Metropolitan Police To Target Online Hate Crime and Abuse (bbc.com) 161
A new team of specialist police officers is being set up to investigate online hate crimes, including abuse on Twitter and Facebook. The London-based hub will include a team of five officers who will support victims and identify online abuse, reports BBC. From the report: The two-year pilot will cost 1.7m pound and has received 452,000 pound from the Home Office, the London Mayor's office said. A spokesman said there was "no place for hate" in London and there would be a "zero tolerance" of online abuse. The team, which will be set up in the coming months, will identify the location of crimes and allocate them to the appropriate force. They will work with a team of volunteers. The Mayor's Office for Policing And Crime (Mopac) said social media "provides hate crime perpetrators with a veil of anonymity, making it harder to bring them to justice and potentially impacting on a larger number of people".
Translation (Score:2, Insightful)
They will protect political correctness and leave the real victims by the wayside. Too bad it isn't politically correct to prosecute the extremists causing a disproportionate amount of hate speech and physical attacks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
london under khan: a police state that prosecute "thought crimes" .
ultimately it will go the way of all other police states. corruption, waste, stagnation, and collapse. good riddance!
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. Attacking someone is a crime, saying you hate them is NOT!
This is just another assualt on free speech disguised under the whole "Think of the children!!!!" line-of-excuse nonsense
Re: Translation (Score:1)
Reported to the authorities!
Re: (Score:3)
Saying you hate someone IS a crime. ... Telling someone you hate them IS assault. Verbal assault.
"Saying you hate someone IS a crime. ... Telling someone you hate them IS assault. Verbal assault"
translations-
hurt feelings are crimes.
always smile and be positive or we send you to jail.
criticizing powers that be and their policies, thus showing 'hate', is a crime.
quarreling verbally with anyone is a crime
etc etc
yes that is police state mentality. and london under khan is one.
and there are always scum who will collaborate with such states, you seem to be one.
Re: (Score:3)
My favorite thought crime that someone got a visit from the cops over (I don't think they were actually arrested): posting on a council forum about council housing assignments "I think she no likey". "Likey" rhymes with "pikey", you see. Much as if, in the us, you posted an objection to a section 8 housing assignment "I think she needs something bigger".
This sort of shit allows for the worst sort of selective enforcement, the worst sort of "if a cop doesn't like you, he can always find something". It's s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is a stupid program, but your argument is still a false dichotomy and you erroneously equate more resources for other/unsolved crimes with better results. Some crimes are simply unsolvable with available information, and no amount of money or manpower will change that.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's like James Bond, they'll be taken prisoner in the first foreign country they visit and tortured to death. Unless they have any clever devices given them by Q, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, "radicalization" is a far more dangerous standard than "hate speech". To be a "radicalizer", you don't need to attack anyone or call for violence. All you really need to do is criticize government policy. Indeed, calling for an end to violence could get you arrested - if it's your government's violence.
These people are mentally ill. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't mean it as an insult, but as an actual statement. They are mentally ill, for real. Brainwashed and dangerously stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what? Is this knife regulation gone to far, or is a plastic fork now some drug paraphernalia?
Re: (Score:2)
Also consider, the truth of a statement is not a defence against libel. So you can libel people by telling the truth about them, and get locked up.
That shit is wack ;)
Re: (Score:2)
EVERYONE knows that its "YO Mama"
Re: (Score:1)
In Britain it is illegal to incite violence via hate speech.
Saying "I hate green people." isn't illegal. However, saying "Green people should all be killed, lets hang out tonight and kill some greenies" would be considered illegal.
Re:Online hate crime?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does that have to have a special name though? Plotting to kill someone - regardless of motive - should be illegal. Conspiracy to Murder or thereabouts (the exact charge name may vary by locale/jurisdiction).
Anything that should be a "hate crime" should also just be a regular crime with existing laws against it or it shouldn't be a crime at all. A "hate crime" is always either redundant or an unjust charge.
So they want to stop people being assholes.... (Score:5, Funny)
. . . . on the INTERNET ??
That makes holding back the tide with a teaspoon look doable, in contrast. . . .
Re: (Score:2)
That makes holding back the tide with a teaspoon look doable, in contrast. . . .
Standby for the creation of the Metropolitan Teaspoon Brigade, outfitted with the latest tactical tide-fighting teaspoons that money can buy!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a particular kind of assholery. Threatening and intimidating people.
And yes, of law enforcement is sufficiently determined and they can probably track down most people who engage in a persistent pattern of threats.
Re: (Score:3)
And yes, of law enforcement is sufficiently determined and they can probably track down most people who engage in a persistent pattern of threats.
Law enforcement is yet to address much more serious and directly related to them problem of swatting, why do you think they could make any difference here?
What is more likely is they are looking for another tool to legally repress dissenters and non-conformists.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, a particular kind of assholery. Threatening and intimidating people.
Considering that police services in Europe have been detaining people for wrong think for the last couple of years? You should be getting the fuck out of there, along with the rest of Europe. [dailymail.co.uk] Other stuff off the top of my head include the threats by the police that no dissenting opinions will be allowed regarding anything to do with the economic migrants. People arrested for different opinions(labeled as "hate speech") [thelocal.de] and labeled as racists. Scottland yard wanting to do the same thing as the Met. [nwemail.co.uk] And
Re: (Score:3)
I think this is pretty much spot on.
And then they wonder why there's a rise in nationalists and so on.
The strength of populist/nationalist movements is basically proportionate to amount of truth and reality the political system is deliberately choosing to suppress or ignore.
If the political system acknowledged a handful of realities Trump would have been a one-line joke that fizzled last August. But because they continue to deny them, it props him up and lends credibility to the other incredulous things he says.
Re: (Score:2)
The strength of populist/nationalist movements is basically proportionate to amount of truth and reality the political system is deliberately choosing to suppress or ignore. ...
Well, it's pretty easy to now show that the media isn't your friend, they have an agenda. There are groups out there that are attempting to push corruption and graft for the media as perfectly good thing, and they're left-wing groups. [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I think you can narrow the list of reality denial by the political establishment down to a fairly short list, and to many extents, both establishment parties participate.
1) Mass immigration -- there's a lot of denial on this topic. It's financial impact is only positive, it doesn't displace US workers, it doesn't create cultural friction.
2) Race -- there isn't a crime epidemic among African Americans, said crime isn't the prime mover of policing policies, all of the problems facing African Americans are p
Re: (Score:2)
Can we get them to go after APK?
Re: (Score:2)
APK, this is exactly what I am talking about. You are hurling abuse that has nothing to do with the subject, and it is abuse that I have already, repeatedly, responded to.
Do you understand that harassment in many places is illegal? You accuse me of libeling you, you know what, bring a lawsuit, I am sure the judge will get a good laugh at it all.
You can claim all you like that you blew me away, but frankly, all you do is hurl abuse, and act like you have won an argument. Where is your responses about the
Just another excuse... (Score:2)
to waste tax payer money on shit that doesn't really matter because a vocal minority of butt hurt retards won't shut the fuck up and get on with their lives. Just sayin...
Re: (Score:1)
It isn't a waste of taxpayer money, the taxpayers keep electing these idiots, and get what they deserve. And this is, no doubt, designed to protect the precious snowflakes from having chalk marks on the sidewalks, while they ignore the actual radical statements made by people hell bent on killing everyone not like them because they are "Insert politically correct subgroup here".
This is the full on assault of the First Amendment, dressed up to look acceptable to idiots who can't handle free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, this is the UK. They don't have a First Amendment, and have no legal authority on the side of the pond where there IS a First Amendment.
So let them amuse themselves. It'll be interesting to see them try to do something about an asshat in the USA offending someone in the UK....
Re: (Score:2)
The new staff hired to sit around and read messages online, the staff to keep their computer skills upto date. The contractors hired to expand the storage of huge datasets.
Any local gov, charity, gov, mil, ex staff, former staff can then sit around and report anyone for commenting on any gov policy in real time
Oh yeah, that's money well spent (Score:1)
The thought police are coming. Be afraid.. Most people are for it. In fact they would have you locked up for daring to malign or ridicule the idea.
"Hate crime" Jeebus! Can somebody tell me why motivation makes a difference? They are just saying a crime of assault/murder is perfectly justifiable if the reasons are right and the perpetrator is "righteous". And "online abuse", a scandal created out of thin air to make censorship more palatable.
Re: (Score:2)
Because intent matters. Would you give a murderer who planned his crime with utmost precision the same sentence as the guy who ran over a pedestrian because he was driving too fast?
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing murder with homicide, there is a difference
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate censorship nazis!
That's not a hate crime. That's just words and an opinion. Setting fire to a censorship supporter (which they deserve) is a crime on the other hand,
Re:Oh yeah, that's money well spent (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that's not a fair comparison for the question you were trying to answer.
Here's a more apt comparison.
Is it worse for a person to plan to kill someone at random and do it....vs that same person to plan to kill someone at random and was also specifically black/gay/female/indian/muslim ?
The question is, why would it be worse for #2 over #1....a person is still dead, so, what makes it worse if the reason was they were black vs they just didn't like the way you walked down the street?
Dead is dead and in either case it is murder, but some would have you think it was worse in the case of a serial killer that DID differentiate based on race or sexual preference vs a serial killer that did not.
Re: (Score:2)
By the logic of your question, the second crime wasn't at random, the person was singled out for their ethnicity or gender. That specificity makes it a different crime.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok...motive is slightly more refined in the second example, but they are both murder...the end result, a human life is extinguished criminally, the person is dead.
Why would #2 be worse than #1...the result is exactly the same, one less person processing oxygen. Both were premeditated murder.
Re: (Score:3)
Because in #1, the intent is murder. In #2, the intent is murder and terrorism against a specific group of people.
The result is exactly the same
They're not. In #1, someone is dead. In #2, someone is dead as a result of their circumstances of birth, or choice of religion
Re:Oh yeah, that's money well spent (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, I do NOT see the difference.
A dead person is a dead person.
Them being shot for being gay or muslim doesn't make their murder ANY more important than someone murdered for wearing argyle socks.
Dead is Dead.
If you go with "hate" crime, you are essentially saying their life is worth more than other peoples' lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Which would be fine except that western law, for centuries now, has deemed the question of 'why' to be of critical importance in adjudicating criminal law.
Them being shot for being gay or muslim doesn't make their murder ANY more important
If you go with "hate" crime, you are essentially saying their life is worth more than other peoples' lives.
You've got it backwards, intent is not about the final state of the crime, but what the criminal was attempting to achie
Re: (Score:1)
It's not the value of the life that differentiates them, it's that society finds crimes motivated by hatred of race, sexual orientation, gender and other non-choice attributes to be particularly abhorrent and in need of greater correction.
Re: (Score:1)
Except majority or normative demographic groups are not a protected class, thus people that murder them with intent can't be charged with a hate crime. The law specifically values the life of some demographics over others and persecutes the same crime more harshly based on the rarity, in a binary sense, of the victim's demographic information.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Anything you say can and will be used against you, so expressing an opinion in social media not considered politically correct carries with it an increased risk of incarceration.
If I were to murder both Person A and Person B (Score:2)
And my stated reason for murdering both Person A and Person B was "I didn't like they way he looked," should the punishment be different? I should hope not.
But if Person B was a member of some racial minority and Person A was not, you would probably want to tack on some sort of racial hate crime even though my inner crazy criteria was "His left ear is bigger than his right, he must die."
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to read my other comments in this thread.
Re: (Score:1)
You are picking nits. The law already breaks it down for us without involving "hate". Man one and two, first and second degree murder, negligent and justifiable homicide, etc. Using this ethereal "hate" is merely a pretext to control thought, and it is bigotry. A black man intentionally killing a white man and vice versa should carry the exact same penalty. But in our society "intent" will not be equally applied. Murder is murder. "Hate crime" is designed to single out a specific group to sanction more than
Re: (Score:2)
In what way? I was just explaining why motivation was important in response to your question.
The law already breaks it down for us without involving "hate".
No argument here. I'm already well on record as not being a fan of this particular strategery since we already have a well-developed concept of mens rea which I feel is sufficient gradation.
Criminal justice needs to be a lot less driven by emotion
Won't happen until the human race evolves out of its desire for mi
Re: (Score:1)
You only need to prove intent or lack or it. It doesn't matter if you kill a man because he banged your wife, or if you hate his mother, his religion, ethnicity, or anything else. Intent is simply intent. The reasons why are totally irrelevant, aside from maybe proving intent, but regardless, the penalty should be the same.
In your other argument:
By the logic of your question, the second crime wasn't at random, the person was singled out for their ethnicity or gender. That specificity makes it a different cr
Re: (Score:2)
Centuries of case law are completely at odds with your idea.
Why should that be different?
Simply put: refinement. If you're trying to make the argument that a reckless driver s
Re: (Score:1)
Centuries of case law are completely at odds with your idea.
Yeah, I know I'm going up against tradition here, but it is analogous to the defense of bullfighting as "respecting" a cultural institution.
brick by brick
Until the room is sealed [virginia.edu].. Case law has become a prison. Is "hate crime" the final brick?
Re: (Score:2)
Just a lil more complicated than that, but sure.
Case law has become a prison
Doubt it.
Re: (Score:1)
Intent is a very different thing than motive. Motive, in your example is the reason why the first guy planned his murder: for gain, for the lulz, ethnic or religious or political hatred, whatever. The act is still one of deliberate intent, regardless of motive. Your second guy had no intent to kill.
Motive may matter when we turn to the question of how to rehabilitate a criminal. But it can play no rightful role in defining
Re: (Score:2)
it already does, so I'm not sure what you're arguing here.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it doesn't. Read more carefully, including adjectives, and I think you'll get it. :-)
Nanny State, start your engines! (Score:5, Insightful)
Officer, someone said a bad thing about me on teh interweb!
Imagine all the real crime that's going to go unaddressed while the police chase down jackasses on Twitter and Facebook.
"Yeah, we'd like to get an officer out to talk with you about your home invasion and attempted rape complaint, but HamDogg2251 just insulted SpecialSnowFlake4550 on Twitter, so we won't be able to come out until sometime next week."
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand it would be nice if the police would take really serious threats made on the internet, well, seriously, but this announcement makes me very worried.
The City of London Police are a private police force that operates for the benefit of the corporations that run the City of London. It's not a normal police force, it spends it time pursuing copyright infringes and other enemies of the little corporate state. Worryingly, they have full police powers despite the lack of democratic accountability.
M
Re: (Score:2)
The CoLP and the Met are not the same entity. They often work together on local policing matters, as their jurisdictions are adjacent, but that's it. The Met is just another police force like any other in the UK, only bigger.
The CoLP have physical jurisdiction over a very small area, and specialise mostly on financial crime. Fraud, identity theft, insider trading, counterfeiting, that sort of thing - other police forces often consult them on such crimes. They are also home to the much-hated PIPCU, the inter
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for simplifying it down to a level of stupidity. Do you think online harassment is going to take precedence over a rape allegation as if the two cases aren't handled by a completely different group and aren't put through a prioritisation system?
Do you think they care about one snowflake insulating another while some tides of abuse online are so rampant that people actually commit suicide over it? Why is your home invasion more important than someone else's life?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for simplifying it down to a level of stupidity.
No thanks needed, as I wrote it with you in mind. ;)
-
Why is your home invasion more important than someone else's life?
You can always find another loser to pester to death online, but no one can replace my fully-framed crayon drawing of John Wayne! Once that's stolen it's gone forever! Good god, man, have you no sense of proportion?
Re: (Score:1)
Used to be a joke in the US, some total idiot would call 911 because a fast food joint got something wrong.
Now it seems even that may be a valid reason to call the police. Hey, he called me a nigger (or your favorite slur)! Lock 'em up!
Of course, the police may have to determine if the guy is in fact a nigger (or your favorite slur) or not. What happens if the police determine the guy really is a nigger? Think of the fun and games this could cause. A lawyers wet dream!
Because our prison needs more prisoners! (Score:2)
Obligatory Demolition Man References (Score:2)
Moral Statute Machine:
Your repeated violation of the Verbal Morality Statute has caused me to notify the San Angeles Police Department. Please remain where you are for your reprimand.
Simon Phoenix:
I'm sorry to say that the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of robed sissies.
Re: (Score:2)
IT wasn't supposed to be a template for our society.
Re: (Score:2)
IT wasn't supposed to be a template for our society.
Yeah. Funny how things work out, right? I mean, for very small values of funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Not funny in the "ha ha" sense, but in the "is that gauge in the reactor control panel supposed to be in the red?" sense.
it's about the money (Score:2)
You British Slashdot trolls... (Score:1)
... best be cleaning up your act on here, else the jerries will be coming for you. Or is it bobbies? Coppers? Sadly, I don't know my proper English slang terms as well as I should.
Stupid stupid stupid (Score:2)
If people are out looking for something to be offended by they will inevitably find it. Why do otherwise civilized societies keep pandering to these butt hurt babies that can't avert their eyes from shit they don't like? My whole life I was told if I don't like something, don't do it, don't look at it, don't get involved. When the fuck did we change from that to "Ban it, delete it, get it out of the world."
I feel like I'm in the fucking Twilight Zone. We used to mock the nanny state.
Re: (Score:2)
First they came for the smokers and the Big Gulp soda drinkers, and I did not speak out.
Re: (Score:1)
London has fallen (Score:2)
Off the deep end.
I am sure it will be completely fair and balanced (Score:2, Troll)
In light of recent events concerning Twitter and Facebooks censorship of unwanted conservative wrongthink, I have full confidence in our Bobbies that they will handle the job completely objective and unbiased.
I in particular do not expect any censorship of islam critical voices, particularly after nationwide child rape and trafficking scandals.
I certainly don't expect them to silence voices critical of the government, of the ultra-leftists such as SJWs or of 3rd wave feminists.
And of course I am looking for
How is that going to work? (Score:2)
Written or spoken word can be insult, defamation or ??
Hate crime seems to be a crime (deed) against a person or group - how is this possible with words?
If it's (a deed or fact) being reported/mentioned on some internet place, it is possibly worth pursuing by some police, but this seems to become a thought-police type thing. Where are the exact rules and regulations to get a hold of what is going on except politician/hype.
Is England going the Turkey way - wholesale locking up judges/journalists/soldiers with
The quick way to clean up the internet is simple (Score:2)
The reality is that it is in use in China and works pretty well. Further, most of the people using it support it. The solution is a real ID system where the ID of posters is simple to check and that the users are aware that it is easy to check their ID.
Yes, there would be concerns to be addressed, such as protecting people from having their usage history published; however, it is not insurmountable. With th e sense of anonymity gone, most people would feel less free to act stupid.
Re:The quick way to clean up the internet is simpl (Score:4, Insightful)
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995),
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
China is a brutally oppressive totalitarian society. Copy nothing that they do. Any time you find yourself recommending that that we copy something the Chinese government does? That's how you know you've gone off the rails.
emails? (Score:2)
Anybody got an email address for the London mayor's office? MOPAC? Any of these wankers?
I want to make their first investigation an easy one.
Re: (Score:2)
The offending official is Sophie Linden, Deputy Mayor - at least, that's the name on the funding application. There's a twitter handle where your messages can be ignored, @SophieKLinden. I couldn't find an easy address, but you can probably reach her via the mayor's office - that way a higher-ranking secretary will ignore your letter.
Twats... (Score:1)
Yeah, because... (Score:3)
Fuck you, freedom of speech! That's just a lame concept the colonists threw around for a while. We're better than that!
Fight verbal violence with actual violence? (Score:2)
That will go well. A good example why the police must be severely limited in what they are allowed to do, as otherwise they will turn into a gang of thugs that stomp hard on anything even slightly amiss in their eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
It is impossible to legislate thought
It's also not necessary. Terrorizing the crimethinkers into silence is sufficient.
However, this will give the police even more powers to intrude into the lives of others.
That's fine [up-ship.com]
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You do have a right to stop someone from saying things that a reasonable person would perceive as threatening. This is not some kind of recent PC innovation, it goes back in the law for centuries.
You can sort this out with a Venn diagram. All threats are assholery, and all threats are illegal, but some assholerly is legal.
Re: (Score:2)
And there's very little that someone hundreds of miles away from you can say over the internet that a reasonable person would perceive as threatening.
Someone in the same room with me, or standing in front of my house, saying "I'm going to punch you in the face for what you said!" is a true threat, the person has the imminent means and opportunity to carry it out. Someone in a different city tweeti
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a reasonable person believe that anything said by a stranger on the internet is threatening? I've never understood that. Trash talk is trash, learn to ignore it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, if I were to dox you, put a picture of your front door on a forum and say "I'm going to rape you, bitch," then I think you'd probably feel threatened.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope - unless I knew you. The odds of an anonymous stranger somewhere in the world flying to where I live just to do me harm are quite small. I'll accept that risk alongside lightning and meteor strikes. It's not a credible threat, as the police have repeatedly had to tell SJWs.
If I were a politician, it would be different. If the threat was to do something that could be done remotely to harm me, that might be different. That's why you hear about commentators getting SWATed, but not raped. And even th
Re: (Score:2)
It does sound a lot but that 1.7mil covers more than just the wages.
There is probably all sorts of technology that needs procuring, police cars, buildings. Typically for every simoleon spent on wage, there is a simoleon need to be spent by the employer- things like taxes, and crap.
Re: (Score:1)
Offense is always taken, never given.