Man arrested after online rant against Liverpool and Hillsborough disaster victims

reply to post by Dispo


I agree that it is down to interpretation and I would include the disabled in the isms, but that's just me. Obviously though the police and CPS thought it was offensive speech and he was arrested and charged, I think they were right and you do not and I think we're wasting bandwidth by continuing to disagree, we're never going to accept each others POV.

But it's been an enjoyable debate and so good to have had so many responses without the usual mud'slinging and descent into name calling.

Wishing you a happy and prosperous New Year

Originally posted by bates

Originally posted by destination now
reply to post by Dispo

 

There's a difference between hurting someone's feelings and being offensive. If I say to someone I think you're ugly, that will probably hurt their feelings, I shouldn't be arrested for it though. If on the other hand I say your face looks like someone who has Down's syndrome, that's offensive, not only to the person in question but also to people with Downs and yes, I would expect to be arrested...or at least to get a good kicking, I'd deserve it.

Hang on a second.

Are you saying you think telling someone they look they have down syndrome is worse than telling someone they are ugly.

Does that mean you think people with down syndrome are beyond ugly?

What do you find so offensive about people with down syndrome that you would expect to be arrested for telling someone they look like they have it?

That's actually very offensive to people with down syndrome that you think their look is so bad it is an arrest-able offence to tell someone they look like they have it.

It's very sad that you find a disability to be so offensive.

No, you hang on a second....Did I not say that by saying that, it would be totally offensive and you've just lost your own argument by being offended at something someone said...And the argument is about what is considered offensive as opposed to just hurting someone's feelings

And of course I don't find disability offensive, I was actually thinking back to a previous post where someone posted a hypothetical scenario in which abuse was shouted to a person with a disability and you and others deemed that not to be too offensive as to warrant an arrest!

So you basically don't care how offensive people are to others, that they should be allowed to go about saying whatever they want about anyone and not face any consequences....rhetorical question because clearly you do.

I said I was done with this argument and I am, but I hadn't seen your post before I posted my last reply, and when I did, I felt I had to respond as it is you took my words totally out of context and ended up doing exactly what I've been talking about all the way through the thread...

reply to post by Dispo

Good luck to you man, and bringing some sanity to your countrymen. Yeah, I got some problems too, but hell, none of them really touch me any. I live in the middle of the woods, and that is how I like it. If anyone, cops, robbers, whoever decided to come for me, the dogs would let me know before they made it halfway up my 6 mile driveway

reply to post by destination now


Your daughter had words hurled at her. Nothing more. If you expect me to reverse my thinking because your daughter had words hurled at her that you and her didn't like, you are mistaken.

Seeing as how people have been arrested in the UK before for trolling, it doesn't surprise me much though.

reply to post by destination now


My argument has never been that no one should be offended by anything, it's that being offensive should not be a crime we're locking people up for.

Someone may have read your post, when you say you think telling someone they look like they have down syndrome is worse than saying they someone is ugly, and took grave offense.

If someone with down syndrome read that and reported you because they were offended (quite likely that they would be) have you done something that is worthy of being arrested and sent to prison?

My stance is that there is no way on earth anyone should be turned into a criminal simply because they've said something that has offended someone.

reply to post by bates


No. I oppose it passionately, but I do not hate it. I understand that the vast majority of its effects on history, and therefore, our future as a species, are negative in the main, and refuse to allow the spector of past hatreds to rise and claim another generation, if there is something I can possibly do or say to prevent it. It is not hatred of hate, but determination to see the lessons of the past learned, and applied by all, toward the venture of our progression into the future.

Originally posted by Rising Against
...

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

What he did was abhorrent, not to mention that he was wrong to have done this, however he was only speaking his mind... Even if he was wrong he had the right to say what was in his mind. Speaking his mind got him arrested, yet you are claiming this is good?...

You yourself are showing hatred to this man for speaking his mind, should you be arrested too?

Since when SPEAKING YOUR MIND is grounds for being arrested?...

reply to post by oper8zhin


You know I really think its appalling that you have not been banned based on the way you converse with your fellow members.

I notice that a number of your posts have been removed by staff, and I know this is off topic but seriously you come across like a school yard bully the way you treat others.

It’s pathetic, does not impress anyone just makes you look like a real nasty piece of work I find it particularly cruel the way you treated a member regarding a spelling error this should not be tolerated on ATS.

Who do you think you are to come on here and treat speak to people the way that you do, hiding behind the screen of your computer like some kind of coward. I would sincerely hope that you do not speak to people like that offline and you should not be doing it online.

If you disagree with what someone has to say that’s fine, but don’t laugh at them and mock them just because you’re not intelligent enough to construct a coherent and logical counter argument, because that is honestly the way you come across like your just a dumb bully and the only way you can express yourself is to make fun of those more intelligent than you.

I know that it may very well be possible that you’re not aware of how you are presenting yourself so I hope that you take note of this post and change your ways because someone has to tell you when your basically being a jerk.

Again sorry to the rest of member for this comment but something needed to be said.

Originally posted by neformore


Malicious communication including threats of physical violence and force.

I would venture that - in western culture - anyone making such threats in a public arena is liable to some form of investigation and/or prosecution, even in the USA

In fact, in the USA its called Verbal Assault

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.

I'm amazed that so many people from the USA, talking about free speech and police states etc are unaware/ignorant of their own laws ~ it took a simple Google search to find that

And why was he charged? Well I'm guessing here but I would imagine its because he made those threats in a public arena, in a manner that suggested to the CPS that he may, if given access to weaponry, cause actual physical harm, and as such they wanted the matter put through a court so that either a judge or jury could decide on the best course of action going forward.

That's what the justice system is about. If you choose to do something stupid in life, there are usually consequences.

Verbal Assault. lmao

We know our laws, but a DA/prosecuter would rarely accuse someone of verbal assault after they had been hauled off to jail. They (the gov't) go after big fish, not little fish.

They would need the victim to press charges, then the verbal assault would stick. That is the difference. Many people here aren't sensitive enough to accuse someone of verbal assault. We would have to call the cops or our attorney and claim someone verbally assaulted us.

Things like slander and defamation aren't everyday occurrences in court, even if it is the law. The government definitely doesn't initiate such cases by itself, unless THE VICTIM brings it to court.

Our gov't isn't yet in the business of investigating each and every kook and crazy for every little thing. You guys really do live on a small island, where everybody knows your business. God Bless America.

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by oper8zhin

 

I disagree. Everyone is in the same boat, not just us.

I couldn't disagree more.. There is no possible way that this man would have been arrested for this in the US..

Sure it's screwed up and the guy deserves to have his head bashed in but in the US he would have the right to say whatever the hell he wants to..

But this wasn't in the US and look what happened... He was arrested for trolling and a whole thread of people cheering for his arrest... WTF is wrong with you people.... Don't you think speech should be protected? Obviously not.

-------------

I personally am glad I have the right to say what I believe.. no matter how misguided or offensive it may be. That is a beautiful thing..

Have you no backbone in the UK!?! I say that because it seems to me that you're wanting to send a bully to the principals office. (Like a bunch of children)

reply to post by DaMod

Sure it's screwed up and the guy deserves to have his head bashed in

What? Rather than spend a few hours in the cells and get a £60 fine?

but in the US he would have the right to say whatever the hell he wants to..

Then get his head bashed in...

No I'll stick with the law and order I know thank you very much

Oh and this is quite interesting and relevant to the thread

Man arrested for shouting abuse at Usain Bolt

Edit: I know I said I wouldn't but I saw the news article came back here for a look to see if anyone had added it...they hadn't then I saw the above post and had to reply

The moment a gov't has "thought/speech" police, that is the moment when there are no citizens but only slaves.

The most offensive speech/thought should be protected, if it isn't later or sooner it'll be your mouth being sought for not agreeing with the price of hay.

Really.

Derek

Originally posted by DaMod

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by oper8zhin

 

I disagree. Everyone is in the same boat, not just us.

I couldn't disagree more.. There is no possible way that this man would have been arrested for this in the US..

Sure it's screwed up and the guy deserves to have his head bashed in but in the US he would have the right to say whatever the hell he wants to..

But this wasn't in the US and look what happened... He was arrested for trolling and a whole thread of people cheering for his arrest... WTF is wrong with you people.... Don't you think speech should be protected? Obviously not.

-------------

I personally am glad I have the right to say what I believe.. no matter how misguided or offensive it may be. That is a beautiful thing..

Have you no backbone in the UK!?! I say that because it seems to me that you're wanting to send a bully to the principals office. (Like a bunch of children)

edit on 3-1-2013 by DaMod because: (no reason given)

Everyone is losing MUH FREEDUMBS, not just the UK. To try and claim that the USA is immune to political nannying is just ridiculous. NDAA. Patriot Act. TSA.

Anyway, fighting over who is more repressed is like fighting over who has more maggots in their bread.

reply to post by destination now


That's not really relevant to the thread at all.

Your man there entered the olympic stadium without a ticket, threw a bottle of beer onto the running track near to where Bolt was preparing for a race, was harassing, abusing and jostling people when they questioned his behaviour and gave a false name to the police when he was finally detained (claimed he was Alan Cumming )

reply to post by bates


Ahh yes, but the charges were nothing to do with his ticket less intrusion to the Olympic stadium or what he threw, it was he said that got him into trouble

reply to post by destination now


It's clearly because of the bottle throwing.

He's facing two charges.

Mr Gill-Webb denies intending to cause the 100m finalists harassment, alarm or distress by using threatening, abusive or disorderly behaviour, thereby causing spectators present at the Olympic Park harassment, alarm or distress.

He also denies an alternative charge of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

www.bbc.co.uk...

I would imagine the first one will be about his bottle throw towards the athletes, the second one will be for his behaviour towards the dutch bronze medal athlete who challenged him about his bottle throwing.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Rising Against

 

Explanation: Uhmmm?

I dont agree with what they communicated ... but I will defend their right to say it!

Personal Disclosure: And I'd defend the offended victims dealing with that within the legal framework available to them.

Just like ATS ... post what you want ... but don't complain to much if one runs afoul of the ATS T&C's.

I think something is afoot at ats. Imagine if you where really forced to do something you didn't want to do, I am talking really forced. The ego/mind whatever, is a very clever creature. It can make a person work up a sense of false indignation to give the emotion of embracing that which they are forced to do. A mechanism of re-aligning ones learned conscience. All this drive for censorship here seems to be along the same vein. Halfhearted intellectually, but a sense of emotional hysteria that is grasping for a straw, a justification to go into full blown gestapo mode so they can escape the self loathing aspect of capitulation. I could have this backwards though, perhaps severe censorship is something they want to do, but are working incrementally so as not to destroy the form of ATS, only the function of it?

Either way, I would start looking for a plan B when it comes to intellectual discourse and the acquisition of information that is hard to come by.