Ok so I'll try to not drag this discussion too much as I feel it's much more relevant in a thread about how to counter this sort of abuse and deserves it's own thread so I'll be concise as much as I can.
I don't think people should be able to subject people to racist abuse or troll the families of tragedies freely behind the cloak of anonymity. If you yelled the n-word at Elanga in the story you'd get done for it, so why should it be fine to tweet that to him.
It's then for the CPS, courts or whatever to draw the lines. I don't think that's akin to China or Iran's control of social media in any reasonable interpretation.
Again you are absolutely correct saying that it's the wrong thing to say and morally reprehensible but that's not the point I'm getting at , giving governmental institutions the power to control and regulate what's correct and what's punishable not only reactionary but also a very very dangerous slippery slope to move towards no matter how right it may seem at first.
I absolutely do not trust any government who are more concerned about amassing votes to just further their own agenda to regulate free speech so while not a perfect solution i feel that the best way to enforce freedom of speech is to just draw the line at direct threat of physical harm.
Also while comparing the censorship and prosecution of those regimes with the much more *free* for lack of better word western world , you can be never to sure of how fast democratic backsliding can happen. For example while there isn't much emphasis put on racism, there is a lot placed on public decency and while many people agree on the premise of those laws (due to being either very religious or obedient to the government) those very same laws are enforced to curtail and deflect legitimate criticism of government.
Your stance doesn't make any sense. Asking to link social media profiles to a person isn't in any sense a curtailment of free speech. Reporting social media posts to the police is no different to any other reporting of abuse in a non digital form.
There's a huge difference between controlling access and publication of information to making it possible to punish those committing a crime.
They should be handled as if they'd abused Elanga from the stands.
Well we fundamentally disagree on the nature of hate speech laws and I don't how reconcile that but I did try to outline my views somewhat further up, also in regards to bolded I feel it's important to make the distinction between a privately owned football club deciding what they allow in their stadiums and public discourse forums ( yeah I know i know those social media sites are also privately owned, but I'm not a libertarian nut job so I don't think private companies should be able to regulate speech either , due to the massive role these sites play in political and public discourse and how they affect them)
Also the last thing I have to say is this, I don't see what this sort of action achieves either , these sort of man won't suddenly disappear and if anything it gives them the impetus to see themselves as even more of an oppressed group by the tyrannical government , oligarchy , evil corporations or whatever. To simply ignore them is the best course of action in my opinion as it will simply phase them out ( this sort of sentiment will always live on unfortunately but but hopefully it'll be much less prevalent in the future)
damn that's a lot of words!
