[rogermellie]

OK, we agree to disagree on the parameters of 'hate speech'.

part of the problem with what griffen says is who he says it to, what could be a philosophical discussion in a university common room is something else in a room full of baying thugs with swastica tatoos on their foreheads.

i remain convinced that griffin was arrested for saying something other than the quote given in the article, as that would appear to be within the law as it stands.

he has a record - on tv - of saying very nasty things about pretty much everybody, so to try to pin it down on one speech would be difficult without the transcripts of the police interviews - of course it is in the BNP's political interest to say it was the Islam speech, but it may well not be (as islam, like any religion, is not given specific protection under UK law) and the police are very unlikely to comment on the specific nature of the arrest warrant.

i would urge you to take a look at the mentioned websites, decide for yourself.

[rcocean]

Actually, we don't disagree on the "parameters" of hate speech. We disagree on the whole concept of "hate" speech. IMO, "hate" speech is simply a label people slap on someone or something they don't like.

It's just another name for censorship. People say a lot things I don't like and consider "hateful". But Thank God, I don't have the power under the 1st amendment to put them into jail for saying it.

As for the person involved, I don't doubt he's a nasty person, who says nasty thing. Why not simply point this out, and trust the majority of people to come to the same conclusion?

Of course, if someone inciting violence he can be arrested for disturbing the peace. As Holmes said, the 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to yell fire in a crowded theater.