6 ms·

Sounds kind of racist to imply minorities will attack me with street violence if I say words they don’t like. I’ll have to report this to the authorities mate,

Sounds kind of racist to imply minorities will attack me with street violence if I say words they don’t like. I’ll have to report this to the authorities mate, hope you’re not a big football fan. Edit: you stealth edited your post to include the “imminent harm” part. Sorry bro I’ve already sent the evidence to your friends Boris Johnson and the police who you trust to vet what is and isn’t racist.

orf 5y ago
Try and not get so heated in future discussions. The courts, and a jury of peers, decide what is and is not considered hate speech. In the USA the courts have decided that calling for imminent harm on someone (racially motivated or otherwise) is illegal. Therefore the USA doesn’t have free speech and you live in a totalitarian police state nightmare?
- rscoots 5y ago
  Lol what did I say that was ‘heated’? Your first reply to me was a defense of street violence against me. Threatening violence is a whole different topic and these laws encompass a lot more than “imminent violence” so not sure why you’ve brought that up. Whoever makes the legal decision, I hope you have a good lawyer because the police should be knocking on your families’ door abt your racist post soon now. Cheers, I’m about to get rate limited by HN so might not reply.
  - orf 5y ago
    > Threatening violence is a whole different topic The conclusion to which can be summed up as: Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.
    - rscoots 5y ago
      Threats are prosecuted as intent to commit another crime, not ‘u said a naughty word.’ That’s why slogans such as “kill all men” would never lead to legal conviction in the US (they might in the UK!) More importantly, the laws in this article are not about threats. Myself nor any freedom of conscious supporters I know of would claim verbal intent to commit a crime should be protected from legal consequence. So unless you can name any, this is not only off topic but also a straw man.
      - orf 5y ago
        So in conclusion you agree that freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences, and the USA law also agrees - “Yelling fire in a crowded theatre” etc. Which is the point of discussion you started when you said “it does precisely mean there are never any legal consequences for saying anything”.
        rscoots 5y ago
        It is legal in the US to yell fire in a crowded theater. It is not legal to intentionally create a false emergency situation, verbally or otherwise. Similar to threats, it’s not the speech that is illegal but the intent to commit a crime. Like any other criminal trial, your words can be used against you. Not sure what more you’d mean when you say “freedom from consequences” (or how this relates to the article) but youre arguing against a point no one is attempting to make it seems. None of what you’ve mentioned is what’s meant by ‘freedom of speech’.
        orf 5y ago
        > It is legal in the US to yell fire in a crowded theater. It is not legal to intentionally create a false emergency situation, verbally or otherwise. Thus one could conclude, and stay with me here because this is complex, that the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater does not… prevent you from facing legal consequences for yelling fire in a crowded theater. You could take this understanding and you could reduce it down a snappy, easy to digest form: Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.
        rscoots 5y ago
        What precisely was the point of your original post then? To assert a concept that has nothing to do with the article and that no one disagrees with? One possible reading is you were actually intending to defend the laws in the article (not threats), and then had to stealth-edit your racist post to be about threats after I called you out. Now you’re stuck in that position. Glad we seem to agree the speech in this article should be legally allowed unless it is genuine physical threats.

orf 5y ago

Try and not get so heated in future discussions. The courts, and a jury of peers, decide what is and is not considered hate speech. In the USA the courts have decided that calling for imminent harm on someone (racially motivated or otherwise) is illegal. Therefore the USA doesn’t have free speech and you live in a totalitarian police state nightmare?

rscoots 5y ago
Lol what did I say that was ‘heated’? Your first reply to me was a defense of street violence against me. Threatening violence is a whole different topic and these laws encompass a lot more than “imminent violence” so not sure why you’ve brought that up. Whoever makes the legal decision, I hope you have a good lawyer because the police should be knocking on your families’ door abt your racist post soon now. Cheers, I’m about to get rate limited by HN so might not reply.
- orf 5y ago
  > Threatening violence is a whole different topic The conclusion to which can be summed up as: Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.
  - rscoots 5y ago
    Threats are prosecuted as intent to commit another crime, not ‘u said a naughty word.’ That’s why slogans such as “kill all men” would never lead to legal conviction in the US (they might in the UK!) More importantly, the laws in this article are not about threats. Myself nor any freedom of conscious supporters I know of would claim verbal intent to commit a crime should be protected from legal consequence. So unless you can name any, this is not only off topic but also a straw man.
    - orf 5y ago
      So in conclusion you agree that freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences, and the USA law also agrees - “Yelling fire in a crowded theatre” etc. Which is the point of discussion you started when you said “it does precisely mean there are never any legal consequences for saying anything”.
      - rscoots 5y ago
        It is legal in the US to yell fire in a crowded theater. It is not legal to intentionally create a false emergency situation, verbally or otherwise. Similar to threats, it’s not the speech that is illegal but the intent to commit a crime. Like any other criminal trial, your words can be used against you. Not sure what more you’d mean when you say “freedom from consequences” (or how this relates to the article) but youre arguing against a point no one is attempting to make it seems. None of what you’ve mentioned is what’s meant by ‘freedom of speech’.
        orf 5y ago
        > It is legal in the US to yell fire in a crowded theater. It is not legal to intentionally create a false emergency situation, verbally or otherwise. Thus one could conclude, and stay with me here because this is complex, that the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater does not… prevent you from facing legal consequences for yelling fire in a crowded theater. You could take this understanding and you could reduce it down a snappy, easy to digest form: Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.
        rscoots 5y ago
        What precisely was the point of your original post then? To assert a concept that has nothing to do with the article and that no one disagrees with? One possible reading is you were actually intending to defend the laws in the article (not threats), and then had to stealth-edit your racist post to be about threats after I called you out. Now you’re stuck in that position. Glad we seem to agree the speech in this article should be legally allowed unless it is genuine physical threats.