> Something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on: disability, race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation.
This probably worries platforms that need to moderate content. Sure, perhaps 80% of the cases are clear cut, but it’s the 20% that get missed and turn into criminal liability that would be the most concerning. Not to mention a post from one year ago can become criminal if someone suddenly decides it was motivated by one of these factors.
Further, prejudices in terms of language do change often. As bad actors get censored based on certain language, they will evolve to use other words/phrases to mean the same thing. The government is far more likely to be aware of these (and be able to prosecute them) than some random forum owner.
It's important to understand that the act we're talking about does not make owners simply liable for stuff that happens on their sites, nor does it require them to stop everything. It's about what the risks are of these things happening, and what you do about that.
In fact, if you have had a place that people can report abuse and it's just not really happening much then you can say you're low risk for that. That's in some of the examples.
> Not to mention a post from one year ago can become criminal if someone suddenly decides it was motivated by one of these factors.
Just want to add that I couldn't find any references to gender identity in the linked Wikipedia article as well as the article on hate incidents in the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United...
Thanks.
> Something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on: disability, race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation.
This probably worries platforms that need to moderate content. Sure, perhaps 80% of the cases are clear cut, but it’s the 20% that get missed and turn into criminal liability that would be the most concerning. Not to mention a post from one year ago can become criminal if someone suddenly decides it was motivated by one of these factors.
Further, prejudices in terms of language do change often. As bad actors get censored based on certain language, they will evolve to use other words/phrases to mean the same thing. The government is far more likely to be aware of these (and be able to prosecute them) than some random forum owner.
It's important to understand that the act we're talking about does not make owners simply liable for stuff that happens on their sites, nor does it require them to stop everything. It's about what the risks are of these things happening, and what you do about that.
In fact, if you have had a place that people can report abuse and it's just not really happening much then you can say you're low risk for that. That's in some of the examples.
> Not to mention a post from one year ago can become criminal if someone suddenly decides it was motivated by one of these factors.
That would impact the poster, not the site.
Just want to add that I couldn't find any references to gender identity in the linked Wikipedia article as well as the article on hate incidents in the UK.
Whatever the current government says it means. What did you think it meant?
I don't see what the big deal is - Governments don't change hands or selectively prosecute.
Hate is whatever I don't like.