Hacker News Reader

This disconnect is due to a lack of understanding the difference between individual and collective rights. People pushing collective rights are inherently in opposition to those who value individual liberty, and the dillution of this largely via education has vast swaths of people trying to apply more and more collective rights structures on an American foundation of individual freedoms in the Declaration of Independence sense. Hence why even as an atheist I find solace and value in the founders justification of The Grand Architect giving us these rights in the more gnostic sense. As it serves to emphasize that the desire of individual rights is an inherent part of being an individual human, something universal. This was the true revolution of the enlightenment and renaissance embodied in the imperfect but first nation state to buck monarchy and theocracy that is America, and the fad-of-the-moment haters who so blithely dismiss not just the Constitution but its foundational philsophical concepts from the enlightenment are increasingly dooming us to repeat history. Censorship, stasi-level totalitarianism, etc are the end result of collectivism, forever in opposition to true, stripped of its faults, Americanism.

> What I do care is what the laws actually are. We are talking about Hate Speech Laws.

And yet you define Hate Speech laws as those disallowing others from "offending, mocking, or belittling" those in designated protected classes. Is that truly what these laws you are referring to are targeting? I don't see that in the UK's bill. Sincerely: am I missing it? Am I misreading? It's long, I relied on a summary for this comment.

> If it's a legitimate threat then it's illegal no matter what person or group it is targeted at... If it's real abuse, if it's real threats... then it's illegal universally.

The chilling effect of violent rhetoric will exist and persist whether the threat is legitimate or not. That's the debate. Should you be able to stoke those sentiments freely? The individuals who are stigmatized certainly don't have the capacity to fact-check every threat.

I'm not an advocate for these laws, I don't know what's best, but I can't see it as black and white as you seem to. The person you replied to had what I thought to be a very good perspective I hadn't considered.

I am not the person you were responding to, but I picked (at random) the Australian hate speech laws to look up and they do not seem to be about language that is threatening, and are more about protected classes:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Australi...

> What I do care is what the laws actually are

I note that you're not quoting the relevant legal definitions though.

This might help:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A

I don’t believe the UK has the concept of a “hate speech crime”. Rather, first a crime must be committed, and then that crime may be classified as motivated by hate, which attracts higher penalties.

Also, intent matters, and it is a defense if the allegedly criminal conduct can be proven to be reasonable.

> I don't give a shit what Google has to say [...] I do care is what the laws actually are

Well this time it happens to be one and the same.

> When it's legal to do it against one political classification of persons, but it's illegal to do it against another one... That is a big freaking problem.

That's exactly what the laws say. And for good reason most times.

Here's [0] a handy guide for people who care about what the laws are just slightly less than they care about their own personal opinion. It will hopefully help you understand that what you consider to be "logical" or "common sense" is not necessarily accurate. I highlighted the parts which make the laws very targeted ("one political classification of persons"):

> "There are laws that criminalize speech because of the particular content of that speech. The prohibited content differs widely: in some jurisdictions speech that incites hatred or is insulting about certain groups is penalized. Other common prohibitions are on speech which denigrates a person’s or a nation’s “honour” or “dignity”. There may also be restrictions on specific historical subjects, the most notable being laws which prohibit Holocaust denial or glorification of Nazi ideology. This category of speech regulation is described as “hate speech”."

Here's [1] another handy piece of info, the EU is extending the list of EU crimes to hate speech and hate crime.

But... Hate speech laws do open the door for abuse. What's hate speech today because the target is legitimately vulnerable, can be abused by a not so vulnerable group tomorrow (politicians incriminating any kind of attack on them). Then again you always have to rely on the regime applying the laws to not abuse them. This doesn't change the fact that as it stands today Google has it pretty accurate but your understanding of the situation and reasoning behind it is lacking.

[0] https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/3/e/36426.pdf

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/communication-extending-eu-c...