Slashdot Mirror
Metropolitan Police To Target Online Hate Crime and Abuse (bbc.com)
A new team of specialist police officers is being set up to investigate online hate crimes, including abuse on Twitter and Facebook. The London-based hub will include a team of five officers who will support victims and identify online abuse, reports BBC. From the report: The two-year pilot will cost 1.7m pound and has received 452,000 pound from the Home Office, the London Mayor's office said. A spokesman said there was "no place for hate" in London and there would be a "zero tolerance" of online abuse. The team, which will be set up in the coming months, will identify the location of crimes and allocate them to the appropriate force. They will work with a team of volunteers. The Mayor's Office for Policing And Crime (Mopac) said social media "provides hate crime perpetrators with a veil of anonymity, making it harder to bring them to justice and potentially impacting on a larger number of people".
They will protect political correctness and leave the real victims by the wayside. Too bad it isn't politically correct to prosecute the extremists causing a disproportionate amount of hate speech and physical attacks.
I don't mean it as an insult, but as an actual statement. They are mentally ill, for real. Brainwashed and dangerously stupid.
. . . . on the INTERNET ??
That makes holding back the tide with a teaspoon look doable, in contrast. . . .
to waste tax payer money on shit that doesn't really matter because a vocal minority of butt hurt retards won't shut the fuck up and get on with their lives. Just sayin...
Officer, someone said a bad thing about me on teh interweb!
Imagine all the real crime that's going to go unaddressed while the police chase down jackasses on Twitter and Facebook.
"Yeah, we'd like to get an officer out to talk with you about your home invasion and attempted rape complaint, but HamDogg2251 just insulted SpecialSnowFlake4550 on Twitter, so we won't be able to come out until sometime next week."
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995),
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse."
No, that's not a fair comparison for the question you were trying to answer.
Here's a more apt comparison.
Is it worse for a person to plan to kill someone at random and do it....vs that same person to plan to kill someone at random and was also specifically black/gay/female/indian/muslim ?
The question is, why would it be worse for #2 over #1....a person is still dead, so, what makes it worse if the reason was they were black vs they just didn't like the way you walked down the street?
Dead is dead and in either case it is murder, but some would have you think it was worse in the case of a serial killer that DID differentiate based on race or sexual preference vs a serial killer that did not.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You do have a right to stop someone from saying things that a reasonable person would perceive as threatening. This is not some kind of recent PC innovation, it goes back in the law for centuries.
You can sort this out with a Venn diagram. All threats are assholery, and all threats are illegal, but some assholerly is legal.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Ok...motive is slightly more refined in the second example, but they are both murder...the end result, a human life is extinguished criminally, the person is dead.
Why would #2 be worse than #1...the result is exactly the same, one less person processing oxygen. Both were premeditated murder.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Why would #2 be worse than #1.
Because in #1, the intent is murder. In #2, the intent is murder and terrorism against a specific group of people.
The result is exactly the same
They're not. In #1, someone is dead. In #2, someone is dead as a result of their circumstances of birth, or choice of religion
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Why does that have to have a special name though? Plotting to kill someone - regardless of motive - should be illegal. Conspiracy to Murder or thereabouts (the exact charge name may vary by locale/jurisdiction).
Anything that should be a "hate crime" should also just be a regular crime with existing laws against it or it shouldn't be a crime at all. A "hate crime" is always either redundant or an unjust charge.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Sorry, I do NOT see the difference.
A dead person is a dead person.
Them being shot for being gay or muslim doesn't make their murder ANY more important than someone murdered for wearing argyle socks.
Dead is Dead.
If you go with "hate" crime, you are essentially saying their life is worth more than other peoples' lives.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Fuck you, freedom of speech! That's just a lame concept the colonists threw around for a while. We're better than that!
And there's very little that someone hundreds of miles away from you can say over the internet that a reasonable person would perceive as threatening.
Someone in the same room with me, or standing in front of my house, saying "I'm going to punch you in the face for what you said!" is a true threat, the person has the imminent means and opportunity to carry it out. Someone in a different city tweeting "@tom_swiss I'm going to punch you in the face for what you said!" is not a threat. Their arms just aren't that long.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
China is a brutally oppressive totalitarian society. Copy nothing that they do. Any time you find yourself recommending that that we copy something the Chinese government does? That's how you know you've gone off the rails.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Nope - unless I knew you. The odds of an anonymous stranger somewhere in the world flying to where I live just to do me harm are quite small. I'll accept that risk alongside lightning and meteor strikes. It's not a credible threat, as the police have repeatedly had to tell SJWs.
If I were a politician, it would be different. If the threat was to do something that could be done remotely to harm me, that might be different. That's why you hear about commentators getting SWATed, but not raped. And even then, I'd expect someone out to harm me would just do it, not threaten.
Threats in person are different in kind, because it's how most humans "work up to" violence. Heck, even armies until post-WWII would do this on battlefields. Sane people want to win the confrontation, by scaring the other guy off, with violence only if your best threats don't work. So in-person threats are serious, because that's so often how the violence starts.
Doxxing in general should be its own crime, IMO, but not a very serious one.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.