#thought crime

[animentality]

#twitter #ao3 #archive of our own #culture wars #thought crime

[the-jesus-pill]

Teaching children thinking bad thoughts about someone is the same thing as murdering that person is fucked up. 

Thought crime doesn’t exist. No one has ever been harmed or killed by someone thinking negative thoughts about them. 

You know what has harmed people though? Teaching them they are evil for things they can’t control. Especially those who have intrusive thoughts. 

Here’s for everyone who has been taught their thoughts make them evil.

Intrusive thoughts are not your secret desires. 

They are involuntary. 

You don’t need to be ashamed of them. 

They will pass.

You are not committing taboo. 

No one can read your mind.

No one will ever know what’s in your thoughts unless you feel like telling them.

No one can judge you for what you are thinking, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.

Your thoughts are private

You are not a bad person.

#religious recovery #reminders #i was randomly reminded of being taught that thoughts are harmful in sunday school #intrusive thoughts #ex religious #deconstruction #exvangelical #apostate #deconverted #deconversion #exmo #exjw #exmormon #ex fundie #thought crime

[craycraybluejay]

You know how a pretty obvious majority of kinksters are submissives? You want to know a big part of the reason why it's hard to find a dom that's into the same hard kink you are?

Ask a hardcore masochist what they think of being whipped.

Then ask a hard sadist what they think of whipping someone.

Do you notice that the sadist/dom will often either dance around an answer or try to use soothing language/euphemism not unlike the way how in many places people are still expected to discuss sex if at all. Gentle, calculated language.

The issue is, especially with a new surge of purity culture overtaking so-called "leftist" online circles, is that fantasy becomes a moral judgement.

Sub with a noncon kink: "I want to be raped" (cnc but like. People can talk ab it how they want don't cancel me fr.)

Response from Normies: "well that's weird and kinda dark but ok"

Dom with a noncon kink: "I want to rape"

Response from Normies: "I'm calling the police and you should kys and you're also a sexual abuser and even though you haven't said anything about kids you're also also a pedophile :)"

Not only does the attitude of murderous hatred against doms/tops with hard kinks/fetishes/paraphilias make it difficult for them to practice those kinks (safely and ethically) out of fear of social backlash if it's ever found out even if both they and their partner[s] had a great time and are fine-- but, it actively puts innocent people in danger by equating thoughts and attractions of ANY KIND to the act of hurting others against their will. It equates fantasy, which can oftentimes be played out safely if in a modified way with real harmful actions.

Also, kink is still illegal in many places, so don't "its illegal" me about harder kinks. Law is not morality, none of us are free until all of us are free, etc. You get the gist.

You want to see more doms? Meet someone who can indulge your "scary badwrong" sexy feelings? Then maybe don't actively promote a culture where you put ANY kind of attraction or kink under fire. It doesn't matter if it'd be unethical to act out in real life. Some of the most common kinks worldwide are unethical as fuck to act out irl, including rape. That's why we have cnc, come on, guys.

You know what? In fact, you SHOULD actively shun people who shame others for their sexual feelings. EVEN if you think it's gross. EVEN if it wouldn't be ethical to act on irl. Let these types know that their puritan ideals are NOT accepted here. Let them know that if they want to go to church they can do that but not in your space, not forcing other (non consenting!) people to listen to their hateful and repressive ideology.

Like, hey, I'm not into ABDL, for example. But I will defend to the death other people's right to be into that. To think and feel whatever they think and feel. You think diapers are sexy? Great! I don't personally see the appeal, but you do you boo. There is no Correct Way to be sex/kink negative. Either you believe in thought crime or you don't.

And yes, this post includes "harmful" paraphilias (I put it in quotes because they're only harmful if acted on), sadomasochism, mutilation fetishism, etc etc. Every "gross" or "evil" kink, fetish, para you can possibly imagine. The stuff that makes you horny is just stuff that makes you horny, and being horny is normal. Being "weird horny" is also normal. No one deserves to experience shame, let alone public harassment or hate over feelings they most of the time don't Choose to have. Be mindful of puritan rhetoric and strike it down when you see it.

#important #psa #hard kink #nsft topic #pro para #pro kink #the 'dom shortage' #obv there are other factors but this is just a connection I'm pointing out #purity culture #purity wank #puritans #sex and sexuality #tw r@pe mention #p3d0 panic/the trend of calling everyone you don't like a p43d0phi13 despite that that's as i said before #NOT the same thing as csa or ANYTHING like that and simply an experienced attraction #attraction is not r@pe; foot fetishists r not going to randomly hump ur foot and same w ever other kink #thought crime #puritanism #the purity culture wave #discourse #except if you disagree pls block me this is a pro kink blog forever and ever #thoughts are thoughts #anti para people scare me bc if u think someone cant help but have sex with someone/something theyre attracted to... #what EXACTLY are you going to do if someone romantically rejects you???????????? #turning the argument around here. if this is your belief then i do not trust you around me and my loved ones #because if attraction is action then i am scared for the people you are attracted to #because it isn't. and the fact that you think it is says more about you than anyone you hate for their attractions

[feralsapientia]

I know there's a lot of people following this account whose kinks come from traumatic events, either when you were young or when you grew up.

I wanted to remind yall that none of us are evil for coping with our trauma in this way. We are not evil for getting turned on by certain situations. As long as everything we do doesn't hurt anyone and it's consensual we do NOT owe anyone anything. You don't have to feel guilty for it.

Doms who have a cnc kink and get off on the thought of raping someone? Not evil. Ageres who enjoy fantasizing about older people taking advantage of them? Not disgusting. Sadomasochists that enjoy causing or receiving harm? Not degenerates.

Hell, even if your kink doesn't come from trauma, unless you harm someone for real without their consent, no one has the right to judge you. Thought crime doesn't exist.

#nsft concept #anti censorship #anti purity culture #anti puritan #nsft trans #queer nsft #agepl@y #nsft agere #bd/sm cnc #cnc k!nk #cnc dom #cnc doll #r@pe kink #pro kink #coping mechanism #thought crime #thought crime doesn't exist

[palatinewolfsblog]

On Censorship (for all those who resist) ...

"Libraries should be open for all. Except the Censor." John F. Kennedy.

#thought of the day #thought of today #john f. kennedy #libraries #open library #freedom of thought #crime think #thought crime #books #books books books #censor #censorship #fight censorship #stop censorship #dare to read #dare to think #sapere aude #what matters

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

"It is a horrible idea that there is somebody who owns us, who makes us, who supervises us, waking and sleeping, who knows our thoughts, who can convict us of thought crime, who can—thought crime, just for what we think, who can judge us while we sleep for things that might occur to us in our dreams, who can create us sick, as apparently we are, and then order us on pain of eternal torture to be well again.

To demand this, to wish this to be true it to wish to live as an abject slave.

It is a wonderful thing, it is a wonderful thing, in my submission, that we now have enough information, enough intelligence, and I hope, enough intellectual and moral courage to say that this ghastly proposition is founded on a lie and to celebrate that fact and I invite you to join me in doing so."

#Christopher Hitchens #christianity #thought crime #religion is immoral #christian immorality #religion #religion is a mental illness

[catheadreynolds]

#me #thought crime #temple Ov Psychic Cats

[roboticutie]

A lot of people are hesitant to acknowledge that feeling horny for women as a woman is not bad, for a large variety of reasons. I think one of the most hard aspects to think about is when it leads to the question, "What was wrong with men being attracted to women, then? If it's not the act of being attracted to a woman at all?"

A lot of older people are far beyond this question, they already get it. This was tango'd with before the 90s but like a lot of feminism which acknowledged intersectional complexities, this got lost in the glorification of #girlpower shallow feminism that blew up around 90s/00s when corporations got their hands on it to market to children in a way that further encouraged the gender divide rather than conquer it.

Simple answer: it's the consent of it all.

There is nothing inherently predatory about sexual attraction towards anybody. Getting riled up over a lady isn't a problem. It's about whether or not you actively make the lady uncomfortable and/or unsafe. Thought crime isn't real. Man or woman or both or neither or more, if you jerk off to any woman in the world, it's fine. That's not an assault and it's not a crime.

The idea that anyone can do this is upsetting to some people. If that idea upsets you, you'll only really find relief in knowing that's not an assault you're dealing with, that's an intrusive thought that you cannot really defeat by making demands of what others can and cannot think about or do privately without you. You gotta work that out in therapy. As long as you're not actively physically or mentally being involved in anything and it's just kinda a version of you in their heads that is not really you no matter how similar it may be to what you would do, that's not anything being done to you. It's an imaginary friend of theirs with an uncanny resemblance, but it isn't you. Moving on.

Two basic rules to follow so you don't cross that line into it being inappropriate:

1) If she's not your partner, don't tell her about it. It's not some dirty secret or anything. It's just that you wouldn't really be flattered if someone you don't know well, or aren't in that sort of relationship with, told you that they were getting off to you. That's mentally involving someone who hasn't given any sort of prior consent to this. And don't ask if you can, either. That's still mentally involving her. Just don't bring it up so she doesn't have to carry any responsibility for your sexual attraction when there is no relationship or indication that it's something she would want. Your sexual attraction is yours, not hers.

2) This might be obvious following the last point but Don't Do It Where She Can See You. Voyeurism and exhibitionism are fine kinks on their own within a 100% consensual setting but again: No prior relationship to indicate she would want to do that? No discussion of a scene and boundaries around that activity? Even if you're not making her fuck you, if she sees you, you have physically involved her non-consensually. That's harassment at best, assault at worse depending on the scenario. Don't fucking do that. This also counts for shit like watching her or recording her for later. That's physically involving her without consent. Don't fucking do that.

Fantasies are one thing, bringing it into the real world has consequences. Keep that line in mind.

But the attraction itself has never been the problem. Feelings are not bad. It's the actions, including speaking, which can cause the issues. And it can be really, really hard for people to uncouple the feelings and actions behind a past traumatic assault but it is the truth. The attraction was never the problem.

Men being creeps to women doesn't mean attraction to women was ever the problem. It's an invalid excuse to claim they couldn't help themselves. Feelings =/= actions. Men and women can feel attraction and harm no one in doing so. Sapphic folks, you're fine.

And PS. Having sex with a woman consensually is never a problem. Being a woman and actively wanting to have sex is never a problem. Stay safe and have fun, by yourself and with company.

#this needs to keep being said because of the 10000 rule. it will be new for somebody every time it is brought up #especially for the younger queer folks just exploring these ideas for the first time #sexuality cannot be punished for itself. ever. that just leads to a lot more distress and problems #it's the actions that count #thought crime #my text posts #ask to tag #sa mention #attraction

[batboyblog]

It's really important to me people know that thought crimes are not real.

I saw a post and I wish I had responded because as is the nature of Tumblr you stay thinking about it and can't ever find that post again.

but any ways someone was asking I assume a trans person if it was okay that they pirated Harry Potter stuff and enjoyed it alone in their home without telling others or posting about it etc

which... stop asking for absolution from strangers on the internet? like if you feel bad about it, don't do it.

but the real issue was they not only said no it wasn't okay their logic was like.... even if you read it alone in your house somehow you're supporting J. K. Rowling and making her stronger and also the books have some kind of effect on your mind?

I'm begging people, Rowling is not the Dark Lord? I get you're still a hostage to her because it's STILL somehow the only book you've read but like... reading that copy of Harry Potter your grandma got you 20 years ago will not unleash dark energies that'll feed her evil witch power in her Scottish Castle? and also they're not... what are they called? horcruxes? you reading a problematic book will not corrupt you on a metaphysical level?

you should go read something else because Harry Potter isn't very good, go pirate Lord of the Rings or Dune or something, read something worthwhile, buy a book from an author who isn't a raging asshole who will spend your money on evil (so you know not Orson Scott Card)

I say all this as someone who's never seen a Harry Potter film, I didn't even read the last book, I have no idea how it ends? does Dumbledore come back? no idea and don't care. I thought everyone being hung up on those not very good books was mad for years. But like bad books, problematic books, books by shitty terrible people (hello Roald Dahl, HP Lovecraft) are not objects of power, you reading them alone does not empower the bad person, you have to do things in public to do that, opening a book you already own and reading it has no wider effect. And while you can be effected by what you read (well not Harry Potter because again not very good) it's not radiation, it won't seep off the page into your soul.

#Harry Potter #thought crime #read another book #for the love of god #also everyone please read problematic books

[aro-simp]

okay No clue if I am phrasing this in a way people will understand but

thought crime isn't real.

EVEN if your thoughts are not intrusive but completely voluntary.

I see many people apparently thinking that any thought you have that goes in any way against your ethics is an intrusive thoughts, leading to a lot of people highly misunderstanding intrusive thoughts

if it's something you are ashamed of but you feel intrigued to indulge in, that's not an intrusive thought. if you're creating a 'vent' character or story to explore and enjoy those themes unjudged, it's most likely not intrusive thoughts

you SHOULD daydream, think and probably even create about and around those things while being completely aware it's not reality

because it helps

if you bottle up those interests and excitements and refuse to think about them because it's immoral to commit to them in real life, you're putting yourself at a lot of risk to not be able to differentiate between fucked up fantasies of yours and actually wanting to do those things in reality

[Rape, murder and cannibalism mention below cut]

I fucked up myself as a teen by not allowing myself to daydream consciously, and instead I ended up actually threatening people to rape or cannibalize them, even made up plans to kill my own family when I wasn't even 15 yet. Because I knew I had those desires. But I didn't allow myself the satisfaction of fantasy. And instead it felt like an itch I could only scratch by committing actual felonies.

Don't be like teen me.

Indulge in your disgusting freaky stuff consciously and without harming your peers.

#idk how to tag this #rant #thought crime #intrusive thoughts #impulsive thoughts #thought crime isn't real #shipcourse #<- tagging this cause it's definitely related #This is about shipping. this is about kink. this is about rp. this is about everything

[safety-net-did]

Constantly torn between

"this opinion/question/expressible point of connection I want to pose will mark me as a 'bad person' and therefore open me to harassment"

and

"I need to be 100% open and honest about my every thought and feeling or else I am lying, and that makes me a bad person".

And online discourse culture just amplifies that by like, a million.

Obviously, in putting it so plainly, neither thought is correct.

It's not healthy to avoid all connections because I'm afraid someone will accuse me of being a bad person.

It's also not healthy to put all my thoughts and feelings on display-- I'm allowed privacy.

Disagreements with someone shouldn't shake my very foundation of belief in self.

Especially when I agree with 99/100 points about issue X, but not point #100- I shouldn't feel like I can't talk about point #100 without being accused of disagreeing with points 1 through 99 and therefore "a bad person".

Idk. It's especially hard to talk about this issue without bringing up an example issue. But to bring up an example tends to steer the conversation to talking about that issue, and that's not the point.

I don't want to talk about Hot Button Issue #3. I want to talk about how the culture behind black and white Stances is harmful to me.

But I don't have good language for that.

Callout culture and purity culture touch on it. That fear of being Found Out to be Bad about something. Even though I am not bad?

The idea that once you're Found Out to be Bad you can never recover, never grovel enough, never apologise enough, never grow and learn enough, never be free from accusations and reminders.

People having to torch their online presence and start over and pretend they never were that person that made that mistake.

#diary;self #scrupulousity #online culture #callout culture #purity culture #thought crime #rant/vent #clockwork.says.hi #ghost.says.hi #rambling

[a-wintone]

Cherry memories

Somebody like yourself, true and kind, would never understand this aching heart of mine

I'm no good at living, but I don't wanna die, and so I write songs to pass the time

I feel it everyday, the words, the hate, the sheer disgust of everybody as they look my way

It's why I only write songs that hurt other people now

And songs without a soul like the one that you're hearing now

(c)"Thought crime " by Yorushika, cover translation by Rachie

#tgcf #heaven official's blessing #tgcf fanart #mu qing #my artwork #i am obsessed #with him in particular #this songs lives in my mind rent free by now #yorushika #thought crime #rachie #tian guan ci fu

[craycraybluejay]

Anti-intellectualism kills. If yall equate thoughts with abuse, then the only thing between you and seriously hurting someone is a particularly shitty day or a moment of rampant imagination.

#anti intellectualism #thought crime #puritan rhetoric #'your mind must be pure and free of sin' #now tell me again how you aren't an evangelical? #'oh its not the same because i go after actually bad people!' #did this supposed bad people actually DO something to anyone? do they even plan to? #you either do or don't believe in thought crime #if i can ignore the powerful urge to jump off a building you can also just Not Do bad things that so much as pop into your head

[melancholic-desire]

1984 𝑏𝑦 𝐺𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑂𝑟𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙

#deep thinking #feelings #life #thinking thoughts #george orwell #books and reading #books #book quotes #bookaddict #spilled thoughts #thought crime

[alchemisoul]

Bill Burr responding to questions on the firing of his Mandalorian co-star Gina Carano sums up a major plot point for how I became politically homeless.

"I thought it was funny that the liberals proved her point. They just use outrage because they don’t like your politics. As someone who considers himself liberal, it’s disappointing to see the left become how the right used to be when they went after the Dixie Chicks after they criticized George W. Bush.”

"There’s not a lot of people like that — most are just trying not to get in trouble — but there’s this small collection of lunatics — either on the right or the left, at any given moment — that cause hysteria,” he added. “And now there’s so many [media outlets] that want eyeballs, they make money off advertising, that they give attention to these crazy fringe people.”

“You can't take one incident or one quote and say, ‘That's who you are.’ It took me 50 years to figure out who I am and I've been with me for 50 f—ing years. How are you gonna figure out who I am in a joke?”

"And nobody says, ‘You had to go back eight years to find something?!’” the comedian explained. “‘Sounds like this is a pretty good person if you had to go back eight fucking years!’ Meanwhile, there are people who get paroled from prison every day who have done so much worse and they’re allowed to put their lives back together.”

"You can have 20-year wars, you can create synthetic heroin, you can fucking poison the food supply. You can do all of that shit nd it’s barely going to read. They did a study the other day that 85 percent of people have plastic in their body — horrifying. Who’s going to be held accountable for that? Nobody. But I could tell you five different topics that if I did jokes about, I would get more in trouble than the people who caused that.”

#thebluechurch #thenewinquisition

#bill burr #stand up comedian #stand up comedy #comedian #comedy #star wars #the mandalorian #gina carano #the blue church #the new inquisition #thought crime #thought control #authoritarianism #thought police #free speech #free expression #freedom of speech #freedom of expression

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Why We Should Abolish Hate Speech Laws - Andrew Doyle

Since when did it become the business of the state to audit our emotions?

In effect, this is precisely what's happening by means of the various "hate speech" laws that have been implemented throughout Europe in recent years. In Ireland, the imminent "Criminal Justice" bill would represent one of the most draconian forms of hate speech legislation yet produced.

And how is hatred defined in the bill? Well, the following is a direct quotation: "'hatred' means hatred against a person or a group of persons in the state or elsewhere on account of their protected characteristics or any one of those characteristics."

So, hatred means hatred. Glad we cleared that up. This kind of circular definition is what we've come to expect from legislators when it comes to this most nebulous of concepts. In his book "Censored," Paul Coleman helpfully includes all of the existing legislation on hatred from across Europe. And in doing so, he reveals that no two governments are able to agree on its meaning.

In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights concluded that there "is no universally accepted definition of the expression 'hate speech'" and a manual published by UNESCO in 2015 accepted that "the possibility of reaching a universally shared definition seems unlikely."

When it comes to the statute books, one would have thought that precision and detail would be of paramount importance. After all we've seen how vaguely worded legislation is wide open to exploitation. Consider, for instance, how trans rights activists are now claiming that the reference to sex in the "Equality Act 2010" connotes a sense of "gender identity" rather than, you know, the biological designations of male and female.

If the state is empowered to imprison its citizens on the basis of "hatred," surely we need to know what that means. Hatred, like any other emotion, cannot be legislated out of existence. Will we be seeing laws against envious speech on the statute books? And what about codes against wrath or pride? If the government were to prohibit narcissistic speech, most of the flag waving pronoun-declaring gender ideologues would have to be incarcerated. And while this would doubtless create a much more sane and serene society, it would also involve the obliteration of our fundamental values.

As for "hate crimes," there is no need for mind reading in order to determine the appropriate punishment. If I'm physically assaulted, it makes little difference to me if the assailant was motivated by homophobia. I would prefer the sentence to reflect the crime itself, not to be moderated according to speculations about the perpetrator's private thoughts. The state should have absolutely no license to probe inside our heads, any more than employers should insist on compulsory unconscious bias training.

In a free society we are entitled to think and feel as we see fit, and so long as that does not interfere with the liberties of others, that includes the right to hate. But even if one were to accept the premise that the state must crack down on hateful thoughts, which I most assuredly do not, "hate speech" legislation is holy ineffective.

Censorship of hateful ideas does not cause them to disappear. It drives them underground where they can fester unchallenged. Moreover, "hate speech" laws are easily weaponized by activists seeking to silence their political opponents. For example, in the UK, we have seen people arrested for "misgendering," that is to say, for accurately identifying the sex of another person.

The journalist Caroline Farrow was investigated by police for 6 months after an appearance on Good Morning Britain. According to a complainant, Farrow had referred to another contributor's female-identifying child with a male pronoun during a conversation that took place off-air. And although such instances have not led to convictions, we all know that the process is the punishment.

As one who has received my fair share of abuse online, I understand that free speech has its downsides. But I choose to ignore those of the obnoxious and hateful ilk, rather than call for them to be censored. The price we pay for living in a free society is that unpleasant people are going to say unpleasant things. But their right to do so is precisely the same right that allows us to counter them. If we attempt to silence even our most abusive critics, we are essentially surrendering our principles at their behest.

No doubt the trans-identifying individual who was described as a "faggot with tits" in a recent case in Spain didn't relish the experience. But it should concern us all that the state has intervened and sentenced the woman who posted the offending words to 6 months in in prison, suspended on condition of the payment of a €3,850 fine. In addition, she's been banned from employment in teaching and sports for three and a half years. This is the very definition of authoritarian overreach.

[ *Ironic correction - Both the complainant and the offender were "trans-identified" males. ]

Those who are skeptical of gender identity ideology are particularly susceptible to the misapplication of hate speech laws and there is no way of knowing which other beliefs will eventually be criminalized. Once a state has outlawed "hatred" and failed to define it, the law becomes a cudgel to beat anyone who holds heterodox points of view. Who is to say that a future government might not deem it "hateful" to criticize its policies? What starts with the chilling of free speech ends with the criminalization of dissent.

A new law in Canada, for instance, Bill C63 empowers the state to imprison a citizen for life for "advocating genocide." But of course, activists and even politicians have insisted that claiming biological sex is real and immutable is a form of "trans genocide." On the hands of authoritarians these words are very slippery. They can mean whatever they want them to mean.

And that's why we should be so worried about free speech in Ireland. Last year the Irish Green Party senator Pauline O'Reilly made no effort to disguise the authoritarian nature of the new bill.

"That's exactly what we're doing here, is we are restricting freedom. But we're doing it for the common good."

Hasn't every tyrant in history made an identical claim? In her speech, O'Reilly invoked the notion of safety to justify state censorship. "If your views on other people's identities go to make their lives unsafe insecure and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace," she said, "then I believe it is our job as legislators to restrict those freedoms."

Well. it's a common tactic of activists to claim that certain opinions make them feel "unsafe" as a means to provoke a censorial response either from employers or from the state. But this is linguistic sleight of hand and the strategy has been remarkably effective.

The Irish "hate speech" bill goes further than most of its equivalents in European countries. It will give the state the right to prosecute those who cause offense under the catchall of "inciting hatred." And those found guilty could face up to 5 years in prison. Even more worryingly, a citizen can be jailed for 2 years simply if they "prepare or possess" material that could potentially incite hatred. So, if you have a gender-critical meme on your iPhone, that could be sufficient to see you in jail.

In the UK, "hate speech" laws exist in the form of the "Public Order Act 1986" and the "Communications Act 2003." 3,000 people are arrested each year in the UK for comments posted online that have been deemed offensive. And in some cases have even been imprisoned for jokes.

If we're going to tackle this problem, we might start by repealing section 127 of the Communications Act, which criminalizes online speech that can be deemed "grossly offensive." Of course, no attempt is ever made to define "grossly offensive" in the legislation, so anyone could be vulnerable.

In Scotland, the situation is even graver. When First Minister Hamza Yusuf was Justice Secretary, he was instrumental in the passing of the Hate Crime and Public Order Act, and disturbingly, these new laws can see citizens prosecuted for words that they have uttered in the privacy of their own homes. I'm reminded of a speech by William Pitt the Elder, delivered in the House of Commons in March 1763.

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter. All his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."

Evidently, these sentiments would not be echoed by the SNP. Given that hatred and offense are entirely subjective concepts, we should be resisting any attempt to codify in law restrictions against them. No two figures of authority will interpret these terms in the same way. And as human beings with frailties and biases, they will doubtless be tempted to wield such laws against their detractors.

If the state is willing to dispense with our right to free expression, there can be no guarantees for any of us. "Hate speech" laws are an affront to human liberty. It's time to ditch them for good.

#Andrew Doyle #Triggernometry #hate speech #hate speech laws #free speech #freedom of speech #hate crimes #thought crime #censorship #freedom of thought #religion is a mental illness