Dunn was jailed eight weeks for posting three memes:
> Prosecutor George Shelley said Dunn had posted three separate images. The first one showed a group of men, Asian in appearance, at Egremont crab fair 2025, with the caption: “Coming to a town near you.”
> The second also showed a group of men, Asian in appearance leaving a boat on to Whitehaven beach. This, said Mr Shelley, had the caption: “When it’s on your turf, then what?”
> A final image showed a group of men, again Asian in appearance, wielding knives in front of the Palace of Westminster. There was also a crying white child in a Union flag T-shirt. This was also captioned, said Mr Shelley, with the wording: “Coming to a town near you.”
Based on those descriptions... it sounds like he was pretty clearly racist? From the article:
> Sentencing Thompson, Judge Temperley had said of the zero tolerance approach being taken by courts:
> “This offence, I’m afraid, has to be viewed in the context of the current civil unrest up and down this country. And I’ve no doubt at all that your post is connected to that wider picture.
> “I don’t accept that your comments and the emojis that you posted were directed at the police. I’ve read in the case summary of the comments you made on arrest which clearly demonstrate to me that there was a racial element to the messaging and the posting of these emojis.
> “That has to be reflected in the sentence...there to be a deterrent element in the sentence that I impose, because this sort of behaviour has to stop.
> “It encourages others to behave in a similar way and ultimately it leads to the sorts of problems on the streets that we’ve been seeing in so many places up and down this country. This offence is serious enough for custody.”
So the actual news here is "man jailed for sharing memes that Asian people are invading the UK and coming to murder you".
Yes. It's a horrible sentiment, and he should be able to air it. Free and open discourse requires me to allow you to say things I dislike in exchange for you tolerating my saying things you dislike. It isn't free speech if you're only allowed to say popular things.
The continual conflation of speech that harms society as "speech I dislike" is absurd. And yes, it's not American-style freedom of speech... we've never had that nor should we. Just look at what American-style freedom of speech has done to America.
As a minority, I do not hold the same view. I understand your position, however, my personhood is often demonstrably conditional on the speech that other people spread about me and people like me. In the last decade I have seen fascist speech go unpunished and, consequently, the increased spread of the idea that I and people like me are not people, that I am simply an evil and horrible person for my genetic identity, forever tainted, an "undesirable", and a very suitable target for being marginalised and erased (often violently) from society. I have already been victim to these effects, as have my friends, and I have seen others, those with a different skin colour on top of the genetic difference, bear the effects tenfold. I have known of people murdered in the streets for simply having my genetic trait, even if it didn't hit the international news, I saw how people spoke about it online even despite the hate speech acts. That another one of us dead was a good thing.
I have also been witness to the power that physical violence inflicted upon these people has had in silencing that rhetoric and the spread of those ideas. I have seen how fascists go into hiding when they feel they will be the victims of violence, and I have seen how easy it is to break apart these networks by simply restricting the speech of a handful of people, or removing them from the platform.
I very much do feel, that either I am in a concentration camp in the next ten years, or these people are imprisoned. Prison is the lighter sentence for fascist rhetoric, and represent sane and sensible consequences for suggesting that an entire group of people who hold no specific ideology are evil. Remember that a war was fought, and the alternative to imprisonment for fascist rhetoric is letting it grow so large that the only inevitable solution is a war where people are murdered for their fascist rhetoric.
Before comparing the third paragraph with the first, please remember, that these people can simply choose to not say vile things about people with my genetics. If they do not wish to go to prison, maybe they should not make wide fascistic statements about people with my genetics being murderers and pedophiles — both claims that are starkly in opposition to the evidence. I am 60% more likely to be sexually assaulted compared to the baseline, cisgender female population. I cannot change my genetics, nor would I want to if I had the option, and my genetics do not represent my ideology or how I behave or act in public or private.
We know this doesn't work, and it's insane Americans still pretend it does. Goebbels himself said it while they were abusing the Weimar German freedoms and protections of democracy to take power with violence. They were very happy to use the tools of democracy to destroy it. We owe it to our societies and democracy not to let this kind of speech in particular to prosper.
And for a more recent example, you have a presidential couple that (among a million other things) lied publicly, and admitted to it. And they're now in power because their hatred-filled lies were not checked. And the country is sliding fast towards fascism, ignoring courts to concentration camps with no records to suing media to bully them into favourable reporting to pick any other example you want. Guess the country!
It's unfortunate that this seems to have been forgotten in only a few decades, but one day you may find yourself as the one who is clearly racist and despite your protests there will be no one left to defend you
Those examples are completely inoccuous to my sensibilities. Of course, there are plenty of countries that lack the broad speech protections Americans enjoy, but one doesn't expect such curtailments of personal liberty in a fellow English-speaking western "liberal" democracy.
The first example was "man arrested for wearing the exact same outfit as a man who intentionally blew himself up, killing 22 people". It's not "he was wearing the same chequered shirt!" either. As a UK citizen... I don't see how that fits under "free speech", lol
Even with "freedom of speech", you do not have "freedom from fascism" built into that, case in point, Wikipedia has multiple pages documenting both the current US administration's attitude towards trans people (that, in Charlie Kirk's words, we are "abominations unto god" that should be "taken care of" "as in the 50s/60s", which can only be taken to mean lynching), as well as the attitude of the US presidency towards democracy
I think the issue here isn't "freedom of speech", its that people who claim to want "freedom for speech" are either using it as a shield to say vile things to other people, or they feel that "freedom of speech" is the only thing one needs to guard against fascism.
The resulting difficulty is that the former is demonstrably true, and the former is demonstrably false.
It wasn't obvious to me either. But we know the angles ABC, ABD, and DBE equal 180 degrees, as do the interior angles of triangle ABC. From that we can deduce that angle BAC = angle DBE, from which it follows that angle ABC = angle BDE.
If you're a tech worker who would like to improve your social skills or overcome mild to moderate social anxiety, I can whole-heartedly recommend working as a server nights and weekends for a few months. As a server, you will always have a clear purpose guiding each interaction, eliminating the sometimes intimidating open-endedness of more casual settings. But you'll be constantly talking to people, and you'll meet all kinds. You'll also have many opportunities to have structured and unstructured interactions with coworkers. It's a fantastic way to get in lots of reps in a short time.
We're concerned with society's safety, not just that of the user.
Citation needed on your second paragraph. We deliberately shape the information environment all the time for different reasons. It can be done. Of course there are limitations, drawbacks, and objections that reasonable people can make for philosophical, pragmatic, and other reasons. But the media generally does not report suicides because of the copycat effect. Governments implement elaborate systems to guard sensitive national security information including the workings of certain advanced technologies. Criminal records can be expunged. The sharing of health and education records are restricted.
> We're concerned with society's safety, not just that of the user.
Preventing censorship is important to keeping society safe from authoritarians who want to influence public opinion.
> We deliberately shape the information environment all the time for different reasons. It can be done.
That's why we need to put in the work to inhibit people from doing that.
> But the media generally does not report suicides because of the copycat effect.
Yet they consistently fail to follow the same logic with respect to things like school shootings, implying that whoever is at the helm can't be trusted to make sound decisions, and then we certainly don't want anyone like that having the power to censor.
> Governments implement elaborate systems to guard sensitive national security information including the workings of certain advanced technologies.
These systems are notorious for over-classifying information that it would be in the public interest to release or being used to cover up misconduct.
> Criminal records can be expunged.
That means the government stops officially claiming you're a criminal and stops caring about it for a certain set of purposes. It doesn't mean nobody can tell you what happened.
> The sharing of health and education records are restricted.
Those rules are generally about securing information that neither the patient nor the medical provider have any desire to make public. Notice that if the medical provider actually wants to publish them they can often put it in the agreement as a condition of accepting their services and the patient can pretty much publish them whenever they want.
reply