In 2018, Chelsea Russell, a nineteen year old British woman, was distraught over the death of a friend. Her sadness prompted her to post lyrics from Snap Dogg's "I'm Trippin'" to her Instagram account, presumably as a memorial or tribute. Since the lyrics she posted included the N word (it repeats ten times in the song), she was charged with a hate crime, sentenced to 500 hours community service, fined the equivalent of $700, and had to abide by an 8 PM to 8 AM curfew for eight weeks.
Brilliant as always, Peter! 😁👍 Thanks for itemizing the five exceptions to free speech. Since you mentioned libel, it makes me wonder about sedition - is the latter subsumed under incitement?
"Hate speech" is, problematically, a subjective thing. It either requires reading someone's mind as to intent or relying on a third party's interpretation of the words spoken. If that third party is of a mind that any utterance of certain words, intent or context notwithstanding, that third party now has censorious power over others. If that third party is of a mind that black rappers can say the N word but white fans of black rappers cannot repeat lyrics, verbally or in print, that third party breaks the core principle of equal treatment under the law.”
First, IMO, there's no such thing as "hate speech" - there's just speech. Hate is something that exists within a person, and while they may use their free speech to express that hate, it's still just speech.
"allow individual judges to implement their partisan policy preferences instead of abiding by agency expertise"
It's only a few minutes long, and worth watching. The narrator doesn't even hit on some of the other issues that he could have been addressed, such as one of the ATF agent's statements that, "Congress determined back in the 1930s that short-barreled rifles which were both smaller than a certain length and...were designed to be fired from the shoulders...that combination made it unusually dangerous." That is not true in the least. As the ATF's own website admits, "the NFA was enacted by Congress as an exercise of its authority to tax" (https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act). Of course, in order to further justify it (and their own existence), they state that, "the NFA had an underlying purpose unrelated to revenue collection...its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime." It wasn't that they were "unusually dangerous;" it's that they were used, a LOT. The NFA also didn't outlaw any firearms; it just made them more cost-prohibitive to obtain. Of course, in 1934, when the NFA was enacted, who could afford to pay $200 in addition to the sale price of a gun? I mean, we're talking about the great depression era - the Social Security Act wasn't even passed until the following year. Only the criminals could afford that tax stamp. So, it goes back to the original purpose - revenue, which can be understood from the fact that the NFA has never been amended to change that tax stamp; it's still $200 to this day, and to this day, the firearms are no more difficult to obtain than filling out the appropriate (unconstitutional) paperwork and paying the $200 fine for wanting to exercise your right that is supposed to be, by the Second Amendment, protected from government infringement.
My point in all that is to agree - if allowed, government will do whatever it wants, despite the Constitution; and once they are able, they will *not* easily give that power back (the ATF has been getting smacked down in court quite a bit lately, and they're not happy, as you could tell by the agent's whining in the video).
Yeah, the defense of the power of government "experts" fails all over the place. What too few realize is how much those "experts" bend the knee to either the politicians in power at the time, to the bureaucratic bosses who have their own agendas, or to favored lobbyists. It's beyond doubt in my mind that anti-gun groups have direct pipelines to ATF "experts," who share common cause in looking to disarm the populace.
Oh how I wish the Scottish police would have arrested J.K. Certainly the fact that they didn't will set a great precedent and make it much harder to enforce the law. However, I would love to have heard their case that the men she mentioned are women.
Rowling wants to be arrested, but they won't, because they can't let her billion fans see her thugishly hauled off in handcuffs for speech many (most?) of us find normal.
Every day there is another reason I’m glad I don’t have a long life left.
Brilliant as always, Peter! 😁👍 Thanks for itemizing the five exceptions to free speech. Since you mentioned libel, it makes me wonder about sedition - is the latter subsumed under incitement?
I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on Substack, so that’s a question better left for people who know more.
"Hate speech" is, problematically, a subjective thing. It either requires reading someone's mind as to intent or relying on a third party's interpretation of the words spoken. If that third party is of a mind that any utterance of certain words, intent or context notwithstanding, that third party now has censorious power over others. If that third party is of a mind that black rappers can say the N word but white fans of black rappers cannot repeat lyrics, verbally or in print, that third party breaks the core principle of equal treatment under the law.”
First, IMO, there's no such thing as "hate speech" - there's just speech. Hate is something that exists within a person, and while they may use their free speech to express that hate, it's still just speech.
"allow individual judges to implement their partisan policy preferences instead of abiding by agency expertise"
Let me provide a wonderful example of agency "expertise", courtesy of the ATF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsUMM0Da4UI
It's only a few minutes long, and worth watching. The narrator doesn't even hit on some of the other issues that he could have been addressed, such as one of the ATF agent's statements that, "Congress determined back in the 1930s that short-barreled rifles which were both smaller than a certain length and...were designed to be fired from the shoulders...that combination made it unusually dangerous." That is not true in the least. As the ATF's own website admits, "the NFA was enacted by Congress as an exercise of its authority to tax" (https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act). Of course, in order to further justify it (and their own existence), they state that, "the NFA had an underlying purpose unrelated to revenue collection...its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime." It wasn't that they were "unusually dangerous;" it's that they were used, a LOT. The NFA also didn't outlaw any firearms; it just made them more cost-prohibitive to obtain. Of course, in 1934, when the NFA was enacted, who could afford to pay $200 in addition to the sale price of a gun? I mean, we're talking about the great depression era - the Social Security Act wasn't even passed until the following year. Only the criminals could afford that tax stamp. So, it goes back to the original purpose - revenue, which can be understood from the fact that the NFA has never been amended to change that tax stamp; it's still $200 to this day, and to this day, the firearms are no more difficult to obtain than filling out the appropriate (unconstitutional) paperwork and paying the $200 fine for wanting to exercise your right that is supposed to be, by the Second Amendment, protected from government infringement.
My point in all that is to agree - if allowed, government will do whatever it wants, despite the Constitution; and once they are able, they will *not* easily give that power back (the ATF has been getting smacked down in court quite a bit lately, and they're not happy, as you could tell by the agent's whining in the video).
Yeah, the defense of the power of government "experts" fails all over the place. What too few realize is how much those "experts" bend the knee to either the politicians in power at the time, to the bureaucratic bosses who have their own agendas, or to favored lobbyists. It's beyond doubt in my mind that anti-gun groups have direct pipelines to ATF "experts," who share common cause in looking to disarm the populace.
Oh how I wish the Scottish police would have arrested J.K. Certainly the fact that they didn't will set a great precedent and make it much harder to enforce the law. However, I would love to have heard their case that the men she mentioned are women.
Rowling wants to be arrested, but they won't, because they can't let her billion fans see her thugishly hauled off in handcuffs for speech many (most?) of us find normal.
Others have noted that they'll probably give a bye to any high-profile transgressors, but still bust the nobodies.
And that's not a "free move" by the government!
The UK already had some of the most oppressive anti-libel laws in the West, from what I understand.
They really don't seem to like people speaking their minds there.