Cambridge defended and praised a professor for a wrongdoing

[Ostroeuropa]

But do you think that the person, lets say a cambridge professor, uttering those things would be shielded by the university or immediately cut off and reprimanded?

Shielded, as in not fired? Yes. Reprimanded? That depends more on the context, but there should be a wide leeway. Richard Dawkins has said many things I didn't like, but he hasn't been reprimanded by Oxford as far as I'm aware, and that seems right to me.

Richard Dawkins isn't openly being a spokesperson for a hate movement.

[Gravlen]

The communications act of 2003 also covers "Offensive" communications in a similar manner.

"grossly offensive". Again, a difference you failed to spot.

[Ostroeuropa]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_spee ... ed_Kingdom

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.


It also counts if the statement is "Likely to stir up racial hatred", regardless of intent.

You'll note that "offensive" is not the correct criteria, as I said.

Offensiveness is covered by the communications act 2003.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Shielded, as in not fired? Yes. Reprimanded? That depends more on the context, but there should be a wide leeway. Richard Dawkins has said many things I didn't like, but he hasn't been reprimanded by Oxford as far as I'm aware, and that seems right to me.

Richard Dawkins isn't openly being a spokesperson for a hate movement.

Ask a Christian about that. Or any number of religions whose Churches Dawkins has roundly abused.

[Ostroeuropa]

The communications act of 2003 also covers "Offensive" communications in a similar manner.

"grossly offensive". Again, a difference failed to spot.

Lots of people seem grossly offended.

[Gravlen]

Shielded, as in not fired? Yes. Reprimanded? That depends more on the context, but there should be a wide leeway. Richard Dawkins has said many things I didn't like, but he hasn't been reprimanded by Oxford as far as I'm aware, and that seems right to me.

Richard Dawkins isn't openly being a spokesperson for a hate movement.

So? Does that change his freedom of speech? Would it mean he has more or less freedom of speech as a spokesperson?

[Ostroeuropa]

Richard Dawkins isn't openly being a spokesperson for a hate movement.

So? Does that change his freedom of speech? Would it mean he has more or less freedom of speech as a spokesperson?

It would mean he shouldn't be platformed by the university supposedly.

[-Astoria-]

Shielded, as in not fired? Yes. Reprimanded? That depends more on the context, but there should be a wide leeway. Richard Dawkins has said many things I didn't like, but he hasn't been reprimanded by Oxford as far as I'm aware, and that seems right to me.

Richard Dawkins isn't openly being a spokesperson for a hate movement.

Quite a number of people hailing from religions that he's attacked would disagree.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Richard Dawkins isn't openly being a spokesperson for a hate movement.

Quite a number of people hailing from religions that he's attacked would disagree.

It's the UK though. Perhaps religion isn't a "protected class".

[Ostroeuropa]

On grossly offensive, the prosecution guidelines state that testimony of those offended is "Highly relevant" to determining if the offence is grossly offensive.

It also states;

When assessing communications that appear to be motivated by such discrimination or demonstrate such hostility, prosecutors should be alert to any additional reference or context to the communication in question. Such references or context may sometimes elevate a communication that would otherwise not meet the high threshold to one that, in all the circumstances, can be considered grossly offensive.

[Gravlen]

"grossly offensive". Again, a difference failed to spot.

Lots of people seem grossly offended.

It's a legal standard, not a popularity contest.

[Ostroeuropa]

Lots of people seem grossly offended.

It's a legal standard, not a popularity contest.

The prosecution guidelines suggest that it is in some sense a popularity contest, as the testimony of those offended is considered highly relevant to determining if it's grossly offensive and whether it is prosecutable.

[Gravlen]

So? Does that change his freedom of speech? Would it mean he has more or less freedom of speech as a spokesperson?

It would mean he shouldn't be platformed by the university supposedly.

So you think Dawkins shouldn't be platformed by universities? Hmm.

[Ostroeuropa]

It would mean he shouldn't be platformed by the university supposedly.

So you think Dawkins shouldn't be platformed by universities? Hmm.

Has he openly joined a hate movement?

[Gravlen]

No, I don't think those particular statements would be hate speech.

The criteria is if I is insulting or offensive. OR if a reasonable person would understand that they would be construed as such (Which is blatantly obvious).

Do you not think they qualify and can you justify that?

Sure.

Public Order Act 1986 art. 18 no. 5. Her intent matters, and she has explained her intent.

[Ostroeuropa]

The criteria is if I is insulting or offensive. OR if a reasonable person would understand that they would be construed as such (Which is blatantly obvious).

Do you not think they qualify and can you justify that?

Sure.

Public Order Act 1986 art. 18 no. 5. Her intent matters, and she has explained her intent.

The claimed intent doesn't matter if a reasonable person would know the outcome. An example would be the Nazi Pug Trial. It might be relevant to sentencing, but not to prosecution.

[Thermodolia]

Saying "White Lives Don't Matter" in any context will alienate potential allies, provide enemies with free propaganda to use as ammunition, and attract individuals with some nasty opinions against whites.

There are more concerning things than less potential allies to your cause.

Not when those prospective allies are still the majority in several nations like the US

[Gravlen]

So you think Dawkins shouldn't be platformed by universities? Hmm.

Has he openly joined a hate movement?

He is the spokesperson for militant atheism, and has said that "Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today". So it would seem that under your standard, the answer would be yes.

[Ostroeuropa]

Has he openly joined a hate movement?

He is the spokesperson for militant atheism, and has said that "Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today". So it would seem that under your standard, the answer would be yes.

Probably then.

But it's not my standard. It's demanding the standards that are imposed on the enemies of the progressive left be applied to them in turn. Mostly because it would see them all deplatformed, fined, and imprisoned, at which point we can cleanse our institutions of their influence and roll back this authoritarianism they have fostered in an inconsistent and one sided manner.

[Gravlen]

Sure.

Public Order Act 1986 art. 18 no. 5. Her intent matters, and she has explained her intent.

The claimed intent doesn't matter if a reasonable person would know the outcome. An example would be the Nazi Pug Trial. It might be relevant to sentencing, but not to prosecution.

Also incorrect. In PF v Mark Meechan, the intent was to be offensive:

You told a newspaper reporter that the video was very offensive. You intended the video to be as offensive as you could make it and you posted it on your own unrestricted publicly accessible video channel which on your own description: “provides offensive social comedy and skits that get people thrown in prison”.

His intent mattered. It was, in fact, decisive.

[Ostroeuropa]

The claimed intent doesn't matter if a reasonable person would know the outcome. An example would be the Nazi Pug Trial. It might be relevant to sentencing, but not to prosecution.

Also incorrect. In PF v Mark Meechan, the intent was to be offensive:

You told a newspaper reporter that the video was very offensive. You intended the video to be as offensive as you could make it and you posted it on your own unrestricted publicly accessible video channel which on your own description: “provides offensive social comedy and skits that get people thrown in prison”.

His intent mattered. It was, in fact, decisive.

In which case i'd argue her intent was clearly to offend white people, hence the structure of her sentence. She's merely denying it. But intent can nonetheless be gathered.

[Juristonia]

Bit of context.

In June 2020, Gopal tweeted "White lives don't matter. As white lives" and "Abolish whiteness", in response to a banner flown over a Premier League football stadium that read "White lives matter Burnley".

[Agarntrop]

O boy are people now defending the nazi pug trial?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

He is the spokesperson for militant atheism, and has said that "Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today". So it would seem that under your standard, the answer would be yes.

Probably then.

But it's not my standard. It's demanding the standards that are imposed on the enemies of the progressive left be applied to them in turn. Mostly because it would see them all deplatformed, fined, and imprisoned, at which point we can cleanse our institutions of their influence and roll back this authoritarianism they have fostered in an inconsistent and one sided manner.

Oh well since you put it like that, I'm no longer neutral. If it's you, versus the Progressive Left, I'm pretty sure which side I want.

I hope Gopal keeps her job, and a judge (if required) takes into account context like what Juristonia just posted.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

O boy are people now defending the nazi pug trial?

Ostro is using it as precedent, so yeah I guess he is.