Struggling to see how that isn’t a ‘win’ for her and her ilk. ‘Marxist lefty snowflakes are the real fascists/Nazis’ etc as they are the ones going around gulagging (gulag + gag, SWIDT!) EdgyFreedomFighters™ such as Hatey, Yacksley et al
The term ‘hate crime’ can be used to describe a range of criminal behaviour where the perpetrator is motivated by hostility or demonstrates hostility towards the victim’s disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity.
I think that what Hopkins says is vile, but I've never been comfortable where we're policing what people say, or especially, are thinking when the say or do things.
For example, punishing an assault differently because of what we believe someone was thinking at the time is a dodgy precedent heading towards thought crimes.
Freedom of speech does not mean a right to a platform.
Yes, if you are so arrogant that you are totally convinced that you have a monopoly on truth and what is right and wrong.
We've fought wars against people with that sort of mentality and thankfully we've always managed to overcome them.
I think that what Hopkins says is vile, but I’ve never been comfortable where we’re policing what people say, or especially, are thinking when the say or do things.
For example, punishing an assault differently because of what we believe someone was thinking at the time is a dodgy precedent heading towards thought crimes.
Really? If someone belts someone else ‘cos they’re drunk, that’s one thing, but if they set out to assault someone based purely on their colour, sexual orientation or perceived orientation, or because of their style of dress, ie a goth, then that’s a hate-crime, and it’s perfectly clear what that person was thinking when they carried out the assault.
Hugo, agree with that, I don't care why someone hit someone else (unless there was provocation or self defence arguments) thumping someone because you dont like their skin colour is no more or less serious than a random attack, mugging or road rage. In all cases an innocent person has been assaulted and will live with the physical and emotional damage. The penalty should be the same and severe.
As for Hopkins if she really believed the bile she spouted she had it coming, if it was merely her professional money making persona she should have had the brains to keep on the right side of Twitters rules. Either way the world is a slightly better place.
For example, punishing an assault differently because of what we believe someone was thinking at the time is a dodgy precedent heading towards thought crimes.
Broadly speaking - where an assault is deemed to have been aggravated or motivated in a way where its described as a 'hate crime' the person doing the hate has made it clear what they are thinking. Do you have examples of someone's privately held thoughts being a factor in a prosecution?
Freedom of speech is just that - being free to speak. Its not speech free of consequences. If you shout 'Fire' in a theatre and people die in the resulting stampede you're 'freedom of speech' doesn't get you off the manslaughter charges even though all you did was say words.
Yes, if you are so arrogant that you are totally convinced that you have a monopoly on truth and what is right and wrong.
We’ve fought wars against people with that sort of mentality and thankfully we’ve always managed to overcome them.
I agree with this ^^^
If someone belts someone else ‘cos they’re drunk, that’s one thing, but if they set out to assault someone based purely on their colour, sexual orientation or perceived orientation, or because of their style of dress, ie a goth, then that’s a hate-crime, and it’s perfectly clear what that person was thinking when they carried out the assault.
In this instance there is potential mitigation for the drunk person.
Likewise, if the crime was planned and premeditated then it would should be punished more severely.
What I don't believe is that we should start trying to judge why someone has planned and premeditated the crime. Did Dave beat up Steve because he didn't like his eye colour or his skin colour. 2 years for one, 5 years for the other? How about if it were 20% one thing and 80% the other, how do we know?
Punish the premeditated act, of course, but judging someone's reasons and ranking them differently is problematic to me.
Schadenfreude ist die beste freude!
Yes, if you are so arrogant that you are totally convinced that you have a monopoly on truth and what is right and wrong.
We’ve fought wars against people with that sort of mentality and thankfully we’ve always managed to overcome them.
Ok, slow down.
Twitter is a private company and they have chosen not to serve a rude customer who's broken their terms of use.
This I back. It's their choice and she can't force them to host her views.
Just because I back Twitter in this instance doesn't mean that I believe everyone should be made to de-platform Hopkins.
I also don't believe that they should be forced to give her a platform.
I leave it up to every other company, media, or platform to make their own choice. I completely give the power to them to make their own decisions within the law. I think this is the opposite of being convinced that I'm right, but hey.
Im glad shes gone there is no place for people like her in this world. If anyone supports her there is no place for them either. My grandad came here as a refugee after WW2 if it wasn't for immigrating I would have never been born. The stuff she said about immigrants about bombing their boats was disgusting. I hope she gets kicked off IG too.
If you shout ‘Fire’ in a theatre and people die in the resulting stampede you’re ‘freedom of speech’ doesn’t get you off the manslaughter charges even though all you did was say words.
Causality in that (literal) example is direct and instrumental.
Though as a figurative example it’s a different thing altogether.
An immediate example that comes to mind is the Christchurch mosque murders.
Who shouted ‘fire’? And what if they shouted ‘possible fire’, and what if there were 1000’s of actors shouting ‘where there’s smoke’ etc etc...
Hatey et al do this stuff for fame/a living, but you can’t legally tie them to the stampedes in the theatreS when they happen. They are ‘smart’ (sociopathic) enough to fan the flames while being made of teflon
Hugo, agree with that, I don’t care why someone hit someone else (unless there was provocation or self defence arguments) thumping someone because you dont like their skin colour is no more or less serious than a random attack, mugging or road rage. In all cases an innocent person has been assaulted and will live with the physical and emotional damage. The penalty should be the same and severe.
What if the person that was assaulted was a child or very old, or married to the assailant? would you change your views on sentencing then? what if rather than punch someone they struck them with an object? Of course assaulting someone with the intent to rob (mugging) is also aggravating, and in most cases so would some entirely unprovoked random attack be. The baseline is much more likely to be far less random - a dispute where words are exchanged and then someone throws a punch; more often than not between two people who are acquainted. There are many nuances to sentencing that all get balanced. Some of them are aggravations whilst others are mitigations. Society don't generally deal with assaults on a simple fixed penalty basis - some experienced sentencer in a court, having heard the facts and any mitigation had to weight it up and come to a conclusion. Statutory aggravations (like hate crimes) have to be taken into account. It doesn't always follow that the end sentence is any different with the statutory aggravation than it would have been otherwise but it will be recorded. The record serves a number of purposes - politically it suggests something is being done about the issues which concern the government/public; it provides statistics people can user to see if particular types of crime are rising or falling; it means that when someone has to look at that persons list of previous convictions there is something a bit more substantive than "assault" which could be anything from smashing a bottle over someones head because you don't like their skin colour to shoving a belligerent neighbour in some argument about killing squirrels; and it also means that decision makers in the CPS (etc) who need to decide which cases get dropped or settled with warnings etc have a consistent set of criteria to help guide them.
Did Dave beat up Steve because he didn’t like his eye colour or his skin colour.
As someone has said already, I'm looking forward to examples of where someone has been prosecuted for a hate crime without there being clear evidence of the hate.
Why use Twitter if it has horrible people on it? After all it is a privately owned service that you are not forced to use. I wouldn't choose to drink in a pub that was frequented by Katie and her ilk (I don't use Twitter either but mostly because it's full of drivel).
I wouldn’t choose to drink in a pub that was frequented by Katie and her ilk
They're easy to identify too. Flat roof and cross of St George in the window.
I'd rather keep my racists where I can see them, even highlight them so we can show them for what they are. The interview on breakfast tv (I think, might be on something else) where she slags off people who name their kids after places is golden and shows the world how thick she actually is.
Maybe stop allowing people anonymity on social media, I'm pretty sure that most people wouldn't post such hateful comments if they had their name and face next to it. They would probably find themselves without a job. A social pariah.
The thing that always struck me about Hatey Plopkins is that she looks like the mummified corpse of Michael Winner.
Causality in that (literal) example is direct and instrumental.
Though as a figurative example it’s a different thing altogether.
Closer to home, joking about bombs and airports online or at check-in will find you charged as well.
Yes, if you are so arrogant that you are totally convinced that you have a monopoly on truth and what is right and wrong.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion and they are allowed to express it - provided of course they don't contravene any laws. They're not entitled to specific methods of expressing that opinion - should the owners of that method not agree. KH could offer to replace the BA logo with "I hate people", for example, but as a private company they'd be allowed to say no. But she could freely stand up on the plane and say the same. Provided the seatbelt sign was switched off 😉
We’ve fought wars against people with that sort of mentality and thankfully we’ve always managed to overcome them.
Name one. We fought wars against people who suppressed freedom of speech - mostly because they suppressed freedom of speech by murdering people.
Could you cancel her phone contract if she was found to have made racist phone calls? Or cancel her gmail account if she had sent a racist email? Why is banning her from Twitter different? And when is something private or public?
I'd say twitter is public for very obvious reasons. And if the terms of service of her phone contract or email provider state that if she is found to be sending racist messages then why not?
Freedom of speech is freedom to express a political opinion without risk of persecution by the state. It is not freedom to say what you like without consequences. It is also not an entitlement to use a given platform to air your views.
Maybe stop allowing people anonymity on social media, I’m pretty sure that most people wouldn’t post such hateful comments if they had their name and face next to it. They would probably find themselves without a job. A social pariah.
Whilst I would generally agree, she's actually a prime case that contradicts that - not only does she post under her own name with her face beside it, she has a "blue tick" so its verified as belonging to her.
Could you cancel her phone contract if she was found to have made racist phone calls? Or cancel her gmail account if she had sent a racist email? Why is banning her from Twitter different? And when is something private or public?
Never mind a contract getting cancelled - racist phone call could get you sent to prison!
I'm sure if other "customers" of the phone company were constantly complaining about it then the would consider cancelling the account. Especially if she had a free account and it was pissing off the people funding the service (advertisers).
If she's not happy she can always create her own microblogging platform. Just the same as if someone gets banned here they can always make their own bike forum.
Just the same as if someone gets banned here they can always make their own bike forum.
Yep, but at least the people that run this place would be able to look at themselves in the mirror.
Plopkins is a ****ing horrible little shit, but she is also playing it for personal gain. She was, at one point, a reliable rent a gob for a bit of controversy on TV. Unfortunately I think her USP was wearing a bit thin, so she had to go more extreme for the attention.
And yet again she has blown it because she seems too stupid to learn from her own mistakes, of her apparent lack awareness, of her obstinacy and sense of entitlement to spout hateful things.
I'm sure I read somewhere that she gets funding from the US far right eg Bannon and co, who want to spread White Supremacy across the world. So if she wants to get paid, she has to spout hatred; plus by now, I suspect it's all she knows how to do.
Could you cancel her phone contract if she was found to have made racist phone calls?
Yes and they probably should if she continued to use her phone to break the law.
They're not cancelling her right to exist but they are saying, if you wish to continue to be a racist and actively pedal racism, we will have nothing to do with you. Which is absolutely fine by me.
Not being a troll, just genuinely interested in how rights like freedom of speech work with modern technology.
As for the anonymity comment, I mean for the people that follow and spread Katie's racist rhetoric whilst being able to hide in the crowd. She's obviously turned what she says into a business and as such is a lost cause.
Not being a troll, just genuinely interested in how rights like freedom of speech work with modern technology.
Shouldn't make any difference, if its illegal it should be banned in all forms.
Social media providers eg FB / Twitter don't have universal service obligations, so they can ban who they like, as long as its legal to do so (not discriminating on sexists, racist grounds etc).
Interesting article about who owns your social media posts. https://www.vodafone.co.uk/mobile/digital-parenting/who-owns-what-you-post
Footflaps, could she actually oppose the ban - ironically - claiming racism or sexism?
Everyone is entitled to an opinion and they are allowed to express it
Something right-wing pundits like to do is tell everyone how important opinions are. The word 'entitled' makes opinions sound precious. Some sort of fundamental element of your identity that you have to defend, some sort of necessary oxygen that you can't live without.
An opinion is more of an affliction - you can't help but have opinions on all sorts of things whether you have given them any real thought or not. Valuing opinions is just encouraging people not to give anything any real thought - not to look, not to listen.
Anywhere that it matters we recognise its import to put opinions to one side- selecting a jury, running double blind medical trials, not judging a book by the cover. The Pepsi Challenge wouldn't really prove much use if one of the glasses had 'Pepsi' written on it.
Freedom of expression and opinion are enshrined in human rights law, but hate crimes are illegal
Malv has it, but it is not just hate crime, there are many exemptions defined in legislation which restrict your right to spout stuff publicly.
I am bored of the “free speech” defence which gets trotted out primarily by right wing a-holes. Not one person who has used this argument in the context of banning from tech platforms understand the law. It is even worse when it comes to our friends in the USA 🇺🇸. They have free speech enshrined in the constitution, but that is specifically about stopping the government from censoring you. Last time I checked Twitter/Facebook were not a government.
It is also worth pointing out that freedom of speech also includes not saying something. Yet all of these defenders of “free speech” are obsessed with forcing private companies to allow / broadcast stuff which is against their rights, and more importantly their terms and conditions.
All the right wing loons can still post messages on the Internet, hell there is even a festering cess pit of a twitter clone which protects “free speech” called Gab, I don’t suggest you go visit.
An opinion is more of an affliction
Wow parler sounds like a lovely place
A far right echo chamber where you can be as bigoted as you like
But I can't see it working out, all the people who've made a career of stirring hate & division can't outrage anyone!
https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/1274778216033591296?s=19
Either here, or in the US, can anyone give me an example of someone fighting for free speech who isn't promoting sinister racial ideas?
Just asking.
By the same token though can you give me examples (in a western democracy) of people with moderate views being overtly censored? Those fighting for free speech are doing so because they are offensive views (to the majority) as a whole.
Wow parler sounds like a lovely place
A far right echo chamber where you can be as bigoted as you like
But I can’t see it working out, all the people who’ve made a career of stirring hate & division can’t outrage anyone!
Fingers crossed, but then you could get the opposite effect where people join it to see what these people are doing, very similar to how Trump has 85 million twitter followers, I assume the majority don't follow him because they agree with him, they follow to see what stupid stuff he is doing!
parler not quite as free as it thinks 😀
https://twitter.com/chrismiller_uk/status/1274956120008908800
Either here, or in the US, can anyone give me an example of someone fighting for free speech who isn’t promoting sinister racial ideas?
Just asking.
Humanists UK have quite a few campaigns for freedom of speech that appear neither sinister or radical. Also not sure that the campaign and ongoing campaigns against lop sided libel laws that impair free speech fit the bill.
Unless you're Arlene Foster and see a campaign to repeal blasphemy laws as radical and subversive.
Footflaps, could she actually oppose the ban – ironically – claiming racism or sexism?
Well as Twitter is a private company, you have no inherent right to use their service.
If she could prove that she has been banned on purely racist or sexist ground them she might have a case - but good luck proving that she wasn't just a racist nut job in breach of their usage terms....
Also as she is in the UK and Twitter is a US company, no idea which juristiction it would fall under and whose laws would apply.
Would be slightly amusing if she did try, lost and ended up being declared bankruct a second time...
Humanists UK have quite a few campaigns for freedom of speech that appear neither sinister or radical
Same goes for Amnesty International. Who ironically/paradoxically* point out that women are effectively being ‘silenced’ by (misogynistic) abuse via Twitter.
*For the hard of thinking
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2018/03/online-violence-against-women-chapter-5/
Looks like she's going to end up in the Bucket of Irrelevancy, and perhaps Nigel will join her.
