Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

[Planigale]

Police in the US cannot legally compel people to be interviewed in the same way. We can only legally be detained if we are suspected of having committed a crime, or if we've been subpoenaed as a witness to a crime.

US cops have absolutely NO authority to compel anyone to interact with them about an incident that is not a crime. There's no such thing as a "non crime incident" in the US.

There is no difference. You can only be voluntarily interviewed (usually as a witness), or interviewed under caution, usually after being arrested. Unlike the US, there are very strict rules about police interviews, including a requirement for legal counsel, a requirement for police not to lie. UK police cannot compel anyone to interact with them about an incident that is not a (suspected) crime.

 

[Planigale]

The flag of Palestine dates back to 1964 according to the interwebs. Muslim-governed lands have been engaged in waging a global jihad against infidel nations since the founding of the religion itself. Expansion of Islamic territory by force is an doctrine of the religion itself.

Crusades anyone?

 

[Hercules56]

No I wasn't. Your 5th amendment doesn't apply to civil cases, so if you don't answer questions if you are called as a witness the prosecution can use that against you, and in criminal cases where the 5th amendment applies they can't. (The judge will more than likely make that point as part of their jury directions.)

There is no "prosecution" in a civil case. Its just one guy against another.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, it does have that clause, in the practical sense. The whole 'law' thingy that stands independently of the speech. Having free speech never includes the right to act it out in meatspace.

What I'd like as a clause is to say "I nobly defend your right to say so, and should you provoke someone with your speech, it may be considered an assault if it menaces someone. Be prepared to accept the consequences of initiating the assault".

I get the sentiment, but I disagree.

If someone gets provoked, that doesn't mean their response is reasonable or appropriate. For example, I have the right to go loudly say "eating meat is murder and immoral, and all meat eaters are evil". If a rancher feels provoked by that and attacks me, I think it would be entirely inappropriate to treat *me* as having committed assault with my words just because that rancher's very sincere feelings were deeply hurt by my views.

There was a case recently in the UK, where a person burned their own copy of the Quran, and was attacked by a knife-wielding person who was incensed by their blasphemy. I certainly don't have all the details... but the preliminary reporting presented it as if the book-burner faced charges and the knife-attacker was treated as the victim. I very strongly disagree with that - assuming it's even true, of course.

Hell, you could go holler from the rooftops your views supporting pro-choice, and I don't think it's reasonable to view your expression as provocation for a deeply religious christian to physically attack you. I think framing your speech as an assault on someone else is entirely inappropriate and a blatant violation of our rights.

Actual, clear incitement to violence, and nothing more. Just because something is appalling and offensive does not meet the bar.

 

[Hercules56]

The flag of Palestine dates back to 1964 according to the interwebs. Muslim-governed lands have been engaged in waging a global jihad against infidel nations since the founding of the religion itself...

Then the interwebs, is wrong:

"The flag of Palestine (Arabic: علم فلسطين, romanized: ʿalam Filasṭīn) is a tricolour of three equal horizontal stripes—black, white, and green from top to bottom—overlaid by a red triangle issuing from the hoist. It displays the pan-Arab colours, which were first combined in the current style during the 1916 Arab Revolt, and represents the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine."

Flag of Palestine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As for Muslim nations conquering other nations, Christian nations have been conquering non-Christian ones since the 300's through at least 2004. Remember Iraq?

 

[Planigale]

I disagree. The police's duty is to the community at large, not to the person they are arresting or who is suspected of a crime. The cops should never be acting in the best interest of the person they're arresting (which does not mean they should seek to do harm), but should always be acting to acquire as much evidence against them as possible. That's part of their investigative role, and they act in support of the district attorney, who is the prosecution.

In the UK the police are required to also to discover evidence of innocence (in theory), the police are there to investigate the crime and if there is evidence of innocence that need to pursue that evidence and disclose it. In reality they pursue guilt with more enthusiasm, but if we take the example of the first use of DNA testing, it actually showed the convicted person potentially innocent, and the police disclosed this to the defence. So the first use of DNA evidence in forensics actually enabled a wrongly convicted rapist to be freed.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think carrying flags should be allowed. You take the consequences of being identified with the cause you espouse, including Naziism.

I don't disagree with you.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There is no difference. You can only be voluntarily interviewed (usually as a witness), or interviewed under caution, usually after being arrested. Unlike the US, there are very strict rules about police interviews, including a requirement for legal counsel, a requirement for police not to lie. UK police cannot compel anyone to interact with them about an incident that is not a (suspected) crime.

Non Crime Hate Incidents have had several people interviewed under caution over the past few years. None were arrested, because none of them committed crimes. But all were required to be voluntarily interviewed with respect to their non-crimes, under threat of being arrested for not cooperating with their interview regarding their non-crime.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In the UK the police are required to also to discover evidence of innocence (in theory), the police are there to investigate the crime and if there is evidence of innocence that need to pursue that evidence and disclose it. In reality they pursue guilt with more enthusiasm, but if we take the example of the first use of DNA testing, it actually showed the convicted person potentially innocent, and the police disclosed this to the defence. So the first use of DNA evidence in forensics actually enabled a wrongly convicted rapist to be freed.

Any evidence that police collect in the US as part of a criminal charge must be disclosed to the defense. So if they collect DNA that can show a person innocent, they are required to give that to the defense. But they're not required to try to find evidence to prove someone innocent. They are innocent by default, and only guilt needs to be proven.

That presumption of innocence is why the prosecution is obligated to share all of their evidence, witnesses, and testimonies with the defense, but the defense doesn't have to share anything with the prosecution.

 

[Planigale]

I get the sentiment, but I disagree.

If someone gets provoked, that doesn't mean their response is reasonable or appropriate. For example, I have the right to go loudly say "eating meat is murder and immoral, and all meat eaters are evil". If a rancher feels provoked by that and attacks me, I think it would be entirely inappropriate to treat *me* as having committed assault with my words just because that rancher's very sincere feelings were deeply hurt by my views.

There was a case recently in the UK, where a person burned their own copy of the Quran, and was attacked by a knife-wielding person who was incensed by their blasphemy. I certainly don't have all the details... but the preliminary reporting presented it as if the book-burner faced charges and the knife-attacker was treated as the victim. I very strongly disagree with that - assuming it's even true, of course.

Hell, you could go holler from the rooftops your views supporting pro-choice, and I don't think it's reasonable to view your expression as provocation for a deeply religious christian to physically attack you. I think framing your speech as an assault on someone else is entirely inappropriate and a blatant violation of our rights.

Actual, clear incitement to violence, and nothing more. Just because something is appalling and offensive does not meet the bar.

I think this is untrue. I imagine someone who was not a believer in Islam, could buy a Quran (so technically his or hers own), they could then stand outside a Mosque on a Friday and burn or otherwise desecrate their own Quran. This would seem to be provocative behaviour likely to provoke a breach of the peace and thus a crime under English common law.

The burning of the Quran would not be the crime, the intention to provoke anger in others is the crime.

I think that anyone even possessing a knife yet alone attempting to attack someone with it would be prosecuted in England.

Unless you can verify your facts I call you out as promoting false news.

 

[Darat]

Interviews in the home are recorded only if the officer has his bodycam turned on, or if the interviewee chooses to record them.

???

 

[Darat]

Police in the US cannot legally compel people to be interviewed in the same way. We can only legally be detained if we are suspected of having committed a crime, or if we've been subpoenaed as a witness to a crime.

That is the same as the UK.

US cops have absolutely NO authority to compel anyone to interact with them about an incident that is not a crime. There's no such thing as a "non crime incident" in the US.

That is the same as the UK.

 

[Planigale]

Non Crime Hate Incidents have had several people interviewed under caution over the past few years. None were arrested, because none of them committed crimes. But all were required to be voluntarily interviewed with respect to their non-crimes, under threat of being arrested for not cooperating with their interview regarding their non-crime.

It was only not a crime because they were not convicted of it being a crime. You can say that of many others interviewed by the police, where the evidence showed a crime was not committed or there was insufficient evidence to pursue a conviction. This may occur with rape accusations for instance.

FWIW I have had a voluntary interview under caution, someone stole my identity and committed a crime, I was not arrested, but a crime was committed. I suspect had I refused to be interviewed I might have been arrested and interviewed under caution, and given someone identified as me (they had used stolen documents) had committed a crime that would have been reasonable. Luckily for me I am skinny and short neither of which was how the criminal was described by witnesses.

 

[Hercules56]

You understand that Hamas rules Palestine, don't you? Hamas *is* the Palestinian government...

Wrong.

Very wrong.

Before 10/2/23, Hamas only ruled the Gaza strip which is only a small part of the state of Palestine.

Now Hamas rules nothing.

 

[Hercules56]

600 years ago! Why do you think that's relevant to what is happening in modern times right now?

The USA and Great Britain conquered Iraq in 2004. Afghanistan in 2002.

 

[Darat]

Any evidence that police collect in the US as part of a criminal charge must be disclosed to the defense. So if they collect DNA that can show a person innocent, they are required to give that to the defense. But they're not required to try to find evidence to prove someone innocent. They are innocent by default, and only guilt needs to be proven.

That presumption of innocence is why the prosecution is obligated to share all of their evidence, witnesses, and testimonies with the defense,
but the defense doesn't have to share anything with the prosecution.

Yes it does - discovery works both ways. There is no Perry Mason moment in real cases.

 

[Planigale]

Any evidence that police collect in the US as part of a criminal charge must be disclosed to the defense. So if they collect DNA that can show a person innocent, they are required to give that to the defense. But they're not required to try to find evidence to prove someone innocent. They are innocent by default, and only guilt needs to be proven.

That presumption of innocence is why the prosecution is obligated to share all of their evidence, witnesses, and testimonies with the defense, but the defense doesn't have to share anything with the prosecution.

In England the police have a positive duty to investigate evidence of innocence, they may do so with less enthusiasm than pursuing evidence of guilt, but it is their legal duty to do so.

 

[Planigale]

600 years ago! Why do you think that's relevant to what is happening in modern times right now?

Anti-Islamic US biker gang members run security at deadly Gaza aid sites

BBC identifies members of Infidels MC gang hired as armed security at US and Israel-backed aid sites.

www.bbc.co.uk

Mr Miller has the word "Crusader" tattooed across his fingers and "1095" on his thumbs. This is the year when the leader of the Catholic church, Pope Urban II, launched the first crusade, attacking Muslims as a "vile race".

 

[Planigale]

Any evidence that police collect in the US as part of a criminal charge must be disclosed to the defense. So if they collect DNA that can show a person innocent, they are required to give that to the defense. But they're not required to try to find evidence to prove someone innocent. They are innocent by default, and only guilt needs to be proven.

That presumption of innocence is why the prosecution is obligated to share all of their evidence, witnesses, and testimonies with the defense, but the defense doesn't have to share anything with the prosecution.

The point in this case was the man was convicted of rape. An experimental never before used test was done on semen stains from another rape victim to try and prove the convicted rapist was a serial rapist, it actually provided evidence of innocence for the rape he was convicted of and in jail for. The police pro-actively approached the defence to pride the evidence of innocence, This was not disclosure in a trial. In england police are legally required to find evidence of innocence.

 

[smartcooky]

I disagree with your perspective on this. A whole lot of things get framed as "hate speech" that 1) don't involve any hate and 2) in no way whatsoever suggest that the other person shouldn't have the right to exist and 3) absolutely do not incite or advocate for violence.

For example... There's an entire thread that you've categorically decided is full to the brim of hate speech and bigotry despite the fact that you have never bothered to actually take part in the discussion nor have to considered the actual arguments being put forth. You've accepted a singular social narrative that grants special privileges to a small set of people on the basis of their declaration even though those privileges deprive half the population of their rights, safety, and dignity... and you've decided that the people who would like to retain their existing rights are engaging in hate speech.

BOOM!
QFT