Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by happymellon | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

happymellon

The US has a history of arrests over "wrong think"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-com...

https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/new-hampshire-police-a...

https://www.fire.org/news/lawsuit-ex-cop-sues-after-spending...

View on HN

This. The UK "wrongthink arrests" were for stuff like calling for a building full of people to be burned down. While the US arrests you for criticising the police chief.

The UK arrests were also for stickers with: slogans such as “Reject white guilt”, “Nationalism is nurture”, “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066” and “Diversity – designed to fail, built to replace” - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/16/uk-man-with-...

"Stirring up racial hatred", even merely possessing material that could do so, is a crime in the UK: https://www.thelawpages.com/criminal-offence/Possessing-raci...

Burning the Koran is also illegal: https://spectator.com/article/england-now-has-a-blasphemy-la...

Viewing "far-right propaganda" carries a 15 year jail sentence: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-rudd-v...

True factual statements such as "young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs" come with a nearly 1-year jail term: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce328p9330eo

Note that most of the time, articles are happy to omit actual quotes, instead parroting the prosecution's description of the speech in question, using vague terms such as "racially aggravated comments" or "inciting racial hatred":

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rq8r4jdgno

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68086012

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68074858

Burning the Koran isn't illegal: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgv785n23eo

Viewing far right propaganda does not carry a 15 year jail sentence, though conservative politician Rudd wished it did: your own article (did you even read it)

Nor is "merely possessing material" that could stir up racial hatred a crime. The law requires intent or likelihood of stirring up racial hatred. I don't know why you linked to a page filled with ads when the text of the law is available straight from the government that implemented it: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/data.html#key-a...

If a person presenting or directing the performance is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred, it is a defence for him to prove—

(a) that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the performance would involve the use of the offending words or behaviour, or

(b) that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the offending words or behaviour were threatening, abusive or insulting, or

(c) that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the circumstances in which the performance would be given would be such that racial hatred would be likely to be stirred up.

ok good. Except for the viewing thing. That one is crazy. Most of what you described is just disinformation though and I'm fine with the UK taking a different approach than the US.

That's fine, then there is no need to lie like you did.

> Most of what you described is just disinformation though

“We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066” is accurate: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/white-briton...

Burning the Koran is not a statement of fact, so it cannot be disinformation.

"young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs" is also accurate (though the precise number is contentious, mostly because the police turned a blind eye, or even actively aided the gangs): https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/britains-grooming-gang-scandal-rep...

So can you be more specific in what you were referring to as being "disinformation"?

> “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066” is accurate

Accurate as in someone said it? Centuries ago, people were worried that if the number of horses increased at the current rate, we would be waist-deep in horse manure.

And you admit yourself that the "precise number is contentious".

> Accurate as in someone said it? Centuries ago, people were worried that if the number of horses increased at the current rate..

"Someone" being a population expert. Of course, "if we do nothing about it" is implied - if nothing could be done, why even bring it up? But of course you know this, and stretching a best estimate prediction by an expert to somehow qualify as "disinformation" is not arguing in good faith.

> And you admit yourself that the "precise number is contentious".

The man jailed did not state any number, and was not in jail for getting the number wrong, so that objection is irrelevant. I only add the caveat to avoid an argument about the number that the source cited.

lol, this is odd.

British =/= Briton

And English most certainly =/= Briton.

No more than English == Iroquois

I see this a lot, but it depends on how you define these terms. If person A defines British such as British = Briton, you categorically claiming that British =/= Briton is not really an argument, just a statement of belief. An argument would be why you think your definition is better, more correct, etc.

Why is it we never hear about the Muslim prosecutor who put them away?

Nobody can predict what will happen in 2066 any more than people in 1986 could predict there would be an AI bubble today.

The slogan doesn't even mean anything. Who's "we"?

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?

> 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

[1] 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

[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rq8r4jdgno

The US rate people for quoting a murder victim and not having the right level of performative grief not seen since Eva Peron died.

What do you get out of your lies?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com