Arresting someone because they voiced their views or beliefs is rarely positive. Government enforced silence won't change the heart of man. Let the marketplace of ideas expose the bad ideas.

nai06 said:

---

Jerry Sienfeld said:

---

nai06 said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

encrypt your devices if traveling to scotland

---

Or don't step foot in that ****hole place

---

Seeing as I plan on retiring in Scotland, I agree none of y'all should go there.

---

of all the places to retire to? Enjoy the horrid weather and horrid laws.

---

Scotland is home to some of the most beautiful places I have ever visited with some of the most wonderful people.

As far as the weather goes, ask anyone who lives there and they'll tell you:

There's no such thing as bad weather in Scotland, only the wrong clothes.

---

Don't get around much, do you?

Sounds like you don't like freedom, maybe you should consider moving now so there will be one less person here supporting crap like this.

all "hate" crimes are thought crimes.

These laws are made by smothering sanctimonious types that want to care everyone to the level of oppression so they can feel like nobody will ever be offended or upset. It's a self absorbed action by those passing them. It is actually unhealthy for persons to not develop the experience of dealing with being upset and to not develop tolerance and resilience.

What is more insidious is how these speech laws are inevitably used selectively and politically by psychopathic personality types to abuse and harm others and make target examples of select persons as an oppressive threat to others to keep silent. The typical rationale is they would never be used like that until they are..

Scotland is home to some of the greatest innovators and thinkers in modern times…….Adam Smith, Alexander Graham Bell, James Watt, James Hutton, John Logie Baird, John Napier, Lord Kelvin, James Clerk Maxwell, Alexander Fleming, Joseph Black………all white men.

In addition, David Jones and Mike Dailly designed the Grand Theft Auto video game…….

Teslag said:

---

nai06 said:

---

For starters, I went a read the actual law rather than relying on some interpretation from a random Twitter talking head about what it does and does not do.

I agree with parts of it. Its more of a consolidation of previous laws than anything else. Hate crime laws have been around in Scotland
since the 80s. The biggest difference is stiffer penalties for crimes motivated by hate of the protected group and removed the crime of blasphemy. I'm generally fine with those provisions.

Where I think it falls short is the list of projected classes as biological sex is not listed. That should have been included. I also think it will be very difficult to enforce the law and investigate crimes from a sheer volume standpoint. I suspect only egregious case would end up being prosecuted.

---

Do you feel hate speech should be illegal?

---

It appears he does...

Remember, there's rightspeak and wrongspeak and only one should be allowed.

Let him define wrongspeak though, I'm sure.

1. Scotland is in fact beautiful.

2. There's no such thing as "Hate" speech.

ts5641 said:

---

This is what naive dem supporters don't understand about the oppressive nature of the left. On the surface lefties will feel like this is a win but it will eventually bite them in the ass when they find themselves or a family member in jail because they disagreed with Big Brother.

---

Yep.

Today, it's the other guy's speech that's bad.

And then they're surprised when tomorrow, it's THEIR speech that's bad...

Serotonin said:

---

Where's Braveheart when you need him?

---

Sent to the four corners of the British empire

MouthBQ98 said:

---

These laws are made by smothering sanctimonious types that want to care everyone to the level of oppression so they can feel like nobody will ever be offended or upset. It's a self absorbed action by those passing them. It is actually unhealthy for persons to not develop the experience of dealing with being upset and to not develop tolerance and resilience.

What is more insidious is how these speech laws are inevitably used selectively and politically by psychopathic personality types to abuse and harm others and make target examples of select persons as an oppressive threat to others to keep silent. The typical rationale is they would never be used like that until they are..

---

Ding ding ding.

We must make sure that Hate never happens again to anyone.

Unless it's against the Jews. That's apparently kosher.

But...here's a plot twist:

Since they're Scottish, if you can't understand WTF they are saying, is it really hate speech?

nai06 said:

---

For starters, I went a read the actual law rather than relying on some interpretation from a random Twitter talking head about what it does and does not do.

I agree with parts of it. Its more of a consolidation of previous laws than anything else. Hate crime laws have been around in Scotland
since the 80s. The biggest difference is stiffer penalties for crimes motivated by hate of the protected group and removed the crime of blasphemy. I'm generally fine with those provisions.

Where I think it falls short is the list of projected classes as biological sex is not listed. That should have been included. I also think it will be very difficult to enforce the law and investigate crimes from a sheer volume standpoint. I suspect only egregious case would end up being prosecuted.

---

So you're fine with gov't picking and choosing who will be legally protected from being offended by whichever arbitrary metric deemed offensive as long as it suits the protected class?

AND at the same time, you're ok with the gov't picking and choosing who can legally be offended by removing a much less arbitrary and much easier-to-define standard than required for the offending of the protected class?

That's literal class / identity warfare.

I once spent several hours on a train from London to Edinburgh sitting next to a Royal Marine from Fife. He was quite nice, loved Texans, and I had no idea what he was saying. I'm certain it was English, but that's about all.

Enjoy some Scotland the Brave:

Ag with kids said:

---

But...here's a plot twist:

Since they're Scottish, if you can't understand WTF they are saying, is it really hate speech?

---

You're thinking of Glaswegians. Can't say I understand a word they're saying.

I sat in court in Edinburgh a few years back and a criminal practically had to beg the judge to put him in jail for the 30 days until his court case. He was arrested for drug possession and knew that if they sent him home he'd keep using drugs. Was a game of "are you really sure you want that?" Like 5-6x until the judge relented to letting him stay in jail. They're a different lot there.

Also, everyone had wigs on except the bald court reporter. I felt bad for the guy. Everyone else has a dead raccoon on their head but the guy who needed one.

nai06 said:

---

For starters, I went a read the actual law rather than relying on some interpretation from a random Twitter talking head about what it does and does not do.

I agree with parts of it. Its more of a consolidation of previous laws than anything else. Hate crime laws have been around in Scotland
since the 80s. The biggest difference is stiffer penalties for crimes motivated by hate of the protected group and removed the crime of blasphemy. I'm generally fine with those provisions.

Where I think it falls short is the list of projected classes as biological sex is not listed. That should have been included. I also think it will be very difficult to enforce the law and investigate crimes from a sheer volume standpoint. I suspect only egregious case would end up being prosecuted.

---

So your only issue with the law is.......it doesn't go far enough? Yikes

nai06 said:

---

For starters, I went a read the actual law rather than relying on some interpretation from a random Twitter talking head about what it does and does not do.

I agree with parts of it. Its more of a consolidation of previous laws than anything else. Hate crime laws have been around in Scotland
since the 80s. The biggest difference is stiffer penalties for crimes motivated by hate of the protected group and removed the crime of blasphemy. I'm generally fine with those provisions.

Where I think it falls short is the list of projected classes as biological sex is not listed. That should have been included. I also think it will be very difficult to enforce the law and investigate crimes from a sheer volume standpoint. I suspect only egregious case would end up being prosecuted.

---

The way the law is likely to be used is not to prosecute "only egregious cases", but to target: 1) Those who expose or embarrass the ruling class, 2) Political opponents.

Hope that helps...

bones75 said:

---

nai06 said:

---

For starters, I went a read the actual law rather than relying on some interpretation from a random Twitter talking head about what it does and does not do.

I agree with parts of it. Its more of a consolidation of previous laws than anything else. Hate crime laws have been around in Scotland
since the 80s. The biggest difference is stiffer penalties for crimes motivated by hate of the protected group and removed the crime of blasphemy. I'm generally fine with those provisions.

Where I think it falls short is the list of projected classes as biological sex is not listed. That should have been included. I also think it will be very difficult to enforce the law and investigate crimes from a sheer volume standpoint. I suspect only egregious case would end up being prosecuted.

---

The way the law is likely to be used is not to prosecute "only egregious cases", but to target: 1) Those who expose or embarrass the ruling class, 2) Political opponents.

---

Correct, but he is perfectly fine with it in both of those cases.

aggiejayrod said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

But...here's a plot twist:

Since they're Scottish, if you can't understand WTF they are saying, is it really hate speech?

---

You're thinking of Glaswegians. Can't say I understand a word they're saying.

I sat in court in Edinburgh a few years back and a criminal practically had to beg the judge to put him in jail for the 30 days until his court case. He was arrested for drug possession and knew that if they sent him home he'd keep using drugs. Was a game of "are you really sure you want that?" Like 5-6x until the judge relented to letting him stay in jail. They're a different lot there.

---

No...I'm think Scottish. I lived in England as a kid and went to Scotland several times - it was like they spoke a foreign language there.

In so many ways, Europe is lost. It has been conquered, both from within and by immigration.

nai06 said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

encrypt your devices if traveling to scotland

---

Or don't step foot in that ****hole place

---

Seeing as I plan on retiring in Scotland, I agree none of y'all should go there.

---

better stay off social media then

Isn't nearly that whole country white though? Who is doing all the *****ing?

nai06 said:

---

For starters, I went a read the actual law rather than relying on some interpretation from a random Twitter talking head about what it does and does not do.

I agree with parts of it. Its more of a consolidation of previous laws than anything else. Hate crime laws have been around in Scotland
since the 80s. The biggest difference is stiffer penalties for crimes motivated by hate of the protected group and removed the crime of blasphemy. I'm generally fine with those provisions.

Where I think it falls short is the list of projected classes as biological sex is not listed. That should have been included. I also think it will be very difficult to enforce the law and investigate crimes from a sheer volume standpoint. I suspect only egregious case would end up being prosecuted.

---

Post what's on your phone for us to see. If I don't like something I see on it, you must destroy your phone, give me $1000, and be under house arrest for a month.

Deal?

nai06 said:

---

For starters, I went a read the actual law rather than relying on some interpretation from a random Twitter talking head about what it does and does not do.

I agree with parts of it. Its more of a consolidation of previous laws than anything else. Hate crime laws have been around in Scotland
since the 80s. The biggest difference is stiffer penalties for crimes motivated by hate of the protected group and removed the crime of blasphemy. I'm generally fine with those provisions.

Where I think it falls short is the list of projected classes as biological sex is not listed. That should have been included. I also think it will be very difficult to enforce the law and investigate crimes from a sheer volume standpoint. I suspect only egregious case would end up being prosecuted.

---

That won't sit well with the militant Catholic contingent here.

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Their whisky is far better than ours.

---

Do you believe this law is good or bad? Should we mirror it here?

---

One the face of it, the law doesn't seem good, though it can be clouded by the spin.

---

Should hate speech be illegal?

---

Again, depends upon the specifics. Speech along the lines of "I am going to <insert a violent, horrible crime here> to you and your family" can be considered illegal.

Calling a person born a male a man, no.

Bubblez said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Their whisky is far better than ours.

---

Do you believe this law is good or bad? Should we mirror it here?

---

One the face of it, the law doesn't seem good, though it can be clouded by the spin.

---

Should hate speech be illegal?

---

Again, depends upon the specifics. Speech along the lines of "I am going to <insert a violent, horrible crime here> to you and your family" can be considered illegal.

Calling a person born a male a man, no.

---

Again. Let me see your phone and let me judge. I'll be fair. You can trust me being the arbitrator of what is right and wrong.

And of course the rulers define "hate". It all makes perfect sense.

I wonder if this applies to migrant groups?

This is justice in the UK I suppose.

Bubblez said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Their whisky is far better than ours.

---

Do you believe this law is good or bad? Should we mirror it here?

---

One the face of it, the law doesn't seem good, though it can be clouded by the spin.

---

Should hate speech be illegal?

---

Again, depends upon the specifics. Speech along the lines of "I am going to <insert a violent, horrible crime here> to you and your family" can be considered illegal.

Calling a person born a male a man, no.

---

The bold is what we're talking about, obviously. Threatening violence has always been illegal and isn't controversial. So, you oppose this law and are just reluctant to agree with us?

Quote:

---

I suspect only egregious case would end up being prosecuted.

---

I suspect mainly politically motivated and expedient cases will be prosecuted.