How is it different?

I can't wait to see this mental gymnastics.

If it's considered threatening, that is just someone's personal perception

One is presumably done outside whereas the dog is in the privacy of your own home for one

"presumably"

One can be seen by others unwillingly

The other can't be

Although like i said before both should be allowed

Either can be seen willingly or unwillingly

We need Free Speech absolutism

What about satanic rituals?

@Hopix How?

Also, can you show me how many people are CONVICTED of hate crime in the UK? @The Electric Lizard

One is done inside

Annually.

You can do either indoors or outdoors, and stream them if you wnat

What even is this discussion at this point lmao

Starting to sound like Monty Python

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