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

no they wouldn't have prosecuted the guy if thousands of people had not raised complaints and informed the police, which is quite different. it's not one law protecting celebrities and another for the common layman. he was prosecuted because there was mass public demand for it, not because he insulted a famous person. try again. you guys are missing the point spectacularly time and time again.

That's funny, I thought you missed the point...

When it is a famous person, he is charged...

But if it were me and you, then you said it would be my financial responsibility. So apparently over there, you can not press charges on someone and hold them accountable for breaking the law unless you are wealthy...

Uzique wrote:

HITNRUNXX wrote:

Uzique wrote:

remove the "iirc" and go read some on how the legal process is here. "routinely manipulated"? some proof would be nice, please.

hitnrun if you want to take me to court because i called some people some names, that's your prerogative. have fun with the legal bills. i don't think there would be much of a case against me though, considering i'm simply informing people how dumb they are being about a topic that is out there on the internet for them to read and research. plus i'm not being a disgusting racist. nor am i disturbing the public peace. have fun fella.

So someone had to pay legal bills for the guy in the OP to be charged? Wow, your system is REALLY jacked up.

seeing as i have committed no crime according to criminal legislation, i was assuming you'd want to take me to court in a civil court of law.

because, again, right now i am not being racist, nor am i in breach of the peace as defined in the public order act.

so yes, you would have to pay for an expensive solicitor.

So you pick one line out of the whole post on jump on it. Nice. How about you respond to the whole point. I asked where you draw the line, and WHY do you draw the line there. How is it worse to insult a person by being racist than to insult a person period? Are people incapable of becoming angry and violent unless you use a racial slur? If your words made me and a bunch of people surprisingly angry and we started a riot and blamed your words, then are you guilty? WHERE do you draw the line I asked.

I like how you still act like it is a personal attack over and over. It really helps everyone see your point.

So educate me on where the line is drawn in "statute and common law."

No, I am simply asking you to post the law so that we can all see exactly how it is worded, and so we can see how well it is written. Do you have easy access to the actual written text?

i thought eleven posted here

i don't think 'yank' is a racist slur. you have a baseball team called the 'yankees' right? just like calling me a "dumb brit" would not be racist. how does that term signify racism? i'm not quite sure that you understand what racism is, conceptually. and feel free trying to prosecute me for using the word "mong", but again, you have drastically misunderstood the law here... words are not outlawed. we are allowed free speech. if i offend hundreds/thousands/sufficient number of people and create a disturbance in the public peace with my comments, then perhaps you can start to bring a case (which may not be proven successful). me offending one person in a forum thread viewed by about 7 people is not creating a breach of the public peace in the uk, ergo: it is not in contravention of the public order act. is this really so complicated that it has taken about 4 pages of constant hypothetical rehashing?

Uzique wrote:

i don't think 'yank' is a racist slur. you have a baseball team called the 'yankees' right?

And it is also frequent for groups of people to refer to themselves with terms that they find offensive when coming from outside that group.

Lol

Uzique wrote:

in over my head? lol. i'm the only person here that has evidently studied UK law. i'm relying on a public order act and its definitions to explain why he was found guilty (rightly so). you guys are construing it as mob justice and the flaws of our free speech laws, when that is just not so. 4 pages ago you guys were already admitting it was a fundamental difference in our legal philosophy... now you're coming back for round two, telling me i'm in over my head? have you even read the legislation in question? i'm not quite sure how i'm in over my head here, jay schubert phd.

shall we have another page-long debate where you can then bow out with a "whatever, i'm tired" or a "i'm ignoring you now uzique" response? because that sounds like your standard 'i'm in over my head' line to me. which has appeared about 15 times here in the last week.

Maybe that is because you are not actually debating or serious talking any aspect of the law. You know, like posting the actual law and showing us where we are wrong. Why are you the person responsible for this? Mainly because that is the side you are arguing. You throw slurs around, and it is just fine and dandy because you want it to be. Other people do it, and oh no, go to jail. You are no different from him, he just had more followers on twitter than the number of people that visit this thread. But that apparently determines the legality of the exact same action.

So instead, you are just constantly attacking people. It does get old after a while.

HITNRUNXX wrote:

So again, it is only actually illegal if ENOUGH people are offended.

I don't see anything in the OP about "You have committed a crime of racial intent that also managed to piss off 4,257 people, and therefore you are now responsible for all of THEIR actions and responses, so you are guilty, so declareth the media."

All I see is (paraphrased) "You committed a crime by saying offensive racial things."

it's not about how many people he offends, no, but it is related to the 'public' nature of the offense. all i am saying is that the particulars of this case which ruled so badly in favour for the defendant was that he offended thousands of people indirectly and 10+ people directly using a public communication method. many people contacted the police about him with complaints. i'm not saying that every single case of public order offence now requires a 'quota' of people to be enacted upon - it's clearly decided upon on a case-by-case basis. however all i am saying is that in this case, what clearly happened was that the public became aware of and outraged by his comments, and then promptly inundated the police force with complaints. do i think this is right? yes and no. he did commit a crime and his racist behaviour deserved some sort of punishment, in my opinion. was his sentencing excessive? did the public nature of the trial interrupt the normal procedure of justice? again, yes and no. he was given a fair trial, of that i am sure. though the aggravating factors in the sentencing itself were twofold: a) it was racist [defined in the legislation itself as an aggravating factor], b) it offended and bothered many people, rather than one. he had pretty much zero in the way of mitigating factors that would have induced the judge in giving him a lesser sentence. he was also drunk at the time of the crime, which is always a bad no-no in a court of law; it is not an excuse, rather it further incriminates you on account of your unruly behaviour.

here is the section of the document he was prosecuted under, seeing as you guys are somehow incapable of cursory internet research:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A

relying upon the rules of judicial interpretation as summarised here:

http://www.gillhams.com/dictionary/332.cfm

i hope that clarifies things for you. i see no wrongdoing or misapplication here.

Uzique wrote:

it's not about how many people he offends, no, but it is related to the 'public' nature of the offense. all i am saying is that the particulars of this case which ruled so badly in favour for the defendant was that he offended thousands of people indirectly and 10+ people directly using a public communication method. many people contacted the police about him with complaints. i'm not saying that every single case of public order offence now requires a 'quota' of people to be enacted upon - it's clearly decided upon on a case-by-case basis. however all i am saying is that in this case, what clearly happened was that the public became aware of and outraged by his comments, and then promptly inundated the police force with complaints. do i think this is right? yes and no. he did commit a crime and his racist behaviour deserved some sort of punishment, in my opinion. was his sentencing excessive? did the public nature of the trial interrupt the normal procedure of justice? again, yes and no. he was given a fair trial, of that i am sure. though the aggravating factors in the sentencing itself were twofold: a) it was racist [defined in the legislation itself as an aggravating factor], b) it offended and bothered many people, rather than one. he had pretty much zero in the way of mitigating factors that would have induced the judge in giving him a lesser sentence. he was also drunk at the time of the crime, which is always a bad no-no in a court of law; it is not an excuse, rather it further incriminates you on account of your unruly behaviour.

here is the section of the document he was prosecuted under, seeing as you guys are somehow incapable of cursory internet research:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A

relying upon the rules of judicial interpretation as summarised here:

http://www.gillhams.com/dictionary/332.cfm

i hope that clarifies things for you. i see no wrongdoing or misapplication here.

THIS is a damn good post. +1