Yeah there's a lot of ambiguity in the law, they try to define it but they use "what a reasonable person would believe" a bunch, which leaves a LOT of room for interpretation. If a bigot is in power, none of it is unreasonable to him.
I'm not sure how i would fix it though, theyre trying to address a serious flaw in the modern world, Because intentional or not some of these personalities inspire actions that get people hurt or killed… its a bit of a double edged sword
Oh ill have to look into that some, i didn't know about that. Maybe i can play the game! Lol
That exactly what I personally think is problematic, because I would fundamentally disagree that this is "directly"
I find Rowling opinion on trans people rather disgusting and genuinely damaging. But the law seems to me rather excessive. But maybe I'm missing something.
I think it makes a lot more sense if you look at this bill while thinking about communities and interactions in modern times - ANYBODY can have a twitter, youtube, tiktok, etc account and immediately have access to a platform where they can potentially speak to thousands of people, and some of them are pretty impressionable (thinking andrew tate) - so as a community leader you should have some awareness that people are going to act on your ideas because they look up to you. I think this bill is trying to limit cases like that, and also cases of bullying where people have been harassed to the point of suicide simply for their identity
I swear every single person arguing against this bill hasn't read it.
The gist of it is consolidating existing hate crime laws, adding sexual orientation and gender to the protected classes, repealing the law of blasphemy, and then the main one people are on about, outlawing "inciting hate" and spending several entire pages defining exactly what that means and how its still covered by freedom of expression.
As you said, you can use the slurs. You can be a shit person.
What this seems to be addressing is the fact that ANYBODY can have a platform nowadays and some of those people use their platform to harm other people, whether indirectly or not.
If you actually read the bill it verbatim says that criticism of a protected class is protected under free speech.
I think the general argument against separating the art from the artist is that shes still alive and when we buy HP products, she gets that money and uses it to harm trans people.
Hp lovecraft iirc is known as a racist, but we can still purchase his books without funding him cause he's dead.
Buy your HP merch secondhand, i guess?
Have you actually read the law? Because i'm getting the feeling this is all talk straight from your ass. The entire bill is mostly a consolidation of existing hate crime laws with sex and gender added to the protected classes. Section 4 is probably the one most of you read about on twitter and are basing your entire argument on, it defines that you're not allowed to say things considered harassment or to incite hatred. You cannot just pester one person for just being gay. YOU can't just post about how bad you think gay people are and ask others to agree, because you're inspiring new people to harass others.
Section 9 goes on to expand on this, and very explicitly states that freedom of expression takes precedence and you cannot simply be arrested for criticizing a protected class. Meaning, you saying "i don't agree with transgender people, a man should be called a man" is acceptable. You cannot say "transgender people don't deserve rights" because you are harassing them directly.
The rest of the bill is mostly defining what classes are, and indicates that a lot of the provisions are meant to be used with other laws, it says "offense" a lot, which seems to be getting interpreted as "i am offended" when they're actually defining it as a crime that has been committed. They specify an example that the bill does not apply if you simply assault a police officer, but if you shout something at him about his religion or asexual identity, the bill applies as this is a hate crime.
Here's a link to a document that lays the bill out in layman's terms:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/pdfs/aspen_20210014_en.pdf
So again, please explain your issue with the bill? You're upset you can't go out and harass gay people all day?
How does this prove your point when we established like 30 seconds ago that we are not after douche bag bigots who just use slurs?
Its not abuse when the political opponent is a bigot using hate and violence to build a platform. For the millionth time, you are free to run out there, make an ass of yourself, and use all the slurs you want.
What you are NOT free to do, and what this entire conversation is about, is organizing and inciting people to commit a hate crime.
Its pretty interesting that these things were fine when we're talking about the civil rights movement, but as soon as there's a trans or gay person around, your rights are under attack for trying to kill somebody.
You originally asked if we were going to suggest banning CATR, my point is mostly these books are great examples to help people identify this language and why it should not be used. If you went into a crowded theater and started shouting there's a shooter, you'd be arrested for inciting panic. Its not censorship when the point is stopping speech from causing physical harm. Same way your right to travel isn't infringed by requiring a license to drive
Yeah there are, but you'll never be able to stop people from spreading literature, legal or not, so things like catcher and the rye, mice and men, mockingbird, with all of their controversies are great to have in schools to help our children grow into adults who can identify this stuff for what it actually is and not some deranged gospel.
But then there's also a ton of other arguments to be made about mental health and all that, when it comes to violent psychos we shouldn't get in the habit of settling with a scapegoat
There is a very incredibly stark contrast between telling a story on a page and actually saying "we should hurt people"
And just for the record, this is not a theory. People HAVE been murdered.
ended up with where we are now. Further struggling, more homeless, greedflation, and an incessant need to argue amongst ourselves.
Gotta hand it to the politicians, they played a master game of locking us against ourselves. Hard to meet the other side halfway when one of you is literally trying to strip the rights from… everybody??
"He's gonna come back and run the country like a business again!"
Yeah, his businesses that routinely fail and he bails out on.
Also, its a country, not a company, assholes. People matter more than our bottom line.
And not very good at it, if twitter and Tesla are any indication. Both products quality take a nosedive any time he involves himself
Does this have any relation to his whole thing about "kicking the illegals out" of florida?
Reminder that 15/hr was the goal about ten years ago and inflation spiked hard between 2020-2023. 15/hr is no longer a "generous" wage.
Arguably, the way people perceive your project is more important than what it actually does. Probably a combination of both dems being shit at optics and repugs having the most well oiled propaganda machine in the world, cause it keeps fucking happening.
Planned parenthood
BLM
ACAB
defund the police
Communist/socialist policies
Its stack, it doesn't matter what the question is, the answer is "fuck you for asking"