It is of course different if its done by a state agent acting on behalf of state censorship.
But Wikipedia in English is heavily censored and rewritten by activists, presumably acting as individuals or loose associations of them. Try expressing sketpicism on Wikipedia about whether there is a climate emergency and whether wind and solar are the solution, or part of it. If your entry lasts 24 hours that will be a miracle. So don't get too enthusiastic and complacent about the English version either.
So Wikipedia editors not entertaining your alternative science is totally like censorship by a fascist dictator.
The Scottish government's own account of this is that
"New measures to tackle the harm caused by hatred and prejudice come into force today".
You notice the objective: to tackle the harm caused by hatred and prejudice. Not to tackle the harm that can be done from acting on hatred and prejudice, the aim is not to penalize that. Its to tackle the thing itself, hatred. Also prejudice. Good luck with that!
I agree that hate speech laws can go overboard, though you're looking at a bunch of outlier incidents.
The question of course is what is "hatred and prejudice". In Scotland it appears to include doubting that men can be turned into women. In English universities it can apparently include expressing skepticism about veganism while on the phone in one's own room, but unknowingly being overheard from the room next door:
Sounds messed up but all we have is the student's account and nothing from the University.
And by 'target' is meant attempts to drive people out of their place of employment (the Guardian is notorious for this) or calling the police who then will record the accusation as a non-criminal hate incident.
Harry Miller for instance (obviously a Monty Python fan) received such a visit after tweeting:
âoeI was assigned Mammal at Birth, but my orientation is Fish. Donâ(TM)t mis species me.â Miller also tweeted: âoeTranswomen are women. Anyone know where this new biological classification was first proposed and adopted?â. He later wrote that the statement was âoebollocksâ."
https://www.theguardian.com/so...
From your link:
Police officers unlawfully interfered with a man’s right to freedom of expression by turning up at his place of work to speak to him about allegedly “transphobic” tweets, the high court has ruled.
So your example is literally the courts saying the police were out of bounds.
So don't sit there reading about barbaric and authoritarian Russia and think that everything in the West is hunky dory. It isn't. It happens through different mechanisms, but it still is happening.
Yeah, the hate speech laws can go too far. But HOLY SHIT IT'S WAY WORSE IN RUSSIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm waiting for your followup post where you use a story about someone's gunshot wound to complain about your splinter.