Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I think this is BS.

My VERY REAL right to free speech far outstrips your PERCEIVED right to not be offended.

The very definition of racism changes depending on who is spouting it, meaning fools who promulgate punishment for those who think differently are just trying to direct the PC thug machine away from themselves. Can't shoot yourself if the gun isn't pointed at you, right?

I remember a group of high school students yelling at some local SHARPS that used to hang out at the coffee shop. They were red faced and irate, screaming about how much they hate skinheads because the skinheads hate things.

Total hypocrisy.

If you hate racists then you're no better. Period. Hate is hate.

Now, personally, I don't agree with racism. But I do think white and black power groups alike (and anyone else) should have the right to say what they want as long as it isn't harassment, assault, menacing, or something else illegal. Let them get tangled in their own web of duplicity--it only spirals downward.
edit on 3/27/12 by Tharsis because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Political correction is the oppression of our intellectual movement so no one says anything anymore just in case anyone else get’s offended. What happens if you say that and someone gets offended? Well they can be offended, can’t they? What’s wrong with being offended? When did stick and stones may break my bones stop being relevant? Isn’t that what you teach children? He called me an idiot! Don’t worry about it, he’s a dick.

Now you have adults going “I was offended, I was offended and I have rights!” Well so what, be offended, nothing happened. You’re an adult, grow up, and deal with it. I was offended! Well, I don’t care! Nothing happens when you’re offended. “I went to the comedy show and the comedian said something about the lord, and I was offended, and when I woke up in the morning, I had leprosy."

Nothing Happens. “I want to live in a democracy but I never want to be offended again.” Well you’re an idiot.

How do you make a law about offending people? How do you make it an offense to offend people? Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual or a collective, or a group or a society or a community. Your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs. What offends me may not offend you. And you want to make laws about this? I’m offended when I see boy bands for god sake.

It’s a valid offense, I’m offended. They’re cooperate shills, posing as musicians to further a modeling career and frankly I’m disgusted.

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



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I always think prison should be used as a very last resort in any case. Prison, is basically crime school, where you get to mix with petty criminals and learn for yourself how to profit from crime. The majority do not come out as reformed characters but likely to reoffend. So this guy in my opinion should not be facing a custodial sentence, I don't know what the relevant punishment should be, but prison is a waste of time and money for something as minor offense as this.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Nobody has "the right to not be offended."

Whatever happened to "sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me?"

When states get into the business of censoring things to protect people's feelings, it is always a disaster. People simply need to grow a spine and suck it up.

The Indian philosopher Nagarajuna once said that its easier to cover your feet with two strips of leather and make shoes than it is to carpet the entire forest with leather so you can walk barefoot on it. Same here. It's easier to simply learn to adjust one's attitude inside so as to be offended at people's words than it is to try to make the whole world offence-free.


edit on 3/27/2012 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
I always think prison should be used as a very last resort in any case. Prison, is basically crime school, where you get to mix with petty criminals and learn for yourself how to profit from crime. The majority do not come out as reformed characters but likely to reoffend. So this guy in my opinion should not be facing a custodial sentence, I don't know what the relevant punishment should be, but prison is a waste of time and money for something as minor offense as this.


His sentence should be the fact that he has to deal with the embarrassment and /or disappointment in himself if/when he learns not to insult people. If he never learns?? Then so what - that is his problem.

Regardless, the law has no place in this matter.

I cant stand the modern day trend of making every little thing a crime.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Salamandy
 


I agree, surely the best solution to this mess, would just have been for Twitter to block his account or something. I think this is one of the problems with the internet, people shoot their mouths off without really thinking about it. Therefor, a warning should be issued but not an immediate prison sentence.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:40 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.



I wonder then...if someone fixated on you, and started anonymously tweeting at you, your friends, your family etc some kind of abhorrent crap on an hourly daily basis - just because they could, because they were on the internet, how long would it take you to change your mind? I wonder what your reaction would be?



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Apparently someone needs to clarify for my poor fellow Americans that this happened in England and is subject to English law, not American law.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Wrong:

Freedom of speech means freedom to offend. Even though it happened in the UK, I still feel freedom of expression should prevail in any country.

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



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 





I wonder then...if someone fixated on you, and started anonymously tweeting at you, your friends, your family etc some kind of abhorrent crap on an hourly daily basis - just because they could, because they were on the internet, how long would it take you to change your mind? I wonder what your reaction would be?


My reaction would be to block them, twitter has a function for that. Problem solved. I may also report them to twitter because it may be a breach of their policy.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

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.



I wonder then...if someone fixated on you, and started anonymously tweeting at you, your friends, your family etc some kind of abhorrent crap on an hourly daily basis - just because they could, because they were on the internet, how long would it take you to change your mind? I wonder what your reaction would be?





I'd think 'why the hell am I on Twitter I gave up that nonsense ages ago' then I'd block them.

I wouldn't call a wambulance.

I wouldn't go to the police, papers and expect them to be imprisoned.

I'd ignore them.
edit on 27-3-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Yup, you gotta watch what you say when you put it in the public domain.

Utterring racial epitafs is a crime, whether it be in person or on social media. You gotta be even more careful on social media, as it's very hard to take back once you've put it out there.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:23 PM
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.


While I find his comments abhorrent, it is exactly that as long as his thoughts and even words do not materialize into action impeding on the rights of another. I see people sliding down this slope often, and it is easy to do. The test as to whether you actually believe in freedom of speech or any other right is in whether you can stand behind someones right to say something you find repulsive. If you only support the free speech of those you agree with, then you don't actually support free speech.

Should Twitter be able to ban him? Absolutely! Should those he writes about have the right to pursue him in civil court if it can be found that his comments are libel? Without a doubt! But, should the violent arm of the government be involved in coercing compliance with socially acceptable thoughts and language? NO! That is a dangerous platform and it is only a matter of time before it is you or someone you know that they come after next if this is the road you go down.

It may start with racial "hate" speech or something else that is generally held to be disgusting, but once they have the population in agreement that it is acceptable to jail those who say "this" wrong, who is to say what is next. It may seem a long journey from this to jailing those who disagree with "the state", but I assure you it is not.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by Salamandy
 


I agree, surely the best solution to this mess, would just have been for Twitter to block his account or something. I think this is one of the problems with the internet, people shoot their mouths off without really thinking about it. Therefor, a warning should be issued but not an immediate prison sentence.


I agree that perhaps twitter should have shut down his account.

But what is the problem with people shooting their mouths off on the internet from a legal standpoint? Sure, each individual website owner should have the right to ban someone from using their message board, but the law has no place in correcting someones written or spoken word.

Why cant the internet be a bastion for on the surface anonymity? I say on the surface because obviously if the law wants to find you, they will know who you are in most cases. But to the everyday person with average resources, why cant the internet be a blanket free speech zone??

Who are what group feels so theatened about someones writing or speech that they have to make it into a crime. The answer could only be people who are control freaks or have not reached adulthood yet.

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



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by khimbar

I'd think 'why the hell am I on Twitter I gave up that nonsense ages ago' then I'd block them.

I wouldn't call a wambulance.

I wouldn't go to the police, papers and expect them to be imprisoned.

I'd ignore them.
edit on 27-3-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)


And what if they simply just kept on coming back? - or just started sending letters to your home address?

You'd still be happy with their freedom of speech?



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
My reaction would be to block them, twitter has a function for that. Problem solved. I may also report them to twitter because it may be a breach of their policy.


You can only block one name at a time.

Its not hard to create another. So they do that, and start again.

Where does their freedom of speech trump your right to a hassle free existence?



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Neformore, you are wasting your time. I have gone round in circles on another thread on a similar issue of cyber bullying.

What people don't seem to realise that not everybody is the same, and that some people can be deeply hurt by comments. Stronger people can turn a blind eye, but those who can't need protected, and justice for them served.

I was disgusted by some comments on the other thread, where a young girl had took her own life due to cyber bullying. "It's here own fault, she should have sucked it up" was pretty much the going theme from some members, and it is a bloody disgusting attitude.

Bullying, racism and other forms of psychological harm do not fall under free speech in any civilised persons books.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by khimbar

I'd think 'why the hell am I on Twitter I gave up that nonsense ages ago' then I'd block them.

I wouldn't call a wambulance.

I wouldn't go to the police, papers and expect them to be imprisoned.

I'd ignore them.
edit on 27-3-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)


And what if they simply just kept on coming back? - or just started sending letters to your home address?

You'd still be happy with their freedom of speech?


Oooh we're going for strawman and reductio ad absurdum at the same time...how exciting.

In that case, yes. You have the right to send me letters to my home address as long as you accept the duty to accept the consequences.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


Yes I was involved in the same topic and I too was horrified by some peoples comments I guess some of the people who thought it is fine to bully people have been bullies themselves.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by khimbar
In that case, yes. You have the right to send me letters to my home address as long as you accept the duty to accept the consequences.


Its a development of the subject matter. Its seeing how far you are willing to accept freedom of speech. Obviously, you don't accept it as well as you think, if there would be "consequences"

And if those "consequences" land you in prison for doing something stupid - potentially violent - you'd be fine for your stalker to still be out roaming free because they were just exercising their freedom of speech?





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join