Whether the law should change is a different issue. My point was that applying the current law is hardly "crossing a line" as if this was the first instance it had ever been used.
21 year old British Twitter user jailed for 56 days for racist tweet
- Thread starter RobinHood
- Start date
Whether the law should change is a different issue. My point was that applying the current law is hardly "crossing a line" as if this was the first instance it had ever been used.
Pretty much. If I wanted to for example, to go into the street and start saying I hate X minority group for Y reason, I should be alowed to voice my opinion and express it.
If people choose to listen or not is UP TO THE INVIDUAL. Not upto the government to tell me that i'm not allowed to voice my opinion.
Do you not see how section 1 and section 2 contradict each other?
Section 1 Says I can voice my opinion regardless of public authority.
Section 2 Says Public Authority can interfere with my opinion.
Pereira
Well-known member
I haven't seen the comments but these are the keys words for me. Such language should not be tolerated in my opinion at least if we, as humans, are created equal.
I don't really see whats restrictive about it. If you want to question religion or some other topic then I don't see what can wrong with that. However hateful speech should not be tolerated in my opinion.
A couple of questions:
You would allow people to make hateful comments about someone for example, with a disability? That person would have free roam to say what he/she pleases? The person on the receiving end could do nothing about it?
If someone wanted to do that, then, I would say that it is their right to do so as long as they did not break any libel or slander laws (as to break these laws you have to go from stating opinion to stating items as a fact).
I would hope that in such cases, they would be condemned by the general public for their comments, but regardless, it is that persons opinion and they should have a right to express it.
Pereira
Well-known member
Well then I guess we are at two opposite ends of the spectrum.
Well then I guess we are at two opposite ends of the spectrum.
Let me flip the question around to you.
Lets say you were in charge of creating the laws about said example. What restrictions would you put in place to stop that person saying those hateful things, and how far would things have to go before they came into effect without effecting the rights of the person who wants to say those things.
Hopefully, when trying to answer this you will see it becomes a very thin and hard to determine line, which I don't think anyone can truely assess, hense the reason for my standing that the government shouldn't decide where that line is, rather leave it up to the public to decide if they want to listen to that person giving his opinion.
DRE
Well-known member
lmao @ the tweets:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...ist-tweets-twitter-muamba-dead_n_1381876.html
glad he's in jail. hope he gets the proper booty treatment.
glad he's in jail. hope he gets the proper booty treatment.
Pereira
Well-known member
Anything that intrudes on peoples enjoyment of life shouldn't be tolerated. Expressing threatening, abusive or insulting speech on someones race, colour, religion, gender, nationality, ethnic background, disability and sexuality shouldn't be tolerated. The definition of the terms should be determined by the Supreme Court. Punishment should be defined by the legislative branch.
How does a society benefit from allowing threatening and abusive speech anyway?
Taylor J
Well-known member
The government intrudes on my enjoyment of life, so down with the government? Having to pay for everything may intrude on other peoples enjoyment of life, so money/sales/the economy shouldn't be tolerated?
It's a persons right to say what they want to in their own opinion, no matter how crude/rude/evil/despicable it is, get over it. It's your right to listen to them or not to, the government shouldn't have a say so in what a person says.
a legacy reborn
Well-known member
Racism and bigotry are probably the worst things that we face as a society but I really think that FOS is more important than anything that can be said. Everyone has their right to an opinion, whether it is a good one or not.
Pereira
Well-known member
I'm talking about speech.
The benefit of allowing somebody to insult another with a disability or insult them based on their sexuality is what? I would be curious as to how you would treat a situation where someone who was bullied and committed suicide because of such comments.
For me, I would try to protect the individual rather than the culprit. That means giving them the ability report it so that they don't have to put up with such comments.
Regarding this case, it has been said that most of you agree that what he said was wrong but he should be allowed to say it. I ask why allow something which you condemn?
Sheldon
Well-known member
I really don't see the issue. If people didn't like or agree with what he said, simply close the screen, quit following, quit reading. Yet some asswagon took it upon himself to hold his own moral authority over everyone else's. So.... for the many (and yes, I am sure there are many) that agreed with this guy, we should just slam them into jail as well?
Pffft. Again, this entire situation is stupid.
Pffft. Again, this entire situation is stupid.
Taylor J
Well-known member
Because no human being has the right to take away another humans rights away.
Pereira
Well-known member
Clearly my questions were missed so I shall repeat:
1. What is the benefit of allowing threatening, abusive or insulting comments, not only to society but to the individual's involved?
2. If the majority of the people disagree with such speech, why protect it?
3. Why define this under "freedom of speech" and not "hate speech".
4. How would you treat a case where someone was provoked to suicide because of such comments?
5. How unlimited is your definition of "freedom of speech"? As in, do you think kids being called names in school should be protected as "freedom of speech"?
I think I'm right in saying that not every mind is as tolerable to verbal abuse as some. It seems to me that the contention is that they should tolerate this (including the disabled and other minority groups) no matter what has been said.
When we are talking about rights about protecting someones ability to discriminate and say something which is not only completely unnecessary and socially unacceptable but offers no new ideas to the general public; then I think it's perfectly acceptable to protect people from such speech.
1. What is the benefit of allowing threatening, abusive or insulting comments, not only to society but to the individual's involved?
2. If the majority of the people disagree with such speech, why protect it?
3. Why define this under "freedom of speech" and not "hate speech".
4. How would you treat a case where someone was provoked to suicide because of such comments?
5. How unlimited is your definition of "freedom of speech"? As in, do you think kids being called names in school should be protected as "freedom of speech"?
That's why we have democracy's that determine what rights we have to protect. I will give you the benefit of the doubt in that I know you understand that we have judges who lock people up for encroaching upon other peoples rights.
I think I'm right in saying that not every mind is as tolerable to verbal abuse as some. It seems to me that the contention is that they should tolerate this (including the disabled and other minority groups) no matter what has been said.
When we are talking about rights about protecting someones ability to discriminate and say something which is not only completely unnecessary and socially unacceptable but offers no new ideas to the general public; then I think it's perfectly acceptable to protect people from such speech.
Adam Howard
Well-known member
@Pereira
I wouldn't know where to begin to correct your level of stupidity in regarding free speech. Your argument could be used to technically limit anything and everything on the guide lines of "it could hurt someone".
China actually prevents people from reporting (speaking) who won The Noble Prize under those exact guide lines, "it could hurt someone" (someone being their own political propaganda). That example maybe extreme, but it is the truth. Once you go down that path, there is no limit to how far it can go.
I'd rather not chance it or risk it at all.
I wouldn't know where to begin to correct your level of stupidity in regarding free speech. Your argument could be used to technically limit anything and everything on the guide lines of "it could hurt someone".
China actually prevents people from reporting (speaking) who won The Noble Prize under those exact guide lines, "it could hurt someone" (someone being their own political propaganda). That example maybe extreme, but it is the truth. Once you go down that path, there is no limit to how far it can go.
I'd rather not chance it or risk it at all.
Sheldon
Well-known member
What exactly is the benefit of throwing him in jail? This is talking about one guy's tweet. His tweet was not "threatening". A weak attempt to be funny, likely. I prefer to let ignorance be shown as it is. Why not? Let others learn and have it be their gain at the expense of some person's posting random crap about another person on the internet. Sure, have at it.
You really need to know why? The minority that does agree with it deserves that right as well. It works both ways.
Anything can be called hate speech now. I throw that into the wind. I hate oranges. Is that hate speech as well? What he said is his opinion. Good, bad, right, wrong, black, blue, ugly, pretty, whatever. It is his. He has the freedom (or should have), to say what he wants. If individuals classify it as "hate", that is on them. However, some may prefer to classify it as "correct", so who is right in this instance? You have to view it from both sides. I don't agree with it, but I do respect the fact that he has (or should have) the freedom to say as he wants.
I think that is overused. Yeah, and Marylin Manson also told those kids to shoot up the school in his song. There are generally, almost every instance, some underlying issue that the person who commits suicide has. It just so happens the "last" thing brought up or talked about is because someone said something to them. Lemme guess, those Columbine kids listen to Celine Dion before the shooting, does that make her music the reason they did it? Like I said, underlying issues play a bigger role.
How can you compare the two? Rules are one thing in school. I didn't realize Twitter had rules on name-calling. If that is the case, I better go back and delete the majority of mine. I have laid into every college coach, pro coach, baseball player, etc... in the last year. Not to mention some of my "followers". I hope I don't get thrown in jail.
Either way, if people don't like it, don't read it. Close the browser, flip on the tv, do something else. This isn't A Clockwork Orange. You aren't sitting in a chair with your eyes peeled open being forced to view/read anything. It's your choice.
Sadik B
Well-known member
I think this is just another example of a simple matter blown out of proportions. If I was the judge receiving the complaint against such a kid, I would ask his university and his parents to subject him to an appropriate punishment. What I observe is that our society has evolved into a hatred society with focus on punishment and not correction. I have said it before, kids who say and do such stupid things (hackers for example), should be punished with long periods of community service having to do work which humbles them instead of locking them up with criminals which just sends them the message that, "see, we are more powerful than you so now rot in jail". It's a show of strength against one who is weaker by the state and/or by those who have more resources.