Quote Originally Posted by HiVis View Post
in my opinion, both Bob Vylan and Kneecap's words were

1. public
2. encouraged violence
3. targeted a specific person or group

the law is very clear about this, and you'll be well aware that its not the Cambridge dictionary definition that is relevant here, its the actual legislation.
Thanks - yes I realise the law is not found in on-line dictionaries.

However, the dictionary definitions are reflecting the law as written in statute. I believe this wiki summary accurately explains the current law:

Hate speech laws in England and Wales are found in several statutes, and differ slightly from the laws adopted in Scotland. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, sex, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.

The Police and CPS have formulated a definition of hate crimes and hate incidents, with hate speech forming a subset of these. Something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on: disability, race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation. A hate incident becomes a hate crime if it crosses the boundary of criminality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_s...United_Kingdom

My point stands. The words described as 'hate speech' by some could be called threatening or abusive. Coming from a two man punk band and directed at a modern nuclear-armed army of over 600,000 (including reservists) it was clearly not intended to harass, alarm or distress! It was not directed at the IDF because of their ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation - it was because of their genocidal actions!