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

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 17

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
You Brits need to chill out with the jailing people over speech thing

2012-04-04 19:48:07

#201

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6681

Yeah, we have examples of our society tolerating racist bigots though and their right to publicly flaunt their idiocy and general mediocrity. See my footnote up above, somewhere. But yes, we do have explicit statutes in place that try to limit any sort of public aggravation or disturbance of the peace on racist- or hate- grounds. Perhaps we're just a quiet and more dismissive people, preferring not to get all hot and sweaty about our right to dress up in frankly ludicrous nightwear and prance around declaring our rights to be a mong. To be honest I don't think anyone in the UK would want our law any other way, and from what I can tell you Americans seem pretty charmed by the wormishly ambiguous phrasing of "imminent violence", too, so you're happy for your nation's racists to have the proverbial carte blanche, tout court - alas, c'est la vie. touche. au revoir.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2012-04-04 19:54:53

#202

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6534|New Haven, CT

Where did you get ludicrous nightwear from?

2012-04-04 20:08:59

#203

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6842|949

Spark wrote:
Are people really arguing that twitter isn't public arena? Really?

Why is it? Or better, how is it?

2012-04-04 20:35:35

#204

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5469|foggy bottom

its about as public an arena as a ham radio

Tu Stultus Es

2012-04-04 23:36:36

#205

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5389|Sydney

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Spark wrote:
Are people really arguing that twitter isn't public arena? Really?
Why is it? Or better, how is it?

News articles often quote Twitter...

2012-04-04 23:39:44

#206

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5469|foggy bottom

they also quote private, anonymous sources

Tu Stultus Es

2012-04-05 00:06:19

#207

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6534|New Haven, CT

Unprotected tweets are pretty clearly a public arena. That shouldn't be the point of contention; rather, it should be punishing a drunken idiot for saying racist things when he was in no position to act on them.

2012-04-05 00:18:45

#208

Chou: Member; +737|7001

Isn't Twitter on a USA server and doesn't the freedom of speech apply?
I don't know, me not uzique, i is dumb.

2012-04-05 02:19:11

#209

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6316|eXtreme to the maX

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.

Wrong again, any kind of racist abuse is illegal, blacks harassing whites is just as much a crime as vice versa.

Fuck Israel

2012-04-05 05:25:09

#210

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6681

Chou wrote:
Isn't Twitter on a USA server and doesn't the freedom of speech apply?
I don't know, me not uzique, i is dumb.

his actions were committed in the uk. his tweets were viewed and affected people in the uk. he is a uk citizen. why would they care where the bits and files are stored? that's like saying to a phone stalker "yeah but he used an orange mobile phone and they are owned by a spanish telecoms company and they don't have laws against phone stalking in spain". so yes, you are quite dumb.

Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-05 05:30:35)

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2012-04-05 05:33:19

#211

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6891|Disaster Free Zone

The OP is either missing info or this is a huge waste of time because there is nothing racist about anything in that picture. What he said is rude, insulting and offensive, but nothing is directed at any particular race in a derogatory manner.

There are only 2 references to race at all.

"Go suck a nigger dick" and "your mother is a wog", one is an instruction the other a statement about a single person, neither are derogatory, insulting or discriminatory of any particular race. Inciting racism laws are all well and good if they prosecute actual racism but the law in its current form is an absolute joke.

2012-04-05 06:07:48

#212

HITNRUNXX: Member; +220|6920|Oklahoma City

Uzique wrote:
How is a person 250 miles away leaving you threatening answer-phone messages "presenting a threat"? It's intimidation, if nothing else, which constitutes 'assault' over here according to our common law. Sorry, can't argue with it. Would you agree that if a stalker used a phone for malicious purposes, or if a man threatened to kill someone else or break their legs via phone... that it constituted a crime? That it was enough to incite fear in the victim? All they're doing is taking that sort of commonly-accepted legal principle and applying it to the forms of direct communication and potential for personal intimidation on the Internet.

Ken are you comfortable with the dictionary definitions of "public" and "arena"?

Are we really putting threats of bodily harm in the same category as name calling?

2012-04-05 06:08:43

#213

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6681

I think you may need to take an English class if you don't think the words 'nigger' and 'wog' were used in a pejorative sense, and hence in a racist context. Either that or you are being just as obtuse as every other dumb-shit in this thread. To say that "your mother is a wog" is just a "statement about a single person" is so reductive that I think you just made Occam's razor look like a heavy, blunt instrument. You cannot seriously be this stupid; for one thing, the word 'wog' is never used in any sort of factual statement or context, whatsoever. If he said "your mother is a person of African descent", I could maybe take you seriously and keep a straight face (though his seeming predilection for stating random facts to strangers over Twitter would be funny-in-itself and completely absurd).

D-. Please try again. See teacher after class.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2012-04-05 06:10:41

#214

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6681

HITNRUNXX wrote:
Uzique wrote:
How is a person 250 miles away leaving you threatening answer-phone messages "presenting a threat"? It's intimidation, if nothing else, which constitutes 'assault' over here according to our common law. Sorry, can't argue with it. Would you agree that if a stalker used a phone for malicious purposes, or if a man threatened to kill someone else or break their legs via phone... that it constituted a crime? That it was enough to incite fear in the victim? All they're doing is taking that sort of commonly-accepted legal principle and applying it to the forms of direct communication and potential for personal intimidation on the Internet.

Ken are you comfortable with the dictionary definitions of "public" and "arena"?
Are we really putting threats of bodily harm in the same category as name calling?

Go and read the common law statutes for assault. Intimidation doesn't even need to signify 'bodily harm', not literally or necessarily. Also I have already quoted the law being used here that targets forms of "harassment" and such like. It's not as serious a crime as an assault/battery related offence, certainly, but it is still a public order offense. Sorry but how are you going to argue with our legal definitions? The guy committed a crime in the jurisdiction of the UK and was dealt with by the judiciary of the UK according to the law book of the UK.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2012-04-05 06:15:34

#215

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6316|eXtreme to the maX

Britain has various laws, none of which impinge on the democratic right of freedom of speech.

Go look up McCarthyism, then calm down.

Fuck Israel

2012-04-05 07:53:07

#216

HITNRUNXX: Member; +220|6920|Oklahoma City

Uzique wrote:
HITNRUNXX wrote:
Uzique wrote:
How is a person 250 miles away leaving you threatening answer-phone messages "presenting a threat"? It's intimidation, if nothing else, which constitutes 'assault' over here according to our common law. Sorry, can't argue with it. Would you agree that if a stalker used a phone for malicious purposes, or if a man threatened to kill someone else or break their legs via phone... that it constituted a crime? That it was enough to incite fear in the victim? All they're doing is taking that sort of commonly-accepted legal principle and applying it to the forms of direct communication and potential for personal intimidation on the Internet.

Ken are you comfortable with the dictionary definitions of "public" and "arena"?
Are we really putting threats of bodily harm in the same category as name calling?
Go and read the common law statutes for assault. Intimidation doesn't even need to signify 'bodily harm', not literally or necessarily. Also I have already quoted the law being used here that targets forms of "harassment" and such like. It's not as serious a crime as an assault/battery related offence, certainly, but it is still a public order offense. Sorry but how are you going to argue with our legal definitions? The guy committed a crime in the jurisdiction of the UK and was dealt with by the judiciary of the UK according to the law book of the UK.

I have already said it isn't my country and I think they should run it however they want it to.

I am just saying that "assault" and even "harassment" are not the same thing as throwing a slur around. The law he fell under, if I remember correctly, was inciting racial hatred... I was just commenting on your comment about someone threatening someone.

Whether "inciting racial hatred" is a crime or not in another country, doesn't matter to me... BUT if it is, then that also means every British person I have ever watched a soccer game with needs to be immediately jailed.

Last edited by HITNRUNXX (2012-04-05 07:54:08)

2012-04-05 08:01:13

#217

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6681

In Scotland they are already taking steps to outlaw that sort of behaviour at football games (for better or for worse). So yes, in principle, they should be.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2012-04-06 03:46:12

#218

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6534|New Haven, CT

It's very understandable why you'd want to prevent racism from being uttered at a futbol game.

2012-04-15 19:57:20

#219

specops10-4: Member; +108|6953|In the hills

If you agree people should be jailed for racist speech, you are against free speech, simple as that.

2012-04-15 20:43:12

#220

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6681

i have no problem with people saying racist things. they have the right to free speech. however:

i don't want racist abuse to be broadcast in public, nor inciting of racial hatred in a public place
i don't want threatening or racist abuse directed against another person, in a way that causes an offense against the person, e.g. assault.

those are two lines that the right to free speech should not cross in this country. the law copes very well.

Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-15 20:43:25)

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2012-04-15 20:47:10

#221

specops10-4: Member; +108|6953|In the hills

Uzique wrote:
i have no problem with people saying racist things. they have the right to free speech. however:

i don't want racist abuse to be broadcast in public, nor inciting of racial hatred in a public place
i don't want threatening or racist abuse directed against another person, in a way that causes an offense against the person, e.g. assault.

those are two lines that the right to free speech should not cross in this country. the law copes very well.

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?

2012-04-15 20:51:02

#222

Miggle: FUCK UBISOFT; +1,411|6952|FUCK UBISOFT

I think people are too prejudiced against racist people. Stop discriminating and just let people live how they want to live.

2012-04-15 20:58:06

#223

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6681

specops10-4 wrote:
Uzique wrote:
i have no problem with people saying racist things. they have the right to free speech. however:

i don't want racist abuse to be broadcast in public, nor inciting of racial hatred in a public place
i don't want threatening or racist abuse directed against another person, in a way that causes an offense against the person, e.g. assault.

those are two lines that the right to free speech should not cross in this country. the law copes very well.
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.

we have racist politicians and racist groups that spout racist remarks and bigotry all the time. it's called the british nationalist party. the difference is that they don't (overtly, anyway) go around threatening to kill people, making comments about nigger dicks and fucking nigger moms.

Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-15 20:59:05)

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2012-04-15 21:01:04

#224

specops10-4: Member; +108|6953|In the hills

Uzique wrote:
specops10-4 wrote:
Uzique wrote:
i have no problem with people saying racist things. they have the right to free speech. however:

i don't want racist abuse to be broadcast in public, nor inciting of racial hatred in a public place
i don't want threatening or racist abuse directed against another person, in a way that causes an offense against the person, e.g. assault.

those are two lines that the right to free speech should not cross in this country. the law copes very well.
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.

2012-04-15 21:01:54

#225

specops10-4: Member; +108|6953|In the hills

Uzique wrote:
specops10-4 wrote:
Uzique wrote:
i have no problem with people saying racist things. they have the right to free speech. however:

i don't want racist abuse to be broadcast in public, nor inciting of racial hatred in a public place
i don't want threatening or racist abuse directed against another person, in a way that causes an offense against the person, e.g. assault.

those are two lines that the right to free speech should not cross in this country. the law copes very well.
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.

we have racist politicians and racist groups that spout racist remarks and bigotry all the time. it's called the british nationalist party. the difference is that they don't (overtly, anyway) go around threatening to kill people, making comments about nigger dicks and fucking nigger moms.

As long as they don't actually do it who gives a flying fuck?

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 17

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
You Brits need to chill out with the jailing people over speech thing

Board footer

Jump to

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

Spark wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

Chou wrote:

Uzique wrote:

HITNRUNXX wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

HITNRUNXX wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

specops10-4 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

specops10-4 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

specops10-4 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Board footer