For those of you not aware
Fabrice Muamba remains in critical condition in intensive care (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17419654)
And then this happens.
Fabrice Muamba: Racist Twitter comments admitted by Swansea student (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17434587)
Good to see racism clamped down on so quickly.
You can be arrested in the UK for saying something racist? I mean, I'm totally opposed to and grossed out by racist comments, but getting arrested for just saying something repugnant seems a bit....harsh.
Quote from: Ali on March 19, 2012, 03:02:21 PM
You can be arrested in the UK for saying something racist? I mean, I'm totally opposed to and grossed out by racist comments, but getting arrested for just saying something repugnant seems a bit....harsh.
Racist behaviour in the UK is very much frowned upon and the authorities are very keen to stamp it out and be seen to be stamping it out. And quite right too in my opinion.
Quote from: Ali on March 19, 2012, 03:02:21 PM
You can be arrested in the UK for saying something racist? I mean, I'm totally opposed to and grossed out by racist comments, but getting arrested for just saying something repugnant seems a bit....harsh.
The law involved is set out in Part III Public Order Act 1986 - Incitement to Racial Hatred.
Anything seen to be "intended to or likely in all the circumstances to stir up racial hatred" is a criminal offence.
"Racial Hatred" has it's own definition in appendices of the Act, but I still think this give free reign to the legal system to interpret ad hoc. Do we trust the legal institutions to apply this fairly while under pressure from both P.C. activists and traditionalists? It's a minefield.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on March 19, 2012, 03:36:15 PM
Do we trust the legal institutions to apply this fairly while under pressure from both P.C. activists and traditionalists? It's a minefield.
I'll bet.
I'm sort of torn in my opinion on this. On one hand, I do believe that racism
needs to be stamped out. On the other hand, I think that freedom of speech is probably the most important right that we have in the US, kind of the right that all other rights stem from. But, bottom line, if the people in the UK think it's a good thing, that's all that matters since it is your country.
Why should "children" be punished for speaking their min? Regardless of how idiotic or offensive a statement is, it should not be a crime. It's the same bullshit with hate crimes. How is violence worse, simply because you attacked someone of a different race? It baffles me that people think words are criminal. Inciting violence, is a semi-justified line of reasoning, but if words result in violence, it's the person who acted who is responsible, not the person who spoke irresponsibly.
I see no valid justification against freedom of speech.
This sums up my view on the issues fairly well. South Park clips start about 10 seconds in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLotehGgbiE
Hmm... For every freedom there is at least one responsibility, and taking too many liberties with one's freedoms can get the government on one's ass, or get one shot by the offended party if one is less lucky.
Should racist comments be punishable by law? I don't know, but if the answer is yes, then in the name of fairness, so should every other form of group-discriminatory speech, be it based on ethnicity, political allegiance, religion, hair color or whatever.
Quote from: Tank on March 19, 2012, 03:06:37 PM
Racist behaviour in the UK is very much frowned upon and the authorities are very keen to stamp it out and be seen to be stamping it out. And quite right too in my opinion.
I think it's frowned upon most everywhere.
I can't imagine the numbers of arrests imminent in South-Central Los Angeles...
Quote from: Asmodean on March 19, 2012, 04:37:04 PM
Hmm... For every freedom there is at least one responsibility, and taking too many liberties with one's freedoms can get the government on one's ass, or get one shot by the offended party if one is less lucky.
Should racist comments be punishable by law? I don't know, but if the answer is yes, then in the name of fairness, so should every other form of group-discriminatory speech, be it based on ethnicity, political allegiance, religion, hair color or whatever.
I was about to ask if this is only racsim, or gender bias, or even sexual orientation hatred too? :<
I agree that it seems a bit harsh, but it's hard to say without knowing what exactly his comments where: how many there were, etc, etc.
His "I swear I'm not racist" response seems pretty lame, though.
The footballer who collapsed is doing quite well Fabrice Muamba and Owen Coyle have 'brief' conversation (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17447938)
and the idiot who made the racist tweets has been jailed for 56 days
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992
Personally I think it's good that the law came down heavy on him, hopefully he'll learn from spending a month or so at her majesty's pleasure. Although I would have just hit him with a hefty fine so it didn't end up costing us tax payers, and made us a bit of money instead. His tweets are here, and they are pretty unpleasant, I don't think he'd pass the HAF civility rule!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQL2A9qhWXg
Not only is his statements evertly racist and hateful, but it could also probably constitute libel as he is talking about a specific person.
Whichever way you slice it the twitterer in this case is a proper twit! ;D
I knew that some European countries had laws against hate speech, but I didn't realize that it was the whole of Europe or that the U.S. was alone in protecting it.
From the wikipedia article on hate speech:
QuoteThere is an international consensus that hate speech needs to be prohibited by law, and that such prohibitions override or are irrelevant to guarantees of freedom of expression. The United States is unique among the developed world in that under law, hate speech is legal (except for fighting words).
QuoteLaws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States, outside of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words. The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.
The "reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey." Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[58] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.
The idea of outlawing hate speech, however ugly an individual's statements may be, strikes me as both abhorrent and bizarre. It's too close to having a thought police. Plus, it's not like the ugly sentiments of the people who would otherwise engage in hate speech go away. They're just driven further underground to fester. Why not get all that crap out in the open where it can be challenged?
Edit: Huh, I thought that Canada allowed some freedom of speech when it came to "hate speech", but apparently it doesn't. Hmm.
Provided reasoned criticism of a world view is not deemed 'hate speech' I see nothing wrong with control or moderation. If the laws now in place had existed in the 1920/30s there would still be a lot of homosexuals alive in Germany. Hate speech appeals to the soft-minded, ignorant and easily lead. And they are lead by fascists, theists and egomaniacs in general.
Fabrice Muamba: Bolton midfielder discharged from hospital (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17733022)
QuoteBolton midfielder Fabrice Muamba has paid tribute to the London Chest Hospital staff after being discharged.
The 24-year-old was technically "dead" for 78 minutes after suffering a cardiac arrest and collapsing in a game against Tottenham on 17 March and had been in hospital since then.
"I am naturally very pleased to be discharged from hospital," he said.
"I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to every single member of staff who played a part in my care." ...
Some good news for a change :)
Aww, nice!
Dead for 78 minutes! Whew! That's a lot to come back from.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 20, 2012, 03:50:24 PM
Aww, nice!
Dead for 78 minutes! Whew! That's a lot to come back from.
It is a nice story.
I don't agree with libel laws, nor jailing this guy. Yes, he sounds like a complete asshole, but I am also a big believer in freedom of speech, and unfortunately that includes saying things like this, or Rush Limbaugh calling that university student a "slut", etc. Because where do you draw the line on what's allowed to be said?
I don't believe the Germany analogy applies here. There's a big difference between allowing a person to say stupid things and systematically discriminating against a minority. We have the Westboro Baptist Church running around the US screaming "God hates f***gs", but the government isn't imprisoning homosexuals. If anything, we've become far more accepting as a society.
Quote from: Tank on March 28, 2012, 09:39:27 AM
If the laws now in place had existed in the 1920/30s there would still be a lot of homosexuals alive in Germany.
Surely they would all be dead by now?
Quote from: En_Route on April 21, 2012, 09:37:48 PM
Quote from: Tank on March 28, 2012, 09:39:27 AM
If the laws now in place had existed in the 1920/30s there would still be a lot of homosexuals alive in Germany.
Surely they would all be dead by now?
Oh fuck off!!! :D
Quote from: Tank on April 21, 2012, 09:41:04 PM
Quote from: En_Route on April 21, 2012, 09:37:48 PM
Quote from: Tank on March 28, 2012, 09:39:27 AM
If the laws now in place had existed in the 1920/30s there would still be a lot of homosexuals alive in Germany.
Surely they would all be dead by now?
Oh fuck off!!! :D
That's the only language people like me understand.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 20, 2012, 03:50:24 PM
Aww, nice!
Dead for 78 minutes! Whew! That's a lot to come back from.
I think Jesus is claiming the record but there are some ongoing issues around the verification process.
Quote from: Ali on March 19, 2012, 03:40:09 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on March 19, 2012, 03:36:15 PM
Do we trust the legal institutions to apply this fairly while under pressure from both P.C. activists and traditionalists? It's a minefield.
I'll bet.
I'm sort of torn in my opinion on this. On one hand, I do believe that racism needs to be stamped out. On the other hand, I think that freedom of speech is probably the most important right that we have in the US, kind of the right that all other rights stem from. But, bottom line, if the people in the UK think it's a good thing, that's all that matters since it is your country.
I agree with this, criminally charging the guy for his racist comments on twitter isn't the way to go. Don't want to make him into some kind of martyr for free speech and distract from the issue by victimising
him (the racist)...
If people think that racist comments are a bad thing, that student would be digging his own grave by himself, there really isn't need to interfere with that by slapping a criminal charge, fine, etc.