BF2S Forums You Brits need to chill out with the jailing people over speech thing

specops10-4 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

specops10-4 wrote:

As long as the statements made by someone do not call for direct violence it should be tolerated.  Think about the implications of banning a 'certain' type of speech are, any politician can spin the meaning of anyone elses words to be racist and thus illegal.  Who is to judge what is 'offensive' or not, the government, the public, anyone?

did you read his tweets? he called for direct violence many times, to many people/victims. case closed then.

There have been quite a few cases in you're country where people have been jailed for simply making racist remarks, look up racist lady on tram, you're bound to find multiple videos of racist women who only stated their opinion and have been subsequently arrested.

we all know about the racist lady on a tram. cases like this go to court and end up with severe sentences because they become cases of high public interest, i.e. they go viral on the internet. you have the mobile-phone youtube generation to blame for that more than the UK law. viral videos incite public outrage and the british public demand some sign of justice being done in order to remedy the public ill. this is nothing new, i really have no idea why you're using some specious and extraordinary case to make out we have draconian/stalinist speech laws. yes, sometimes events enter the public consciousness and mob/media justice arises. what are the courts meant to do but put them through the due process of law, at the crowd's behest? sounds familiar... have you heard of trayvon martin?

there's a massive difference between 'hurting someone's feelings' and 'being racist'. no one is going to be criminally prosecuted for anything because they hurt someone else's feelings. it just doesn't happen. being racist on the other hand... yes, we have laws protecting people from racist abuse. i think this is admirable. free speech is great and all but it doesn't deserve the arbitrary golden halo you guys give it in ALL circumstances. i'm happy to live in a society where it is illegal to be a vile, hateful, threatening and potentially violent individual in public. i'd rather live in harmony and peace. fuck your right to be an ignorant bigot of the worst kind, with all due respect, mr. racist. we don't want nor deserve your idiocy.

Uzique wrote:

there's a massive difference between 'hurting someone's feelings' and 'being racist'. no one is going to be criminally prosecuted for anything because they hurt someone else's feelings. it just doesn't happen. being racist on the other hand... yes, we have laws protecting people from racist abuse. i think this is admirable. free speech is great and all but it doesn't deserve the arbitrary golden halo you guys give it in ALL circumstances. i'm happy to live in a society where it is illegal to be a vile, hateful, threatening and potentially violent individual in public. i'd rather live in harmony and peace. fuck your right to be an ignorant bigot of the worst kind, with all due respect, mr. racist. we don't want nor deserve your idiocy.

Think of who determines what being "vile, hateful, threatening and potentially violent in public" is.  All that racism is, is a form of bullying/putting someone down/hurting someones feelings.  To make that illegal is like making insults illegal, you call someone stupid, you're being hateful to the uneducated people in society, you call a girl a slut, you're being vile to a girl who wishes to make her own life decisions.  You tell a 'friend' I'm gonna kill you if you steal my fruitloops then the government can say you threatened violence.  Seriously think of the repocussions of your countries decisions, don't let those in power have control over those not in power.

Last edited by specops10-4 (2012-04-15 21:34:53)

Uzique wrote:

what you need to realise is that our judges and police are rational, intelligent human beings. none of these crazy and absurd scenarios would reach court, let alone lead to a conviction. in the case of racist abuse being suffered, i'm happy there are laws to punish the vile behaviour. i'm quite confident that two people messing around calling each other names will never result in one person being taken away by the thought-police to serve 6 months.

Good to know that you rely on other people to keep you safe, that you place your faith in the judges and politicians, rather than your own people.  I'm sure you know of a few assholes in your country, imagine if one of them became judge and you were arrested for something rediculous.  Good luck.

Uzique wrote:

good to know you rely on the cold justice of a personal firearm to kill people when you deem yourself unsafe. 'murica.

I'd prefer the rare vigilante over an overbearing government.  Zimmerman is facing a jury now anyways lol, good point bro, our government knows its own boundaries since we stand up for ourselves.  Big Brother Here you come.

Uzique wrote:

'murica.

That sounds racist and incites me to violence. Go to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

My point is only this:

What one person finds funny, another may find offensive. What one person finds reasonable, may piss off someone else. Define which words won't incite violence, and I will show you a place where those words are taken out of context to do just that. Words mean different things to different people. Any time I pop you in the mouth I can now say your words incited the violence, and you are now to blame...

I am not saying it shouldn't be a law for your country... I am saying it is a rough thing to gauge.

Don't know why you are being so defensive, I am just stating my point of view.

I did not see where this guy said he was going to break someone's legs, I only saw him throw some racial slurs around.

Threatening bodily harm falls under assault laws. In my opinion, violence is violence, and shouldn't matter what color your skin is. I think a number of the laws to protect racial discriminating are actually causing as much of it as they are preventing. If I punch a guy in the face, it is assault. If it comes out he is a black, gay, Jew, then my sentence is longer and harsher. That isn't right, I still performed the same action.

you really don't understand assault laws. punching a black guy = longer sentence? ffs

Not a problem with a law but those enforcing it then, isn't it.

"racially or religiously aggravated" seems pretty clear to me, it doesn't say "assaulting someone who is of a different race or religion".. (taken from here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/29 , correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no lawyer)

Regarding "violence is violence" - the law (at least as I'm familiar with it) simply isn't like that - it's not consequentialist. Intentions and motives matter.

I personally think assaulting someone because you don't like the colour of their skin is far worse than assaulting someone because of a disagreement, and they should be handled accordingly.

I don't think the reason matters nearly as much as the action, when it boils down to something like that. You get pissed off at a guy of your color, and hit him, and are treated totally differently than if you got pissed off at a person of another color/religion/sexual preference and hit him, because the lawyers happily use that reasoning against you. End result though: Someone got punched in the face.

By the way, I totally disagree that America is "one of the most racially divided nations in the western world". America just has its race issues super exaggerated for the purpose of "news" stories. This whole Zimmerman deal is a perfect example. This case doesn't come from being racially divided. It comes from media hype... That is why these cases only get attention when it goes that direction. Swap their races and no one would know anything about it, because it couldn't be sensationalized.

specops10-4 wrote:

don't let those in power have control over those not in power.

Lol awesome quote.