terrible parts of their history was not due to Freedom of Speech, but slavish adherence to the state, which is still ingrained in the national attitude.

It's ironic that the Founding Fathers were considered "liberals" in their day (look up the term classical liberal) but both sides of the political spectrum would love to censor speech at any opportunity, just for different reasons.

Re:Apparently Free Speech rights do not cover Hate

[Mr. Slippery]

It's ironic that the Founding Fathers were considered "liberals" in their day (look up the term classical liberal) but both sides of the political spectrum would love to censor speech at any opportunity

Both sides of which spectrum? Certainly one can be a socialist or a capitalist, a free marketer or a central planner, a hawk or a dove, and still be in favor of (or opposed to) censorship. But censorship is authoritarian; if you favor it, you are not a liberal of any sort, classical or contemporary.

The UK does not have free speech.

[Bartab]

If you can't say something other people don't want to hear, you do not have free speech.

Re:The UK does not have free speech.

[pem]

By your definition, no country has free speech.

Let's try a little experiment.

You wear an earpiece and I'll tell you what to say. We'll go all Sash Baron Cohen in Detroit. Then you can get a first-hand taste of exactly what saying things other people don't want to hear can lead to.

Re:The UK does not have free speech.

[Vinegar Joe]

You wear an earpiece and I'll tell you what to say. We'll go all Sash Baron Cohen in Detroit. Then you can get a first-hand taste of exactly what saying things other people don't want to hear can lead to.

This is where your 2nd Amendment rights kick in.

In reply to this calamity...

[lawnboy5-O]

I HATE ARTICLES LIKE THIS!

!thoughtcrime

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:!thoughtcrime

[Hatta]

I don't buy it. 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. You're essentially arguing that we should prosecute precrime. Frankly, it's much worse than the speech they are trying to stop.

Re:!thoughtcrime

[Anonymous Coward]

>You likewise can't threaten everyone who's a member of a group, racial or otherwise, and expect to get away with it.

of course you can in the UK: you just have to be a muslim to do it.

Heck, you can incite crowds to murder those that 'offend' your own caveman beliefs and get very lucrative jobs in the british govt.

Seriously, live in the UK and see how 'tolerant' we are of certain behaviour from certain groups and not from others.

People notice this and it fuels their hatred at the hypocrisy.

Re:!thoughtcrime

[Psyborgue]

I have the right to say "death to [group/country/people/religion]" or "killing abortion doctors is good". You are responsible for your own choices if you decide to ask on my words, not me. In US law, anything is protected speech unless it is an *immediate* threat of violence (i.e. inciting a riot when you are actually in the riot). If you want to defeat bad ideas, fight them with good ones in the open commerce of ideas. Suppressing speech only treats the symptom and not the root cause of the problem, which is fear and misunderstanding... something that can *only* be dealt with by open and honest dialogue.

Re:!thoughtcrime

[MindlessAutomata]

I claim that your ability to silence what I say is harm, are you going to lock yourself up in a jail cell? Or wait, lemme guess... it's you, the wise, enlightened populist liberal, that gets to decide what constitutes "harm," what opinions are "harmful," no?

Re:!thoughtcrime

[Psyborgue]

You're confusing civil with criminal law. Most of those websites have no legal obligation to remove anything. I run an unmoderated discussion forum and no matter how much people complain about who said what and "that's illegal", nothing gets removed without a court order. People deserve due process. Much of the censorship you speak of is voluntary... not the state's fault. Even DMCA notices can be ignored (but your hosting provider / upstream might comply).

There is no such thing as "jurisdiction" any more.

[EWAdams]

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.

Passport question for the UK folks . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . 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!"

No Asylum?

[Bellegante]

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?

Re:No Asylum?

[night_flyer]

they didnt speak Spanish well enough to stay here...

Re:No Asylum?

[Angostura]

But the U.S doesn't have perfect freedom of speech either. See "Fire", crowded theatres, passim.

Re:No Asylum?

[Animaether]

On top of that, how eager do you think the U.S. is to provide asylum for people who, apparently knowingly and willingly, break a law - then when they can no longer stand the heat, think they can simply get away with it by relocating to a country with more lax laws?

"Really? Rape is illegal here? How quaint. Well then, see ya! *books flight to Somethin'stan and requests asylum*"

Visit West Belfast or South Armagh and find out.

[EWAdams]

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.

Re:Point of Origin?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps the court argument was that if British citizens publish illegal material that is accessible in the UK, it doesn't actually matter where the material is *held*. They wrote it, and published it *to* the server from the UK after all.

Re:Point of Origin?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction?"

The server was in the US, but the server is an inanimate object incapable of criminal intent, so it is not automatically relevant. The people with criminal intent were permanently in the UK at the time of the offences and the material was about the UK and ethnic minorities in the UK, targeted largely at an audience in the UK.

IANAL, but it seems that courts largely adopt an attitude of "looking through" any technology and focusing on the people involved.

Re:Point of Origin?

[Cederic]

They were published from the UK to servers in the US.

The leaflets/pamphlets weren't exactly being handed out in LA either...

It's not as though US citizens were extradited to the UK despite having committed no US crimes or committed crimes while in the territories of the UK. Shame for Gary McKimmon that the US authorities aren't similarly restrained.

Re:Point of Origin?

[Quothz]

Here we go again! If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction?

That would be due to the British Nationality Act of 1948, which asserts British criminal jurisdiction over British citizens for crimes committed overseas. The US has a similar law, as do many nations.

that works so well

[jipn4]

Great going, Britain! As Yugoslavia has shown us, trying to suppress racial hatred through government oppression works really well!

Re:that works so well

[dunkelfalke]

It worked very well, indeed. Only after Yugoslavia was broken up in little pieces, when there was no government oppression anymore, people started being nationalistic and trying to kill all the others.

Same thing happened in the ex-USSR republics (the war in Georgia last summer was a perfect example). In the times of USSR there were minor ethnic conflicts but worst thing could happen were some broken noses. After the government suppression was gone azeris started to kill armenians, georgians started to kill abkhasians and ossetins, chechens just started to kill everyone around.

Seems that government suppression has some good sides after all.

Re:Point of Origin?

[RsG]

The summary is somewhat misleading.

The convicted parties were handing out leaflets in the UK, which drew complaints due to their racist content. The content of the leaflets was stored on a US server, but "published" (printed really) in the UK. Both defendants lived in the UK, but sought asylum in the US after they were charged.

Jurisdiction is not the problem here - in every country I know of, storing "illegal material" outside the local borders does not constitute a legal defence. If we were talking about weapons or drugs, then storing internationally (say in a safe haven where they're legal) while distributing locally (where they're illegal) would still get you charged.

The question is whether the material should be illegal in the first place. That has nothing to do with jurisdiction and everything to do with civil liberties.

Re:Visit West Belfast or South Armagh and find out

[Kell Bengal]

That is true... but this is the UK we're talking about, not a tribal society.

Authoritarians demand "purity" of thought

[davide marney]

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.

Re:There is no such thing as "jurisdiction" any mo

[0racle]

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.

they hate me, too, and I don't care

[jipn4]

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.

The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.

[SpinyNorman]

"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.

Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.

[arethuza]

May I ask why Americans get so upset about flag buring? If I were to burn a Scottish flag here in Edinburgh the only thing that would happen is that a Japanese tourist would take my picture. If I burned a Union Jack, or especially the blue with with stars, it is possible I could get a round of applause from the locals.

Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.

[Bartab]

You list a number of things that some municipalities disallow. In the US, most municipalities do not disallow what you list. None of those things are controlled by the federal gov't, or generally even the state level.

Federalism, not just a good idea, but the law.

Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.

[HiddenL]

Most people don't realize that burning a flag is on of the ONLY ways to properly dispose of it....

US Flag Code. TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 8(k). It states:

"The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning"

Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.

[arethuza]

I doubt anyone would be particularly bothered one way or the other. Apart from the obvious risks of burning things in public.

Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.

[SpinyNorman]

Well, this case was about two British guys running an anti-Jew hate site (including photos of dead Jews). There's nothing in the least bit idealistic or defensible about it other than the moronic "free speech! we must allow everything!" cry.

If a rogue US scientist got convicted of passing nuclear know-how to a terrorist group, what's the betting the ./ mob will be howling at the idealistic outrage of it. He was an American! He had the right to say whatever he liked in that e-mail!

I've often joked that programming is a disease as much as a profession exactly because the logical thought patterns do tend to spill over into real-life where they are grossly inappropriate. A or B, free or not, may make sense in a program but shades of grey and intelligent discrimination tend to work better when dealing with humanity (you know, that carbon based stuff).

Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.

[Landshark17]

I am an American and I've never quite figured it out either, but here's the best I can do for you. We're raised to love the flag. From a very early age, schoolkids take the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. First and foremost, it's directed at the flag. The first line is "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America." Not, "I pledge allegiance to the ideals/government/constitution of the United States." We're reminded constantly that the flag is a symbol of our American ideals, that the flag has been carried into countless battles, that people have been shot at simply for wearing the flag, that people have died for the flag. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone touting American ideals without simultaneously being reverent to the flag that symbolizes them. Additionally, Americans really love symbols, often to the point they immaturely overvalue the symbol and fail to seperate it from what it symbolizes. Combine the two and you have the recipe for people loving the flag as much as they do the country, and hating those who burn it as if they were burning the very Constitution itself.

Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.

[Aussie]

And if you try it in Australia the locals turn up with a bag of sausages and some paper plates.

Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.

[Phroggy]

I think flag burning is symbolic of an idea that is so alien to many of us that we don't really comprehend the symbol.

If you had never studied history, would you know that burning a cross on someone's front lawn is a racist symbol? I've heard of cross burning and probably seen it portrayed in a movie somewhere, but it doesn't really hold any particular significance for me, since I'm not aware that anyone I know is a racist or the victim of that kind of racism. Flag burning doesn't hold any particular significance for me either, probably for the same reason. I understand it's done in protest of.. something, but I don't really get it.

Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.

[hutchike]

They have this weird "pledge of allegiance" thing they do at school every day to brainwash the kids into a kind of belief system. It's all a bit North Korea - you can search for it on YouTube or such like, and watch with incredulity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuZB1CsRwd0

Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.

[arethuza]

"our protection of free speech really is a lot better than what most European countries have" - in a purely legal sense I'm sure you are right. However, in a practical sense I doubt if there is that much difference as although the theoretical right to free speech is there there seems, to an outsider who has spent a reasonable amount of time in the country, to be a rather narrow range of views actually expressed in public.

I'm also amazed at why people can't appreciate why Germans are just a wee bit sensitive on the subject of the Nazis - I appreciate that legislation may not be the best way to stop these things but I can at least appreciate why they are doing it.

Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.

[arethuza]

Now can I point out that we (certainly in the UK) appear to have freedom *from* that kind of thing?

To be honest - the fact that American kids are made to do this sounds infinitely scarier to me than our silly "hate crime" laws. Does everyone have to do it? What happens to kids who won't do it?

Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.

[Landshark17]

American kids aren't required to take the pledge, they are allowed to be silent throughout, but they must stand respectfully with everyone else while it is recited. From about 7th grade on, I skipped over the "Under God" part of the pledge because I realized it didn't make sense for someone as secular as me to be saying that (also about the same time I started saying "Gesundheit" instead of "God bless you" when people sneeezed).

When American schoolkids take the pledge every morning it's done with the about the same effort and investment that anything schoolkids do at 8 o'clock in the morning, which is not much. Just the same, the repetition of it for all 12 years of schooling (it doesn't continue on into college) and the ubiquity of the flag in American culture just engrains it in everyone as a symbol that's always there. Americans put flags on everything. Lapel pins, bumper stickers, regular stickers, cakes, cookies, product packaging, you can find flag-patterned clothing from boxer shorts to parkas if you look hard enough, they hang outside every school, inside just about every classrooom and auditorium within the schools, outside people's houses and around every national holiday they hang from every single telephone pole on the main drag of every town. If you see something all over the place every day, it becomes something you expect to see, whether it symbolizes something or not. I beleive people should be able to burn a flag as part of a peaceful protest, but if I woke up tomorrow and every flag had magically vanished, it would still feel a bit funny and I'd probably ask where they went. The flag is part of everyday life. It's an everyday object, not just something that gets trotted out for patriotic holidays and then put back into storage. So when someone burns the flag, they're burning something that's part of everyday American life.

I should note that not everyone feels this way about the flag. A good number of people like myself see it as the symbol of something larger, and not the end-all be-all of American ideals. It's those that fall into the latter category that usually end up getting more air-time so that's what the world sees of us.

Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.

[shadowofwind]

I think part of the reason American's are sensitive about flag burning, is there's very little unifying national ethnic history. So in the US ideology is used instead. Other countries that have multiple ethnic groups still usually have a longer shared national history, and many have ethnic problems anyway.

Also, many Americans have to beat their chests so that they feel OK about abusing other groups. Its a part of the 'culture war'.

Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.

[bogjobber]

Usually everyone does it. Kids that don't do it in some places might be chastised (and have been in the past) but nobody's actually required to do it. It's more of a social thing, such as how you are supposed to face and salute the flag when the national anthem is played. I'm sure it seems strange to someone who's not from here, but it sounds a lot creepier than it actually is.

Full text of the pledge of allegiance: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The US is a much more openly patriotic country than European countries, for better or worse. It's part jingoism, part honest patriotism, and partly a way to indoctrinate new immigrants. The pledge of allegiance was created around the same time as many of our national myths (Paul Revere, Thanksgiving, etc.), and was part of a conscious effort to create a universal American culture that could be easily taught to the growing and increasingly diverse American population.

GNAA

[Anonymous Coward]

The Gay Nigger Association of America will be furious!

And believe me, you don't want to have those guys on your ass!

Published any pictures making fun of Mohammed?

[EWAdams]

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.

Re:Published any pictures making fun of Mohammed?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

And his point is that because "hate speech" is outlawed in most of the rest of the world that violence is always just under the surface. Its like forest fires - stopping the little ones is like censorship, but the end result is that the big ones are unstoppable and far more dangerous, just like riots. Communication, no matter how ugly, is how we work out differences before resorting to violence. Prevent people from working out their differences peaceably and it should be no surprise that violence is all that's left.

Actually there is

[jeevesbond]

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.

Re:assumption

[sumdumass]

(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.)

That's interesting as a blanket statement. I have never seen any Christian church preach hate and discrimination except for Obama's church which I would really call a christian church (they believe the only those who have suffered in some way get into heaven or some shit like that).

Re:Ever heard of WW2?

[SoVeryTired]

The holocaust is not a crime to you? Most would call that a hate crime but obviously you disagree.

That's a strawman argument if I ever saw one. We're discussing whether it should be legal to publicly denigrate Jews, not mass murder them.

 

Hate crimes exist in europe because in europe we have seen far to closely what happens if hatred is left unchecked.

And the US has never seen what happens when hatred is left unchecked? How exactly does legislating against hatred "check" it anyway? Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it will go away.

 

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.

Nice. Generalise about Americans in a tirade against racism. Anyone see the irony?

 

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.

Isn't this a better definition of a society that is not free? As Voltaire said, "while I may not agree with what you say, I'll defend to the death your right to say it".

It'd be nice if there was a "-1, half-baked knee-jerk reaction" moderation option.

What is free speech?

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Re:What is free speech?

[arethuza]

"no boobies on US tv"

You must admit, he has a point

Re:Ever heard of WW2?

[Psyborgue]

"it's spreading what you think that is restricted". Exactly. You admit that your government controls the commerce of ideas?

Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.

[BlueParrot]

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.

Re:Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.

[labnet]

It is the definition of harrasment that concerns me.
Is expressing an opinion harassment, or does that harssment need to be targetted toward an individual.
Eg. I don't think a gay lifestyle is right, but I certainly don't hate them for it and wouldn't condone any specific action.
If someone doesn't like my religion, then that's their opinion, but if they said hunt me down and kill me because of my religion, then that would be harassment.

So my concern is that the mere expresion of a personal opinion without intent could be considered harasment.

Re:Orwell was off by about 25 years

[lgw]

Orwell was supportive of individual rights, and saw it as a failing of self-proclaimed solcialists that they so often were not.

We have got to admit that if Fascism is everywhere advancing, this is largely the fault of the Socialists themselves. Partly it is due to the mistaken communist tactic of sabotaging democracy, i.e. sawing off the branch you are sitting on; but still more to the fact that Socialists have, so to speak, presented their case wrong side foremost. They have never made it sufficiently clear that the essential aims of Socialism are justice and liberty.

Orwell saw very well how stifling democracy, especially opposing speech, to protect your cause leads inevitably to facism. He wrote about the Communists taking control of Spain

"The logical end is a régime in which every opposition party and newspaper is suppressed and every dissentient of any importance is in jail. Of course, such a régime will be Fascism. It will not be the same Fascism Franco would impose, it will even be better than Franco's Fascism to the extent of being worth fighting for, but it will be Fascism. Only, being operated by Communists and Liberals, it will be called something different.

Re:reminds me of a book

[gnasher719]

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..

I think the reasons for not granting asylum were threefold: First, because the US government didn't want to be seen as a bunch of complete idiots. Second, because they didn't want the fuckers in the USA. Third, because they didn't accept their bullshit reasoning for wanting asylum. They were just as persecuted in Britain as bank robbers and rapists are.

Old Testament API is deprecated

[masmullin]

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.

Here's their anti-Semitic comic book

[nbauman]

Here's the anti-Semitic comic book that they were arrested for. http://www.heretical.com/holohoax/index.html

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."

England, not Britain, conquered Ireland circa 12C.

[EWAdams]

Northern Ireland is governed by the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. Except in matters of defense and foreign relations they are themselves responsible.

Re:Hate speech is not communication and resolves n

[jipn4]

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?

Time to OVERTHROW the facist UK government

[zymano]

Can't keep your money and now you can't say what you think.

What freedom is left there?

Why would you expect otherwise?

[King_TJ]

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.