Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Fabrice Muamba: Racist Twitter user jailed for 56 days (Right or Wrong)

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Originally posted by woogleuk
Originally posted by judus



The moderator above hit it on the head, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to hate.

56 days, IMO, is a light sentence for what the divvy said



Wrong, freedom of speech implies freedom to say 'hateful' things. Look at Youtube comments, look at the internet in general. There's so much 'hateful' stuff being said on any given subject. Who determines what is 'hateful'?

YOU?

Is there going to be a central world committee on "internet hate" to jail all the people who are letting off steam or saying what they believe? Should there be an internet INQUISITION?

It's all BS. And it's always little ninnies with a Hall Monitor complex who want speech shut down.
edit on 27-3-2012 by PaxVeritas because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-3-2012 by PaxVeritas because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Furthermore,

If I chose to say something 'hateful' about Ted the Janitor who lives next door to me, I wouldn't catch any flack because he's not famous or rich or noteworthy.

This Orwellian CRAP tells us that if enough people are offended the majority rules and free speech is not exactly that, it needs to be 'curtailed'.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by judus
 


Incorrect, regardless of status:


Racially or religiously aggravated offences - Crime and Disorder Act 1998(amended by Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001)

Racially or religiously aggravated offences - Crime and Disorder Act 1998(amended by Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001): 6 months - 7 years

Racially/religiously aggravated actual bodily harm (s.29(1)(b) CDA): 6 months to 7 years

Racially/religiously aggravated common assault (s.29(1)(c) CDA): 6 months - 2 years

Racially/religiously aggravated damage (s.30(1)(c) CDA): 6 months - 14 years

Racially/religiously aggravated fear/provocation of violence (s.31(1)(a) CDA): 6 months - 2 years

Racially/religiously aggravated intentional harassment/alarm/distress (s.31(1)(b) CDA): 6 months - 2years

Racially/religiously aggravated harassment/alarm/distress (s.31(1)(c) CDA): Fine up to level 4

Racially/religiously aggravated harassment/stalking without violence (s.32(1)(a) CDA): 6 months - 2 years

Racially/religiously aggravated harassment/stalking with fear of violence (s.32(1)(b) CDA): 6 months to 2 years



Incitement to racial hatred - sections 17-29 Public Order Act 1986

s.18 - using threatening/abusive/insulting words or behaviour or displaying written material with intent/likely to stir up racial hatred: 6 months - 7 years

s.19 - publishing/distributing written material which is threatening/abusive/insulting with intent/likely to stir up racial hatred: 6 months to 7 years

s.20 - public performance of a play involving threatening/abusive/insulting words/behaviour with intent/likely to stir up racial hatred: 6 months to 7 years

s.21 - distributing/showing/playing a recording of visual images or sounds that are threatening/abusive/ insulting with intent/likely to stir up racial hatred: 6 months - 7 years

s.22 - broadcasting or including programme in cable programme service involving threatening/abusive/insulting visual images or sounds with intent/likely to stir up racial hatred: 6 months to 7 years

s.23 - possessing racially inflammatory material/material for display/publication distribution with intent/likely to stir up racial hatred: 6 months to 7 years



Football Offences - s.3 Football Offences Act 1991 (amended by s.9 Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999)

Engaging in or taking part in indecent/racialist chanting at a designated football match: Fine up to level 3


Source








edit on 27/3/12 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
People should be allowed to say whatever they want, anytime. As adults we must choose blanket free speech for everyone.

Why are adults so immature that they let words hurt them? What ever happened to sticks and stones may break my bones but WORDS WILL NEVER HURT ME.

It seems as though we are going down a slippery slope lately of legally punishing people for their spoken words or "non actions". That is all such BS!!

One should only be punished by law if they have committed a PHYSICAL offense against someone else or someone elses property.

Just because someone screams "fire" in a theater, that means that as adults we cant take two seconds to establish that the person screaming fire was a either a prankster or a serious warning??

The adults in this world need to grow up just a little so that the rest of the world can enjoy freedom.

How about NOT letting words effect you like most adults should have learned in grade school?

Or is this about creating jobs for all those law graduates looking for employment?



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by PaxVeritas
 



Thanks

You managed to write what I was thinking.


CX

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by PaxVeritas

Wrong, freedom of speech implies freedom to say 'hateful' things.


I agree with that, no matter how bad the "speech" may be. That said, you will quickly come to learn what people will and won't put up with in life. Bit like Fred Phelps, people agree wit hhis right to spew whatever he wants, but nobody would be surprised if he wound up dead.

If people can't handle the reaction they cause by thier abusive comments, i'd strongly advise them to keep thier mouths shut.

I wonder if this guy will be saying the same kind of comments in prison to the first person of different colour he sees? Maybe let him go into some of the London suburbs and see the reaction he'd get shouting it out loud there? I say let him exercise his right to freedom of speech and all that comes his way afterwards.

Idiot.


CX.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by PaxVeritas
Furthermore,

If I chose to say something 'hateful' about Ted the Janitor who lives next door to me, I wouldn't catch any flack because he's not famous or rich or noteworthy.

This Orwellian CRAP tells us that if enough people are offended the majority rules and free speech is not exactly that, it needs to be 'curtailed'.


Who the F@#$ cares who gets offended?? Since when is it the laws job to prevent people from being offended.
Thats like saying im undersexed - so lets all justify rape. Hey, I was slightly uncomfortable while anticipating sex so I should be able to sue someone right?? Its really offensive to me when people wear revealing clothes but dont let me touch their goodies. I mean come om people... blanket free speech is the only mature stance to take on the issue of free speech.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by CX

Originally posted by PaxVeritas

Wrong, freedom of speech implies freedom to say 'hateful' things.


I agree with that, no matter how bad the "speech" may be. That said, you will quickly come to learn what people will and won't put up with in life. Bit like Fred Phelps, people agree wit hhis right to spew whatever he wants, but nobody would be surprised if he wound up dead.

If people can't handle the reaction they cause by thier abusive comments, i'd strongly advise them to keep thier mouths shut.

I wonder if this guy will be saying the same kind of comments in prison to the first person of different colour he sees? Maybe let him go into some of the London suburbs and see the reaction he'd get shouting it out loud there? I say let him exercise his right to freedom of speech and all that comes his way afterwards.

Idiot.


CX.


Sure words have consequences. However, those consequences should have NOTHING to do with the legal system. Free speech should give the common man the right to say ANYTHING without the fear of the legal repercussions.


CX

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Salamandy
 


So would you stand by and watch a loved one, be racialy abused by someone or verbaly abused, and not say a word? After all, it's not physical is it?

CX.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by CX
reply to post by Salamandy
 


So would you stand by and watch a loved one, be racialy abused by someone or verbaly abused, and not say a word? After all, it's not physical is it?

CX.


No, most likely I would suggest that my love one just ignore the ignoramus spouting racial stuff and walk away. Perhaps I might tell the verbal bully to go jump in a lake. But your missing the point.

AT NO POINT SHOULD THE LEGAL SYSTEM BE INVOLVED OVER MATTERS OF SPEECH such as in your example.

In other words, I would do what an adult should do and not let someones obvious hateful words bother me. I WOULD NOT feel the need to have them punished legally.
edit on 27-3-2012 by Salamandy because: (no reason given)


Keep in mind, once the verbal bully tried to lay a hand on my loved one or me, then it might be time to get the law involved. But over words?? No, I went through that and learned how to deal with those types of people in kindergarten.
edit on 27-3-2012 by Salamandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by CX
reply to post by Salamandy
 


So would you stand by and watch a loved one, be racialy abused by someone or verbaly abused, and not say a word? After all, it's not physical is it?

CX.


No, I'd intervene but the point still remains, your straw man argument not withstanding, that he has the right to say it. And I have the right to free speech back at them.

Freedom of speech means that. Even to people saying things you don't like or get offended by.

It isn't freedom of speech of things we agree with, or things that don't offend.

This is the beginning of a slippery slope. Who defines what people are offended by now?

'There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences'.

P J O'Rourke

And the consequences for posting drunkenly on Twitter shouldn't be imprisonment.

I can't believe people are defending this.




edit on 27-3-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
LOL I thought this was ATS, why isn't everyone freaking out at the fact a man was jailed FOR SAYING THINGS ON TWITTER, there is something extremely wrong when posting something on the internet, not even pirated or copied lands you in jail for almost 2 months, anyone who agrees with this, i don't actually hope it happens, but if it does i hope you people are the first in line for the FEMA work prisons because you seem to love to listen to your corporate overlords so nicely.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by stoptheinsanity2012
LOL I thought this was ATS, why isn't everyone freaking out at the fact a man was jailed FOR SAYING THINGS ON TWITTER, there is something extremely wrong when posting something on the internet, not even pirated or copied lands you in jail for almost 2 months, anyone who agrees with this, i don't actually hope it happens, but if it does i hope you people are the first in line for the FEMA work prisons because you seem to love to listen to your corporate overlords so nicely.


Exactly! Next thing we know, we will all be sitting in a prison for beleiveing in say Jesus Christ over Allah.
BLANKET FREE SPEECH for all adults!



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
I think that anyone who is stupid enough to make racially motivated abohrrent comments on a public forum deserves everything they get.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to hate.


By this logic, the Black Panthers should be rounded up and thrown in jail then. And Louie Farraken. Right?

And anybody that chants, "eat the rich"...


CX

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 


Ok fair enough, i see what you mean.


All this said though, isn't racism classed as a hate crime now, therefore you can get done for it by law?

CX.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Freedom of speech is not freedom to hate.


Yes it is.

It's exactly that. I can hate who I damn well please for any reason of my damn choosing.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I consider it sad and very strange that so many in the UK seem to have very little respect for freedom of speech. It is evident from their PC culture and even many on this site agreeing with this ridiculous sentence.

Unless there is direct incitement of unlawful violence or harrassment (meaning systematic and repeated stalking of someone without easy way to block, thus not really applicable to internet sites), grow a thicker skin.

Control freaks get on my nerves. Not to mention that in the age of the internet, their fight is futile anyway. 99.9 % of hate speech goes unpunished, and rightly so.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by khimbar

Originally posted by neformore

Freedom of speech is not freedom to hate.


Yes it is.

It's exactly that. I can hate who I damn well please for any reason of my damn choosing.



And you should be able to talk about your hatred all day in night in your town center. Not saying I think it is right (the vast majority of people wouldn't act this way in the first place), but the its not the laws job to worry about how people speak.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
I think that anyone who is stupid enough to make racially motivated abohrrent comments on a public forum deserves everything they get.


I think people need to grow a thicker skin. See? Everyone has an opinion. I'm sure many people find my stance offensive, just as I find yours. However, I do not think you should go to jail for it.


Originally posted by neformore
Freedom of speech is not freedom to hate.


Yes actually, yes it is. Take the good with the bad. In the U.K. it is obviously different, but in the U.S. the principal of that means you can believe what you want all you want (including silly, racist things) as long as you do not interfere with someone else's rights. (Please note; that is the theory, not necessarily always the practice.)

In the U.K. if this was covered by law then technically they may have the authority to jail him for it. Just because something is a law does not mean that it has anything to do with justice however. I will adamently assert that this sets a dangerous precedent.

For the record, (because unfortunately this must be said), I have no idea what this man said. I don't really care. I'm sure it was nasty, and disgusting, and ugly, and stupid. However, attempting to regulate stupid never works.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


That is the problem with the UK people are too PC.


Racial Hate is wrong in my opinion.

But taking away my freedom to write and to say what I feel saddens me deeply.





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join