We 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. Once allowed to criminalize speech, individuals and groups demand more and more prohibitions. England is in a free fall over free speech. The police have indicated that they are considering making wolf whistles the latest category of hate speech.We also have even seen comedians targeted with such court orders under this expanding and worrisome trend. (here and here).
One person found a dead rat in a garden while another complained that a man told library staff that he was campaigning in favor of Brexit. Another involved a dog barking at someone while another involved dog poop found outside of a home. One person complained about a car accident where the other car has a poppy displayed.
A resident in an apartment building complained that a neighbor was committing a hate crime by “smoking heavily.” A father filed a complaint when his daughter lost a tennis match in an disputed line call: “Informant feels his daughter was subjected to racial discrimination at a tennis match where line calls went against her.”
Clearly, hate speech can take many forms but the threshold issue remains the same: should governments be able to criminalize speech alone as opposed to criminal acts. As shown in the recent “pug case,” even offensive language can be criminalized.
Scotland Yard recently caused a stir by claiming that it has 900 officers dedicated to investigating alleged hate crimes. The Times reported that British police are arresting nine people a day for posting “offensive messages online.”