In The UK They Jail People For Being Obnoxious Jerks On Twitter?
from the interesting-strategy dept
I recognize that the US tends to value "freedom of speech" more than most European countries, and I also recognize that racist hate speech is pretty despicable, but I have to admit that the reports out of the UK of a guy being put in jail for 56 days for a bunch of obnoxious tweets are still really troubling. The guy making the tweets, Liam Stacey, was commenting on the on-field collapse (due to a heart attack) of footballer Fabrice Muamba. At first Stacey seemed to be celebrating the idea that Muamba might be dead, and then made some racist comments to those who spoke back to him. No doubt, Stacey appears to be an obnoxious, ignorant lout. But there are lots of obnoxious ignorant louts out there, and we don't just put them in jail. I believe, pretty strongly, that the best response to ignorant speech is more speech -- not putting the original speaker in jail. Stacey displayed to the world his ridiculous views (he claims he was drunk when he made the tweets, but that matters little). There was societal backlash already coming to him for those tweets, and people were speaking up about how obnoxious they found the comments to be. And that's the proper way to deal with such speech. Putting people in jail for speech, even if it's obnoxious, creates a massive chilling effect.I don't quite get the claims of the judge, either:
Sentencing Stacey at Swansea Magistrates' Court, District Judge John Charles told him: "In my view, there is no alternative to an immediate prison sentence.Of course there are alternatives. There are tons. And you'd think a judge would recognize that. Separately, even if "everybody" (minus Stacey, clearly) was praying for his life, what does that have to do with anything legally speaking? Stacey may not be the kind of person worth defending, but his right to speak his mind (no matter how ridiculously ignorant and obnoxious he comes across) should be defended.
"It was not the football world who was praying for [Muamba].... everybody was praying for his life."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fabrice muamba, free speech, jail time, liam stacey, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But there are lots of obnoxious ignorant louts out there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and we don't just put them in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: and we don't just put them in jail.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/12482817556/one-nation-under-guard.shtml
Wont be long now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: and we don't just put them in jail.
~Mickey Mouse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(ignoring the fact that he probably never said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colonists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having said that, though, being sent to prison is harsh as I feel he should have been given a fine, community service and been made to attend some sort of educational course to explain that all rights must go hand in hand with responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom of speech is a good thing and should be protected as it allows to to voice your opinion freely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freedom of speech is a good thing and should be protected as it allows to to voice your opinion freely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freedom of speech is a good thing and should be protected as it allows to to voice your opinion freely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please note, the purpose of this is simply to show that punishing people simply because they say something that may or may not offend people (even if it is guaranteed to offend people) is not acceptable. The only case where it can be is when it is a direct threat against somebody to cause bodily harm or death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
With freedom comes responsibility but sadly a lot of people forget that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Erm,
Also, being judgemental is built in to the whole Christian culture & belief system; the "good book" is pretty specific on who to hate, who to kill, and who to enslave. As most of the world is steeped in a pseudo-Christian culture, alot bleeds thru into the thoughts & actions of the everyday populace.
If somebody is following what they've been brainwashed into believing is "good" then shouldn't we be holding responsible whomever did the brainwashing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Erm,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Erm,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Erm,
First, saying Old Testament like that proves anything is silly, provide some specific examples please.
Chrisitanity is based off the teachings of Jesus who started a "new covenant" with his sacrifice, to steer the established Jewish Sanhidran away from the bureaucracy it had become to a more personal relationship with God. Jesus's teachings take precedence over older teachings, you can kind of think of it like newer amendments taking precedence over older ones in the constitution. Therefore the teaching to "love your enemies" takes precedence over any "who to hate", if you could really call it that, verses in the Old Testament.
I'm not very good at arguing, and I'm not the best to consult on these matters, but this is what I believe... let the trolling commence I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Erm,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Erm,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Erm,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Erm,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Erm,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Erm,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Erm,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Erm,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Erm,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Erm,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, because obviously Liam Stacey tweeted a fact not his opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What does that have to do with the post? Because if an action or speech is illegal, then you don't have the freedom to engage in it, so responsibility doesn't even enter into the issue at that point.
You can only be responsible when you have freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What some people find offensive others won't. Other commenters already addressed this so I won't go over it again, but no speech should be outlawed directly as it is a much too slippery slope to go down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The UK is NOT America, it is not bound by your US constitution..
Most Americans accept racism, or 'allow' it to occur, and hide behind their constitution, and this illusional "free speech" you keep trying to drag down.
You also forget that free speech was put in the constitution to allow free debate and dissent against the Government !! not anyone you like.
There are also many laws in the US that mean you simply cannot say what you like under the protection of free speech.
being ignorant, racist is not any excuse for this level of conduct.
he might learn to keep his stupid racist trap shut in the future.. At least he has masnick to stick up for his racist behaviour. The rest of the world is not like the US and the US is but a minor player. Known forits racist outlook and attitudes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're conflating two separate issues. Most Americans don't "accept" racism, but most Americans understand that it will exist. Whether or not racist speech is allowed doesn't impact whether or not racism exists so long as opposing speech is also engaged in.
Not exactly true. We have free speech because we value a free exchange of ideas, even offensive ideas (since "offensive" is incredibly subjective). Those ideas do not have to be in relation to the government. They can be about anything.
Absolutely true. Not all speech is allowed. However, the speech which is disallowed is that which leads to direct harm to other people. Insults and racist comments don't count, unless the purpose of that speech is to start a riot (which is harmful).
Direct harm does not include hurt feelings.
Absolutely true. However, that's irrelevant to the issue of whether that conduct should be criminalized or not.
Umm... where has anyone stuck up for his racist behavior? I think you're imagining things. It's entirely possible to say that a behavior is both despicable and should not not be criminalized. Which is the point being made here. That isn't defending the behavior at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, a lot of people that I've encountered use "Nigger" as a familial term on the level of "Bro" ro "Buddy" despite its history as a racist slur. Certainly there are people who still find the word offensive based on its history or their upbringing. Should the latter group be able to complain and get the entire former group arrested because the latter finds the term offensive? I wouldn't think so, even though I consider myself a member of the latter group and don't use the term at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speech is NOT the problem, unless that speech on it's face value can and will cause immediate harm to a reasonable person. Other than that speech should be allowed no matter how hurtfull it might feel or be to some minority, individual, or group.
In other words the spoken or written word is not the problem the problem is how certain people perceive that written word or speech based on their own prejudice, ego, mental state, or strategy to push their own ideology onto others.
The USA's "Freedom of Speech" is a catch all I agree, but it does one thing and does it well, it allows constructive discourse between two or more absolutely opposing ideologies without one or the other taking litigious action because they could not take the idea of losing an argument. The truth is supposed to hurt, and opinion is supposed to be able to be criticised. The UK has this problem, especially in regards to defamatory actions where it basically disallows this discourse to be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The difference between the USA and the UK is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ar�cha�ic /ɑrˈkeɪɪk/ Show Spelled[ahr-key-ik] Show IPA
adjective
1. marked by the characteristics of an earlier period; antiquated: an archaic manner; an archaic notion.
2. (of a linguistic form) commonly used in an earlier time but rare in present-day usage except to suggest the older time, as in religious rituals or historical novels. Examples: thou; wast; methinks; forsooth.
3. forming the earliest stage; prior to full development: the archaic period of psychoanalytic research.
4. ( often initial capital letter ) pertaining to or designating the style of the fine arts, especially painting and sculpture, developed in Greece from the middle 7th to the early 5th century b.c., chiefly characterized by an increased emphasis on the human figure in action, naturalistic proportions and anatomical structure, simplicity of volumes, forms, or design, and the evolution of a definitive style for the narrative treatment of subject matter. Compare classical ( def. 6 ) , Hellenistic ( def. 5 ) .
5. primitive; ancient; old: an archaic form of animal life.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
it does need some of our constitution it seems
So wrong, free speech is allowed agasint all, not just the Government
""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.""
of course some speech isnt protected, yelling fire in a theater, threatening the president etc..
Does your rectum often speak for you??, he has a Human Right to speak out, I don't use the "human right" thing alot, but this is one of them, America is only a minor handful of Countries, Intellgient enough to know that and make it LAW, that people can speak and debate and question their government, thats one reason, why the USA is the greatest country on earth, yes we have made the SAME mistakes as others, but we correct them and try to grow.
I guess you welcome your UK overlords and look forword to doing all things good to please them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While I agree with most of your points these few unfortunately deserve some negative attention.
"the USA is the greatest country"
It isn't the largest and by no other standard could it be considered great, unless we are simply talking about military expenditure and that is not a factor of greatness more a sign of insecurity, weakness and cowardice.
Constantly stating 'we are the greatest' malarkey sounds like people trying to convince themselves of something they actually know to be untrue but can't bear to acknowledge that.
For most of the civilised world such comments provoke laughter and pity.
"yes we have made the SAME mistakes as others"
by which you could mean anything, but presumably partly mean that your nation due to its capacity for violence has committed many of the crimes that were previously committed by other powerful (and mostly now defunct) nations.
"but we correct them and try to grow."
For a country that has spent almost the entirety of its existence engaged in wars of choice and are currently still engaged in these there doesn't seem to be any effort to correct them.
However trying "to grow" is generally the cause of the crimes committed by powerful nations so a little less effort on the part of your nation "to grow" would be appreciated, with considerably more effort given to the "growing up" that is so clearly desperately needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Football is a bad thing, just like racism is a bad thing, and we must stop people from speaking positively about it because it lets all these problems continue.
Do you see the problem here? It doesn't matter what your arguments are for banning some type of speech: in the end, you can't prove that any kind of speech is bad - you can think a type of speech is bad, but you can not absolutely, positively prove it: in the end it will all come down to a matter of opinion.
And of course, any argument you use to ban racist speech can be used to ban any other kind of speech, like I just demonstrated with football.
Also, words are just words. They only hurt if you care what somebody thinks of you. And you shouldn't care what racists think of you, that's silly. Also, nobody is entitled to be loved by everyone, so get over it.
We're supposed to be mature adults, yet we can't ignore some idiot we never even met who insults us or a group we belong to... Am I the only one to see a problem with this?
Anyway, if you can't get over the fact that there are idiots on this planet who won't like you, it's still not a reason to censor anybody or anything. That would be a disproportionate response.
Finally, censorship also helps hatred and racism much more than it stops it. Censorship just hides the symptoms, i.e. racist comments. But it has some very negative consequences too:
- Censorship doesn't people less racist. Let's clear that out right now.
- Censorship can be used to make racists look like victims "look, we can't even state our opinions! That's oppression and thank those [insert some race here] for using the law to control what we can say!".
- Censorship doesn't stop the speech, it just makes it more subtle and go unchallenged.
Racism is still very visible in politics today. Except that instead of taking the form of Hitler and a holocaust, it takes the form of politicians blaming crime on foreigners and promising to act against this. It takes the form of people being born in a country, having lived there 18 years, and then being kicked out back "home" because they broke the law one time.
Censorship didn't solve these problems. And you know what else? People don't even seem to realize that sending somebody back to Africa even though he lived all his life in Europe is racist. That's because this is a subtle form of racism, and therefore it is never challenged.
If we allowed people to express racist views, we would also see these people get challenged. Let racists explain why they think other races are inferior, and then counter them with your own arguments why all races are equal. If you're right, you'll have no problem proving it. There's obviously a good reason why you aren't racist, right? Surely you must be able to argue why every race is equal, aren't you? Then what are you afraid of?
I'll give you another example:
A few days ago I was watching a video about Muslim extremists protesting in the UK, and speaking of violence. Now if you ask me, I think these extremists are a minority and don't represent the majority of Muslims. But...
People who think these extremists represent most Muslims, are discouraged from speaking out. They're not allowed to say "I'm scared, we should kick out all Muslims". If they do, they could be socially stigmatized or even fined or jailed.
These people still dislike Muslims and fear them. Shutting them up doesn't change that fact. But maybe if they were allowed to speak up, non-extremist Muslims would start to realize that the extremists give them all a very bad reputation, and the non-extremist Muslims might decide to do something to show everyone "hey, don't worry, these idiots are just a minority, we're cool people really".
When Switzerland banned minarets not long ago, there were some angry Muslims and many Western countries condemned this decision.
But interestingly, a group of Muslims decided to cool things down instead of expressing anger or disappointment at the ban. They basically said "This ban shows that Islam has a bad reputation, thanks to extremism. So we, Muslims, instead of getting angry, need to start showing the Swiss people that most of us aren't extremists". Instead of fighting the Swiss racism, they opened up to it and fought the cause of it: Islamic extremism. And that did a lot to improve the image of Islam in Switzerland. I'm not going to say everyone in Switzerland now loves Muslims, but you could feel that relationships have changed for the better since these events.
Now if the minaret ban hadn't been allowed to happen, or if the Swiss people had had no way to express their fear of Islam, Switzerland would have a bigger racial conflict today. But because people were allowed to express their anger/fear, and because some Muslims were wise enough to address the problem, things have improved.
Hiding our heads in the sand doesn't achieve anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And because of this limitation on free speech, people were forced to express their opinion indirecty through a vote on a related but different matter. The opponents to the Minaret Initiative tried to label it as religious discrimination and therefore unfit for voting and only because they failed to do so the people were able to express their fears (thus leading to further discuss the relationship between Muslims living in Switzerland and the majority of swiss christians).
It's not that Switzerland has no laws against free speech. It's that someone (the party SVP) found a loophole enabling the people to express their opinion in a different way.
Racial/ethnic/religious discrimination brewing in the background is and will always be bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Criticism of religious tenets, traditions or ideals is "vile and hateful" to many religious people. So punishing people for that is defenitely the way to go. Yes sir.
Not to mention if someone draws caricatures of some famous religious person. Then the gloves are off, obviously.
Sowing dissent against the government (translation: criticizing an oppressive government) is very much "vile and hateful", as the government is the saviour of the people.
Speaking about homosexuals (specially in a neutral or even positive way!) is very vile! Where has decency gone?! And dear God I shall not even talk about expressing said perversion in public! Aye, just jail them, immediately! we have no alternative!
And so on and so forth for the many, many, groups and individuals that are extremely pricklish about what people say.
Or maybe Free Speech is not about the things we say that everyone agrees on or can respect.
Maybe Free Speech is exactly about the things that makes the blood boil, things that insults, blasphemes, or are otherwise "bad bad BAD" to someone.
Why else would free speech need to be protected, if not because it is recognized that it can be uncomfortable to some?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Freedom of speech absolutely gives you the right to be abusive towards another person, you cocksucking gutterslut.
See what I did there? I abused you with words! Quick, call the UK cops and have me arrested! Somebody must think of your poor feelings before they're hurt!
In case you're not getting the point: free speech is not short for "consequence-free speech", but the consequences here far outweigh what was said. Racist speech may be offensive, but people do not deserve to be jailed over calling someone a "nigger" or a "spic". The only speech deserving of legal consequences are calls for violence or harm to another person and libel/slander.
As Mike pointed out, societal consequences already exist for "offensive" speech. Liam openly marked himself as a racist and a callous individual with his tweets; slapping him in cuffs and tossing him into a jail cell for two months for "offensive" speech isn't going to change him into a tolerant and loving person.
The right to free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech (including racist slurs); popular speech, by definition, doesn't require protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've worn glasses since I was 3. I can't count the number of times I've been called "four eyes" and any number of other terms meant to be insulting. Do those people deserve criminal punishment? Do they even deserve civil punishment?
At the end of the day, should we punish this kid the same way we punish thieves, rapists, murderers and child molesters? Because that's who he is going to be spending a couple of months with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. It does. It is not illegal to be racist. It may not be right but it is not illegal, or at least it shouldn't be.
Please look up the word "free".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: freedom of speech.
I like the way you think. Since religion has a history of having text that is abusive toward another person and the cause of hate across the world for eons........then I guess we can arrest all priest, rabbis, clerics, iman for preaching hate and which supports abuse to homosexuals, females, children and the other.
I am tired of hate speech getting a pass behind the cloak of religion. Time to ban it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He obviously was not put in jail for being a jerk. That would be ridiculous. The mere though boggles the mind.
He was put in jail for being a jerk on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It just shouldn't be the governments job to try and police our thoughts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think adding labels to people's opinions like hater and racist is a pretty weak way to argue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prisoner #2: I killed someone...
Prisoner #3: I made smart ass comments on Twitter...
(Prisoner #1 and Prisoner #2 start laughing uncontrollably.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yea this guy is clearly a twat, but you can't silence him by putting him in jail.
This reminds me of V for Vendetta.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: John
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not sure everyone understands
Summary conviction of incitement to racial hatred carries a maximum prison sentence of 6 months in the UK, so the guy was lucky. The law is what it is, so judge had indeed no choice.
Section 18, public order act 1986:
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if�
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
(a)probably had no intent of that
(b)was held liable for what OTHERS might have done
Bullshit law is still bullshit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
He never should have pleaded guilty.
He behaved like an utterly obnoxious jerk over twitter and if that carries a prison sentence then everyone is in trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
The only thing that means is that the UK isn't the only country with laws that are at least very unwise, and at most downright immoral.
But that's not news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
It's a tweet for fuck's sake.
It's so out of scale its silly. Moral panic at its fines.
What's next? The renaissance of Puritanism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
Or maybe, in this case, no one was going to kill themselves, and the only person that will be hounded by hundreds of people is Mr Stacey himself as a result of his tweet.
Which means a lot of us are going to jail I guess. I mean, we can't just gang up on the guy, right? What if he kills himself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
Allow me to quote from a US court decision regarding the arrest of a Jehova's witness (Chaplinsky) who called a marshall a 'fascist' and subsequently was arrested. Courtesy of Wikipedia:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
� Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
Yeah we really need the moral though police of ancient times. Profanity? Please. Insults? People get insulted over anything.
I bet "lewd" and "obscene" as used in that ruling would outlaw a ton of stuff we accept today. Gay people? In public? Kissing?! Not on my watch!
I can sort of agree that there needs to be some consequence for systematically attacking someone's reputation in dishonest fashion (exposing the misdeeds of those in power should not count as libel).
But like with "fighting words", what you say is really of no consequence - its the action of intentionally smearing someones reputation or causing a ruckus (disorderly conduct) that you should be punished for. Not what came out of your mouth.
So yeah, I am aware that different countries implement the idea of free speech differently. But no, it does not make bad laws anything but bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only hatred or violence being stirred up by Stacey...
What's next, the thought police?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
can't remember which one though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120327/04241518255/german-pirate-party-scores-another-elect oral-victory-gets-4-seats-state-parliament.shtml#c18
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
Gibson's law is that "For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD"
Yeah yeah.. I know I'm some sort of "Law" Nazi! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
If you think moving down this slippery slope is a GOOD idea, you're a moron.
Did no one else's momma teach them?: "Sticks and stones..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
If speech incites violence against another or uses their race as the tool to attack them, it shows the speaker isn't intelligent enough to say what try really want to. Otherwise, why not allow fighting words or obscenities too? Why is that line the correct one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
We're not talking about physically attacking them are we? Otherwise that's a pretty loaded use of the word. I mean, if I say you've got bad breath I could be attacking you.
What if the speaker is trying to make a valid point about another's race?
I would think the more intelligent person would be the one who has access to the larger vocabulary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not sure everyone understands
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The salient point is the law ... and the law in the UK says
If you are dark skinned the law also says I can't call you a "black bastard" if I'm not also dark skinned, because that's racist.
The law in the UK is assinine!
but it's still the law ... :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The salient point is the law ... and the law in the UK says
The relevant law is part 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.
It states:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he� (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boo, we don't have free speech in the UK :(
This is a deeply disturbing precedent.
Mike nails it with - the proper response to hate speech is more speech telling the speaker they are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
he isnt wrong if stating his opinion, which he did, opinions are wrong or right, depending on what your beliefs are
and alos when they fire back at him, htey are4 also engaging in hate spech,
hmmm who wins???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the 'more speech' masnick is talking about is an example standing up for the rights of someone to be a racist, does not help to reduce racism.. But to increase it.
He should have been imprisoned for much longer, and banned for like in messinging systems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"This just shows the US's general and total lack of understanding of cultures of other nations. Free Speech in something Americans use as a shield to hide behind, and as an excuse to allow hate and racism."
Is that a fact? We get that you don't like America, but arguments aiming towards eliminating racist speech that are loaded with racism / stereotypes seem fundamentally flawed.
Your laws do nothing to reduce racism. If the reason you don't say hateful things or discriminate against a particular race is because of fear of legal retribution, you are in fact still racist. Though maybe a more careful racist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is well established that the US has a major problem with Race issues, it's even enshrined in your constitution !!!.
Your long and proud history of slavory. your hatred for religions that are not christian.. It is not my opinion, it is a sad fact.
Promoted by people like masnick who takes racism, as "being a jerk" !!
We have but one 'race' in humans, it's 'the human race', we do not have variation of species of that race. Regardless of how you look or where you are from. We ALL have the same linage.
Im not a racist, I hate everyone equally!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's only because we are one of the largest and the most racially diverse country in the world.
Don't be so proud for achieving racial harmony in a small, homogenous country. That's easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So THAT's why you come here, darryl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
America was not founded on the christian religion
science has proven we all do not come from the same place
we have sevearl variations in the species, we are all not the same color, we all do not have the same physical traits
those are facts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe not so separately?
Since the judge decided to make such a statement, perhaps he was more or equally offended by the verbal abuse against people who were purportedly praying for Muamba than the racist bigotry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, it's not arbitrary at all. It's democracy at work. The constitution, laws, etc. all come directly or indirectly from you 'the people'. It therefore all depends on what you 'the people' find acceptable and what you do not. You mention Switzerland and minarets in your post and I happen to live in Switzerland. You say Switzerland decided to ban minarets, but I'm not sure you realise that it's the 'people of Switzerland' that decided to ban minarets. It was put to a democratic vote, as most controversial issues are in Switzerland. God bless the Swiss.
And, taking Switzerland again as example: Public racist speech is also in Switzerland a crime and punishable by a maximum prison sentence of three years. (Article 261 of the Swiss "Strafgesetzbuch")
Again, that is not arbitrary. It was put to a public referendum and voted on by all the Swiss on the 25th of September 1994 and passed with a majority of 55%.
And by the way, we are not taking about censorship. The very act of publicly speaking your mind is not banned or subject to any form of pre-approval by any authority. There are just consequences if you want to deliberately insult an entire group of people purely based on the colour of their skin. And you know what? There is no place for racism in a decent society and I happen to agree. 55% of my compatriots do too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I wouldn't be so sure about something people voted on nearly 20 years ago. Things have changed since then, and if the vote on Minarets was taken as an indication, I'd bet today the law wouldn't pass the people's vote, no matter what "der Bundesrat" said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I doubt the situation has changed much since 2009. So we're only talking 4 years, not 20.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Although I think it has more to do with the application of the law than with the law itself. If it was applied more often, people would get tired of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the social consequences of Obama saying something like that would be punishment enough.
I realize that this is just democracy in action but I think having some rights protected constitution, outside the reach of the legislature, helps protect against the "tyranny of the majority". Can you not imagine a law that you would object to, even if the majority was for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
3 items here
the belief that a person will be offended by being told to perform oral sex
a belief that a person would be horrified at the thought of doing so when the other participant has aids
a belief that a person would be further disgusted if the diseased member belongs to someone of a particular race.
Perhaps people dislike the portion of racist abuse in this abusive line because they recognise that they respond to it rather than finding it laughable and pathetic.
Usually when people are attempting to cause offence they go for what they believe the other person will most object to, starting back in the earliest years when small children unhappy or in a rage tell their parent that they "don't love them" as they know it is important to their parent that they do.
Most parents, thankfully, know that their child is not telling the truth and that such a statement is not of their child's most closely held opinions and beliefs but simply an attempt to win in an emotional verbal tussle, in which the child is outmatched.
Equally, it is males who believe that their sexual status is ambiguous who are most likely to make derogatory remarks about homosexuals and/or women.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Valid point about another's race, Chris? What do you mean? Could you give me an example? Just so we're on the same page, the guy who got jailed said things like: "go s*ck on an aids-ridden bl*ck d*ck", or things to that effect. You think that he should be able to say things like that publicly and not face any consequences? What if Obama said "if you don't vote for me you can all go s*ck on Romney's tiny white M*rmon d*ck". Funny line? Yes. Valid exchange of opinion? No. He can say he is principally against Mormonism. He can say that voting for a Mormon is a bad idea. But insulting Mormons as a group like that would be indefensible in my opinion. He can think it if he wishes, and talk about it among his friends if he likes. Should he be jailed for saying it publicly? Maybe not, but if society as a whole deems that he should be jailed for public statements like that, then so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Racist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Racist
Apparently he appeals and the only acceptable outcome is acquittal. Community service and/or fines are not tolerable tools to stifle freedom of speech. In some ways the people who say this would be better are an even bigger threat to freedom of speech - making free speech a crime but only a "minor" crime so the sheep will swallow the limitation easier and be less prone to react. Free Liam Stacey and free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We all can talk shit about Hitler but we can't talk shit about a football player? LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stacey jail sentence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stacey jail sentence
Understanding of the difference between inciting racist hatred and being an obnoxious boor utterly absent.
Hugh really needs to work harder to understand that by the time the 3rd reich existed it was too late to have things turn out better.
We can hope he meant to say "prior to the 3rd reich", but have no way of knowing if that was his intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stacey jail sentence
Not tolerating speech that you find at odds with your code is the kind of freedom of speech that Goebbels himself would have been fine with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
freedom of speech
i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers i hate n1ggers
freedom of speech: we have it in the US, shame for all you brits ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]