[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
news

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 13388)
Message
File  []
close
unfriendliness and dislike.png
133881338813388
>> No. 13388 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 11:14 am
13388 CPS hate crime guidelines
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.

The police are being flooded with online fraud claims at the moment - 40% of all crimes reported to them are online-fraud based. They are struggling to cope.

The new CPS guidelines on what constitutes hate crime are completely potty. While countering extremism should be a high priority for all of us, "unfriendliness and dislike" towards another could constitute a hate crime? This is madness.

The Police will end up spending all their time, money and effort responding as "moderators" of the internet. That simply won't scale.

Is there a better way?
Expand all images.
>> No. 13390 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 11:44 am
13390 spacer
>>13388 Is there a better way?

Mandatory online identity cards, citizen. Can't see any other way to police this. One strike and your internet privileges are revoked, for the good of all.
It'll be glorious.
>> No. 13392 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 1:14 pm
13392 spacer
Who on Earth could have predicted that.

You use broad, fuzzy and imprecise definitions for a criminal offence, and suddenly you're flooded with complaints from legal laymen citizens.

"Everyday" definitions tend to be the poorest way of defining constituting elements of a criminal offence, because of their arbitrary nature. What one person may call harrassment is just a benign piss take to another person. Official legal definitions tend to be fraught with problems in and of themselves, but what they usually offer is an impartial standard as to what constitutes a particular offence and what doesn't.

It's especially troubling that indeed the CPS relies on "everyday" definitions. They should really know better.
>> No. 13395 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 2:24 pm
13395 spacer
What you Daily Mailers appear to be missing here is that this is about which criminal offences are classified as hate crimes. It has nothing to do with the detection and prosecution of criminal offences themselves. It's purely statistical.

So no, just being unfriendly towards someone is not suddenly a crime now.
>> No. 13397 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 4:23 pm
13397 spacer

Cii44UZWwAA9ZwC.jpg
133971339713397
>>13395
>Daily Mailers

HATE CRIME!
>> No. 13399 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 5:30 pm
13399 spacer
>>13395
>It's purely statistical.

It isn't though - if you read the CPS guidelines published today, they clearly say they intend to prosecute more people. Now of course, them deciding to take a case to court doesn't mean they win it, but as they also say, most people plead guilty anyway, so its a fishing expedition.
>> No. 13402 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 6:15 pm
13402 spacer
>>133

>unfriendliness and dislike" towards another could constitute a hate crime?

No, but a criminal offence motivated by unfriendliness and dislike towards another could constitute a hate crime.
>> No. 13403 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 6:16 pm
13403 "Man is effected not by events but by the view he takes of them"
Epictetus.jpg
134031340313403
It's up to the individual to manage their perception of the world, not society nor the state.
>> No. 13404 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 6:17 pm
13404 spacer
The Americans seem to have broadly obviously free speech laws. Is this true or do they run in to monumental definition conflicts about what's a 'hate crime' like we do?
>> No. 13405 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 6:36 pm
13405 spacer
>>13404
'Hate speech' is protected by the First Amendment in the USA. End of story. I may be wrong but I don't think crimes motivated by hatred or some kind of political or racial or religious view get treated as different from any other crime by the courts there.
>> No. 13407 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 6:45 pm
13407 spacer
>>13403
it's 'affected' not 'effected'.
>> No. 13409 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 6:51 pm
13409 spacer

hatespeechunitedstates.png
134091340913409
>>13405
>End of story.
>> No. 13411 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 6:56 pm
13411 spacer
>>13409
nks for the poorly cro
ract from Wikipedia. I
really helpful in unders
point you're trying to m
>> No. 13415 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 7:30 pm
13415 spacer
>>13407
Thank you. I've been meaning to learn the difference and now I've made a little flashcard and attached it to my monitor.
>> No. 13416 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 7:31 pm
13416 spacer
>>13411

A fool, an utter fool, could fathom the point >>13409 was trying to make. But not you.
>> No. 13418 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 7:37 pm
13418 spacer
>>13416
I guess that makes me no fool.
>> No. 13420 Anonymous
21st August 2017
Monday 8:05 pm
13420 spacer
>>13411
Haha! I still read it. I'm so smart me.
>> No. 13436 Anonymous
23rd August 2017
Wednesday 9:57 am
13436 spacer
Hate, or expression thereof, is not a crime. To assert otherwise is an absurd notion, and our government (which wrongly claims to be conservative) has gone off the deep end.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password