Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Unlock the editor’s digest in free
FT editor Raula Khalaf selected his favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
I grew up with a few general principles. One was some version of your neighbor’s love. The other is often blamed for the voltier: “I do not agree with what you say, but I will protect the right to say it”. In this statement, my view is strongly – why I became a journalist partially. I also read the publications that I do not agree: help them decide what they think of me.
Until recently, I thought I had lived in a country where Voltaire’s statement was fundamental. John Locke in England wrote her Government And the hardline coffee houses give the shape of illuminating. John Stuart Mill was published in Scotland In freedomThe The unique brand of Britain’s comedy and irony has been fun for centuries and everyone has fun. But now, 38 percent of us say that freedom of expression without intervention is under threat.
Reading the drip-drip of the offensive distinct case, it is possible to expect that they are rare examples of reaching out. The couple was arrested in their home to criticize their child’s primary school in a WhatsApp group. The employee of the bank dismissed to ask an innocent question at the training session of the training session. A pensioner and ex -special constable who handcuffed and his electronic devices were seized, after tweeting that Palestinian protesters were “one step away to storm the heavenly storm to find the Jews.”
Unfortunately, the number of cases and the number of arrests is increasing because the speech of hatred becomes a growing and garbage concept. What started as a well-worthy attempt to protect people from disgust has turned into a voluntary expansion of state power, driven by us Both principalThe Conservative Home Secretary Sajid Javid said in 2018: “Hate crime goes directly against the last British But the values of unity, tolerance and mutual respect “but these values are now being eroded in confusion and anxiety.
Since the year 20 2007, the disgusting crime has been defined in England and Wales “Any criminal offense to be inspired by hostility or superstition to anyone on the basis of personal characteristics by any person”: a dangerously extensive definition. Only some groups are protected, requested endless demands to extend the opportunity. The hate crime law requires a formal recognition for the homeless, elderly, or even Goths (even after the murder of teenage).
More Orwellian is the “Crime Hate Hate event” introduced after the killing of black teenager Stephen Lawrence. Criminals have included a 9 -year -old who called a classmate “disabled”, neighbors fight on a hedge and a doctor who diagnosed a patient because they were bisexual. According to the Think-Tank Policy Exchange, police can spend up to 5,7 hours a year. If the current Home Secretary wants to use “common sense” to the police but do not cancel them. Yet the concept of a “non-crime” is Dublthink. It should not exist.
My own promise to the policy of the two recent case volts has been strictly tested. Last year, a 51 -year -old physiotherapist was convicted for violating the buffer zone after praying silently to an abortion benefit of Bournemouth. I am loved with emotions and I have got a lot of sympathy with any woman who feels bored to take part in that clinic. But I can’t tell the truth that the verb that is represented was so terrifying that it should be guilty.
The more rigorous challenge for liberals is Lucy Konley, a 41 -year -old childminder and mother who lost his request to punish her this week. Konley was imprisoned after last summer riots in Southport, which began after killing three young girls in a dance class by a young man who became the son of a immigrant. He posted a absolutely fierce tweet: “set fire to all the chodar hotels full of jargads”, deleting it four hours later. Some argue that he should not be in prison: he has regretted and has a school-year-old child. I don’t agree: He was guilty of inciting racial hatred. However, his 31-month sentence is the cause of physical harm to those who are felt more long than some of the rioters. The punishment judge ruled that he knew how unstable the situation was, and this unrest “serious disorder where the foolish violence was used”. This argument seems like a stretch. The preachers are one of the reasons to use so much by his case it seems to fit with a pattern of extra-lust.
What I thought to be helpful is the Landmark US case of the Brandenberg vs Ohio (699) where the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on how the first amendment of the free speech included in the Constitution can explain. The government could punish inflammatory speech, the court said that it was only if it was “persuading or producing the upcoming legal action and probably could take or produce this national action”. It is felt like a good template: to be distributed to the strict edge and crime.
The police are kept here in an impossible position: the minor boredom and score-seating. It does not just refrain from solving big crime; It is reducing confidence in a nation that is not comfortable with yourself.
It is the job of fools to try to enhance the emotions. A field of law that both the police and the public should be crystal clear, have become rumors and voluntaries. Regardless of everything else in America, we should focus on their first amendment.
