I've wondered about this before, not just telling people, but what about my code projects etc... Something like "make all my github repo's public when I die" (assuming anyone would care about them).
Back in the day, adverts used to be obviously just adverts. Nowadays it's very difficult to determine what actually is an advert/influencer, or someone with some genuine facts.
Because things that won't get you into trouble today will get you into trouble tomorrow when they change the rules. I'd prefer to have the government know as little as possible about my doings.
> “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066” is accurate
Accurate as in someone said it? Centuries ago, people were worried that if the number of horses increased at the current rate, we would be waist-deep in horse manure.
And you admit yourself that the "precise number is contentious".
> Accurate as in someone said it? Centuries ago, people were worried that if the number of horses increased at the current rate..
"Someone" being a population expert. Of course, "if we do nothing about it" is implied - if nothing could be done, why even bring it up? But of course you know this, and stretching a best estimate prediction by an expert to somehow qualify as "disinformation" is not arguing in good faith.
> And you admit yourself that the "precise number is contentious".
The man jailed did not state any number, and was not in jail for getting the number wrong, so that objection is irrelevant. I only add the caveat to avoid an argument about the number that the source cited.
Your framing of the stories is interesting:
* "UK arrests were also for stickers" - surely there must be a point where we stop someone putting racists stickers everywhere.
* "merely possessing materials designed to Stirring up racial hatred" - Presumably you're okay with someone stirring up racial hatred?
* "Viewing "far-right propaganda" carries a 15 year jail sentence:" - No it doesn't, that's just an MP trying to get votes.
* ""young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs" ". Where does it say anything about a jail term?
> Your framing of the stories is interesting: * "UK arrests were also for stickers" - surely there must be a point where we stop someone putting racists stickers everywhere.
The post I replied to claimed "The UK wrongthink arrests were for stuff like calling for a building full of people to be burned down". That example shows this is clearly not the case, and entirely non-violent speech [0] is criminal. That you personally agree with that prosecution is irrelevant.
> "merely possessing materials designed to Stirring up racial hatred" - Presumably you're okay with someone stirring up racial hatred?
What does it matter what I agree with? It doesn't stop being censorship, or a counterexample to the parent post's claim, if I agree with it.
> "Viewing "far-right propaganda" carries a 15 year jail sentence:" - No it doesn't, that's just an MP trying to get votes.
After reading the text of the law [1], you are correct - it only applies to material "useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". My mistake for believing the word of the UK Home Secretary about the law she was pushing.
> ""young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs" ". Where does it say anything about a jail term?
I apologize, I should have better organized the citations. [2] only talks about the conviction, the jail sentence is reported in [3]: Jailing him for 10 months and two weeks, Judge Nicholas Barker said it was clear that Heggie had wanted his offensive comments about the Muslim faith "to be read and heard by many".
[0] Yes, speech, not "vandalism" or other charge related to the stickers themselves, not their content - the conviction was literally for "stirring up racial hatred", and the average sticker promoting a nightclub or dance class, even if technically illegal, does not come with a 2 year jail term: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867
reply