Comment by halJordan
4 hours ago
No citation needed, it should be common knowledge like stopping at a stop sign. People have been jailed for hate speech in the uk
4 hours ago
No citation needed, it should be common knowledge like stopping at a stop sign. People have been jailed for hate speech in the uk
> People have been jailed for hate speech in the uk
The parent poster claimed "for liking a post".
The cases I've seen of "jailed for hate speech" tend to wind up having a harassment or incitement component to them. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy76dxkpjpjo as an example. Hence the request for a cite.
"Parlour, of Seacroft, Leeds, who called for an attack on a hotel housing refugees and asylum seekers on Facebook, became the first person to be jailed for stirring up racial hatred during the disorder."
Wikipedia's "selected cases" for plain old hatefulness, similarly, seems to be all fines, no jail terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United...
>No citation needed, it should be common knowledge like stopping at a stop sign.
Sounds like you can't (or are unwilling) to produce evidence, and you're trying to handwave that issue away with "it's common knowledge'.
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/select-communications-off...
How convenient that the government doesn't make the numbers public and then have to issue statements like this when journalists do some digging on the matter
I don't get what you're trying to say here? Yes, there are real issues with the government arresting people for speech, and the number is going up, but that's not proof for the specific claim of "you can be imprisoned for liking a post [...]". You can't just tack on spurious claims onto a more well supported claim on the basis that the former is directionally the same as the latter.