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

Im sure the KKK voted a black man in as president. Sounds like something they would do.

Cybargs wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

The KKK hasn't won an election since..

We don't have national "keep American, American" movements over here like you have "Keep France, French" movements over there. The stories of riots targeting blacks in Italy hasn't happened since the civil war here. There's a bunch more examples like that.

no but the republicians have.

*Badum tsh*

KKK always voted democrat and it was the Republicans who ended slavery.

Look up dixiecrat.

that trend ended in the 60's

eleven bravo wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Vilham wrote:

no but the republicians have.

*Badum tsh*

KKK always voted democrat and it was the Republicans who ended slavery.

Look up dixiecrat.

that trend ended in the 60's

Civil rights movement yeh?

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

LOL!

Nothing wrong with the flag of St George. But the people who tend to have those flags flying outside their homes quite often are the same people who get very offended when it is pointed out to them that St George was an Arab (Palestinian who served as a soldier in the Roman army) and certainly wasn't white - I often have fun with that.

Also, isn't this much the same as what's being proposed here? http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=145297

you brits need to chill out

What did I miss in 4 months? Did a cyber-terrorist organization attack D&ST and release a Stupid toxin on the network? cause this thread looks like some sort of public atrocity just went down.

Oh look, DS complaining about DST again.  Go play with your dolls.

Do you guys need some careful bullet-point elucidation of common law, or were you all fucking around with that "why isn't overt racism in the public domain okay?" stuff? I mean I could see you guys were having a laugh with "what's the difference between this and picking on someone with glasses?"...

Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-03 19:05:12)

but you're explaining why it happened.  I want you to convince me that it's not ok or why you think a law should exist that allows a state to arrest someone for saying something like that

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

but you're explaining why it happened.  I want you to convince me that it's not ok or why you think a law should exist that allows a state to arrest someone for saying something like that

I think it's okay for a law like that to exist because, whilst the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press are of absolute importance, so is the freedom of other individuals to not have their liberty and rights infringed upon by those former freedoms. For the general peace and public good to outweigh the selfish desires and views of one person. There is a way to express yourself and places to do it if you have strong, reasoned opinions. Our society will tolerate that; we're not censorious. We have a free press. People submit controversial essays and think-pieces to our major mainstream press outlets all the time. Our tabloids are a hilarious pantomime of right-wing opinion and general bigotry, a la Fox News and every idiotic shitrag you want to name in the U.S. We don't have a constitution stating a 'freedom of speech' though, no, you're right. But our common law appeals to the rights of every individual (with his/her liberty) for utilitarian benefits - everyone is free to do as they wish, with the idea it will be to the common good and benefit of all. What we do not tolerate is when someone uses their freedom of expression to incite racial hatred - that is a crime. Inciting racial hatred in a public area is a breach of the public peace and infringes on the offended parties' rights. It's as simple as that.

Again, the only controversy or debate here is whether or not someone should be held to account for things they say on Twitter - which is considered 'thoughtless', 'transient', 'meaningless'. But that isn't really the case, is it? If you are directing personally-aimed attacks at people using any communicative medium, you are harassing them and intimidating them. It doesn't matter whether the medium is a 140-character tweet, a text message (which has been illegal for years now, and no one complains about the Communications Act enforcing phone-abuse), or a rolled-up newspaper that you use to direct your voice at someone. It's abusive behaviour, plain and simple. Which we will not tolerate for our common good; which, respectfully, is more important to maintaining our law and sense of justice than one person's right to air their crass hatred for thousands to see/read/hear.

The crux of it is: this isn't so much about the fact he used the word "nigger". Over here the worst that will happen to you if you use language deemed offensive/inappropriate is a written warning or a small fine for a "breach of the peace". This is what happens to drunks who are shouting swear-words in public and refuse to quieten down and go home after several warnings. This happens in the States too so don't fuck around with this whole "freedom of speech" thing; if you are being loud and abusive in a public arena (of which Twitter can be considered one), then you're going to get ticketed and given some sort of disorder arrest. The nature of this guy's crimes, though, were personal. He was personally directing attacks at people - of a racist and vicious and threatening manner - inciting racist hatred, threatening to physically harm them, and many other things. Whether or not he literally intended it is not the point: if the victim felt threatened or abused at any point, and perceived a threat, then that is enough. That is the way our assault offences work here, whether it's face-to-face, via intimidating answer-phone messages, or over an Internet website.

So what's so hard to understand?

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.

Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-04 04:24:19)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Because it disrupts the peace.

Does freedom of speech allow me to rant through a megaphone at 150db at 3am?
No?

People shouldn't be allowed to misuse an important freedom to harass an abuse others.

Whereas I agree with you in point, I also say it is a bit more difficult to not listen to a megaphone as it would be to stop reading someone's twitter account. Are they going to start arresting actors because their film played, used a racist attitude, and got some people riled up? I think social networking falls more into the "entertainment" category than the "screaming in the streets" category myself...

With that being said, it isn't my country, so my opinion is totally invalid. Their country, their rules. Maybe they will have a better, nicer, less violent civilization because of it. *shrug*

So all forums should be moderated by the government then?