17 y/o YouTuber faces years in jail for insulting Islam and Christianity

[dom.donald]

Having looked into NZ's law, hate speech is: "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons". So being insulting, abusive or threatening isn't enough in itself to be illegal (in NZ). Which is a relief.

So the question would be whether some random unknown on YouTube is 'likely to excite hostility". I would suggest that this isn't the case here. Whereas if this woman had some social influence or position of authority, it may be illegal.

Each country's laws are different.

[Aegon]

That's Singapore for you. You can go to prison for spitting out a chewing gum there or at least pay a ridiculous fine. Certainly not one of my favorite places. I'm not sure, which system is actually worse. China or Singapore. Both praying to mammon whilst surpressing their population. In short, the worst of both weorlds.

To be honest, I think plenty of places would benefit greatly from that gum law

[dom.donald]

That's Singapore for you. You can go to prison for spitting out a chewing gum there or at least pay a ridiculous fine. Certainly not one of my favorite places. I'm not sure, which system is actually worse. China or Singapore. Both praying to mammon whilst surpressing their population. In short, the worst of both weorlds.

To be honest, I think plenty of places would benefit greatly from that gum law

There wouldn't be any football managers left to roam the planet.

[Incognito]

Singapore is a one party dictatorship, they don't have freedom of speech

[Aractus]

Having looked into NZ's law, hate speech is: "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons". So being insulting, abusive or threatening isn't enough in itself to be illegal (in NZ). Which is a relief.

So the question would be whether some random unknown on YouTube is 'likely to excite hostility". I would suggest that this isn't the case here. Whereas if this woman had some social influence or position of authority, it may be illegal.

Each country's laws are different.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, Google has a specific policy. It's stricter than most laws in first-world countries. If they enforced their policy equally as it applies to ethnicity OR religion then the kid (AmosYee) would not be facing any charges because his content would have been deleted and his channel banned just like Evalion.

[dom.donald]

Having looked into NZ's law, hate speech is: "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons". So being insulting, abusive or threatening isn't enough in itself to be illegal (in NZ). Which is a relief.

So the question would be whether some random unknown on YouTube is 'likely to excite hostility". I would suggest that this isn't the case here. Whereas if this woman had some social influence or position of authority, it may be illegal.

Each country's laws are different.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, Google has a specific policy. It's stricter than most laws in first-world countries. If they enforced their policy equally as it applies to ethnicity OR religion then the kid (AmosYee) would not be facing any charges because his content would have been deleted and his channel banned just like Evalion.

Yes, I agree with that. Although, given that it didn't enforce its own policy, which I guess it has a right to do, the girl carries the residual responsibility.

[Aractus]

Well yes they both do, but she wasn't in danger of falling foul of Canadian law I don't think (besides denying the Holocaust which is illegal in Canada).

[dom.donald]

Well yes they both do, but she wasn't in danger of falling foul of Canadian law I don't think (besides denying the Holocaust which is illegal in Canada).

Wow is it? I always find that an anomaly. Delusion is perfectly acceptable in other cases !

[Aractus]

Yeah again I certainly don't agree with banning stuff like Holocaust denial. Our understanding of that period of history has changed dramatically just over the past 20 years, which shows further academic research is always welcomed. Yes the evidence for the Holocaust is indeed overwhelming, but some people will rightly point out that "history" isn't really a science, and by scientific standards of proof it can't be proven.