Academia, Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Free Speech, International

British Home Secretary Faces Hate Speech Complaint Over Immigration Speech

amber_rudd_2016We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws. We have even seen comedians targeted with such court orders under this expanding and worrisome trend. (here and here). Now a recent complaint filed by a professor against Home Secretary Amber Rudd illustrates vividly how hate speech has become for some people an extension of political disagreements.  The complaint by Prof Joshua Silver, an astrophysicist, will not result in any serious investigation but it was recorded as a hate crime allegation under the existing standards.  We recently discussed the criminal charges brought against a conservative Dutch politician.

Silver is an example of how people who abandoned free speech values in seeking to silence or punish those with whom they disagree.  It is particularly chilling to see an academic adopt such an anti-free speech position but we have seen the same trend on U.S. campuses with academics leading the fight to curtail or prohibit speech.  He told BBC News: “Some politicians have been using hate crime as an instrument to foster support for their political aims.”

A glance at the hate speech laws explains why Professor Silver thought that he could punish those with differing views.  Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions deemed hateful on the basis of color, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 includes any speech revealing an intent “to stir up racial hatred, or . . . having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.”  The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 prohibits language that “uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.”  Thus, insulting people is enough to trigger a sanction.

Here is Professor Silver speaking on his own behalf:

79 thoughts on “British Home Secretary Faces Hate Speech Complaint Over Immigration Speech”

  1. Pingback: Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet | True News Global
  2. Pingback: Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet – Stop White Genocide.
  3. Pingback: Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet – 1984 is Here View Wrong Website, Get 15 Years | Reclaim Our Republic
  4. Pingback: Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Net | Europe Reloaded
  5. Pingback: Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet – The Greanville Post
  6. Pingback: Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet – Emma Olive
  7. Pingback: Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet – Counter Information
  8. Pingback: Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet - Adam Townsend
  9. Pingback: Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet |
  10. Pingback: How Governments Use Terror To Expand Their Own Authority – Gadget Searcher
  11. Pingback: How Governments Use Terror To Expand Their Own Authority - Time4Newz
  12. Pingback: How Governments Use Terror To Expand Their Own Authority
  13. Pingback: VIDEO Le Pen RISING, Lacklustre Macron Falling in Polls – Le Pen Advisor Convicted Of Hate Speech,Telling The Truth | Reclaim Our Republic

  15. Pardon me, I understand that this is not a post on the topic at hand. I posted this comment in another thread but, because we KNOW we will not see this story anywhere else in the MSM, I wanted to post it here as well:

    Looks like this isn’t the first inauguration John Lewis has boycotted.

    “According to a Washington Post article written on January 21, 2001, Lewis and other members of the Black Caucus boycotted George W. Bush’s inauguration because they didn’t “believe Bush is the true elected president.” Lewis spent the day in his Atlanta district.”

    Well, how about that….

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/443896/john-lewis-boycotted-george-w-bush-inauguration

    1. Well that certainly was not a legit election.The Supreme Court decided the election. Trump did win the electoral college and no court interfered on his behalf. Trump is far more legit than was W. Comey interfered but not sure that he really wanted Trump to be elected. Lewis thinks that because Comey did not reveal that Trump was also being investigated that the election was not legit. What a mess.

      1. The point is that John Lewis claimed he had not boycotted any Inaugurations since 1986. This was a FALSE statement. Instead of vetting his claims, the press simply repeated over and over again accepting it as true when it was clearly and verifiably false. But the media didn’t even bother to verify it. Or did they not even care and repeated it because it fit the narrative they wanted to spin? This is what you call fake news and why Trump is calling them out every chance he gets.

  16. If you state that you “love Hitler” or “love Trump”, you are not exercising “hate speech”. I love Betty Crocker but it is for her food and not her looks or words.
    I am also a fan of Palermos Pizza. I hate barbeque with vinegar. You find that in North Carolina. hating their barbeque is not hating Carolinians. There are fine lines.

Comments are closed.