It actually does precisely mean freedom from legal consequences, yes.
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.
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?
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.
The conclusion to which can be summed up as: Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.
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.
Which is the point of discussion you started when you said “it does precisely mean there are never any legal consequences for saying anything”.
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’.
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.
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.
Please don’t get heated again. Silly comments about contacting the prime minister and deflecting by calling racism detract from your argument and make you seem quite immature.
It’s both sad and telling how you read “minorities will violently attack you in the street” from that message, rather than “people will call the police on you and you may loose your job or face other societal consequences in response to your speech”.
> One possible reading is you were actually intending to defend the laws in the article
Of course I am. To me it doesn’t make a difference if you’re legally allowed to say something but then immediately face legal consequences from saying that thing, and just not being legally allowed to say something. It’s one and the same.
And the laws are good. I’m ok with them. Unlike the US the UK has a very healthy and diverse press, despite having no constitutionally defined freedom of speech, and the courts are robust and generally sensible.
So whatever, you’ve got to face consequences of your actions. If you want to go and send racist stuff to footballers then you’ll be banned from football. Cool. 100% down with that.
>Of course I am. To me it doesn’t make a difference if you’re legally allowed to say something but then immediately face legal consequences from saying that thing, and just not being legally allowed to say something. It’s one and the same.
Then why deflect for several posts to talking about threats?
I get that you’re probably trying to cover for any legal consequences to your racist post (yes it was racist, tell it to the judge) We could’ve had a more fruitful discussion about the laws in the article otherwise. But my attention span is strained.