18 ms·

Your framing of the stories is interesting: * "UK arrests were also for stickers" - surely there must be a point where we stop someone putting racists stickers

Your framing of the stories is interesting: * "UK arrests were also for stickers" - surely there must be a point where we stop someone putting racists stickers everywhere. * "merely possessing materials designed to Stirring up racial hatred" - Presumably you're okay with someone stirring up racial hatred? * "Viewing "far-right propaganda" carries a 15 year jail sentence:" - No it doesn't, that's just an MP trying to get votes. * ""young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs" ". Where does it say anything about a jail term?

like_any_other 1mo ago
> Your framing of the stories is interesting: * "UK arrests were also for stickers" - surely there must be a point where we stop someone putting racists stickers everywhere. The post I replied to claimed "The UK wrongthink arrests were for stuff like calling for a building full of people to be burned down". That example shows this is clearly not the case, and entirely non-violent speech [0] is criminal. That you personally agree with that prosecution is irrelevant. > "merely possessing materials designed to Stirring up racial hatred" - Presumably you're okay with someone stirring up racial hatred? What does it matter what I agree with? It doesn't stop being censorship, or a counterexample to the parent post's claim, if I agree with it. > "Viewing "far-right propaganda" carries a 15 year jail sentence:" - No it doesn't, that's just an MP trying to get votes. After reading the text of the law [1], you are correct - it only applies to material "useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". My mistake for believing the word of the UK Home Secretary about the law she was pushing. > ""young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs" ". Where does it say anything about a jail term? I apologize, I should have better organized the citations. [2] only talks about the conviction, the jail sentence is reported in [3]: Jailing him for 10 months and two weeks, Judge Nicholas Barker said it was clear that Heggie had wanted his offensive comments about the Muslim faith "to be read and heard by many". [0] Yes, speech, not "vandalism" or other charge related to the stickers themselves, not their content - the conviction was literally for "stirring up racial hatred", and the average sticker promoting a nightclub or dance class, even if technically illegal, does not come with a 2 year jail term: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867 [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58 (it says 2000, but includes amendments from 2019) [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce328p9330eo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce328p9330eo [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rq8r4jdgno https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rq8r4jdgno

like_any_other 1mo ago

> Your framing of the stories is interesting: * "UK arrests were also for stickers" - surely there must be a point where we stop someone putting racists stickers everywhere. The post I replied to claimed "The UK wrongthink arrests were for stuff like calling for a building full of people to be burned down". That example shows this is clearly not the case, and entirely non-violent speech [0] is criminal. That you personally agree with that prosecution is irrelevant. > "merely possessing materials designed to Stirring up racial hatred" - Presumably you're okay with someone stirring up racial hatred? What does it matter what I agree with? It doesn't stop being censorship, or a counterexample to the parent post's claim, if I agree with it. > "Viewing "far-right propaganda" carries a 15 year jail sentence:" - No it doesn't, that's just an MP trying to get votes. After reading the text of the law [1], you are correct - it only applies to material "useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". My mistake for believing the word of the UK Home Secretary about the law she was pushing. > ""young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs" ". Where does it say anything about a jail term? I apologize, I should have better organized the citations. [2] only talks about the conviction, the jail sentence is reported in [3]: Jailing him for 10 months and two weeks, Judge Nicholas Barker said it was clear that Heggie had wanted his offensive comments about the Muslim faith "to be read and heard by many". [0] Yes, speech, not "vandalism" or other charge related to the stickers themselves, not their content - the conviction was literally for "stirring up racial hatred", and the average sticker promoting a nightclub or dance class, even if technically illegal, does not come with a 2 year jail term: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867 [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58 (it says 2000, but includes amendments from 2019) [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce328p9330eo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce328p9330eo [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rq8r4jdgno https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rq8r4jdgno