Ofcom's new definition of hate speech

That could be OK. But it depends on how "hatred" is assessed. Is there a determination of "hatred"? If so, how is it determined and does it require more than a "victim" of "hatred" simply identifying as such?

genetic features

So we can report blonde jokes now?

Exactly, this one jumped out at me, too.
We don't actually know how much genetics plays in the role of eg criminal behaviour, self-serving personalities, learning difficulties, etc.
So to condemn criminals might be doing so on genetic features?
But hate speech is a crime?

Are those terms defined for clarity eg hatred, gender,

Also hate speech on the grounds of property? What?

Even using gender without following it wi the identity means it's not clear.

They say sex and not everyone would know what that meant as they think gender means sex.

I think OFCOM will need to provide definitions but I haven't read the link yet...

Are they trying to say ^ All forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on any form of intolerance^.?

Spreading hatred based on an opinion is odd. I do feel hatred myself at racists, the Westboro Baptists etc. I think others should disagree vehemently with their opinions. I don't think people should physically harm the people expressing them, but I do think there should be loss of liberty in certain cases - I assume that isn't physical harm? Is expressing my dislike of those opinions "spreading hate"? Is it hatred to want those opinions to not be voiced - obviously not or the hate speech guidance would be hate speech itself!

Property? What does that even mean?

I've got a bigger house than you? Oh look at my fabulous record collection? See me in my designer togs?

Hold on, I thought nobody had a right not to be offended?

* All forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of disability, ethnicity, social origin , gender, sex, gender reassignment, nationality, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, colour, genetic features, language, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth or age.*

That's a complicated sentence.

If I pick out one version of it:

All forms of expression which justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of [any other] opinion.

They won't allow anyone to justify hatred based on intolerance of an opinion.

So saying I hate someone who has the opinion that 'killing is fun' would be hate speech? Basically they are saying that hatred can never be expressed.

So "gender" is listed twice, "gender" and "gender reassignment". Covering all bases?

Please can I urge anyone who hasn't yet made a submission to the consultations on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Expression Online to consider doing so? This latest from Ofcom is the sort of evidence that can be referred to:

Closing date 15th January:
committees.parliament.uk/work/745/freedom-of-expression-online/

Closing date 31st January:
committees.parliament.uk/call-for-evidence/307/freedom-of-expression/

No lengthy reports to wade through and can focus on the issues relevant to you.

This is a very specific clause relating to people being mean to Kirstie Allsopp.

How is comedy going to work then?

Fine - good comedians don't need to 'spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance ' of any sort.

Bad news for Frankie Boyle and his ilk, maybe.

This is a very specific clause relating to people being mean to Kirstie Allsopp.

Kirsty is also covered by "*social origin*", no more jokes about posh, rich people. Good news for KA, very bad news for FB.

Even "tolerance" is a weird one. Lots of racists will "tolerate" the existence of ppl of colour - as long as they remain disadvantaged in some way. It's those people achieving success, good fortune, or basically, equality, that they won't tolerate.

This came up on a previous thread when the head of Ofcom said she would be taking her lead from Stonewall.

There was meant to be a campaign to get a lot of complaints saying she had shown bias. But I dont think anything came of it.

So its not a surprise.

Shame she wasn't challenged at the time. They must think they can get away with what they want.

Hatred isn't a good thing. But you can't end it by these means. Pure folly.

KeepPrisonsSingleSex

Please can I urge anyone who hasn't yet made a submission to the consultations on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Expression Online to consider doing so? This latest from Ofcom is the sort of evidence that can be referred to:

Closing date 15th January:
committees.parliament.uk/work/745/freedom-of-expression-online/

Closing date 31st January:
committees.parliament.uk/call-for-evidence/307/freedom-of-expression/

No lengthy reports to wade through and can focus on the issues relevant to you.

Done - and bumpity bump.