Look very simply people should be allowed to say whatever they want, There should be no speech codes whatsoever, and i believe the US is closer to this then the UK

The us has more freedom units per capita than the uk

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress.

Well inciting violence should still be a crime

This is from the UK

https://youtu.be/xpAvcGcEc0k?t=228

Inciting distress is a crime under this

It shouldn't be

person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(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,

Depends on the level of distress which is the issue

^

They are basing a conviction based purely on intent

And you’d need evidence to support that intent

Who can ever determine intent?

You can't it is based purely on the opinion of the Judge

Which is why it's hard to be convicted of hate speech

That law is so vague

Yep

Ye

The Dankula case if the problem

Oh definitely

Literally anything can be insulting, it's up to an individual's opinion

Convicting people over jokes is a bad case to go especially in the UK legal system

Dankular should have been classed as comedy/satire

Which is protected

That my friends is a precursor to a 1984 style world

Because the UK uses common law the Dankula case can be used as a precedent to arrest other comedians

Hence why a rapper can hold up Boris' bloody head and call it a joke

Surely that is a crime

Apparently not for him

certainly causing distress

With intent

He's rich and powerful whereas we're not

But i doubt the police care enough

Yup

unlike in the Dankula case

Because dankular is a commoner

It's all about class, status, power and money

The law is far to vague too

It always has been

Who determines what insulting behaviour is?