Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 17

 

2012-04-04 15:52:45
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6487

Jay wrote:

Yet you have no problem calling each other cunts and wankers.
Are you being obtuse on purpose? Or are you just genuinely this dense? It's all context. Calling someone a swear-word is not a crime. We don't have language police here. Being racist is a crime. Being threatening and malicious towards somebody can be a crime, in the right malign circumstances - all depending on context and intent. I'm assuming here that nobody is seriously being threatening on BF2s when they call another user a "wanker"; it's an ordinary cuss-word and is in the common vernacular as a swear-word. Swear-words are not outlawed. Racism is outlawed. Threatening behaviour is outlawed. How is this so alien to you? Jesus H. Christ.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2012-04-04 15:53:08
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5374|London, England

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

I have this thing on my phone that lets me defer calls. I don't even know the person called! Amazing! Works just like an ignore function on the internet.

You're defending a law that's designed to stop people from being mean to each other. You can't get more lolzy.
No we're defending a law that protects people from discrimination based on the colour of their skin (or their gender/sexuality, for that matter)

It's not about "being mean to each other". The guy was threatening (which is more than mean and can constitute assault, as I keep on fucking saying), and he was racist. Racism is a crime. I'm sorry if that's a difficult legal concept for you to grasp - but it just is. If you are being racist in the public arena and voicing your racist hate, you are committing a crime against the common good and public peace. I'm not sure how it is in America but here in the UK we outlawed racism. It's disgusting and aberrant behaviour. Here we protect our citizens from being abused on the grounds of their skin colour.
Do you not understand that creating protected classes based on things like skin color is just as racist as the original behavior? In fact, it's worse as it adds condescension to the mix. It cements division.

Last edited by Jay (2012-04-04 15:53:50)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-04-04 15:57:02
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6648|949

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:


Ah, as they are called the "British board of film classification" I figured they had a state contribution a la bbc whereas they are infact self financing.

As for the main subject, its no different really to the "rioter" that went to prison for posting on twitter / facebook "who wants to start a riot" when nothing actually happened.
Yes it is different, legally speaking (at least in the US). There are laws and precedents for prosecuting for inciting action, even if nothing happened. That is not protected by the first amendment. You should check out our free speech laws, I really think they are the best (as I mentioned earlier).
In both cases nothing actually happened, just little shapes on a screen.

So whats the difference again?
One is explicitly calling for action.
2012-04-04 15:59:38
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5374|London, England
For the record, we do have hate crime laws over here, but they're applied after a crime has been committed and they simply add further punishment on top. If you graffiti swastika's on a synagogue, you'll get charged with a hate crime on top of vandalism. Attack a black man because he's black, and you'll get charged with a hate crime on top of the assault. I think it's absurd (if the initial punishment for the crime isn't considered tough enough, change that aspect).

That said, speech is protected. The KKK can hold their clan meetings and spew hatred all they want. The WBC can picket funerals. But it also means we're completely free to criticize our government, or our police, or whatever else we want. I wouldn't trade it, ugliness and all.

Last edited by Jay (2012-04-04 16:00:35)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-04-04 16:01:36
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6487

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

I have this thing on my phone that lets me defer calls. I don't even know the person called! Amazing! Works just like an ignore function on the internet.

You're defending a law that's designed to stop people from being mean to each other. You can't get more lolzy.
No we're defending a law that protects people from discrimination based on the colour of their skin (or their gender/sexuality, for that matter)

It's not about "being mean to each other". The guy was threatening (which is more than mean and can constitute assault, as I keep on fucking saying), and he was racist. Racism is a crime. I'm sorry if that's a difficult legal concept for you to grasp - but it just is. If you are being racist in the public arena and voicing your racist hate, you are committing a crime against the common good and public peace. I'm not sure how it is in America but here in the UK we outlawed racism. It's disgusting and aberrant behaviour. Here we protect our citizens from being abused on the grounds of their skin colour.
Do you not understand that creating protected classes based on things like skin color is just as racist as the original behavior? In fact, it's worse as it adds condescension to the mix. It cements division.
No it's not racist. You're trying to pull the 'affirmative action' schtick here when it's completely irrelevant. OK, I get it, you watched that scene in American History X once that really left a deep and emotionally-resonant impression on you... but we're not even on about that. Discrimination laws do not enshrine any particular race in place; there is no legal statute in the law libraries saying "abuse of people of African descent is illegal". No one is more privileged or singled-out than anyone else. It's a law that just makes the entire area of race-crime and race-abuse a blanket no-no. You're trying to rhetorically twist it into your own perverse reasoning - it doesn't work. Over here you cannot discriminate in any context based on age, race, gender, religion, creed, whatever. It doesn't promote blacks to be firemen, Jay. It doesn't mean old people get all the jobs at the supermarket. It just attempts to erase that entire nastiness altogether from everyday experience. It may be idealistic and it may have its faults but "positive discrimination" and "involuted racism" is not one of them. Barking up the wrong tree.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2012-04-04 16:03:19
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5374|London, England

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:


No we're defending a law that protects people from discrimination based on the colour of their skin (or their gender/sexuality, for that matter)

It's not about "being mean to each other". The guy was threatening (which is more than mean and can constitute assault, as I keep on fucking saying), and he was racist. Racism is a crime. I'm sorry if that's a difficult legal concept for you to grasp - but it just is. If you are being racist in the public arena and voicing your racist hate, you are committing a crime against the common good and public peace. I'm not sure how it is in America but here in the UK we outlawed racism. It's disgusting and aberrant behaviour. Here we protect our citizens from being abused on the grounds of their skin colour.
Do you not understand that creating protected classes based on things like skin color is just as racist as the original behavior? In fact, it's worse as it adds condescension to the mix. It cements division.
No it's not racist. You're trying to pull the 'affirmative action' schtick here when it's completely irrelevant. OK, I get it, you watched that scene in American History X once that really left a deep and emotionally-resonant impression on you... but we're not even on about that. Discrimination laws do not enshrine any particular race in place; there is no legal statute in the law libraries saying "abuse of people of African descent is illegal". No one is more privileged or singled-out than anyone else. It's a law that just makes the entire area of race-crime and race-abuse a blanket no-no. You're trying to rhetorically twist it into your own perverse reasoning - it doesn't work. Over here you cannot discriminate in any context based on age, race, gender, religion, creed, whatever. It doesn't promote blacks to be firemen, Jay. It doesn't mean old people get all the jobs at the supermarket. It just attempts to erase that entire nastiness altogether from everyday experience. It may be idealistic and it may have its faults but "positive discrimination" and "involuted racism" is not one of them. Barking up the wrong tree.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I see it as being the exact same thing as affirmative action.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-04-04 16:04:59
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6487

Jay wrote:

For the record, we do have hate crime laws over here, but they're applied after a crime has been committed and they simply add further punishment on top. If you graffiti swastika's on a synagogue, you'll get charged with a hate crime on top of vandalism. Attack a black man because he's black, and you'll get charged with a hate crime on top of the assault. I think it's absurd (if the initial punishment for the crime isn't considered tough enough, change that aspect).

That said, speech is protected. The KKK can hold their clan meetings and spew hatred all they want. The WBC can picket funerals. But it also means we're completely free to criticize our government, or our police, or whatever else we want. I wouldn't trade it, ugliness and all.
You can criticize the government here. You can picket and protest soldiers' funerals here too if you want (it has happened)*. You can protest against anything you want, so long as you have the right arrangements and paper-work done first so it doesn't create a mess. You can express yourself all you want - go nuts. Our press are not obeisant to the establishment (on the contrary, most of our tabloid-rags are in servitude to the Murdoch empire's agenda, which is often political...) The only difference essentially between your right to free speech and ours is that ours isn't written down on a piece of parchment for us to all get a hard-on over.

You are completely misunderstanding this case, and it's frustrating. You say racism is added as a 'hate-crime' on top of an existing case. Well, in the case of this Twitter abuse... that is exactly what has happened. The guy committed a racially-aggravated assault (which is the standard legal definition of what he did, exactly just that). His offence constituted firstly (i) an assault, i.e. a threat or intimidation made with intent and secondarily (ii) it was an assault and an attack of a racist nature.

Hel-lo? Are you understanding this?

*Interesting case-study: An Islamic group decided to stage a protest at the small village where dead UK soldiers are repatriated off the air-base. They protested against the war in Iraq and used the soldiers' death and funeral cortege as a platform to make a political point. In response, many incensed (mostly white) British people decided to protest against the protest, etc.etc. A large part of this counter-protest and reaction was, of course, nationalist and fired up by the English Defense League and other well-known fascist, far-right, ostensibly racist groups. Were they arrested for doing this? No. Were the Muslims arrested for their initial protest? No. There you have it, a small case-study that captures how our law is fine: racist groups can protest and make noise and hold up xenophobic placards all they want... so long as they don't break a law. This guy broke a law when he committed assault.

Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-04 16:09:17)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2012-04-04 16:06:11
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6487

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

Do you not understand that creating protected classes based on things like skin color is just as racist as the original behavior? In fact, it's worse as it adds condescension to the mix. It cements division.
No it's not racist. You're trying to pull the 'affirmative action' schtick here when it's completely irrelevant. OK, I get it, you watched that scene in American History X once that really left a deep and emotionally-resonant impression on you... but we're not even on about that. Discrimination laws do not enshrine any particular race in place; there is no legal statute in the law libraries saying "abuse of people of African descent is illegal". No one is more privileged or singled-out than anyone else. It's a law that just makes the entire area of race-crime and race-abuse a blanket no-no. You're trying to rhetorically twist it into your own perverse reasoning - it doesn't work. Over here you cannot discriminate in any context based on age, race, gender, religion, creed, whatever. It doesn't promote blacks to be firemen, Jay. It doesn't mean old people get all the jobs at the supermarket. It just attempts to erase that entire nastiness altogether from everyday experience. It may be idealistic and it may have its faults but "positive discrimination" and "involuted racism" is not one of them. Barking up the wrong tree.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I see it as being the exact same thing as affirmative action.
... the affirmation of all races equally, then? Makes sense. I'm sure that's really going to play havok in social justice!!!!

Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-04 16:06:20)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2012-04-04 16:55:59
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6648|949

Did the twitter dude get prosecuted for assault? I thought it was for 'incitement to racial hatred? Or is that classified as assault under English law?
2012-04-04 17:03:13
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6487
a "racially aggravated" offense, which, whilst defined in a separate statute dealing specifically with race-crimes, is primarily prosecuted under the 'public order act' in this context, dealing with:

Section 1 - Riot

Section 2 - Violent disorder

Section 3 - Affray

Section 4 - Fear or provocation of violence

Section 4A - Intentional harassment, alarm or distress 
    added by section 154 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Section 5 - Harassment, alarm or distress
the core of which of course overlaps with the core principles and jurisdiction of the Offences Against the Person Act, i.e. the core sections to do with violence, intimidation, provocation etc. will all rely on common law definitions of assault/affray.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2012-04-04 18:03:32
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6340|New Haven, CT

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

do you mongs not understand american english?

Really, this is clearly just a complete contrast in mentalities dependent on where the individual in question was raised. You Brits seemingly don't comprehend that persecuting for racist speech is inherently bad, because its clearly a foreign concept (literally) to you. You're still arguing over the minutiae of the case applying to British law, while the Americans her are pointing out the entire law is flawed. Considering we speak a common language, I don't see any other explanation for the lack of understanding.
You can't really ask that sort of rhetorical question when your grammar and spelling are atrocious.
ALSO I already said that 3 pages ago, smartarse:

The fundamental difference between our legal philosophy is this: ours descends from a Roman law system focussed on justice for the common people, adapted through a melding of individual liberalism and utilitarianism (cf. Mill, Bentham), in which common good and peace derive from the combined moral interests of the individual within a wider collective. US Law is based on a strict Constitution that frames the individual at the center of everything, with inviolable rights. The result is that we end up having a lot of criminal prosecutions (i.e. brought by the State, R v) that you Americans would consider unconstitutional; on the other hand, you have a lot more civil litigation and pressing of charges that we over here would consider frivolous (because we have less of a focus of justice for individual concerns). Both systems have strengths and weaknesses.
So then this discussion is pointless because neither side is going to be convinced that the philosophy that has been ingrained into their mind through their formative years is wrong.

(jk your laws are stupid)
2012-04-04 18:07:53
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5195|Sydney
I've missed Uzique's posts.
2012-04-04 19:06:13
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6487
Because I'm smarter than everyone else and actually know what the fuck I'm talking about? I miss my posts too, and so should all of you.

p.s. nuk, a few commas wouldn't kill ya, buddy.

Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-04 19:06:45)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2012-04-04 19:12:29
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5195|Sydney

Uzique wrote:

Because I'm smarter than everyone else and actually know what the fuck I'm talking about? I miss my posts too, and so should all of you.
I wouldn't go quite that far to inflate your ego, but yeah, I find it refreshing.
2012-04-04 19:12:47
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6648|949

Uzique wrote:

Because I'm smarter than everyone else and actually know what the fuck I'm talking about? I miss my posts too, and so should all of you.

p.s. nuk, a few commas wouldn't kill ya, buddy.
no ur a dumbie
2012-04-04 19:14:42
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6340|New Haven, CT

Uzique wrote:

Because I'm smarter than everyone else and actually know what the fuck I'm talking about? I miss my posts too, and so should all of you.

p.s. nuk, a few commas wouldn't kill ya, buddy.
lel
2012-04-04 19:15:41
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6725|England. Stoke
Affirmative action is retarded, that's why we don't have any legislation for it. Racism is retarded that's why we have legislation against it...
2012-04-04 19:15:44
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6487

Jaekus wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Because I'm smarter than everyone else and actually know what the fuck I'm talking about? I miss my posts too, and so should all of you.
I wouldn't go quite that far to inflate your ego, but yeah, I find it refreshing.
facetious \fuh-SEE-shuhs\ , adjective:
1. Given to jesting; playfully jocular.
2. Amusing; intended to be humorous; not serious.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2012-04-04 19:16:38
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6487

nukchebi0 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Because I'm smarter than everyone else and actually know what the fuck I'm talking about? I miss my posts too, and so should all of you.

p.s. nuk, a few commas wouldn't kill ya, buddy.
lel
Prove me wrong. So far the two years of pre-college law I took are quite logically and easily dispelling 5 pages of you Americans getting all up in a huff about your INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and other Yankee doodle bullshit. I guess I have an annoying propensity for facts and actual knowledge of the subject I'm talking about; something you guys don't have any reservations about, carrying on as you do for 8 pages in a thread with almost zero educated-input from a Brit member. If you guys want to jerk each other off, why don't you hire a big 'ole BF2s hot-tub and post pics?

Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-04 19:17:39)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2012-04-04 19:19:02
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6648|949

easily dispelling what?  A difference in philosophy?  Yeah, you proved us wrong, buddy! 

BRB, sending a transcript of UK'ers inflammatory posts in the BF2S public arena to the authorities in England!
2012-04-04 19:19:05
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6725|England. Stoke

Uzique wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Because I'm smarter than everyone else and actually know what the fuck I'm talking about? I miss my posts too, and so should all of you.

p.s. nuk, a few commas wouldn't kill ya, buddy.
lel
Prove me wrong. So far the two years of pre-college law I took are quite logically and easily dispelling 5 pages of you Americans getting all up in a huff about your INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and other Yankee doodle bullshit.
TBH I'm not sure that it has much to do with "rights", more like racism and lack of integration...
2012-04-04 19:24:39
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6691|Canberra, AUS
Are people really arguing that twitter isn't public arena? Really?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2012-04-04 19:29:13
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6340|New Haven, CT

Uzique wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Because I'm smarter than everyone else and actually know what the fuck I'm talking about? I miss my posts too, and so should all of you.

p.s. nuk, a few commas wouldn't kill ya, buddy.
lel
Prove me wrong. So far the two years of pre-college law I took are quite logically and easily dispelling 5 pages of you Americans getting all up in a huff about your INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and other Yankee doodle bullshit. I guess I have an annoying propensity for facts and actual knowledge of the subject I'm talking about; something you guys don't have any reservations about, carrying on as you do for 8 pages in a thread with almost zero educated-input from a Brit member. If you guys want to jerk each other off, why don't you hire a big 'ole BF2s hot-tub and post pics?
See, I don't think the Americans have an issue with the application of this case to British law as much as they have a problem with law itself and its underlying principles. Consequently, the issue really isn't the lack of knowledge of common law, its a matter of comparing two legal systems with different philosophies. You clearly understand that, so I can't figure out why you are prancing around like you saved this thread from an abyss of ignorance.
2012-04-04 19:34:42
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6487
The thread was suffering a serious "abyss of ignorance". People seemed confused as to how a publicly-accessible Internet website constitutes a "public arena" (well duh). People were implying that you can't say offensive words in the UK without being locked up, or else otherwise can't express an opinion that is morally questionable, or socially aberrant, or anti-establishment, or critical of xyz, or whatever. These things were ignorant and pretty much factually wrong. I tried to point out why there seems to be a gap of understanding here because of some fundamental differences in outlook and legal philosophy, yes. But really the only debatable things here are a) was the sentence too harsh (fyi imho yes tbh brb) and b) the currently popular legal philoso-ethico-socio-techno-debate about whether or not certain social media sites - which are certainly in the public arena, by all definition and in all regard - should be policed with the common law of whatever jurisdiction they are accessed from. i.e. how accountable should people be for their online actions w/r/t other people and common law offences against other people, or the public good, or some other abstraction that can land you in a whole lot of hot water, basically.

That's it in a nutshell.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2012-04-04 19:43:06
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6340|New Haven, CT
Fair enough, though the real debatable thing is whether the law should punish him for racist speech in that manner. The American legal system has precedent in a similar case (KKK advocating violence against blacks) that was ruled in favor of the KKK because their speech didn't threaten to incite imminent violence. Under that standard, this idiot obviously wouldn't be charged. I think some of the supposed ignorance in this thread stemmed from the incredulity of this sentence to Americans accustomed to a different philosophy on freedom of speech.

Based on what I've read of British law, the case seem pretty unambiguous, aside from the excessively harsh sentence.

 

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 17

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard