PPPPS. UK relevant laws are:
Section 29B of the Public Order Act 1986
Sections 44 and 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2007
Section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Section 127 of the Communication Act 2003
So they can’t flee to the land both green and pleasant, because homophobia is not covered under free speech. And those are just the specific laws. There are other, more general ones that could be cited.
It should be blatantly obvious why that is happening.
And to be frank. the more people who insist on defying the current rules. the longer those same rules will be there.
“yeah ok that’s actually a good idea, the quicker we get this under control the quicker we get back to normal”
Said most people, but not enough people as they all defy professional advice and mess it up for everyone.
We’ve had 2 demonstrations/protests in Sweden within the last few weeks because they believe that covid restrictions(Sweden barely has any) are “violations of human rights”.
The main group & force behind this are all almost universally members of our racist party and conspircay theoriests, with the leading guy behind this being infamous for promoting conspiracies such as “Jews secretly run the world and covid was just a ploy to control us with mind-control vaccines” kinda thing. As well as simultaneously selling fraudulent overpriced “tests” for covid.
Dumb people are stupid.
Yikes, thats a new low
But we have our own idiots here a bit similar mindset in our country
Actually… I think every country have their fair share of idiots, sadly mostly in influental positions (not that the masses need that much of an influencing power to be steered in a given direction… )
Not entirely, there are differences. For example in the UK there is no equivalent to section 230 and companies and individuals have been sued for making rude comments. One man got fined for teaching his dog to raise its right front paw whenever he asked it to gas the Jews - because it was obscene and rude.
No, they will not. You seem to think, on a European forum no less, that the entire world not only respects, but also considers US law, more or as important as their own. We do not. My opinion, and this is widely shared here, is that the USA is not the shining beacon of light and freedom that it was in the past. We don’t really care - your lawmakers are a joke and they have failed not just you, but the west in general.
When we think of freedom of speech in Denmark there are two things that come to mind:
§ 77. Enhver er berettiget til på tryk, i skrift og tale at offentliggøre sine tanker, dog under ansvar for domstolene. Censur og andre forebyggende forholdsregler kan ingensinde påny indføres.
§ 266 b. Den, der offentligt eller med forsæt til udbredelse i en videre kreds fremsætter udtalelse eller anden meddelelse, ved hvilken en gruppe af personer trues, forhånes eller nedværdiges på grund af sin race, hudfarve, nationale eller etniske oprindelse, tro eller seksuelle orientering, straffes med bøde eller fængsel indtil 2 år.
Stk. 2. Ved straffens udmåling skal det betragtes som en særligt skærpende omstændighed, at forholdet har karakter af propagandavirksomhed.
And in the UK it’s different as someone just posted above. And in Germany it’s different again.
I will translate - loosely because it’s fairly old Danish and a little hard to translate, but hopefully I get the point across as accurately as I can:
§ 77: Anybody are permitted to in print, in writing, or in speech, to publish and share his/her thoughts, but only under penalty of the courts. Censorship and other pre-publication measures can never again become law.
§ 266 b. Any who publicly, or with deliberate intent on spreading the information to a wider audience or other platform, publish information in which a group of people is threatened, demeaned, or degraded because of race, skin colour, national or ethnic background, faith, or sexual orientation, shall be punished with fines or prison up to 2 years.
Part 2: When doling out the punishment it should be considered extra serious if the offence can be considered propaganda.
So here homophobia is specifically not legal, and this has caused an uproar of debate for many, many years. I shall not go into the specifics, but suffice to say there’s several groups of people here, though LGBT groups are not among them, which people really do not like.
Being a publisher or a social network makes no difference here. Being an internet provider, however, does make a difference. Here the protection is about transmitting information, not storing or hosting it. There are no protections for that.
There are also some laws going in the other direction - for example in Denmark it is actually illegal to prevent a legal licensee of a piece of art, digital or not, from making backup copies for personal use.
What that effectively means is that most DRM schemes known today are illegal. Blizzard’s is not because they provide a backup for you and you can copy the data however many times you like, but what most BluRays do is illegal - but nobody really seems to dare fight against it due to the implications of Denmark not getting movies anymore.
Anyway, suffice to say, it’s complicated. Just deferring to US law is meaningless to us.
When it comes to the guys at the very top in these groups & communities, it’s less stupidity(even if there is some of that too) and more maliciousness.
Like, the guy I mentioned who is both willing to condemn covid as some leftists/goverment fake while also selling fake tests at the same time to rake in money too.
You also have the 1998 HRA which outright states that although freedom of expression is a right, it is a qualification-based right that may be overidden:
“may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”
“in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”
So even the UK takes a pretty hardline view on this sort of thing which isn’t terribly dissimilar to that of US free speech laws (along the lines of “you can say it but not without thinking of consequence”, the main different being US laws make a purposeful stipulation that the government cannot do X or Y against you, UK laws do not stipulate such but it is implied within the general wording of the laws as in accordance with the British principle of all being equal under the law).
Fact remains a huge amount of people irrespective of their country misunderstand what free speech is. Pretty much no country has an idea of free speech like “you can say what you like and poo poo to anyone else”. It’s almost always some version of “you can express yourself but if you doing that will harm or undermine some kind of social cohesion/order we’re trying to build here we will stop you doing it.” and many of these laws have such a condition written into them in black and white so it’s not even up for debate.
I’m always itching to ask these kind of people about how they’d feel about WW2 era things like rationing, conscription or work mandates towards the war effort, particularly in countries like the UK, Germany and Soviet Union.
Should the whole concept of martial law just be abolished under all circumstances?
The huge irony is these people are usually the ones who can be found saying “a war would sort this world out” etc etc or prepping for some “coming conflict”.
The general takeaway is they’re only opposed to stuff like that where it opposes their personal views. They don’t really have a generic stance on “taking freedoms away for some public good” - it’s more a case of “if i personally agree with why the government is doing it, it’s fine, if not, i think it’s bad.”
The issue is they protest such (where they disagree) using the language of generic opposition for example “it’s a violation of my human rights and freedom” all the while maintaining about how conscription “wasn’t a bad idea when fighting X group I disliked”. Cognitive dissonance turned up to 11 is the best way to describe these kinds of people,
I mean total nuclear annihilation would solve the issue. Can’t have homophobia without homophobes, and they’d all be dead… so these crazies are half right I guess.
I cannot believe I have to explain this here, but here I go and god help me.
It is not called ‘hate speech’ if it is you hating what you are hearing/reading.
Different opinions are not hate speech. Science is not hate speech… et cetra!
Ironically, I am noticing those who uses the term ‘homophobic’ are the most practicing Hate speeches (insulting, mocking, intimidating those who says which they don’t like).
Yet they are good at falsely pointing at others for doing that.
everybody who doesn’t agree with your pov is an insert whatever … pathetic
Curiously, science thinks that sexual identity isn’t binary, yet conservatives seem to hate that idea.
Except it does 100%. Not going to even argue that again here.
The description of the human genome structure only 20 years ago has accelerated our ability to understand the genetic components of human sexuality and to assess their interaction with hormones in the establishment of phenotypic sex. The view that the world’s population can be separated into a clearly defined dyadic unit of male and female is defunct; not only clinical observations, but molecular biology has established that sexual identity is on a continuum, with an enormous potential for variance. The search for the specific biological factors that determine a sense of being male or female, the anatomy of the reproductive system, and whether sexual inclination is homosexual or heterosexual is accelerating, but the data are still far from complete.
edit: in other words, the binary model is outdated, obsolete. I am sorry if it’s a little difficult to imagine a world that isn’t neatly compartmentalized to ease your ability to comprehend it.
Except that is totally false what you are saying. Go study REAL biology instead of watching those brainwashing shows.
So you don’t believe in science. Gotcha dude.
If that’s what it takes for you to be more comfortable living, you are free to imagine it being a little less complex. Godspeed little man.
I will go ahead and rate your attempt 0/10.
I should probably rate your a whole lot higher since you spawned such an undying thread.
Your ideas are still wrong and scientifically outdated though.
One of the most interesting recent developments in the science of human sexual behavior has been the proposal that epigenetics underlies the basis of sexual orientation. In a recent review, Ngun and Vilain advance the concept of homosexuality being the consequence of epigenetic modification of genomic activity.
They cite evidence that differences in DNA methylation patterns exist in monozygotic (MZ) twins at the time of birth and postulate that the intrauterine environment may produce differences in the epigenetic pattern of MZ twins that account for differences in many traits. They propose that homosexuality is one of them. It is important to note that these investigators suggest that specific patterns of DNA methylation are responsible for the establishment of sexual orientation and that this is achieved in utero. The epigenetic changes postulated to be responsible for homosexuality are not the result of environmental factors like parental attitudes/behavior or societal disapproval but rather from the impact of epigenetic inheritance and/or the intrauterine environment on gene expression.
edit: it would a lot easier for everyone involved if you didn’t try to say “but science” when it so vehemently disagrees with your views, and just admit that you feel uncomfortable about the realities of the world.
It is a cold, uncaring, violent universe after all.
You have a problem with LGBT, but not with the concept of an invisible Sky Fairy?.. interesting.
