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: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


I've been against racism for many years and actively protested against the Klan to the point of receiving death threats, so no this isn't about "continuity".
I abhor racism but we won't change anyone's mind or heart by throwing them in jail - an act that will probably just reinforce their feelings of hatred.
We can't end racism by throwing people in jail.

I also think everyone is entitled to their views regardless of how wildly unpopular they may be.
I should think their public humiliation for what they said should be punishment enough.

Hate crimes is the most ludicrous (and insidious) idea to come to along in a long, long time.
edit on 28-3-2012 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
hate crimes , in relation to freedom of speech where someone says something which can be taken as offensive to someone else cannot mean a prison sentence, its a complete waste of tax payers money.

The person involved should be made to do community work in areas where there are people he or she openly hates and through working with these people he/she will realise we are all the same regardless of skin colour , or ethnic background



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
What a bunch of little girls. 'I like freedom of speech, as long as it isn't offensive.' Well I guess it isn't freedom of speech now then is it? People should be able to say whatever they want. If someone wants to blow my brains out because of something I say then they can go for it, but it isn't the governments job to regulate every little tweet and status update. Suck it up people.
edit on 28-3-2012 by LiberLegit because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Freedom of speech is only a reality so long as nothing is restricted. If someone wishes to make a racist or prejudicial comment, they should have that right. We may not agree with their words or sentiment but nonetheless, they should have the right to voice their opinions, just like the rest of us. If it morphs into violent actions or gets physical, the game changes and the 'offender' becomes an actual offender, subject to the laws governing assault, harassment et.

I agree completely with allowing the 'offender' to verbally get what they deserve (freedom of speech goes both ways). Which is to say, I'd prefer the general populace debate, goad, ridicule or otherwise point out to the 'offender' that what they said was over the line, NOT the government via imprisonment or fines.

Show me where there is a human right to NOT be offended and I may reconsider.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Goodbye freedom of speech...

2nd



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Is there such a thing as racism or is it just poorly educated?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked
So do something about it, get educated, become a lawyer and look to put a precedent in place to say why you should be able to abuse people with no expectation that your words would have any consequence or shut up. Seems you have two options really doesn't it?

The burden should not be on me, in a free society, to prove that everyone has the right to say and think what they want. "Or shut up" huh? Seems like something an agent of Totalitarianism would say. And no, in a free country those are not the only two options. It's a shame that fascists like you don't get that.


Originally posted by something wicked
Strange, do you notice the very site you are making your comments on here has Ts and Cs

ATS is a private company and therefore has the freedom to conduct itself in any way it chooses. The government, however - of any free country, is not!



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by something wicked
 


I've been against racism for many years and actively protested against the Klan to the point of receiving death threats, so no this isn't about "continuity".
I abhor racism but we won't change anyone's mind or heart by throwing them in jail - an act that will probably just reinforce their feelings of hatred.
We can't end racism by throwing people in jail.

I also think everyone is entitled to their views regardless of how wildly unpopular they may be.
I should think their public humiliation for what they said should be punishment enough.

Hate crimes is the most ludicrous (and insidious) idea to come to along in a long, long time.
edit on 28-3-2012 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)


Hi,

It may not be about continuity for you, not suggesting otherwise, but for other people they may cherish the right to call someone - for example - the N word with no feeling they should go unpunished for doing so. Is jail extreme? I don't make the laws. Do I disagree with it? I actually personally have no opinion on what the punishement should be but I do see it as a blatent use to belittle someone else based on race, creed or colour when the assumption is the person offended has no recourse. I kind of thought we had all moved on since that kind of attitude was acceptable.

You have to remember, this is a case where the defendent clearly made statements that violate the law of the land where he lives, whether you agree with the law or not, and also that complaints were made to the police about his statements, the police didn't act off their own back. Whatever you think, that remains the case.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:13 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.


And you went to school where and read the Constitution how many times?

Freedom of Speech is the freedom to express Any opinion as long as it does not threaten harm to someone else.

It's perfectly acceptable to say ( In the USA at least) any racist remark if stated as an opinion with the understanding it is only your opinion and your not advocating violence. Although it may be in bad taste, it's not illegal.

In fact, it's part of what makes this country great.

If the forum your on has rules against it then of course you must obey those rules but in general, there is nothing wrong with or illegal about using your freedom of speech in this manner -

Your thinking would cause the Big Problem. Today censor racists comments because someone might get offended, whats tomorrow, go to jail for speaking out against your corrupt politicians?

If you start down this road it will never end. Freedom of Speech has to be all or nothing. As long as safeguards against violence are in place, people should learn to think for themselves and know this is just someones opinion and take it with a grain of salt.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

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


I disagree. I strongly hate rapists, thieves and crooks and say it loud. Freedom of speech means freedom to offense, otherwise there's no point in it.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cythraul

Originally posted by something wicked
So do something about it, get educated, become a lawyer and look to put a precedent in place to say why you should be able to abuse people with no expectation that your words would have any consequence or shut up. Seems you have two options really doesn't it?

The burden should not be on me, in a free society, to prove that everyone has the right to say and think what they want. "Or shut up" huh? Seems like something an agent of Totalitarianism would say. And no, in a free country those are not the only two options. It's a shame that fascists like you don't get that.


Originally posted by something wicked
Strange, do you notice the very site you are making your comments on here has Ts and Cs

ATS is a private company and therefore has the freedom to conduct itself in any way it chooses. The government, however - of any free country, is not!


Oh, you seem offended? See how easy it is and yet I used none of the offensive terms that this thread actually relates to. Perhaps you should exercise your right not to be offended a little more. That was the whole point of my post and frankly you have shown how it's easy when you are not the one in the target, even for nothing more than pushing a literal, liberal elite agenda.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
And you went to school where and read the Constitution how many times?


I went to an English Comprehensive school, where the US Consitution has no standing and is not taught.

The US Constiution is irrelevant to this issue, as the incident that sparked the twitter comment happened in England, was perpertrated by an English man and therefore falls under the juristiction of English Laws as found in this link

The United States of America is part of the world. It is not the world. Different people do different things in different ways in different countries.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
The US Constiution is irrelevant to this issue, as the incident that sparked the twitter comment happened in England, was perpertrated by an English man and therefore falls under the juristiction of English Laws as found in this link

Actually, it was perpetrated by a Welshman


2nd line.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Cythraul
 


Well, lets compromise and say British


The US Constitution is still irrelevant to the issue.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
"I disagree with what you say, but ill defend to the death your right to say it."

These words ring true even today. The minute the government can decide who to jail simply because they or a special interest group doesnt like what you say, there is a problem.

Whats next, being "detained" for speaking out against the ruling party?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked
Oh, you seem offended? See how easy it is and yet I used none of the offensive terms that this thread actually relates to. Perhaps you should exercise your right not to be offended a little more. That was the whole point of my post and frankly you have shown how it's easy when you are not the one in the target, even for nothing more than pushing a literal, liberal elite agenda.

I'm not offended - frustrated with the fascist faction of ATS sometimes, yes, but not offended. But let's say I am - that's fine because it's irrelevant. See, it shouldn't concern the State when someone gets offended. More power to those who manage not to be offended, but the burden should be on them to deal with verbal comments how they see fit, NOT on the issuer of the comments to self-censor. If the offended decides to retaliate physically, fair enough, but they have then brought the dispute into the realms of law - something which words and thoughts alone should never do - and will have to accept the consequences of their actions.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by Cythraul
 


Well, lets compromise and say British

Why? Why not call him what he is - a Welshman?

Most people are proud of their identity and despite what this man has said he's still a Welshman. BTW, watch the word 'British' lose all significance over the coming decades.



edit on 28/3/2012 by Cythraul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cythraul

Originally posted by something wicked
Oh, you seem offended? See how easy it is and yet I used none of the offensive terms that this thread actually relates to. Perhaps you should exercise your right not to be offended a little more. That was the whole point of my post and frankly you have shown how it's easy when you are not the one in the target, even for nothing more than pushing a literal, liberal elite agenda.

I'm not offended - frustrated with the fascist faction of ATS sometimes, yes, but not offended. But let's say I am - that's fine because it's irrelevant. See, it shouldn't concern the State when someone gets offended. More power to those who manage not to be offended, but the burden should be on them to deal with verbal comments how they see fit, NOT on the issuer of the comments to self-censor. If the offended decides to retaliate physically, fair enough, but they have then brought the dispute into the realms of law - something which words and thoughts alone should never do - and will have to accept the consequences of their actions.


We will have to agree to disagree, you shouldn't have to choose to not be offended or resort to violence, but maybe that's an age thing, or maybe I just don't like the thought that people think they have the God given right to target people based on gender, race, creed or colour for any offense, verbal or otherwise. You disagree, please don't goosestep down my street.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 

You're the one who says the State should have the right to police thoughts and words. Thus it makes you look very stupid accusing me of being a fascist, or seeming to presume my age.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Rising Against
 


I understand your dislike and no tolerance for racism...as I SHARE that viewpoint. I do personally believe racists do suffer consequences of their freely expressed views and opinions. The racist in question in the OP will suffer severe social backlash that well follow him into other areas. I wonder how tough its going to be for this tool to get a job...

Friend, I have no issue with you disliking racism, I just disagreed with the "solution" you proposed for the reasons I expressed.

If we want to fight racism as a community we have the ability and resources to make it very...difficult to hold racist view-points and be welcomed anywhere. One way would to be clearly identify the racists or as I said let them identify themselves and spread the word among the community. When this tool walks up to get a cup of coffee he might just find that people suddenly go on break...when he tries to get a decent meal at the local diner he might find himself with a few extra toppings if you know what I mean.

Society has a way of handling stuff like this. This is why the KKK eventually withered away. Eventually racism gets pushed into an obscure hole by society, and they are left fending for themselves.




top topics



 
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join