That's a wildly inaccurate statement.

But Marx and Engels didn't spew forth hate speech, did they? Much of what they wrote was boring, incomprehensible, manifestly incorrect, or overly theoretical .. but not hate speech.

He wont know, because its complete bullshit.

But who are you to judge what I find offensive or "hateful"...is it to be by simple majority ? Because if it is for example, IIRC the overwhelming majority of the British want capital punishment back for a start (75% from a poll taken in 2010).
http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/toda...ues_101026.pdf

Clearly if you stand up and decry people who want capital punishement for certain crimes, you are committing "Hate speech" ?

Hmm .. Isn't there legislation that defines hate speech? If hate speech is subject to the criminal law, there must be. I'm not really well informed on British affairs, so I don't know. But I suspect it's not governed by a simple majority!

Your point about capital punishment doesn't seem to have anything to do with hate speech. As a parliamentary democracy, supporters of capital punishment would need to get the issue on the parliamentary agenda then they'd have to somehow get a majority of MPs to agree with them. Then they'd have to get it through the House of Lords. Not to mention the EU dimension.

The ultimate definition of hate speech is that which those in power find objectionable.

Now the UK definition of not quite that far reaching, well currently.

It has been interesting to note how Russia for example has morphed to using 'legal' breaches of its laws to deal with dissidents.

We had a recent example in North Korea where the legal system sicwas used more obviously.

Hitler and Stalin defined hate speech as any speech opposing the government.

For once, I completely agree with you HH. I find it worrisome that expressing my opinion here in the UK could get me thrown in jail if the wrong person overhears me. Hypothetically, if I happen to say "I hate brown-eyed people", I'm entitled to my opinion - I'm not asking anyone else to hate them along with me. That is not 'hate speech'.

You seem to take very naiive view of it. If the majority of people don't like something, the way the law is drafted, you can be charged with "hatespeech" which is exactly as Orwellian as it sounds. We've had people charged with "hatespeech" for being rude about people with ginger hair.

Which just goes to prove that gingers have no sense of humour.

And that people are not creatively passive-aggressive enough in the UK. (How is that even possible.)

Oh I don't know about that, it's the special sarcastic humour that red heads have that no one else understands

Sorry, I just looked at the wording of the various legislation (most of which has been on the books for decades, apparently.)

I don't see anything to substantiate your assertion that "if the majority of people don't like something ... You can be charged with "hate speech." And I also still don't see what point you are making about people who want to reintroduce capital punishment. They could be prosecuted for hate speech? The people who oppose them (anti capital punishment people) could be prosecuted for hate speech? What conceivable offence could either group be deemed to have committed, under this group of laws??

Not specifically related to the UK but to France, recently Bob Dylan is being investigated by the French for hate speech by making a statement to the "Rolling Stones" magazine that the "Croats smell blood of the Serbs".

Make a big enough stink about the level of offence you feel and you will. The police are now regularly trawling the likes of twitter and FB to find people they can arrest and charge with "hate speech", for example, you can't call someone a "mong" anymore, or a spastic, or a flid, or gay, unless they are. You might not LIKE it, I certainly don't do it, but people OUGHT to be able to use the words.

This is a very slippery slope. Now we already have censorship of the press coming.