Four British neo-Nazis Jailed on Terrorism Charges

[Heran]

Forcing "free speech" to be an absolute maxim is the stupid part, and arguing the finer points of it accomplishes nothing. Semantic arguments are the worst.

No, restricting speech is good. People go to great lengths to avoid saying they want to restrict speech, for some reason and then argues that their restricted speech is free speech, for some reason.

If you want to restrict speech, that's fine and necessary in many cases where there's instances of restrictions. Just don't claim it's free speech, because it's not. People in the west have just been conditioned to think not allowing free speech is somehow bad, even though they have no idea what that would actually entail nor do they necessarily reflect upon the restrictions that are already in place.

[Kaleredar]

No, restricting speech is good. People go to great lengths to avoid saying they want to restrict speech, for some reason and then argues that their restricted speech is free speech, for some reason.

If you want to restrict speech, that's fine and necessary in many cases where there's instances of restrictions. Just don't claim it's free speech, because it's not. People in the west have just been conditioned to think not allowing free speech is somehow bad, even though they have no idea what that would actually entail nor do they necessarily reflect upon the restrictions that are already in place.

There's a fundamental difference between "saying you have a bomb at the airport can get you arrested and therefore you don't have free speech" and "saying you don't like the government/leader can get you arrested (or worse) and therefore you don't have free speech," just like how there's a difference between being shot in the face with a spitball and being shot in the face with a 12-gauge shotgun.

So saying that both systems "don't have free speech" is an extremely dishonest false parallel, especially when you're seemingly trying to hand-wave away criticisms of the latter example by pointing out the existence of the former.

[Heran]

There's a fundamental difference between "saying you have a bomb at the airport can get you arrested and therefore you don't have free speech" and "saying you don't like the government/leader can get you arrested (or worse) and therefore you don't have free speech," just like how there's a difference between being shot in the face with a spitball and being shot in the face with a 12-gauge shotgun.

So saying that both systems "don't have free speech" is an extremely dishonest false parallel, especially when you're seemingly trying to hand-wave away criticisms of the latter example by pointing out the existence of the former.

There is no country where the restrictions are only stretching to situations like saying you have a bomb at the airport.

If we're going to use USA as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._obscenity_law

[Kaleredar]

There is no country where the restrictions are only stretching to situations like saying you have a bomb at the airport.

If we're going to use USA as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._obscenity_law

Uh huh.

And those still aren’t the same as “you can be jailed/face legal repercussions for saying you don’t like the government/leader.”

I can sit here all day and night calling Donald Trump a god damned orangutan of a human being, an affront to the office of the presidency, a stain on American history, and an embarrassment to every respectable man, woman and child in the United States.

I can rent billboards along major roadways and hire sky writers to write things to that affect in big letters over major city centers.

I can buy commercial ad space on local tv stations and on radio airwaves and broadcast that sentiment to thousands of people.

And at no point will I have to fear goons knocking down my door to spirit me away to some re-education or work camp or have to worry about some farcical social credit system being negatively impacted. The Cheeto brand doesn’t have to worry about the government banning their cheese-flavored snack because people draw untoward comparisons between their product and the president.

And so on and so forth.

[Heran]

Uh huh.

And those still aren’t the same as “you can be jailed/face legal repercussions for saying you don’t like the government/leader.”

I can sit here all day and night calling Donald Trump a god damned orangutan of a human being, an affront to the office of the presidency, a stain on American history, and an embarrassment to every respectable man, woman and child in the United States.

I can rent billboards along major roadways and hire sky writers to write things to that affect in big letters over major city centers.

I can buy commercial ad space on local tv stations and on radio airwaves and broadcast that sentiment to thousands of people.

And at no point will I have to fear goons knocking down my door to spirit me away to some re-education or work camp or have to worry about some farcical social credit system being negatively impacted. The Cheeto brand doesn’t have to worry about the government banning their cheese-flavored snack because people draw untoward comparisons between their product and the president.

And so on and so forth.

If you had hate speech laws to restrict what people can say about minorities and risking prison for what they say, Trump wouldn't even be a president in the first place.

[Twdft]

As a german, reading this thread, I can only shake my head in disbelief.

WTF guys, WTF?

[LeGin Tufnel]

As a german, reading this thread, I can only shake my head in disbelief.

WTF guys, WTF?

In terms of UK law - https://assets.publishing.service.go...oscription.pdf - it’s a clear-cut case. There’s no argument to be had.

National Action is a proscribed terrorist group.

“Terrorism” as defined in the Act, means the use or threat of action which: involves serious violence against a person; involves serious damage to property; endangers a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the act); creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public; or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. The use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and must be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

Additionally, it’s a crime to support a proscribed organisation.

Hence why they were thrown in jail… may they rot or encounter Harvey Keitel and his pineapple.

Some of the supposed “arguments” in this thread conflate the right to Freedom of Expression with the right to terrorise by threat.

I’m just very glad I live in a country of countries where a group such as National Action is a proscribed terrorist group. I’m also happy that e.g., “Cutter also joked about gassing synagogues and using a Jew’s head as a football.” gets the dude banged up regardless of whether he actually did or not.

But the real shocker here isn’t that the guys in the article have been banged up, it’s that literally 100s of people were at the Cenotaph in London on Saturday and gave Nazi salutes. That’s the real shocker. Bang them all up, please. Of course, though, is it a surprise? Decades of right wing media hatred directed at immigrants, minorities etc. & a right wing government with a documented racist as PM and his eugenics-supporting SPAD at the helm. It’s no wonder they feel empowered.

[Twdft]

In terms of UK law - https://assets.publishing.service.go...oscription.pdf - it’s a clear-cut case. There’s no argument to be had.

National Action is a proscribed terrorist group.

Yeah I know and may they rot in prison.

Just to be clear, I shake my head in disbelief about the Nazi apologetics. It's 2020 ffs

[Great Destiny Man]

I’m just very glad I live in a country of countries where a group such as National Action is a proscribed terrorist group. I’m also happy that e.g., “Cutter also joked about gassing synagogues and using a Jew’s head as a football.” gets the dude banged up regardless of whether he actually did or not.

Same here. People can mouth off all they want about "thought police" and all that bollocks but right to life supersedes freedom of speech. When people are actively advocating murder of innocents I have no qualms about those morons being imprisoned (be they Nazis, IS, IRA or whatever radical organisation they identify with).

[Kaleredar]

If you had hate speech laws to restrict what people can say about minorities and risking prison for what they say, Trump wouldn't even be a president in the first place.

Calling for violence to be perpetrated against individuals based on their race is absolutely something you can be put in jail for.

[Heran]

Calling for violence to be perpetrated against individuals based on their race is absolutely something you can be put in jail for.

But that's not all that hate speech is. Hate speech laws in various European criminalize speech that would be hateful or derogatory to minorities.

In the US, this has been ruled to be protected by the first amendment. You're free to call ethnic or racial groups "cocksucking maggots that do nothing but leech welfare and practice incest" in the US. In Germany, as an example, that would get you in trouble.

Trump's famous speech about Mexicans could well fall under hate speech laws in European countries.

France's penal code and press laws prohibit public and private communication that is defamatory or insulting, or that incites discrimination, hatred, or violence against a person or group on account of place of origin, ethnicity or lack thereof, nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap. The law prohibits declarations that justify or deny crimes against humanity—for example, the Holocaust (Gayssot Act).

In Germany, Volksverhetzung ("incitement to hatred") is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years' imprisonment.[34] Section 130 makes it a crime to publicly incite hatred against parts of the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity. Thus for instance it is illegal to publicly call certain ethnic groups "maggots" or "freeloaders".[35] Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g., the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writing or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).

On June 30, 2017, Germany approved a bill criminalizing hate speech on social media sites. Among criminalizing hate speech, the law states that social networking sites may be fined up to €50 million (US$56 million) if they persistently fail to remove illegal content within a week, including defamatory "fake news".

In Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Penal Code, but includes public denigration:[37]

Anyone who publicly mocks, defames, denigrates or threatens a person or group of persons by comments or expressions of another nature, for example by means of pictures or symbols, for their nationality, colour, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity, or disseminates such materials, shall be fined or imprisoned for up to 2 years.]

In Canada, advocating genocide against any "identifiable group" is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code and it carries a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment. There is no minimum sentence.[18]

Publicly inciting hatred against any identifiable group is also an offence. It can be prosecuted either as an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment, or as a summary conviction offence with a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment. There are no minimum sentences in either case.[19] The offence of publicly inciting hatred makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R v Keegstra (1990).

An "identifiable group" is defined for both offences as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression or mental or physical disability".[20]

The Maltese criminal code through Articles 82A-82D prohibits in substance hate speech comprehensively as follows:

82A. (1) Whosoever uses any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written or printed material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, or otherwise conducts himself in such a manner, with intent thereby to stir up violence or racial or religious hatred against another person or group on the grounds of gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, colour, language, ethnic origin, religion or belief or political or other opinion or whereby such violence or racial or religious hatred is likely, having regard to all the circumstances, to be stirred up shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from six to eighteen months.

(2) For the purposes of the foregoing sub-article "violence or racial or religious hatred" means violence or racial or religious hatred against a person or against a group of persons in Malta defined by reference to gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, colour, language, national or ethnic origin, citizenship, religion or belief or political or other opinion.

82B. Whosoever publicly condones, denies or grossly trivialises genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, citizenship, descent or national or ethnic origin when the conduct is carried out in a manner -

(a) likely to incite to violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group;

(b) likely to disturb public order or which is threatening, abusive or insulting, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from eight months to two years:

Provided that for the purposes of this article "genocide","crimes against humanity" and "war crimes" shall have the same meaning assigned to them in article 54A (Provisions which transpose the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court into Maltese Law).

82C.(1) Whosoever publicly condones, denies or grossly trivialises crimes against peace directed against a person or a group of persons defined by reference to gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, colour, language, national or ethnic origin, citizenship, religion or belief or political or other opinion when the conduct is carried out in a manner-

(a) likely to incite to violence or hatred against such a person or group; or

(b) likely to disturb public order or which is threatening, abusive or insulting, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from eight months to two years.

(2) For the purposes of this article a crime against peace means conduct consisting of:

(a) the planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(b) participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts referred to in paragraph (a).

82D. Whosoever aids, abets or instigates any offence under articles 82A to 82C, both inclusive, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to the punishment laid down for the offence aided, abetted or instigated.

New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting ... matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons ... on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons". Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.

Norway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual orientation, religion or philosophy of life.[72] At the same time, the Norwegian Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, and there has been an ongoing public and judicial debate over where the right balance between the ban against hate speech and the right to free speech lies. Norwegian courts have been restrictive in the use of the hate speech law and only a few persons have been sentenced for violating the law since its implementation in 1970. A public Free Speech committee (1996–1999) recommended to abolish the hate speech law but the Norwegian Parliament instead voted to slightly strengthen it.[73]

Sweden prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith, or sexual orientation.[90][91] The crime does not prohibit a pertinent and responsible debate (en saklig och vederhäftig diskussion), nor statements made in a completely private sphere.[92] There are constitutional restrictions pertaining to which acts are criminalized, as well limits set by the European Convention on Human Rights.[93] The crime is called Hets mot folkgrupp in Swedish, which directly translates to Incitement (of hatred/violence) towards population groups.

You don't have any laws like these in the US, at all.

[Monster Hunter]

Lmao the more you know anyways pretty weak sentences they be out in no time.

4 and a half years, is actualy a pritty long sentence for the UK.

Considering the pice of shit cunt I gave evidence against for dragging his missus down the stairs by her hair got a year. 2 years technically but everything's halved unless they kick up a fuss in prison.

Which actualy means this pos will be out in a 2 and a bit.

[codelance]

he guys in the article have been banged up, it’s that literally 100s of people were at the Cenotaph in London on Saturday and gave Nazi salutes. That’s the real shocker. Bang them all up, please. Of course, though, is it a surprise? Decades of right wing media hatred directed at immigrants, minorities etc. & a right wing government with a documented racist as PM and his eugenics-supporting SPAD at the helm. It’s no wonder they feel empowered.

I imagine a sharp lawyer could use an analog of the desecration of war graves act to prosecute these individuals. A bit of a stretch perhaps but couldn't hurt to try-especially since absolutely no one likes these fuckers.

- - - Updated - - -

4 and a half years, is actualy a pritty long sentence for the UK.

Considering the pice of shit cunt I gave evidence against for dragging his missus down the stairs by her hair got a year. 2 years technically but everything's halved unless they kick up a fuss in prison.

Which actualy means this pos will be out in a 2 and a bit.

What charming people you have in the north.

[jonnysensible]

I actually lived in student accommodations with the supposed leader Ben Raymond. He had horrific b.o. and had a shrine to himself in his room.

cmon man you must have a better story of that mope.

His meltdowns on twitter are funny, hes still playing the anjem choudary role of staying just on the right side of the law.

Anyway glad these mega cretins are going in the hole for a bit, its a shame the CVE programs suck and prison is currently a radicalisation factory in the UK

[Kaleredar]

But that's not all that hate speech is. Hate speech laws in various European criminalize speech that would be hateful or derogatory to minorities.

In the US, this has been ruled to be protected by the first amendment. You're free to call ethnic or racial groups "cocksucking maggots that do nothing but leech welfare and practice incest" in the US. In Germany, as an example, that would get you in trouble.

Trump's famous speech about Mexicans could well fall under hate speech laws in European countries.


















You don't have any laws like these in the US, at all.

Again, that’s a far cry away from countries wherein you could have been punished for merely disagreeing with trump on that notion.

And frankly your whole argument has changed from one of “no country truly has free speech” to one of “well you see Europe has this kind of law, but te US doesn’t have this kind of law; too much free speech is bad, but also you don’t have free speech...”

Well I would say it’s an argument, except you aren’t actually asserting anything. You’re just spouting off vague truisms and false parallels.

It very much seems to me that you’re trying to justify the existence of more oppressive laws that prevent criticism of various governing bodies and allows persecution for doing so by saying that other countries have laws that prevent individuals from saying inflammatory things about minorities and therefore no one can criticize anyone about free speech.

Those two “restrictions” on free speech are not the same.

[Heran]

It very much seems to me that you’re trying to justify the existence of more oppressive laws that prevent criticism of various governing bodies and allows persecution for doing so by saying that other countries have laws that prevent individuals from saying inflammatory things about minorities and therefore no one can criticize anyone about free speech.

It's funny how much you complain about people like Trump but then you don't want laws that would restrict people's ability to do harm. Instead you want them to be allowed to spread their racism in society like a poison because you think restricting speech is oppressive.

[kail]

You expect the courts to provide you evidence in an ongoing trial? Public posts? Sure, but most of the vile shit happens away from prying eyes. They're neo nazis not stupid.

Also having someone plan your death really fucks you up.

If they find something incriminating, great they deserve time. If someone were wishing my death, not a lot I can do about it. If they planned my death and I found out about it, I would notify authorities asap.

[LeGin Tufnel]

If they find something incriminating, great they deserve time. If someone were wishing my death, not a lot I can do about it. If they planned my death and I found out about it, I would notify authorities asap.

Sure, but it doesn't really matter what you think, though, as the law is very clear. Terrorism by means of threat is illegal in the UK. So.

I've no idea where you live. US?

If you're British, your only recourse is to petition your MP for a change in the law.