The V-DEM’s 2026 report has more than a hint of hysteria about it. The idea that the UK is no more liberal than Argentina or the US because we use the law to protect vulnerable groups from verbal attacks, is ludicrous. If you can say it, you can do it - and somebody will end up doing it. Once you get it into your heads that words are a category of action, you may be able to avoid sleepwalking into genuine autocracy.
I don't like giving the government a veto on what people can say or not say very much, although I'll make exceptions for fraud, libel, and maybe a few other things. Probably not hate speech, though.
Libel laws provide protection for high profile, wealthy people. Laws against hate speech are a minimum protection under criminal law for everyone. Initially the police have tested the boundaries of the law with a few over-zealous, attempted prosecutions, most of which were thrown out before they got to court. But the law is basically sound if used appropriately.
Hitler probably did want to be the only dictator but that didn't motivate the invasion of Russia, I don't think.
Molotov-Ribbentrop was only ever intended by Hitler to be a temporary arrangement to avoid having to fight simultaneously on Western and Eastern fronts. Germany was historically wary of Russia and with the non-aggression pact Hitler was following received wisdom about what to do when you go to war with other countries - make a good 'peace' deal with Russia to stop them taking advantage of your being militarily distracted.
When Hitler invaded Russia it was because of his ideological belief that Slavs were untermenschen and their lands forfeit to Germany's geopolitical need for land to the east. Communism was Nazism's natural ideological enemy. And more pressingly he needed their resources - in particular, agricultural output from Southern Russia - if Germany was going to get through another harsh winter.
The V-DEM’s 2026 report has more than a hint of hysteria about it. The idea that the UK is no more liberal than Argentina or the US because we use the law to protect vulnerable groups from verbal attacks, is ludicrous. If you can say it, you can do it - and somebody will end up doing it. Once you get it into your heads that words are a category of action, you may be able to avoid sleepwalking into genuine autocracy.
I don't like giving the government a veto on what people can say or not say very much, although I'll make exceptions for fraud, libel, and maybe a few other things. Probably not hate speech, though.
Libel laws provide protection for high profile, wealthy people. Laws against hate speech are a minimum protection under criminal law for everyone. Initially the police have tested the boundaries of the law with a few over-zealous, attempted prosecutions, most of which were thrown out before they got to court. But the law is basically sound if used appropriately.
Hitler probably did want to be the only dictator but that didn't motivate the invasion of Russia, I don't think.
Molotov-Ribbentrop was only ever intended by Hitler to be a temporary arrangement to avoid having to fight simultaneously on Western and Eastern fronts. Germany was historically wary of Russia and with the non-aggression pact Hitler was following received wisdom about what to do when you go to war with other countries - make a good 'peace' deal with Russia to stop them taking advantage of your being militarily distracted.
When Hitler invaded Russia it was because of his ideological belief that Slavs were untermenschen and their lands forfeit to Germany's geopolitical need for land to the east. Communism was Nazism's natural ideological enemy. And more pressingly he needed their resources - in particular, agricultural output from Southern Russia - if Germany was going to get through another harsh winter.