Regulated Speech, Relative To Social Postings
The question, in the context of politics and social issues: Is posting hatred or racism automatically intending to promote hate or racism?
The 'bare bones' of a recent UK example:
There was a stabbing attack that killed 3 young girls in a Taylor Swift-like dance class. There were also social media posts claiming the attacker was a Muslim immigrant. The posts have been labeled as misinformation/disinformation because (later, after the offending post) police said the attacker was British-born.
Before the police clarification, a woman posted this paraphrased comment: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care ... If that makes me racist, so be it.”
Was she expressing her emotional hatred or was she promoting that hatred?
The woman was a 'Childminder,' the British equivalent to our (USA) private home daycare owners (not just a daycare worker). Isn't it a fair assumption children are close to her heart?
It appears the offending post was deleted a couple of hours after being posted. Why, because she realized she had spoken from anger and it was wrong? Because she realized it was illegal?
Is a charitable view that she spoke from heartbreak and then tried to fix it by deleting the post unbelievable?
Should that post earn her "substantial jail time"? Does context matter?
More context, but not exactly confirmed as true: There was also a report (or reporting) that the woman had previously (in recent weeks or months?) posted other anti-immigrant/racist posts. *shrug*
A man who shared her post has already received 18 months of jail time(?).
The right or wrong of the British laws isn't the point or the question. The details of the example are secondary. The questions' answers shouldn't depend on them.
The question, in the context of politics and social issues: Is posting hatred or racism automatically intending to promote hate or racism?
GAFirst I've heard of this, heartbreaking!! They're just babies! I think I would give the woman (and all who shared) a pass due to the circumstances. She had an emotional reaction, realized it was over-the-top and didn't leave it to fester.
Giving anyone (other than the murderer) jail time is an over-the-top emotional reaction as well, and should be remedied.Just making a cursory reply that quite possibly is shall we say from 'half thoughts' at this point. Interesting the main question is posted, information with 7 questions asked, and finally the main question again. In the automotive world we just might call that bump steer, said with jest.
Is posting hatred or racism automatically intending to promote hate or racism?
Without venturing onto the web, as I see it, anything posted on the internet is promotional. Isn't that the point. It is the same as printing up 100 flyers and putting them on car windshields at the local Costco. Anonymity is what is at question in many cases.
Still half thoughts, does person and tense enter the equation? For instance, her statement was in the 'first person'. It was present tense. If I got that wrong let me know.
From that point forward I will ponder while doing some poking around on the web. Otherwise it can be simple.
Here . . .
I hate mac & cheese
Mac & cheese is horrible and I will never eat or entertain eating it
If you offer me mac & cheese for dinner I will hastily leave.
Anyone who eats mac & cheese are detestable humans who shouldn't be allowed to live
To me the first three is posting hatred, but the fourth is promoting hate. Or, maybe not? I'll ponder some more.
Intent is a 'big' word since it is both subjective and objective as I see it. I am wondering about intrinsic and extrinsic now.
I'll ponder some more and may come back and offer more . . .
Thanks for the opportunity . . .
I have a couple of thoughts on that.
One, the government is always trying to create new jobs. Why not instruct Social Media companies that they are required to have a Censor Agency within the company to monitor for such posts, censor such posts, and dole out punishments internally?
Much like HubPages does with these Forums and has always done, banning people for days, weeks, months depending on the severity of the offense?
Just a thought.
No one should think themselves safe to express their opinions if what is the norm in the UK or Canada becomes the norm here in America... wise people will END posting anything online, they should be considering that now as it is, anticipating what we see in Canada and the UK becoming the norm here.
IF that does occur, I believe they will also go back through the last several years of posts on Facebook, YouTube, etc. to determine if someone needs to be punished for wrong-think or not... its an easy way to cull the herd of its malcontents and miscreants and political opposition.But you didn't address the question.
There are a lot of 'censorship' directions that could be chased, but the OP's question bears on them all. Is intent a factor?
I think it must be, it is a determining factor. The recent UK examples appear to show that intent is secondary to the criminality of the act.
GA"The recent UK examples appear to show that intent is secondary to the criminality of the act."
Indeed, so the crime is determined by the offended, intent of those words doesn't matter... in America you are supposed to prove intent.
I guess they don't need proof of intent in the UK and Canada. Makes things easier to enforce I'd imagine.Yep. Intent is the determining factor for me.
GA
The MSN homepage is a better example. Before a post can show up, it goes through a screening. If anything offensive is detected that violates their community standards, it will not even get posted. Here, whatever vileness is in our hearts gets posted and then taken down only after a complaint is lodged.
There you go, you have provided a workable solution.
The government could easily put pressure on Social Media sites to provide such a screening process, and then hold that company equally as accountable as the maker of the post for anything truly illegal/offensive.
An AI could do that screening for you.
For those posts that people complain about, that fall through the cracks, you have in addition a system of moderators that respond to complaints and then take down the post and determine a punishment (suspension).
What we should not be seeing is the draconian and extreme measures being taken in places like the UK and Canada today, where people face sentences that had been reserved in society for violent felons.Why does the government even need to be involved? Why don't companies just restrict their users from violating the laws by setting those community standards? That way, there is no violation of the First Amendment.
The Government/Law is involved already... in what is allowed to be seen on tv, in print, them putting down guidelines that all Social Media sites need to follow (in order to be legal and allowed to 'broadcast') isn't a reach.
Throwing a person in jail for a few years and upending their lives, for a few typed words on a post, on a Social Media site, is absolutely flippinzee nuts.
The question, in the context of politics and social issues: Is posting hatred or racism automatically intending to promote hate or racism?
Not necessarily.
"White/black/latino/queer/whatever are the worst." Is not the same as "Kill every white/black/latino/etc person."
In your example, she did promoted hate and racism.As they say, Good answer! Maybe.
I also think it should not be an automatic assumption.
Going on only the context of the described details, including the text of the offending post, I think she was damning them to hell in words of anger. The post could be one of hatred and racism without intending to promote it.
If that sounds like hair-splitting or being too charitable, think back to the "Coconuts" thread with Nathanville. This is an extreme of the same thing.
GA
She advocated for mass deportations...the set fire line was more a hypothetical with the addition of 'for all I care.' Although the part about her being ok with 'setting fire to all the bastards' could have been interpreted as racist after she led with mass deportations. If she had not included the deportations, the 'set fire to all the bastards' could have been in reference to those that attack children.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tory-council … 26850.html
The wife of a Conservative Party councillor has admitted publishing a social media post stirring up racial hatred against asylum seekers on the day of the Southport knife killings.Yep, that is the story the OP's example drew from, but the questions were to the concept of automatic assumptions about the intent of such postings, not about the specific Connolly case or UK laws.
One of Valeant's comments about parsing the offending post seemed to illustrate the OP's point: one part alone might not have been racist, but when combined with another part it was, but with a mitigating statement ("for all I care") it might simply be 'ranting or venting' rather than 'promoting'. The point is that the post was considered for intent as well as content.
GA
I’m now back from all my summer holidays, Portsmouth, Cornwall and Essex; but I’m just passing through, as I’ll not have much spare time to spend on HubPages for the rest of the year as I will be focusing on a series of major projects, the first of which is Project Managing a major makeover of our bathroom as part of replacing our existing bath shower with a whirlpool bath shower with 24 jets (12 water and 12 air) and 24 LED lights, and a thermostatic shower with two shower heads.
While we are on the topic of the law, we had an interesting encounter with the police on the narrow Cornish roads, while on holiday in Cornwall, as shown in this video I made of the event: https://youtu.be/LLVl11FT0uQ
Getting onto the points in question - Reading Ken comments, he’s on the ball where he says:
• “I guess they don't need proof of intent in the UK….”, and
• The government could easily put pressure on Social Media sites to provide such a screening process, and then hold that company equally as accountable as the maker of the post for anything truly illegal/offensive. An AI could do that screening for you.
Under UK and EU laws, it doesn’t matter whether there was ‘intent’ or not, what matters is whether the ‘comment’ incites racial hatred or not: A matter which Europe (including Britain) takes seriously.
Likewise, FYI, both the EU and UK have recently passed new legislation to do exactly what Ken suggested in the 2nd bullet point above. The Digital Services Act in the EU in Nov 2022, and the Online Safety Act in the UK in Oct 2023. This short video gives a brief over view of the differences and similarities between the two European Nations new Legislation: https://youtu.be/7pnmKJePql4
So in respect to bullet point 2 above, in the UK, Ofcom can fine social media platforms up to 10% of their global annual net profits for not doing enough, quickly enough to remove harmful content posted to that platform, and ultimately, Ofcom has the power to block the social media company (just like what happened in Brazil recently) e.g. the legal onus is on the Social Media Company to enforce the law.
But in conjunction with the above, the police also have the powers to prosecute individuals who ‘incite racial hatred’.
Back to the person in question - Yes the police did size her computer, and under investigation found that she posted a number of other racial hatred comments on social media in the months leading up to the offence (according to a police statement) – but they haven’t released details at this time, because the case, which is due to go to court in October for sentencing, is still under investigation.Arthur, thanks for clarifying.
What the EU and UK have then, is not what Americans would consider Free Speech.... more like restricted speech over-watched by a Big Brother.
You are free to say what you want, so long as what you say is not considered Offensive by anyone, particularly the government enforcing what is, and what is not, offensive.
I have seen this coming for a few years now... I wrote some articles on it that are still around, China's Social Credit system to Agenda 2030 have spelled out the direction we were headed.
America is absolutely the last bastion of Free Speech, which will fall in the coming election with a Harris presidency.
They will have to battle Elon Musk for a couple years, it will be messy publicly, but with the threat of Trump derailing all their plans over-with they can focus their ire on Musk and use a variety of government regulations and agencies to shut him down or force him to release control over any or all of his companies.
The two ideologies CANNOT co-exist, you cannot have an International Order that monitors all communication, controls all transactions, and eliminates the right to private property and protection while also having a Republic based on the ideas of Liberty, Opportunity, Rights to property and self-protection and Free Speech.
Just like you cannot have a Nation without borders... you either have a sovereign nation where the citizens have unique rights and privileges that others do not have and CANNOT have simply by crossing the border.
The differences between what the two parties offer never have been more different in our lifetimes... and never will impact the Nation's direction as concretely as this one will.
It is a difference in direction for America:
https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1830366850347311555Yep, the American view of free speech is the right to incite racial hatred.
Yes we “are free to say what we want” in Europe, provided we don’t incite racial hatred etc., which doesn’t stop us from expressing our views or opinions on any issue e.g. it’s perfectly possible to say, in strong terms, that you don’t agree with immigration without inciting racial hatred e.g. it’s not what you say, it’s the way that you say it.
From my prospective, we do have “Liberty, Opportunity, Rights to property and self-protection and Free Speech.” In Europe and the UK; what we don’t have is the right to promote or incite racial hatred.
In my opinion I wouldn’t want to live in a country where racial hatred is encouraged and incitement to violence promoted.
With regards to your video link: As a European, I too fear Trump winning a 2nd term in office; and in my opinion the video on the subject of globalisation is just ‘scaremongering’ e.g. I see many benefits in globalisation, not least in respect to the question of ‘climate change’ and other environmental issues; and the Schengen Area (no internal borders across the EU) is a prime example of where countries can function successfully “without borders” – see video: Schengen Area: History, Facts and Benefits https://youtu.be/xffvPWmoWsQIf you think for a minute that the oppressive attitude toward free speech in Europe will be acceptable here in the United States, you've talked to too many democrats.
Why would anyone from the UK believe they could extradite a US citizen because he said something on the internet the UK government didn't like? Trying to say online posts started a riot is just plain ignorant. The problems go much deeper. It's time the UK government realizes they need to deal with the real causes of the issue and not find a way to blame someone other than themselves for what THEY have caused.To say that the “online posts” didn’t “start the riots is just plain ignorant”; far-right-wing protestors (who are anti-immigration and anti-Muslim) only took to the streets in violent riots because they were encouraged and organised to do so by on-line post – on-line posts telling people where and when to meet to start the violence. And other on-line post inciting violence just added fuel to the fire.
But by the end of the week, counter protesters (who are pro-immigration and pro Muslim) organised themselves on-line to peacefully protest against the far-right-wing protestors (in far, far greater numbers).
Yeah, the previous (Conservative) (right-wing) Government exasperated the immigration problem; but they were kicked out of power on 4th July – and now we have a Labour (left-wing) Government who has scrapped the Conservatives unworkable, inhuman, immoral and illegal (under international law) Legislation and policies – And are now pursuing a completely different approach on immigration.
Thousands fill streets across England with signs of 'love' and 'unity' https://youtu.be/2yGZewLtyiMAt this point I do not even think that the leftists in the US would support the facist leftists in the UK that think they can extradite citizens of the US for speaking their mind. They obviously do not support free speech in that facist country so I am glad to hear that it is still upheld in the US.
I'd like to seem them try.
It wouldn't go well for them.
The effort you support wants to do away with Nation States, Culture, Race, and on the face of it that may seem humane and beneficial for the future of humanity.
I think this is a mistake, one that will come with enormous pain, tragedy, economic hardship at best and governmental collapse at the worst.
Ireland should be Irish, Poland should be Polish, trying to eradicate the social norms and cohesion of societies that took hundreds of years to develop, in a timespan that is not even decades long will come at a cost.
We see how tribal difference will flare up, they cannot co-exist, humans by nature are tribal and look to dominate based on the differences.
What is going on in Ukraine is an example of forcing two or more different cultures/tribes into one country. What is going on in Israel is another.
From the outside, if you are China or Russia it must look like "the West' is deranged.
On the one hand we are at war with ourselves, bringing in hundreds of millions of non-Western migrants and setting them up in our cities and not holding them to the standards we expect our citizens to uphold.
On the other we are waging war against non-Western nations, trying to undermine their ability to control their destiny or grow their culture/control.
From the outside, nations are looking at 'the West' and are coming to the conclusion that we are insane, looking to destroy ourselves (commit cultural suicide)... it is this perception that is making most nation bail on the Dollar as fast as they can and seeking alternatives, like China, to lead them to a better future.No, Globalisation does NOT “do away with Nation States, Culture, Race…” - if you lived in a multicultural country like I do, or lived in the EU, you would know that – As expanded upon below:
#1: In the 2021 census only 74.4% of the population in England and Wales are white British, down from 87.5% in 2001. In London, only 36.8% of Londoners are white British in 2021, down from 59.9% in 2001.
Multicultural Britain https://youtu.be/seyBDsDu8Ac
Multicultural London https://youtu.be/zylUmIuRaAw
#2: The UK (United Kingdoms) is NOT one Nation State, since its formation 1801 (under International Treaty) the UK is four separate ‘nations’ (countries); Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England (and since 2014, Kernow as a 5th nation in the UK). Your inference is that globalisation leads to homogeneous societies: The nations within the UK (including Kernow) are not homogeneous; each of the 5 nations within the UK has its own unique culture, race, foods and social customs etc. e.g. Kernow, Ireland, Scotland and Wales are officially recognised as Celtic Nations, whereas England is classified as Anglo-Saxon.
FYI, in 2014 the UK Conservative Government (under EU law) officially recognised Cornwall (Kernow) as a ‘national minority’, giving Cornwall (Kernow) the same legal status and rights as the other Celtic people in the UK, which includes “the right to express, preserve, share, and develop their own Celtic culture and identity.
Cornwall granted national minority status by Government in 2014: https://youtu.be/vmzA8v3H5nw
This video, in 2012, was part of the Cornish Campaign seeking ‘national minority status’: https://youtu.be/-nN9I_7djgo
#3: The EU (created in 1957) is one Nation, consisting of 27 National States; yet each Member State within the EU e.g. Germany, France and Italy etc. have all retained their individuality e.g. culture, social customs etc.
So NO, Globalisation does NOT “do away with Nation States, Culture or Race.
TRIBAL
Yes, people are ‘Tribal’, and that does cause problems within the UK e.g. the friction between Northern Ireland and England, and the friction between Scotland and England; and the North/South divide in England which stems back to 864AD when northern England was ruled by Vikings, while southern England was ruled by the Saxons. Even to this day, English northerners are a different people to English southerners, socially and culturally, and personality wise.
North/South Divide In England: https://youtu.be/KNdVPQps5JM
INTEGRATION
It’s not correct to say that in the UK we “bring in hundreds of millions of non-Western migrants and set them up in our cities and not hold them to the standards we expect our citizens to uphold.” In the UK we have ‘Community based projects’ that bring different generations and cultures together, and immigrants into the UK do integrate into our culture and society very effectively, and rather than watering down our culture, it enriches it, as may be gleamed from this short videos:
Britishness: https://youtu.be/XsSIkQ4hw90
WEST VS NON-WESTERN NATIONS
Yep, where you say “On the other we are waging war against non-Western nations, trying to undermine their ability to control their destiny or grow their culture/control.” Most certainly England, historically, made that mistake with our British Empire – But times are changing.
Not completely off topic, but pretty far off the reservation, I offer you this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBONJ7oItgg
I usually refrain from linking to these two, for a couple of reasons, much like I try to avoid linking to CNN to reference something, but this is pretty solid.
The individual they show after the 12 minute mark really hits it home... I think he is spot on, this is exactly what it is all about, it makes sense.
Burn it all down, buy it all for pennies on the dollar, remake the "western world" in a non-western ideology/philosophy.
Its brilliant in its simplicity, it makes complete sense, its about those with the power and control wanting more power and control, and not wanting to have to deal with peons and their individual rights or the nonsense that they have a right to freedom and liberty at all.Tim, you provided a good example of what hate posting is and is not.
The first three sentences of your dislike and hate for mac & cheese are reasonable and should not be considered hate postings.I'd like to see them try.
UK authorities threaten extradition, jail to US citizens for online posts stoking riots
WASHINGTON (TND) — The worst riots the United Kingdom has seen in years are being fueled by false information online. Rumors claimed a Muslim asylum seeker was the one responsible for a mass stabbing that left three children dead and several more injured at a Taylor Swift-themed event.
The suspect however is a 17-year-old U.K. citizen born in Wales to Rwandan parents.
The head of police is now threatening extradition and jail time to U.S. citizens for online posts allegedly egging on the violence from afar. A Sky News reporter asked London Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley about posts made by Elon Musk on the topic.
Rowley responded, "We will throw the full force of the law at people and whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online we will come after you."
U.K. authorities have already arrested their citizens for online activity, for example, a 55-year-old woman was arrested for "publishing written material to stir up racial hatred” and “false communication.” Two other British men were also arrested for similar social media posts.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer previously warned, "I guarantee you will regret taking part in this disorder whether directly or those whipping up this action online."
"The government absolutely should arrest and prosecute anyone engaged in political violence... but in times of unrest governments have a tendency to overreach and to undermine civil liberties like free speech in the name of public safety," explained Aaron Terr with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
The U.K.’s laws surrounding free speech are different than U.S. laws.
While it’s not impossible, it’s highly unlikely that British authorities will go after U.S.-based social media posters like Musk for violating British laws in an online space.
https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world … ree-speech
Related Discussions
- 19
Free speech and offensive language. And, views differ. Take a peek.
by Tim Mitchell 4 weeks ago
What is offensive language to you? Is it words or can it be ideas too?What is offensive language in a public setting from a small gathering, on the streets, at the fair, in a classroom, or on the internet - publishing an article, social media, a podcast, or a YouTube?{For example I don't you cuss...
- 9
Social Problem: Teens on social media and self-harm due to bullying
by Tim Mitchell 2 weeks ago
Instagram announced on Sept. 17th their new Teen Accounts. Instagram is owned by Meta also owners of Facebook. Beginning that day and over the next 60 days all teens under 16 will automatically revert to that. New users under 16 can only use that type of account. And . . ."Instagram on Tuesday...
- 18
Hillary Clinton’s Propaganda Remarks Raise Free Speech Concerns
by Sharlee 2 weeks ago
Photo from Bing Free to use files.I hope my opinion piece will spark meaningful discussion and provide food for thoughtHillary Clinton has recently sparked controversy with comments regarding the potential criminal or civil punishment of Americans spreading propaganda, particularly that connected...
- 96
Free Speech and the Importance of X
by Ken Burgess 8 months ago
In a free society, all citizens must be able to pursue their own paths, set their own goals, and think for themselves.In America people are free to express their ideas, even if those ideas are unpopular, unconventional, or wrong... in recent years our government, in collusion with Social Media...
- 70
Freedom of Speech and Social Media Platforms
by Scott Belford 6 weeks ago
I started this to discuss what to do about unmoderated social media platforms such as X, "Truth" Social, and Telegram.What prompted this was an article about the CEO of Telegram getting arrested in France for not moderating his platform. The gist is Telegram, like Elon Musk's X is a...
- 25
The Facebook Whistleblower Issue
by ga anderson 3 years ago
Briefly put, the current fb issue involves, (alleged), claims that some fb practices/platforms are harmful to young pre-teen and teen girls, and did nothing because their actions were a legal part of their business model. Politicians, pundits, and the MSM are demanding government intervention and...