Hate speech / hate facts

[cromwell]

"Hate speech" has already been banned. I'm just wondering when hate facts will be as well? Some facts have been noticeably absent from much of the reporting of the London attack. Namel that it comes after similar but worse attacks using lorries in France and Germany and the facts that those attacks were carried out by Muslims (a word I haven't heard used in the news coverage today or yesterday).

Facts that are inconvenient for the media very often go unreported; I'm just wondering when mentioning these facts will become unlawful.

The phrase "Hate speech" always reminds me of the novel 1984.

[Workingman]

And here is another who has noticed the 'censorship creep' now employed by the media.

I have no problem with 'facts' not being given out when they are unknown - I much prefer that to speculation. I do have a problem with them being hidden behind 'soft' descriptions of what they actually are once they are known.

I am not sure whether it will be unlawful to 'out' inconvenient truths, but I am damned sure it will become more common for them them to be dropped altogether. And, yes, it will be done under the banner that they are 'hate facts' and liable to provoke 'hate speech', both of which are poorly defined, but it will be for the common good.

[cromwell]

It's an interesting philosophical conundrum.

Some one states a fact. Some one else accuses them of hate speech, or whatever.

But the fact remains a fact; the truth.

So, can the truth be "racist"?

If the truth is found to be "racist", what then happens to that truth? Most probably it will be ignored or suppressed, or people stating that truth will face prosecution.

People have been worried about the suppression of free speech for a long time. If we start suppressing inconvenient truths, that's another step down the same road to some form of totalitarian state.

[Workingman]

Don't forget, Cromwell, it will all be for the common good.

Coincidentally, due to the ID card thread, I was looking at the Human Rights Act 1998, and especially Article 10 - Freedom of expression. It has a long list of things we can think, do or say, which is fine. It also has a longer list of restrictions the authorities can apply to those freedoms, but here's the rub. The restrictions are so broad that when used together they can nullify all the freedoms and even turn them against us.

What you have described is already with us.

[TheOstrich]

Indeed, it is all a question of perception. I say something - how do you perceive what I have said?

There are people out there whose perception of what you or I might say is so warped by their own beliefs that they will now use everything at their disposal to suppress your speech.

The problem is, those people are now the people with power.

[Workingman]

Indeed, it is all a question of perception. I say something - how do you perceive what I have said?

There are people out there whose perception of what you or I might say is so warped by their own beliefs that they will now use everything at their disposal to suppress your speech.

The problem is, those people are now the people with power.

Amen, to that.

[Suff]

There is, of course, always the law of defamation.

If you make a statement of fact and someone else calls it "hate speech", you have the right to take them to court for slander of libel. With the current plethora of internet media being written, perhaps we need to educate people. Call your facts "hate speech", get taken to court for libel.

Inciting Hate is a serious criminal offense today. Perhaps the libel cases should reflect that. Once it starts coming out of the pockets of the aggressive "Liberal Left", perhaps they will get the message that there are one hell of a lot more of us than there are them and that we can make true statements if we want and if they want to defame us for making them, then it will cost them. Dearly.

For this one I would condone "ambulance chaser" lawyers. In the current climate, they could make a small fortune.

[AliasAggers]

I really don't quite understand exactly what is going on in this country of ours.

If you hate something or somebody, surely that cannot be an offence?, but I suppose it is so if you say exactly what it is you hate.
I hate certain foods, but am I allowed to say which?

By the way, I've decided that it is a very good job we have arranged for our Annual VV Meet to be held in Birmingham. One area alone of that English City has well over twenty Muslim Mosques, so if this indicates the number of Muslims living there it must be one of the safest places to go to in the country, if you follow me.

What a funny world we are living in now.