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

Uzique wrote:

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?

What a vague law, you have to upset enough people and then its considered illegal, good piece of legislation you have there.

So if a public official says something... publicly... that would be considered illegal, but you calling someone a nigger on the street or on a little internet forum is not?  This just doesn't make sense.

Last edited by specops10-4 (2012-04-18 10:33:01)

Jay wrote:

Oh, right, I have you filtered on my laptop. Won't be able to see the response. Shit. Oh well.

lmao, same old jay. comes into a thread to make a character-snipe when the moment is ripe for you, backs out as soon as any actual debate and discussion takes place. what are you doing on your laptop anyway? at the library doing some research for your hegel paper for your alma mater's philosophy journal? good luck pal.

anyway... again, to reiterate: this does not mean that we don't have a freedom of speech in this country. there are careful laws and regulations protecting anyone's right to protest in a public place and to broadcast their views (even racist organisations and nationalist political parties, etc.) there are careful laws and regulations in place protecting the freedom of the press and written word in criticising the government and viewing their opinions - so long as they are reasoned and evidenced, of course, i.e. no empty and unfounded slander. all the mechanisms are in place in the UK to allow somebody of any political or social persuasion to have a platform, so long as it is expressed civilly and without breaching the public peace, i.e. without inciting violence or riotous behaviour. there is a big difference between this and saying - as many of you americans do and have - that we have "no free speech". we're not just allowed to run out in the street shouting racial slurs at the top of our voices, then relying on a constitutional clause to get away with it.

you would have to prove it in a court of law though, where said-insult would have to be justified in some sense and evidenced. a judge would consider it as reasonably and objectively as he possibly could. it's not just a simple case of "i was insulted, therefore he is guilty". it has to stand up to some common standard of legal reasonability. i don't think a judge would hesitate in telling a prosecution or plaintiff that they need to grow up or grow a harder shell, really. there is however a definite case against the person in the OP. he did purposefully create a lot of upset and was very insulting to many people. again, the fact he was drunk and the nature of many of his offences were racist does not help him in the eyes of the law one bit. hence why the punishment was a heavy one. and, as a british citizen, i don't really have a problem with that: i'm glad that our law gives out the message that is it not acceptable to just get drunk and irresponsibly start calling a bunch of strangers a "nigger". it's not acceptable to me.

Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-18 10:43:16)

of course it is brought up in court. how do you think a court works? a court arbitrates over disputes in an objective, reasonable way, trying to assert the civic view and uphold the public good. that's the court's whole point and purpose as a social institution and instrument. of course if two people take a dispute to the court, they will have to justify the feeling of insult and wrong against an objective measure. otherwise how else would any law ever be implemented and enforced? if we all just floated around in a complete web of relativity? there would be no rule of law.

also you are confusing the onus of proof, here. in a criminal court the defense has the onus of proving guilt or not guilt. in a civil court the plaintiff has the onus of proving responsibility or culpability.

Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-18 10:48:49)

many points of law are open to judicial interpretation and the rational discourses of court procedure. not all laws can be interpreted with the literal method, e.g. speeding laws being a matter of empirical fact. there is very often a grey area in the law that must be arbitrated by the legal professional. if the law was always black and white being innocent and guilty, why would we even have judges and a legal structure? surely a machine could do all of the processing.

just think of the purpose of the jury in serious offences, for example homicide. this is a prime example of why the grey area in law is so vitally important, and why public and civic opinion is important. if a person kills another person, according to your black/white method where the law has "confines", they are guilty of murder. but that doesn't take into account any of the defendant's causes, motives or mitigating factors. you need a judge and a jury to sit on this and reason it.

Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-18 10:57:08)

Uzique wrote:

just think of the purpose of the jury in serious offences, for example homicide. this is a prime example of why the grey area in law is so vitally important, and why public and civic opinion is important. if a person kills another person, according to your black/white method where the law has "confines", they are guilty of murder. but that doesn't take into account any of the defendant's causes, motives or mitigating factors. you need a judge and a jury to sit on this and reason it.

Yup, beat me to that one... That was the exact example I was going to use too... Manslaughter vs 1st degree murder...


But I also think a lot of those are more blatant (though not all, and we have had plenty of very publicized cases showing otherwise). If you shoot at a squirrel in a tree while hunting, and the bullet travels over and kills someone, you are guilty of manslaughter. And it is the same result as if you pointed your gun at them and shot them on purpose (Murder).  Someone is dead. Intent has to be proved...

Actually, I will take it a step further for you... In the U.S. (I don't know about the U.K.) one of the first rules of law you learn is that ALL crime has to show intent. You can't ACCIDENTALLY commit a crime. Now, you can't claim ignorance. And in the above case, you still pulled the trigger, and was negligent. But you can't accidentally commit a crime. Every law is based on intent.

I just *wish* it were more cut and dry that that. Although I guess then we would all have to be robotic.

Uzique wrote:

many points of law are open to judicial interpretation and the rational discourses of court procedure. not all laws can be interpreted with the literal method, e.g. speeding laws being a matter of empirical fact. there is very often a grey area in the law that must be arbitrated by the legal professional. if the law was always black and white being innocent and guilty, why would we even have judges and a legal structure? surely a machine could do all of the processing.

just think of the purpose of the jury in serious offences, for example homicide. this is a prime example of why the grey area in law is so vitally important, and why public and civic opinion is important. if a person kills another person, according to your black/white method where the law has "confines", they are guilty of murder. but that doesn't take into account any of the defendant's causes, motives or mitigating factors. you need a judge and a jury to sit on this and reason it.

You can determine motives and causes based on the murderers actions, and yes to some extent his words and interperitation of his thoughts.  You really only need empirical evidence to determine things like these, did the murderer track down their subject and kill them in cold blood hiding the body afterwards or did he get into a fist fight and knock him into a curb without premeditation.  These are the primary facts while psychological analysis and other less obvious evidence are secondary.

Last edited by specops10-4 (2012-04-18 11:10:40)

specops10-4 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

many points of law are open to judicial interpretation and the rational discourses of court procedure. not all laws can be interpreted with the literal method, e.g. speeding laws being a matter of empirical fact. there is very often a grey area in the law that must be arbitrated by the legal professional. if the law was always black and white being innocent and guilty, why would we even have judges and a legal structure? surely a machine could do all of the processing.

just think of the purpose of the jury in serious offences, for example homicide. this is a prime example of why the grey area in law is so vitally important, and why public and civic opinion is important. if a person kills another person, according to your black/white method where the law has "confines", they are guilty of murder. but that doesn't take into account any of the defendant's causes, motives or mitigating factors. you need a judge and a jury to sit on this and reason it.

You can determine motives and causes based on the murderers actions, and yes to some extent his words and interperitation of his thoughts.  You really only need empirical evidence to determine things like these, did the murderer track down their subject and kill them in cold blood hiding the body afterwards or did he get into a fist fight and knock him into a curb without premeditation.  These are the primary facts in these instances while psychological analysis and other less obvious evidence are secondary.

the law doesn't agree with you that the psychological analysis is secondary, sorry. and neither do i. some crimes need to be committed out of premeditation or 'malice aforethought', which is the phrase used in the case of murder. you can't quantify malice using facts and evidence collected in zip-lock bags. you have to qualify it.

Uzique wrote:

specops10-4 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

many points of law are open to judicial interpretation and the rational discourses of court procedure. not all laws can be interpreted with the literal method, e.g. speeding laws being a matter of empirical fact. there is very often a grey area in the law that must be arbitrated by the legal professional. if the law was always black and white being innocent and guilty, why would we even have judges and a legal structure? surely a machine could do all of the processing.

just think of the purpose of the jury in serious offences, for example homicide. this is a prime example of why the grey area in law is so vitally important, and why public and civic opinion is important. if a person kills another person, according to your black/white method where the law has "confines", they are guilty of murder. but that doesn't take into account any of the defendant's causes, motives or mitigating factors. you need a judge and a jury to sit on this and reason it.

You can determine motives and causes based on the murderers actions, and yes to some extent his words and interperitation of his thoughts.  You really only need empirical evidence to determine things like these, did the murderer track down their subject and kill them in cold blood hiding the body afterwards or did he get into a fist fight and knock him into a curb without premeditation.  These are the primary facts in these instances while psychological analysis and other less obvious evidence are secondary.

the law doesn't agree with you that the psychological analysis is secondary, sorry. and neither do i. some crimes need to be committed out of premeditation or 'malice aforethought', which is the phrase used in the case of murder. you can't quantify malice using facts and evidence collected in zip-lock bags. you have to qualify it.

You can't quantify the total picture using hard evidence, at least with our current technology but thats a whole different debate, but you can get a very good idea of how, and even why someone committed a crime.

If someone committed a terrible premeditated murder with hard evidence of intent (buying weapons, stalking, internet records etc.) but when examined by a psychologist they appeared to be perfectly normal and displayed empathy, I would like to believe they would be sentenced to 1st degree murder.

While someone who accidentally killed someone yet showed no remorse would hopefully get charged with the crime they committed, maybe a little harsher, but still equal to the actual crime they committed.

tell me somewhere / some society where that doesn't happen please

I agree with Carlin on pretty much everything until the whole civil war thing... Anyways, theres a reason we don't trust government, and its based on our history.  We just continue to elect shitty officials who claim to be against government who really are against government only when it suits them.

Last edited by specops10-4 (2012-04-18 18:49:28)

jay projects his anxieties and insecurities onto me all the time. i think i make him nervous. everyone has to be posturing just like him, right?

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.

I'm reasonably sure any law on racism will be by statute and not common law.

I've seen two trials where the Judge was handpicked with the intention he would rule in a way determined by the prosecution authorities.
In one of those cases it was proven beyond doubt (I have the tape recordings and the documents the CPS forged) the Branch Crown Prosecutor and DPP resigned simultaneously, but apparently coincidentally
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl … 541437.stm
Except the case was thrown out, not withdrawn.

As often as not, Judges and Coroners are in the pockets of the prosecuting authorities in the UK. Its only the press which keeps them clean.