It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Australian man arrested over racist statements on Social Media

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

ok sorry man




posted on May, 30 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: syrinx high priest

No, the U.S. isn't going to change its first amendment free speech/hate speech laws to match the convention.

From your link:

Although a common legal framework would eliminate jurisdictional hurdles to facilitate the law enforcement of borderless cyber crimes, a complete realization of a common legal framework may not be possible. Transposing Convention provisions into domestic law is difficult especially if it requires the incorporation of substantive expansions that run counter to constitutional principles. For instance, the United States may not be able to criminalize all the offenses relating to child pornography that are stated in the Convention, specifically the ban on virtual child pornography, because of its First Amendment's free speech principles.


Australia's hate speech laws already existed to ban speech that was insulting or degrading based on race, nationality, sexual orientation, etc.


The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 forbids hate speech on several grounds. The Act makes it "unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group."

en.wikipedia.org...

The U.S. 1st amendment protects speech that is insulting and demeaning, as long as it doesn't incite violence or other unlawful behavior.


Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: KaibaTheJedi
This is idiocy and madness. So does this mean every Internet troll will be arrested? Looks like big brother and the thought police is watching, and saying "don't you dare say anything we don't like"!
There's a difference between being a troll and a criminal, and this is an overreaction by the police. If he threatened someone then take him in, but this is a no.


specific trolling in specific countries does carry a risk


Those States that have ratified the additional protocol are required to criminalize the dissemination of racist and xenophobic material through computer systems, as well as threats and insults motivated by racism or xenophobia.[5]



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




I bet you are familiar with no more than 1% of the laws in your country.


Cowardly statement Les - and meaningless

I'll bet you don't actually care about any of this - past your need to move your clan's agenda forward

But, you know - whatever - and for what it's worth

:-)


edit on 5/30/2016 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Police arrest man over offensive Hillsborough T-shirt

Here is good example of what you are talking about.

It is tasteless, it is offensive, personally I would slapped the guy round the back of the head.....but arrested?

One more step towards thought crime.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

the point is this isn't just australia, they are trying to comply with much bigger legislation



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

You would be even more surprised how they also hide behind anti-defamation laws - they bankrupt you in the courts. We have no bill of rights and only "implied" freedom in our Constitution, Basically we are still a military run colony.

technically we are a constitutional Monarchy and our Government can be sacked by the Governor-General...Appointed by the Queen of England



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

I see what you mean. And I would agree that it's an invasive law.

I heard this the other day and loved it:
A man asked a judge in a courtroom, "Your honor, what would happen if I said you were an idiot?"

The judge replied, "I'd hold you in contempt of court, of course!"

"OK", the man said. "What would happen if I just THOUGHT you were an idiot?"

Judge: "There's nothing I can or should do about what you THINK. You have the right to think whatever you want."

Man: "Well, your honor, in that case, I THINK you're an idiot!"


I really dislike the term "snowflake". It gets applied to people who so much as voice the idea that they feel offended about something. It's WAY overused. People just throw it out there to be... well... offensive. We all feel offended at times and there's nothing wrong with saying so.

I mean - how many here are voicing the fact that they're "offended by" this law? Are we all special snowflakes because we're offended?



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Well, I guess it is true. When a country gives up their guns, they start to lose their free speech too. Australia and much of Europe, being pretty much the perfect example of a glove that fits more perfect than any other ever has.

Get your guns back people, and then you can say whatever you want again.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

i remember back when i was a kid this little saying. worked pretty well.



sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.


and you know who started this sayin, the African Methodist Episcopal Church. which it is thought to be a taken from Psalm 42:10.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: SaturnFX

I see what you mean. And I would agree that it's an invasive law.

I heard this the other day and loved it:
A man asked a judge in a courtroom, "Your honor, what would happen if I said you were an idiot?"

The judge replied, "I'd hold you in contempt of court, of course!"

"OK", the man said. "What would happen if I just THOUGHT you were an idiot?"

Judge: "There's nothing I can or should do about what you THINK. You have the right to think whatever you want."

Man: "Well, your honor, in that case, I THINK you're an idiot!"


I really dislike the term "snowflake". It gets applied to people who so much as voice the idea that they feel offended about something. It's WAY overused. People just throw it out there to be... well... offensive. We all feel offended at times and there's nothing wrong with saying so.

I mean - how many here are voicing the fact that they're "offended by" this law? Are we all special snowflakes because we're offended?


Being offended doesn't make one a snowflake.

Passing laws that imprison people who offend you with words makes one a snowflake.

Thought that distinction was obvious by now.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Sargeras




Passing laws that imprison people who offend you with words makes one a snowflake.


Snowflake is just dogwhistle for progressive - it doesn't have any usefulness past clubbing the other side repeatedly over the head with it and hoping they'll retaliate



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Dark Ghost

no freedom of speech on the internet that is what it will come to.

That is what they're after, after all… shutting down discourse. Going back to one way, top down, dissemination of disinformation, like in the days before inter webs.

Shall we gather at the water cooler and discuss todays headlines… (excuse me while I hurl)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: thinline
What is a racist statement?

That's the rub

Example

_______ is an amazing sport, ________ people have been hiding this.

A black man live tweeted after watching his first hockey game. He thought it was an amazing sport and tweeted some form of white people was hiding this from black people. Not only did most hockey fans laugh at this, St. Louis Blues even brought him to a game

Is a white man, after watching his first NBA game twitted. Basketball is a great sport, why did black people had this this. Would black nba fans retweet and repost the comments in a jovial way? Would the NBA team invite him to a game? I am not only saying it wouldn't happen, but the guy in some countries could get arrested.



hmm. talk about taking out of context.

you're comparing those two instances? trust me, there was nothing pejorative in the hockey story.... nor would the black guy likely go on a rampage and murder innocents because of their 'pigment affiliations'...



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

funny, but i think if you asked the man who made the comments, his answers would be real answers, and he would say exactly what he meant. not cowardly grammatical technicalities high priced lawyers would use on defense against possibly someone who acted on what they posted online...

lulz..



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
I am not familiar with the laws in Australia, but I'm assuming there are laws that deal with this type of incident, or the authorities would not have charged him. If you live in a country, it would behoove you to be familiar with its laws. If you are dumb enough to break one of those laws, then you deserve what you get. Don't like the laws? Work through your political representatives to get them changed -- or move to a country whose laws you like better.


Does your attitude extend to countries such as Pakistan?


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A powerful constitutional body in Pakistan proposed legislation last week that would allow husbands to "lightly beat" their wives who decline sex or refuse to wear what their mates prefer.

The Council of Islamic Ideology says it has to finalize the 160-page draft before it is sent to lawmakers in the Punjab province, the country's most populated region, for approval.

As well as beatings for wives who decline to have sex with their husbands, the document also advocates men use "limited violence" on spouses who do not bathe after intercourse or during menstruation.

Source

edit on 30/5/2016 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis




Snowflake is just dogwhistle for progressive - it doesn't have any usefulness past clubbing the other side repeatedly over the head with it and hoping they'll retaliate


The thing about dog-whistles is only dogs can hear it. It's no strange wonder you use that specious argument quite often.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




The thing about dog-whistles is only dogs can hear it. It's no strange wonder you use that specious argument quite often.


But it was you that came running - funny thing

Trolling now that you've run out of anything pertinent to say?

:-)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis




But it was you that came running - funny thing

Trolling now that you've run out of anything pertinent to say?

:-)

How about you tell us what rings in your ears when you hear certain words? I'm sure we'll all be the better for it.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost


Does your attitude extend to countries such as Pakistan?


Yep. As I said, if you don't like the law or think it's unfair - work to get it changed. Or leave. Or a 3rd option would be to intentionally break the law, knowing that you will get charged. But don't act shocked when you do get charged.




top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join