Thoughtcrime in the UK?

snaves (39)in #freespeech • 6 years ago

Met Police Hate Crime

The United Kingdom does not allow for the same scope of free speech rights that are guaranteed in the United States by the First Amendment. Rather than explicitly protecting the right to free expression, as in the US, the UK treats free speech more as an implicit right that is assumed to exist except for where specific prohibitions are put in place. In recent years, this has taken the form of restrictions and crackdowns on "hate speech." Problems inevitably arise with hate speech rules because the language is vague and subject to individual interpretation.

The designation of "hate speech" relies on having an alleged understanding of the person's motives. It is not so much regulating what can be said, but why it is said. Recently, controversial right-wing figures were prevented from speaking in the UK by the government. Brittany Pettibone, Martin Sellner, and (separately) Lauren Southern were detained and denied entry to the UK. Tommy Robinson claims in a video of the incident that he was stopped by the police from giving a speech at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park about the value of free speech.

In each of these cases, authorities were concerned about the nature of what they might say. In other words, they were denied the right to speak based on a determination and assumption of their thoughts. This nasty insinuation is not something that appears to be going away anytime soon. The Metropolitan Police for the Greater London area have the following posted about what constitutes hate crime:

Of particular note is the section where it distinguishes between a "hate crime" and a "hate incident." A hate crime is a criminal offense, but a hate incident is something that on its own is not illegal. In both cases, it gains the "hate" designation if "the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate." This seems to imply that the actual motivation does not matter, only the outside perception of the person's motivation. What comes next is even more insidious...

Though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are.

This warrants extra emphasis.

their reasons for doing it are

That is thoughtcrime, plain and simple!

The person's actions are explicitly not against the law. It is their thoughts that are illegal. Or even someone else's perception of their thoughts.

British citizens should be wary of these encroaches on freedom and stand up for their rights. Even those with the most disagreeable views must be allowed to speak. Protecting the freedoms of anybody protects freedoms for everybody. Punishing people for perceived motivations and preventing people from speaking for what is feared they may say is treading down a dangerous authoritarian path. As Christopher Hitchens said in his 2006 speech at the University of Toronto:

It may not be determined in advance what words are apt or inapt. No one has the knowledge that would be required to make that call. And, more to the point, one has to suspect the motives of those who do so. In particular, the motives of those who are determined to be offended.