BobyBrno Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 Scotland’s controversial new law. For or against? The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of "stirring up hatred" relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex. If everyone contributing to any social media platform was required to declare their true identity, would things improve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
royal white Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 2 minutes ago, BobyBrno said: Scotland’s controversial new law. For or against? The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of "stirring up hatred" relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex. If everyone contributing to any social media platform was required to declare their true identity, would things improve? Good luck to those policing the next old firm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Tonge moor green jacket Posted April 1 Site Supporter Share Posted April 1 Not sure of the full details, but some high profile individuals are unhappy. As for social media: giving id to create an account should be made essential. Unfortunately, too many abuse the position of anonymity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lt. Aldo Raine Posted April 1 Members Share Posted April 1 Against Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobyBrno Posted April 1 Author Share Posted April 1 20 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said: Against Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickbrown Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 Why have you put age in bold? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobyBrno Posted April 1 Author Share Posted April 1 33 minutes ago, mickbrown said: Why have you put age in bold? Why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter only1swanny Posted April 1 Site Supporter Share Posted April 1 So online, if someone outside Scotland posts something to stir up hatred in Scotland?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Wanderer Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 Lots of misconceptions about this bill. It’ll be grand. Nothing to get worked up about, you old English bastards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickbrown Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 8 minutes ago, BobyBrno said: Why not? Just wondered what the reason was. It’s fine if you don’t want to answer. I’m not that arsed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobyBrno Posted April 1 Author Share Posted April 1 1 minute ago, London Wanderer said: Lots of misconceptions about this bill. It’ll be grand. Nothing to get worked up about, you old English bastards. No misconceptions down here sunshine. Just be careful what you say up there. Mr Yousaf is watching Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobyBrno Posted April 1 Author Share Posted April 1 6 minutes ago, mickbrown said: Just wondered what the reason was. It’s fine if you don’t want to answer. I’m not that arsed. 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ani Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 2 hours ago, BobyBrno said: Scotland’s controversial new law. For or against? The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of "stirring up hatred" relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex. If everyone contributing to any social media platform was required to declare their true identity, would things improve? If people just stopped hating people for social media likes the world would rotate much more smoothly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomski Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 Only ones that will face prosecution will be for Tranny stuff or intersex, whatever that is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lt. Aldo Raine Posted April 1 Members Share Posted April 1 1 hour ago, BobyBrno said: Why? I think it's dangerous territory when the state has the power to prosecute a member of the public for merely being "insulting" and for which it's thought the insult is "likely" (as opposed to intended) to stir up hatred I also disagree with the recording of "non-crime hate incidents", which are nothing new but which this bill will further encourage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Wanderer Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 16 minutes ago, BobyBrno said: No misconceptions down here sunshine. Just be careful what you say up there. Mr Yousaf is watching 😁 I’ll say what I like, most people will, it’ll be reet. Yousaf has insisted there is a “very high threshold” for prosecution and a “triple lock” on freedom of expression in the act, including an explicit clause, a “reasonableness” defence, and compatibility with the European convention on human rights. Hopefully it will hold more scumbags to account. Those people who’ve been wearing Hamas headbands for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lt. Aldo Raine Posted April 1 Members Share Posted April 1 2 minutes ago, London Wanderer said: Yousaf has insisted there is a “very high threshold” for prosecution and a “triple lock” on freedom of expression in the act, including an explicit clause, a “reasonableness” defence, and compatibility with the European convention on human rights. Well, it's what he claims at least Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobyBrno Posted April 1 Author Share Posted April 1 1 minute ago, London Wanderer said: 😁 I’ll say what I like, most people will, it’ll be reet. This is what we want. Proper 1970’s talk. You are growing on me. 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Wanderer Posted April 1 Share Posted April 1 3 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said: Well, it's what he claims at least Welcomed by the EHRC as well. Police Scotland have offered reassurances too. Free speech isn’t the right to abusing people based on their sex, race etc. Genuine free speech won’t be affected. JK Rowling (a bit critic) was saying ‘arrest me’. But there’s no way her views will be deemed against the law. It’s a promising law. There will be difficulties at first, & a rise in reporting. But time will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobyBrno Posted April 1 Author Share Posted April 1 12 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said: I think it's dangerous territory when the state has the power to prosecute a member of the public for merely being "insulting" and for which it's thought the insult is "likely" (as opposed to intended) to stir up hatred I also disagree with the recording of "non-crime hate incidents", which are nothing new but which this bill will further encourage You sound like a lawyer. Most people with common sense know when people are being insulting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lt. Aldo Raine Posted April 1 Members Share Posted April 1 3 minutes ago, London Wanderer said: Police Scotland have offered reassurances too. The General Secretary of the Scottish Police Federation and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents certainly hold a alternative view, so it's clearly not cut and dry 4 minutes ago, London Wanderer said: Genuine free speech won’t be affected. JK Rowling (a bit critic) was saying ‘arrest me’. But there’s no way her views will be deemed against the law. On this, the Scottish government's Minister for Victims and Community Safety was less certain, stating: "It would be a police matter for them to assess what happens It could be reported and it could be investigated - whether the police would think it was criminal is up to Police Scotland" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lt. Aldo Raine Posted April 1 Members Share Posted April 1 12 minutes ago, BobyBrno said: You sound like a lawyer. Most people with common sense know when people are being insulting. Well, yes, but it's not a matter of whether people know when someone is being insulting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobyBrno Posted April 1 Author Share Posted April 1 11 minutes ago, London Wanderer said: Free speech isn’t the right to abusing people based on their sex, race etc. Free speech is being able to say whatever you want in public and on social media platforms. Ive said previously, anonymity restricts that freedom. How many on here are willing to give up that anonymity? There was a time when most people on here knew each other. Not now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lt. Aldo Raine Posted April 1 Members Share Posted April 1 2 minutes ago, BobyBrno said: Free speech is being able to say whatever you want in public and on social media platforms. Ive said previously, anonymity restricts that freedom. How many on here are willing to give up that anonymity? There was a time when most people on here knew each other. Not now. How does anonymity restrict freedom of speech? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobyBrno Posted April 1 Author Share Posted April 1 1 minute ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said: How does anonymity restrict freedom of speech? How does it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.