You both are actively lying. I'm not talking about Tyler Kay, I'm talking about Wayne O’Rourke, whose tweets did not advocate for murder at all, let alone “set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards”. Not once did I mention Tyler. That's something you fabricated to deceive and mislead.
It's people like you that enable authoritarianism around the world by gaslighting others and justifying suppression of speech.
1. The original meaning is that people must be killed.
2. The more common meaning these days is that people must be punished in some less dramatic way (usually fired).
It is typical of racists to use phrases with double meanings like this. The idea ia that when their words are quoted back at them they can attempt to avoid consequences by claiming they intended the other meaning.
>> It is typical of racists to use phrases with double meanings like this.
Using phrases with double meaning (euphemisms) is a sign of people who read a book or two and have the intelligence to understand the play on words. Some people unfortunately don't have this ability and they take everything as literal.
You actively lied about the person that was jailed to further a political agenda of suppressing free speech, protest, and democracy. That's not a mistake, that's malice. Your bad indeed.
I didn't lie, I got the wrong guy because you weren't specific. In the context of his tweet I think it was clearly a call to violence. Almost always is not the same as always.
> I got the wrong guy because you weren't specific
That doesn't make it any less of a lie - you said something factually false about the person I was referring to. You also made an assumption that you knew could be false in order to push a political agenda and deceive others.
> Almost always is not the same as always.
This is grasping for straws, and has the tyrannical premise of "guilty until proven innocent" behind it. I really hope that you're not in a position of power in my country, or any one for that matter.
> and has the tyrannical premise of "guilty until proven innocent" behind it
No it doesn't, for three reasons.
1. This is an internet forum not a court of law
2. He already plead guilty to his crime and been convicted, hes no longer in the "innocent until proven guilty" phase
3. Calling for violence wasn't even the crime he was convicted of. That was "publishing written material to stir up racial hate" [1].
Now you can reasonably say (and I expect you would) that you don't think that publishing written material to stir up racial hate should be a crime. Personally I think it should, because stirring up racial hatred is pretty damaging.
This doesn't matter. "Guilty until proven innocent" is not exclusively a legal concept. Furthermore, you're making this opinion about a legal case, so even if it was exclusively a legal concept, you'd still be making an opinion about what should happen in a court of law.
> 2. He already plead guilty to his crime and been convicted, hes no longer in the "innocent until proven guilty" phase
This demonstrates a lack of experience with the real world, as it's very common for innocent people to plead guilty. This is trivially verifiable with quick internet searches[1]. Ergo, this claim is false - guilty plea status is irrelevant, especially if we're discussing the merits of the case or verdict.
> 3. Calling for violence wasn't even the crime he was convicted of. That was "publishing written material to stir up racial hate" [1].
That's even worse. If you read the definition of the law:
> A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
> (a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
> (b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
...you'd see that it's far less clear and more subjective than calling for violence.
> Personally I think it should, because stirring up racial hatred is pretty damaging.
This is a non-argument because "Stirring up racial hatred" doesn't mean anything. The law is written so broadly that it can be interpreted to mean almost anything. It's also a concept almost exclusively used by the UK government that is used to prosecute political opponents with zero clear harm identified. And, the concept is exclusively legal, not moral/ethical - if you ask a random person on the street of any country what "stirring up racial hatred" means, you'll get wildly different answers, and more than a few confused looks. This also means that "stirring up racial hatred is pretty damaging" doesn't mean anything, because you can't even quantify the meaning of the phrase, which makes assessing effects/damage completely impossible.
Even if you're acting in genuinely good faith (which is not the case in the UK) and only personally intend to use this law to prosecute people who are calling for violence (which is already illegal), it's extremely clear that the law is so broadly-written that it can be used against your political opponents (or, you, in case the party in power changes).
Not-so-ironically, you can see the exact same situation in the HN submission article - "Shanbehzadeh was sentenced to five years for alleged pro-Israel propaganda activity, four years for insulting Islamic sanctities, two years for spreading lies online and an additional year for anti-regime propaganda."
Like "stirring up racial hate", none of those terms mean anything (except what the state wants them to mean when it wants them to mean it in a legal context to persecute opponents), all of them are extremely broadly applicable, and all of them are actively being used by the state to suppress speech it doesn't like. You can take your statement "Personally I think [publishing written material to stir up racial hate] should [be illegal], because stirring up racial hatred is pretty damaging." and swap out the nouns and get "Personally I think spreading lies online should be illegal, because lies are pretty damaging" and you've just justified what the state of Iran did with exactly the same logic.
You're right, I should be better about assuming good faith - I'd say that at this point there's at least some evidence that the user is not acting in good faith, but it's still pretty tenuous, and I wasn't acting that way to begin with. Thank you for calling that out.
It's people like you that enable authoritarianism around the world by gaslighting others and justifying suppression of speech.