Jacinda Ardern’s calls for censorship is a ‘war on freedom

[Wainuiguy]

You may have missed the connection; again, the hate speech can & often does, leads to violent crimes.

And while women can be violent towards men, this is specifically about the strong connection between misogynistic comments & violent crimes against women by men.

And you miss the point- who defines what hate speech is?  Not even the PM could define it when asked.  That is the reason this legislation has been peeled back so far.  Bad laws create bad precedents in court.

BTW I find it ironic that someone so against abuse and violence towards women previously defended someone charged with sexual assault.   I guess any port in a storm to try and prove a point?

[Lilith7]

You may have missed the connection; again, the hate speech can & often does, leads to violent crimes.

And while women can be violent towards men, this is specifically about the strong connection between misogynistic comments & violent crimes against women by men.

And you miss the point- who defines what hate speech is?  Not even the PM could define it when asked.  That is the reason this legislation has been peeled back so far.  Bad laws create bad precedents in court.

BTW I find it ironic that someone so against abuse and violence towards women previously defended someone charged with sexual assault.   I guess any port in a storm to try and prove a point?

I think you're being deliberately obtuse. I find it ironic that you tend to often use past events to try to insult, albeit with a twist rather than the reality.


While it can be difficult to define hate speech, there are some who oppose any change to the laws around what they claim as 'free speech' but which can also contain elements of hate speech, which they claim to be 'free speech'. 

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech-f...uman-right

"Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you like about whatever you like, whenever you like, right? Wrong.

'Freedom of speech is the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means.'

Freedom of speech and the right to freedom of expression applies to ideas of all kinds including those that may be deeply offensive. But it comes with responsibilities and we believe it can be legitimately restricted.

You might not expect us to say this, but in certain circumstances free speech and freedom of expression can be restricted.

 
Governments have an obligation to prohibit hate speech and incitement. And restrictions can also be justified if they protect specific public interest or the rights and reputations of others.
 
Any restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of expression must be set out in laws that must in turn be clear and concise so everyone can understand them."


https://www.britannica.com/topic/freedom-of-speech

"A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a “clear and present danger”—i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint."


 https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/unders...ate-speech

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace.

There is no universal definition of hate speech under international human rights law. The concept is still widely disputed, especially in relation to freedom of opinion and expression, non-discrimination and equality.
To provide a unified framework for the United Nations to address the issue globally, the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines hate speech as…“any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”

[Wainuiguy]

And you miss the point- who defines what hate speech is?  Not even the PM could define it when asked.  That is the reason this legislation has been peeled back so far.  Bad laws create bad precedents in court.

BTW I find it ironic that someone so against abuse and violence towards women previously defended someone charged with sexual assault.   I guess any port in a storm to try and prove a point?

I think you're being deliberately obtuse. I find it ironic that you tend to often use past events to try to insult, albeit with a twist rather than the reality.


While it can be difficult to define hate speech, there are some who oppose any change to the laws around what they claim as 'free speech' but which can also contain elements of hate speech, which they claim to be 'free speech'. 

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech-f...uman-right

"Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you like about whatever you like, whenever you like, right? Wrong.

'Freedom of speech is the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means.'

Freedom of speech and the right to freedom of expression applies to ideas of all kinds including those that may be deeply offensive. But it comes with responsibilities and we believe it can be legitimately restricted.

You might not expect us to say this, but in certain circumstances free speech and freedom of expression can be restricted.

 
Governments have an obligation to prohibit hate speech and incitement. And restrictions can also be justified if they protect specific public interest or the rights and reputations of others.
 
Any restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of expression must be set out in laws that must in turn be clear and concise so everyone can understand them."


https://www.britannica.com/topic/freedom-of-speech

"A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a “clear and present danger”—i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint."


 https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/unders...ate-speech

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace.

There is no universal definition of hate speech under international human rights law. The concept is still widely disputed, especially in relation to freedom of opinion and expression, non-discrimination and equality.
To provide a unified framework for the United Nations to address the issue globally, the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines hate speech as…“any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”

Wow so much cut and paste - but from your own post:

Any restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of expression must be set out in laws that must be in turn clear and concise so everyone can understand them.

Labour was about to try about pass a bad law, so bad in fact the the press were concerned it could potentially impact their ability to write opinion peices and editorials.

[king1]

my daddy used to say, Freedom of speech does not give you freedom from accountability.

At one extreme you have people saying dumbshit, but if they cross lines they can be held to account with defamation or other laws.

But the other extreme is patently obvious that some people should not be able to speak there misguided views period (e.g Hitler et al). Factors affecting that might be their social influence and standing in the community, someone like The Bish who has influence should be subjected to a higher bar than some noname that has no friends... so I say good on Labour for at least trying to define where that fine line is...

[Wainuiguy]

my daddy used to say, Freedom of speech does not give you freedom from accountability.

At one extreme you have people saying dumbshit, but if they cross lines they can be held to account with defamation or other laws. 

But the other extreme is patently obvious that some people should not be able to speak there misguided views period (e.g Hitler et al).  Factors affecting that might be their social influence and standing in the community, someone like The Bish who has influence should be subjected to a higher bar than some noname that has no friends...  so I say good on Labour for at least trying to define where that fine line is...

But  Labour haven't.  That is the point.   They talked it up big but in the end will introduce a law that is a poor example of what they would do.  A good thing because what they proposed was so bad it scared the media.

[Lilith7]

I think you're being deliberately obtuse. I find it ironic that you tend to often use past events to try to insult, albeit with a twist rather than the reality.


While it can be difficult to define hate speech, there are some who oppose any change to the laws around what they claim as 'free speech' but which can also contain elements of hate speech, which they claim to be 'free speech'. 

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech-f...uman-right

"Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you like about whatever you like, whenever you like, right? Wrong.

Freedom of speech and the right to freedom of expression applies to ideas of all kinds including those that may be deeply offensive. But it comes with responsibilities and we believe it can be legitimately restricted.

You might not expect us to say this, but in certain circumstances free speech and freedom of expression can be restricted.

 
Governments have an obligation to prohibit hate speech and incitement. And restrictions can also be justified if they protect specific public interest or the rights and reputations of others.
 
Any restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of expression must be set out in laws that must in turn be clear and concise so everyone can understand them."


https://www.britannica.com/topic/freedom-of-speech

"A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a “clear and present danger”—i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint."


 https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/unders...ate-speech

"In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace.

There is no universal definition of hate speech under international human rights law. The concept is still widely disputed, especially in relation to freedom of opinion and expression, non-discrimination and equality.
To provide a unified framework for the United Nations to address the issue globally, the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines hate speech as…“any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”

Wow so much cut and paste - but from your own post:

Any restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of expression must be set out in laws that must be in turn clear and concise so everyone can understand them.

Labour was about to try about pass a bad law, so bad in fact the the press were concerned it could potentially impact their ability to write opinion peices and editorials.

And that's the point isn't it - they could have simply continued & passed a bad law as many previous govts have, rather than back down & admit to a mistake, but they decided against it

---

my daddy used to say, Freedom of speech does not give you freedom from accountability.

At one extreme you have people saying dumbshit, but if they cross lines they can be held to account with defamation or other laws. 

But the other extreme is patently obvious that some people should not be able to speak there misguided views period (e.g Hitler et al).  Factors affecting that might be their social influence and standing in the community, someone like The Bish who has influence should be subjected to a higher bar than some noname that has no friends...  so I say good on Labour for at least trying to define where that fine line is...

Exactly - most reasonably well balanced humans will have a sense of what's acceptable & what isn't, but there will always be those who don't think they should have to consider other people & the effect of their words on them.

And yes - agree with regard to the McBishop.