Hate speech redefined as 'speech we do not like'

Babylon Bee

U.S.-A coalition of groups and organizations has come together to officially redefine hate speech as "speech we don't like."

The coalition included several dictionaries, the SPLC, the majority of colleges and universities in the nation, several Big Tech companies like Google, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter, and the Democratic Party. Representatives from each of these groups came together at Harvard University to vote on and ratify the proposal officially changing the definition of "hate speech" to "speech we don't like."

"A lot of people are getting the wrong idea about hate speech," a representative from Instagram said. "They believe hate speech actually has to be hateful to qualify. So I think we need to clarify terms here. For instance, we just deleted a post that a lot of progressives did not like. It wasn't hateful or anything, but they did not like it."

The Instagram rep then displayed this slide of the post they had deleted:

© Babylon Bee

 

"See, we said it was hate speech, but this confused people because it wasn't actually hateful. So I move that we immediately change the definition of hate speech to 'speech you do not like.'"

After the motion passed, dictionaries quickly updated their definitions to read:

Hate speech - (noun) - speech you do not like or speech that offends you in any way // That guy said he disagrees with me. What awful hate speech!

At publishing time, the coalition had clarified that this definition does not apply to conservatives.

Read more 

Liking Tweets now potential Thought Crime in UK

Comment: Well worth watching this video to see how ridiculous (and dangerous) this kind of thought policing has now become. 

------------------------

UK cops officially detained David Miranda for thoughtcrime

By Cory Doctorow

Boing Boing

David Miranda is journalist Glenn Greenwald's boyfriend, but he's best known for being detained under the Section 7 of the UK Terrorism Act while changing planes at Heathrow. The cops held Miranda for nine hours, the maximum allowed under law, without access to counsel, using powers intended to allow the detention of people suspected of connections to terrorism. But it was clear to everyone that Miranda wasn't connected to terrorism -- rather, the UK establishment was attempting to intimidate people connected to the Snowden leaks through arbitrary detention and harassment

Now that Miranda's lawyers are chasing down the people responsible, we're getting a more detailed picture of the process that led up to Miranda's detention. Before a Section 7 detention takes place, British cops have to file a form called a Port Circular Notice, and several drafts of the Notice used to detain Miranda have come to light.

The final draft argues that Miranda should be detained under terrorism law because "...the disclosure or threat of disclosure is designed to influence a government, and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism." 

In other words: thoughtcrime. 

Read more