Scotland's Hate Speech Act and Abuse of Process | Hacker News Reader

Scotland's Hate Speech Act and Abuse of Process

craigmurray.org.uk

23 pointssmackay10 comments

Fascinating.

Serious question. Assuming I offend some Scott by writing something on my blog, putting an issue on Github, or editing Wikipedia – is it then safe for me to travel to Scotland as a tourist? I'd love to visit Scotland some day – I'm told that it's a beautiful country – but if there is any risk of that, I'd rather stay home or travel somewhere else.

There may be a risk. Some countries are forcing visitors to disclose their social media accounts. We know that some countries, such as Thailand, will arrest you for criticizing the King.1 We know Britain has arrested individuals for thought crimes.2 Speech is definitively under attack in the name of stifling hate speech and protecting certain individuals, so it's always possible but the actions will tell us more than analysis because it's kind of unprecedented.

In short, really no country on earth as the freedoms of speech and expression that America does but it's all changing. It's possible you could be arrested but it would really depend on the situation, and the person. You, arrested? Probably not. Jordan Peterson, maybe.

1. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/thai-man-faces-record-50-...

2. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12557713/Our-silent...

> really no country on earth as the freedoms of speech and expression that America does

Of course, you wouldn't be _arrested_ in the US for saying certain things, but I'm afraid you could be lynched/fired/etc., so _technically_ the freedom of speech is still preserved – but from my point of view it doesn't matter much whether I'm assaulted by the police or an angry mob. (In fact, I would probably prefer the police.)

It is sort of ironic, in a morbid and very sad way. When I was a kid, we looked at America as the "land of freedom", unattainable for us in a communist country. Now I'm much older and I witness the US slowly (or maybe even not that slowly) gravitating towards communism.

I wouldn't be astonished if expressing "unpopular opinions" on certain subjects (in a way not even offending anyone) were more risky in the US than here.

> You, arrested? Probably not. Jordan Peterson, maybe.

That is obvious. Still, the whole situation makes me sad.

You can read the law and decide that for yourself. You're probably safe if your potentially rude comments aren't related to race, sex, age, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. These are the relevant sections:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/3/enacted

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/4/enacted

Thanks. Please note that I explicitly don't want to make _rude_ comments – apparently, it is enough that someone is _offended_ by my comments. (And yes, I know that you said "potentially rude", but still – rudeness has little to do with it.)

It's not quite about whether the person reading is offended. It's about whether a "reasonable person" would find it likely to "stir up hatred" against one of the protected classes.

Of course, that's still highly problematic. Is a statement like "Marjorie Taylor Greene wants to replace secular democracy with a theocracy based on a twisted interpretation of Christianity" likely to stir up hatred against fundamentalist Christians? It's ambiguous enough to have a chilling effect.

Can a statement of fact even be considered hate speech?

Also "Christian fundamentalist" isn't a protected class. If anything they're the class many protected classes need protecting from.

The way this law is written relies on a test of whether a "reasonable person" would consider the statement "abusive". If a police officer decides it is, then you're having a bad day even if a judge or jury later decides it is not. Regardless of one's position on hate speech laws in general, this hate speech law is at risk for subjective interpretation.

Religion is a named protected class in the legislation. There is no reason to believe it couldn't be applied to extreme or fundamentalist religions, and I chose a particularly contemptible example of it to illustrate a point.

An important perspective. I'd remind the author that it's never necessary to repeat abhorrent positions when you defend the liberty of others to take them.

Uncritically repeating the argument, even as a mere descriptor, shows a social acceptance that we do not wish in a context like this. Such individuals can be clearly described in ways that don't serve to normalize their arguments.

Where did he repeat any "abhorrent positions"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com