Police probe into anti-Semitism claims against Labour members

Didge wrote:Police have launched a criminal inquiry into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.

Met Police chief Cressida Dick told the BBC her officers were assessing online material because it appears "there may have been a crime committed".

It comes after LBC Radio obtained what it said was an internal Labour document detailing 45 cases, involving messages posted by members on social media.

Ms Dick says the Met had a duty to assess the material and not dismiss it.

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that her officers were seeking advice from the Crown Prosecution Service.

But she insisted the Met was "not investigating" the Labour Party itself.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46070229

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Police have launched a criminal inquiry into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.

Met Police chief Cressida Dick told the BBC her officers were assessing online material because it appears "there may have been a crime committed".

It comes after LBC Radio obtained what it said was an internal Labour document detailing 45 cases, involving messages posted by members on social media.

Ms Dick says the Met had a duty to assess the material and not dismiss it.

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that her officers were seeking advice from the Crown Prosecution Service.

But she insisted the Met was "not investigating" the Labour Party itself.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46070229

This is not a US problem.  We have freedom of speech ensconced in our First Amendment.

Didge wrote:So death threats is not a US problem and backed by the first ammendment?

I think not

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So death threats is not a US problem and backed by the first ammendment?

I think not

There is nothing about death threats in the OP piece.  That is a red herring that you have made up.

The discussion is over hate speech.  Speech is constitutionally protected in the US unless connected with an act of violence.  Even then, it is usually only an enhancement.

Didge wrote:Just one example

LBC said the allegations included threats against MPs, including a message on Facebook that a female Labour MP was a "zionist extremist...who hates civilised people" and is "about to get a good kicking"

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Just one example

LBC said the allegations included threats against MPs, including a message on Facebook that a female Labour MP was a "zionist extremist...who hates civilised people" and is "about to get a good kicking"

Talk is metaphor.  When Republican President GW Bush lost Congress in the 2006 mid-terms, he called it an "ass kicking".

Do you remember Sarah Palin's infamous 'crosshairs' map, which targeted legislators who voted for Obama's health care bill? That map was criticized as an incitement to violence.

The language of war or violence is often employed in politics.

Didge wrote:What has a map got to do with individuals making individual threats?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:What has a map got to do with individuals making individual threats?

It's an example of metaphor, particularly of war/violence, being used in politics.  The language of war or violence is often employed in politics.

Didge wrote:So you as a judge have no comprehension of criminal law then, based on actual threats?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So you as a judge have no comprehension of criminal law then, based on actual threats?

I'm not a judge.

Didge wrote:See how Quill diverges the debate away from Anti-semitism, to promote his political agenda?

How often does this now happen?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:See how Quill diverges the debate away from Anti-semitism, to promote his political agenda?

How often does this now happen?

It's not avoiding anything.  We're still talking about anti-semitism and MP's.  We're talking about how politicians often use metaphors that are just political rhetoric.

Didge wrote:Oh and do you see how he also must agree with me that actual threats is not covered by free speech?

Did you see him anywhere admit he was wrong?

US Constitution wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Oh and do you see how he also must agree with me that actual threats is not covered by free speech?

Did you see him anywhere admit he was wrong?

Words are protected by free speech.  In the US, we have the First Amendment:

US Constitution wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I'm merely saying that in the US we don't have hate speech laws, unless they are coupled with threats or acts of violence.

How can I be wrong when I substantiate all my claims?  Do you not see the direct language, above, out of the US Constitution?

The only people who are wrong are those who can't substantiate their claims.  

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Words are protected by free speech.  In the US, we have the First Amendment:



I'm merely saying that in the US we don't have hate speech laws, unless they are coupled with threats or acts of violence.

How can I be wrong when I substantiate all my claims?  Do you not see the direct language, above, out of the US Constitution?

The only people who are wrong are those who can't substantiate their claims.  

Yes we know words are protected but threats are not protected are they Quill?

You do have hate speech laws, based on direct threats

A map is not a direct threat.

You see, I know th US constitution better than you

I mean in the US, threats of bodily harm are called assualt are they not?

And you claim to be a lawyer?

Free Dictionary wrote:The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Yes we know words are protected but threats are not protected are they Quill?

You do have hate speech laws, based on direct threats

A map is not a direct threat.

You see, I know th US constitution better than you

I mean in the US, threats of bodily harm are called assualt are they not?

And you claim to be a lawyer?

Desperate cries for help, are we?  I've already said that threats of violence and words spoken during an act of violence are hate speech in the US.  You're just parroting what I say, and adding a few insults to boot.

However, as to verbal assault:

Free Dictionary wrote:The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.

Obviously, during a physical assault, the overt act element is met.

Otherwise, we in the US have no limits on free speech.

In the United States,[where?] assault may be defined as an attempt to commit a battery. However, the crime of assault can encompass acts in which no battery is intended, but the defendant's act nonetheless creates reasonable fear in others that a battery will occur.[

Assault is typically treated as a misdemeanor and not as a felony (unless the victim is a law enforcement officer)[citation needed], or in New York State for example if the offender is a repeat offender. As a misdemeanor, however, it can still result in incarceration and in a criminal record. The more serious crime of aggravated assault is treated as a felony.

Four elements were required at common law:

The apparent, present ability to carry out;
An unlawful attempt;
To commit a violent injury;
Upon another.

Original Quill wrote:What did I just say?  You are parroting back to me what I just said: the first element in your list: "The apparent, present ability to carry out;"

I said: "A mere threat to harm is not an assault..."  And here you are, puppy-dogging behind me, saying: "the apparent, present ability to carry out..." is necessary for verbal assault.

One of your many, many rabbit-holes is to race around chasing your own tail.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Police have launched a criminal inquiry into allegations of anti-Semitic hate crimes within the Labour Party.

Met Police chief Cressida Dick told the BBC her officers were assessing online material because it appears "there may have been a crime committed".

It comes after LBC Radio obtained what it said was an internal Labour document detailing 45 cases, involving messages posted by members on social media.

Ms Dick says the Met had a duty to assess the material and not dismiss it.

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that her officers were seeking advice from the Crown Prosecution Service.

But she insisted the Met was "not investigating" the Labour Party itself.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46070229

This is not a US problem.  We have freedom of speech ensconced in our First Amendment.