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.

 

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

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by neformore
 


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


I will agree that bullying is wrong and there should be a means of recourse by those who are victims of such. (As to the form that takes, I feel that the involvement of the authorities should be an extreme case reserved as a last ditch effort and then only done incrementally.)

As to the idea of psychological harm, the problem as you have already stated is that people have varying degrees of sensitivity. To assert that we must all be bound to a standard in an effort to avoid "harming" the most fragile among us is absurd. Furthermore, it is a recipe for abuse by the system in order to quell "dangerous" ideas.

Finally, racism is not an action, it is a point of view. Furthermore, the mere expression of racism does not constitute bullying. You sound dangerously close to the thought police here. I do believe that it is possible to cross a line where the expression of these ideas takes on a form where it impedes on the rights of others to such a degree that it becomes actionable. However, the tenor by many seems to be that any outward expression of these ideas is crossing the line, and I have already stated my thoughts on this a few posts ago...




posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by judus
 


Should he go to jail for the comments he wrote on Twitter? Yes, and I expect everyone else who does the same to also go to jail. Be you white, black, Christian or Muslim.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I read some absolutely disgusting things on Facebook relating to this.
If his 'tweets' were equally abhorant then he got all he deserved.
And I hope he gets padded up with someone suitable.

Should it ruin his life?
Absolutely not.
We all make mistakes and say things in our youth that we regret with age and experience.

As a slight aside, I hope Twitter and Facebook are monitored with equal vigilance and the courts are as equally uncompromising with all types of racism.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

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?




That's why there are Cyberstalking and Cyberharassment Laws. If someone Is constantly harassing a person racially or otherwise over the net then those laws would apply. BUT this Is not what we are discussing here, the person In the article Is being jailed for WHAT he said not how many times he said It. I think a distinction needs to be made about that.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
He absolutely should have been jailed and was.

End of really.

He made disgusting and racist comments... the racist part being illegal.
It would be like phoning someone up and using racist language, it's communication of racist and insulting language.



Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening, abusive or insulting, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.



This idiot deserves no sympathy nor support and neither does any racist.

You break the law by spewing your filth online, you pay the penalty.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

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?


No it's reducto ad absurdum, as I just stated. You're trying to reduce me to a point where I say 'Ooh no you can't do that' and you say 'So freedom of speech has limits' and award yourself a smug point or whatever you want to obtain.

Interesting how quickly you jumped to a presumption of violence though.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 


It was a simple question.

But hey, thanks for discussing it



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by neformore
 



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


"psychological harm" Is not something that can be measured by science like say physical harm, and has about the equivalence of "hurt feelings", and In my book, feelings do not belong In the courtroom.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
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.


Written or spoken word should absolutely NEVER be a crime, especially on the internet where there is zero chance that the "victim" can be physically harmed by the "verbal assault".

Instead, what we need are less people making an effort to create laws that threaten to destroy our freedom of speech.

The only people who profit from the restrictions of free speech are lawyers and law agencies that collect money from the "guilty" parties.

I apologize if you are not American, but in my country freedom of speech is a very valuable and cherished right. All governments should promote nothing less than blanket free speech.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthWizard
 


Even when it can cause young peoples suicide?

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthWizard

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by neformore
 



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


"psychological harm" Is not something that can be measured by science like say physical harm, and has about the equivalence of "hurt feelings", and In my book, feelings do not belong In the courtroom.


Some people don't shower. I would call them uncivilized. The law should not arrest them and force their dirtiness into some sort of crime.

The law has no place in social decorum. At least it shouldn't here in the USA. Remember all those soldiers who dies for our right to be able to have free speech?



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 




Some people think that only violence hurts, that words can merely be shrugged off and can do no harm.

These people do not "Get it" unfortunately and it cannot be explained to them.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by TruthWizard
 


Even when it can cause young peoples suicide?

en.wikipedia.org...


Yes, even when a person lets themselves become so distraught over written words that they end their lives. In tht case, the parents should have taught them a few more lessons in pride and self worth.

The law has no business trying to force a crime on an innocent party during a suicide. Suicide by definition, is when the person who dies inflicted the death upon themselves. Shold we blame the suicidees 1st grade teacher too because they scolded them in class one day. Gimme a break.
edit on 27-3-2012 by Salamandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
It still comes down to the fact that he was jailed for something he said.

Right or Wrong.

The thought police will be on to us next



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Salamandy
 


Wrong if that person was not washing and it was deemed that he/she was harming themselves they can be detained by the mental health act for assessment.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by khimbar
 


It was a simple question.

But hey, thanks for discussing it


Happy to.

There's a difference though, which your straw man (and you know it was
) between harassment and what this guy did. He didn't send letters to anyone's house. He didn't single out anyone to harass.

I'm not saying he isn't an idiot, I'm not saying he's right. I'm not saying he's not a moron.

I'm simply saying that getting a custodial sentence for drunken Twitter postings which some people found offensive is wrong.

A precedent has been set now, legally, where using the word ''n-word'' or 'wog' carries with it a jail sentence. And I think that's the start of something bad.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Salamandy
 


Wow what if that person was an orphan? are you saying that the people who bully people into suicide should not be punished?
Or maybe the parents of the bullies should have raised their kids better eh?
I think the people defending them have done a bit of cyberbulling themselves and are trying to assure themselves they are not bad and it can have no effect on the people they are bullying.
Shame on you.

edit on 27-3-2012 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by TruthWizard
 


Even when it can cause young peoples suicide?

en.wikipedia.org...


Like I said this case has NOTHING to do with cyber-bullying. This person Is being jailed for WHAT he said not if he was bullying or harassing anyone,

for the record:

Cyberbullying is the use of the Internet and related technologies to harm other people, in a deliberate, REPEATED, and HOSTILE manner.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
I read some absolutely disgusting things on Facebook relating to this.
If his 'tweets' were equally abhorant then he got all he deserved.
And I hope he gets padded up with someone suitable.




See from what I understand, having just done a little digging, is that he said "**** Muamba, he's dead" which lead to an argument where he then started calling those who defended Muamba "Wogs" and told them to "go and pick some cotton"


Apparently there were other exchanges, but if it was merely for the first "Tweet" then I don't get it?

It's not very nice but I can't see that any law was broken in saying that? It must have been the subsequent tweets, which I couldn't find much detail of?

Hmmm



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Here is something for the mix.

A friend of mine was attacked by a group from another ethnic race in his home city really bad, nearly killed him.

He now has a racial hate for this culture even though I have explained stereotyping and the effects of it too him.

He is now a racist towards this ethnic group by circumstance.

Should my friend be locked up for racial hate towards this culture ?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join