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.

 

Man arrested after online rant against Liverpool and Hillsborough disaster victims

page: 13
23
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 





My links do not 'debunk' anything other than people believing Libel was not a crime.


Well, I said that I didn't think it was a crime, leaving room for correction. Indeed it is. You seem very pleased and content with these laws.

However, your own link proved that your claims of this case being libel, were wrong, since no individuals were indentified.

It's not an opinion.




EDIT: So, because I do not know the names of the Identifiable Individuals, they must not be, nor are they, identifiable. Your logic is superlative in this instance.


More BS, you watched the vid didn't you?

Did you hear him mentioning people by name? no you didn't. And the case was dealing with the vid, wasn't it.




I am not UK Law Enforcement, so I cannot speak to their investigation or evidence.


Then why were you claiming that he was guilty of libel, based on what he said in the vid?


edit on 30-12-2012 by RogueMcChronic because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
There has been such a rise in arrests over things said over the internet and I find it quite worrying.. Where is the right for freedom of speech and an individual opinion going?

How soon will people be arrested for simply stating things that are against the opinions of those in power?

What I love about the internet and websites like these is hearing other peoples views and opinions, though what if we started being prosecuted for it?



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Hate speech or not, what matters is that this man was arrested for voicing his opinions. I can understand arresting someone for making a threat against someone else, but we should all be free to express our thoughts, regardless of how vile they are.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


In the US the police or prosecution wouldn’t have a case. Wrongful prosecution.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by RogueMcChronic
 


I'm sorry that the information that I have posted did not lead you to the information that you required. Being an Indentifiable Individual is not a matter of whether or not you or I can name said individual, it is a matter of whether or not said individual could be identified.

This would be like someone saying that the victims of the World Trade Center attacks were killed because they were all drug addicts. Now, do I know the names of these people? Nope, and I don't care to. That matters little, because they are able to be identified, and the people that could identify them could be swayed.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


In the US the police or prosecution wouldn’t have a case. Wrongful prosecution.


Yeah, you said that. On what grounds would you go after US Prosecutors for Wrongful Prosecution? I am curious as to why you think like you do.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
The only speech that should be illegal are LIES!

You know what I mean...



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift
reply to post by RogueMcChronic
 


I'm sorry that the information that I have posted did not lead you to the information that you required. Being an Indentifiable Individual is not a matter of whether or not you or I can name said individual, it is a matter of whether or not said individual could be identified.

This would be like someone saying that the victims of the World Trade Center attacks were killed because they were all drug addicts. Now, do I know the names of these people? Nope, and I don't care to. That matters little, because they are able to be identified, and the people that could identify them could be swayed.


My god, your quite a snake oil salesman. Not a very good one though.

Your example is bizarre.


English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.


Give it up dude, no individual was named or could be identified from what he said.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
So what's next? Are we going to be arrested for ranting about how the government is running the country? In fact, are politicians subjecting each other to hate speech every day in the house of commons? Lets face it, anything one can rant about is going to offend someone, or be found hateful by someone. So who decides what is offensive or hateful and what is not?
The bottom line is, if you're arresting people for expressing an opinion when they are not threatening anyone, then you have no right to criticise countries such as China when they do the same.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
Wow, I came into this thread expecting to see a lot of "well done's", and "thankfully this guy was arrested", but instead I see everyone thus far complaining about it? Seriously? Wow, how absolutely disgusting that is.

The Hillsborough disaster is called a disaster for a reason people. Period. 96 innocent people died that day when they shouldn't have. 96 families were punished in the most horrible way and millions of people even watched this incident take place live on television. It's something that's scarred many. And someone's actually ranting about it and being highly offensive to the victims, victims of which were blamed for their own deaths up until this year until the truth finally came out.

Yet, bearing this in mind, the fact that someone is offending those who wrongly died, some of which were yet to reach the age of 15, the offender is being defended right here on ATS. That actually makes me quite sad to be a member.

Well done for this moron being arrested. He can spew his hate in prison.

Edit: Sad thing is I'll probably be one of the only one's saying this too. But, it has to be said really. This is just pure hate speech from a pure moron. The fact some are defending it sickens me too.
edit on 30-12-2012 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)


So you're saying having a stupid opinion, or one that is unpopular, shoukd result in imprisonment? If that's the case, I would like to jail all Green Bay Packers fans, Sarah Palin supporters, and any Southern Baptists who say that Catholics are evil because they don't dance with poisonous snakes and speak gibberish (I mean, "in tongues."). I mean, my opinion on what is a right thing to say is as good as the next guy's, right? Jail, or execute everyone who doesn't think how and what I think. You know, your way of thinking might have done you well back in the late 30's / early 40's in Germany. They LOVED that mindset!



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogueMcChronic
Give it up dude, no individual was named or could be identified from what he said.


You working under an incomplete understanding of the law. This man cited a group of individuals and called them drug-addicts without evidence.

Basically, he said...

A is B.

Now, does A need to be a name to be considered libel? Let's extrapolate.

A is B.

This could be..

Black People are Thieves
Americans are Slovenly.
Londoners are Hedonists.
Disaster Victims are drug addicts.

These are all examples of libel.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by eisegesis
The only speech that should be illegal are LIES!

You know what I mean...


Well, this man posted what amounted to lies.. so..



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


Argue as much as you want, these are the facts,


English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.


The case doesn't fit these criteria.

No individual was named or could be indentified(which means that you know who the person is) from what he said.

There is no libel case. Give it up man.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bates
 



Oh but how could this be Britain is a gun free utopia according to anti-gun Brits... This sounds like police state antics... Impossible.,.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by eisegesis
The only speech that should be illegal are LIES!

You know what I mean...


Not really, no, I don't know what you mean. I don't like liars, but why would we make lying illegal? And then do we have to prove it's a lie, or let people be raped in prison because of a difference in perceptions.

Good God, has nobody read 1984? Brave New World? I mean, you shouldn't need to have to understand why you should defect to North Korea if you're a fan of enforcing Thoughtcrime, but it would help. That's at least two people now in this thread I've seen so far who want people punished for thinking/speaking what they choose to think or speak.

When they told me Obama was here to take our guns and kill our babies, I wasn't scared, because I knew those people were idiots. When 12/21 was coming around...much the same. But knowing there are at least 2 members of ATS alone who are against freedom of speech...well, i'm starting to worry. Maybe the selling of why freedom is bad is finally bbeing bought, at least by those on the fringes. Let's hope the despising of freedom doesn't start spreading to the populace as a whole!



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogueMcChronic
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


Argue as much as you want, these are the facts,


English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.


The case doesn't fit these criteria.

No individual was named or could be indentified(which means that you know who the person is) from what he said.

There is no libel case. Give it up man.


You keep referencing that, but I think it is merely an instance in which you are either willfully or ignorantly misunderstanding.

He clearly defamed identifiable individuals. In this instance it was the disaster victims. I seriously have no idea how you are not understanding this -very- straightforward concept.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


In the US the police or prosecution wouldn’t have a case. Wrongful prosecution.


Yeah, you said that. On what grounds would you go after US Prosecutors for Wrongful Prosecution? I am curious as to why you think like you do.


I do not know where you are from but obviously you know nothing about the US judicial system. In the US wrongful prosecution is what will amount to millions in your pocket.




A miscarriage of justice arises when the decision of a court is inconsistent with the substantive rights of a party.
litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com... rctype=smi&srcid=5932&key=5237f0ad5c95d23e200aac7f3bb8deb1expertpages.com...



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Shouldn't there be a sound warning to protect eardrums? It's too late for me, but maybe there is time for you.

Didn't he say that "It was the people's fault"? In regards to the Hillsborough tragedy.

And to quote the Echo : "The four-minute footage is also understood to include a highly offensive reference to the Hillsborough tragedy."

I say, **** him



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   


Wow, I came into this thread expecting to see a lot of "well done's", and "thankfully this guy was arrested", but instead I see everyone thus far complaining about it? Seriously? Wow, how absolutely disgusting that is.


Wow indeed. You are calling the behavior of ATS members in this thread disgusting? Because they are sticking up for the right to freedom of speech, no matter how offending the speech is to some.

So just because you are offended, this man deserves to go to prison even though he didn't cross a legal boundary, and members with a different opinion are disgusting.

You came into this thread expecting support for this travesty? What site do you think you're on? Luckily we're not quite there yet.




This is just pure hate speech from a pure moron.


.......




Yet, bearing this in mind, the fact that someone is offending those who wrongly died, some of which were yet to reach the age of 15, the offender is being defended right here on ATS. That actually makes me quite sad to be a member.


You know how that one goes around here....

"If you don't like it........."

Btw, how does one offend someone that has died?



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


In the US the police or prosecution wouldn’t have a case. Wrongful prosecution.


Yeah, you said that. On what grounds would you go after US Prosecutors for Wrongful Prosecution? I am curious as to why you think like you do.


I do not know where you are from but obviously you know nothing about the US judicial system. In the US wrongful prosecution is what will amount to millions in your pocket.




A miscarriage of justice arises when the decision of a court is inconsistent with the substantive rights of a party.
litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com... rctype=smi&srcid=5932&key=5237f0ad5c95d23e200aac7f3bb8deb1expertpages.com...



Yeah, and you have to provide evidence of a wrongful prosecution. This is what you aren't providing. You said it would a wrongful prosecution. I am asking "why would it be a wrongful prosecution?" As in, "Why would it be wrong to prosecute him in the United States?"

You are answering back with what wrongful prosecution is. I am fully aware of what it is, I am asking why you believe this instance would be a wrongful prosecution.




top topics



 
23
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join