Author Topic: Free speech in the UK (Read 7234 times)

Balog · « **on:** March 27, 2012, 12:23:42 PM »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/27/student-jailed-fabrice-muamba-tweets?cat=uk&type=article

Soccer player collapses, man tweets comment hoping he will die, gets reported to the cops and arrested. Horrifying.

SADShooter · « **Reply #1 on:** March 27, 2012, 12:59:20 PM »

The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades. And gloves. And IR shielding. And a national ID under a fake name.

Jamie B · « **Reply #2 on:** March 27, 2012, 05:51:25 PM »

Huh! I though that free speech in the UK was exorcised by rioting!

TommyGunn · « **Reply #3 on:** March 27, 2012, 07:27:48 PM »

Quote from: Jamie B on March 27, 2012, 05:51:25 PM

Huh! I though that free speech in the UK was exorcised by rioting!

"Exorcised?"

Are you sure you don't mean "excercised?" Or should we warm up some pea soup?

tokugawa · « **Reply #4 on:** March 27, 2012, 07:49:57 PM »

Yes- It is horrifying- a perfect example of "thought crime". Two months in jail for a drunk careless remark that injured no one. Absolutly Orwellian and disgusting- Compared to what the system did to him, his remark was nothing.

Jamie B · « **Reply #5 on:** March 27, 2012, 08:29:16 PM »

Quote from: Jamie B on March 27, 2012, 05:51:25 PM

Huh! I though that free speech in the UK was exercised by rioting!

Jamie B · « **Reply #6 on:** March 27, 2012, 08:30:46 PM »

Quote from: TommyGunn on March 27, 2012, 07:27:48 PM

"Exorcised?" Are you sure you don't mean "excercised?" Or should we warm up some pea soup?

What's a vowel or 2 between friends?

Thanks for the pea soup visual!

HankB · « **Reply #7 on:** March 28, 2012, 06:09:23 AM »

The term "Fascist" is thrown about all too often in political debate these days, but in this case, it fits like a glove.

RoadKingLarry · « **Reply #8 on:** March 28, 2012, 08:05:38 AM »

Quote from: Jamie B on March 27, 2012, 05:51:25 PM

Huh! I though that free speech in the UK was exorcised by ~~rioting~~ government edict!

Now it makes sense.

agricola · « **Reply #9 on:** March 28, 2012, 08:42:59 AM »

Quote from: Balog on March 27, 2012, 12:23:42 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/27/student-jailed-fabrice-muamba-tweets?cat=uk&type=article

Soccer player collapses, man tweets comment hoping he will die, gets reported to the cops and arrested. Horrifying.

Actually it was for the tweets after that one (where he abused various people using sundry racial terms) that he got arrested and convicted for, not the one laughing at what had happened to Muamba.

The sentence is perhaps a bit harsh, and there is definately a bit of a Princess Diana national grief thing going on with the whole Muamba situation, but if you are going to go around racially abusing people in a country where such things are usually illegal, and do so in a format where the police can see exactly what you said, when, in what context and have records of all of it then its not surprising he got convicted.

RevDisk · « **Reply #10 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:45:22 AM »

Quote from: agricola on March 28, 2012, 08:42:59 AM

Actually it was for the tweets after that one (where he abused various people using sundry racial terms) that he got arrested and convicted for, not the one laughing at what had happened to Muamba.

The sentence is perhaps a bit harsh, and there is definately a bit of a Princess Diana national grief thing going on with the whole Muamba situation, but if you are going to go around racially abusing people in a country where such things are usually illegal, and do so in a format where the police can see exactly what you said, when, in what context and have records of all of it then its not surprising he got convicted.

Uhm. Wow. Well, true, this is the UK, not the US. Folks there are fundamentally different.

But, I'm actually curious and I swear by the odd Gods I'm not being sarcastic. Do you actually see what is wrong with this picture? Or where we are coming from?

Yes, racist language is highly distasteful. But if this happened in America, I'd be kicking in bucks to have the relevant laws overthrown. I'd kick in even more bucks if a black lawyer was hired, much like when the ACLU took on the free speech defense for the KKK. Racist language is bad. Government infringement on speech and thought is worse. Difference is the same as the difference between putting out a match with your fingers, and putting out an oil refinery fire with your fingers. Neither are pleasant. One is slightly worse.

Freedom is not meant to defend that which is popular. Freedom is meant to defend that which is UNPOPULAR. Elsewise, it very much tends to start a nasty downhill journey.

Balog · « **Reply #11 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:01:39 AM »

I'm not sure if Agricola is defending the laws, or merely observing that serfs in a police state should expect to be punished if they violate their masters rules.

tokugawa · « **Reply #12 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:10:50 AM »

"Hate speech" laws are utter Orwellian bull*expletive deleted*- in effect, they codify discrimination. Everyone is equal ,except some are more equal than others.
And of course we will soon have the Ministry of Love- If one professes love for his neighbor and hooks him up to the electrodes FOR HIS OWN GOOD,
no crime will exist.

We used to teach our children sense- anyone remember this? -"sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"?

longeyes · « **Reply #13 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:36:00 AM »

Britain decided, some time ago, for reasons inexplicable, to nullify its culture, heritage, and identity. But not "Britain," not the mass of the British people, just a precious few. Everything we see happening now is just fragments of that initial suicide explosion. As someone who loves the U.K. and what it's meant for the world, I find all of this tragic.

lee n. field · « **Reply #14 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:38:10 AM »

Quote from: agricola on March 28, 2012, 08:42:59 AM

but if you are going to go around racially abusing people in a country where such things are usually illegal,

The notion that expressing an opinion (no matter how socially abhorrent) is actually illegal, rubs wrong.

lee n. field · « **Reply #15 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:45:57 AM »

Quote from: RevDisk on March 28, 2012, 10:45:22 AM

Uhm. Wow. Well, true, this is the UK, not the US. Folks there are fundamentally different.

But, I'm actually curious and I swear by the odd Gods I'm not being sarcastic. Do you actually see what is wrong with this picture? Or where we are coming from?

Yes, racist language is highly distasteful. But if this happened in America, I'd be kicking in bucks to have the relevant laws overthrown. I'd kick in even more bucks if a black lawyer was hired, much like when the ACLU took on the free speech defense for the KKK. Racist language is bad. Government infringement on speech and thought is worse. Difference is the same as the difference between putting out a match with your fingers, and putting out an oil refinery fire with your fingers. Neither are pleasant. One is slightly worse.

Freedom is not meant to defend that which is popular. Freedom is meant to defend that which is UNPOPULAR. Elsewise, it very much tends to start a nasty downhill journey.

I don't know about our Agricola. I did have an interesting online run-in with an individual who claimed to be a past member of the BC human rights commission. BC being British Columbia, Canadia. Weather he was or not, I don't know, but he just couldn't wrap his mind around the notion of just letting people do stuff. He say nothing wrong with coming down hard on someone who advocated seccession, or just "liked to make trouble". The guy ended up playing the ugly American card. Whatever. <spit>. His notion of human rights was pretty orthogonal to mine.

It's on a blog that's since vanished. I wished I'd saved a copy. It was telling.

The US is the sort of place where David Duke, past Grand Wizard of the KKK, can run for all kinds of stuff, and noone minds.

HankB · « **Reply #16 on:** March 28, 2012, 12:07:33 PM »

Quote from: lee n. field on March 28, 2012, 11:45:57 AM

. . . The US is the sort of place where David Duke, past Grand Wizard of the KKK, can run for all kinds of stuff, and noone minds.

And almost nobody votes for him, either.

roo_ster · « **Reply #17 on:** March 28, 2012, 12:15:25 PM »

Quote from: lee n. field on March 28, 2012, 11:45:57 AM

I don't know about our Agricola. I did have an interesting online run-in with an individual who claimed to be a past member of the BC human rights commission. BC being British Columbia, Canadia. Weather he was or not, I don't know, but he just couldn't wrap his mind around the notion of just letting people do stuff. He say nothing wrong with coming down hard on someone who advocated seccession, or just "liked to make trouble". The guy ended up playing the ugly American card. Whatever. <spit>. His notion of human rights was pretty orthogonal to mine.

It's on a blog that's since vanished. I wished I'd saved a copy. It was telling.

The US is the sort of place where David Duke, past Grand Wizard of the KKK, can run for all kinds of stuff, and noone minds.

Last I heard, he was selling insurance to melonheads.

lee n. field · « **Reply #18 on:** March 28, 2012, 12:18:20 PM »

And the law isn't coming down on him for being a KKK past Grand Pinhead. Which is my point. We don't send in the police he opens his mouth. We mock.

Blakenzy · « **Reply #19 on:** March 28, 2012, 07:58:11 PM »

Quote from: HankB on March 28, 2012, 06:09:23 AM

The term "Fascist" is thrown about all too often in political debate these days, but in this case, it fits like a glove.

Yep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfOrUhpiXL8

agricola · « **Reply #20 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:13:38 PM »

Quote from: lee n. field on March 28, 2012, 11:38:10 AM

The notion that expressing an opinion (no matter how socially abhorrent) is actually illegal, rubs wrong.

Perhaps, though as I tried to point out earlier its not the opinion that has got him into trouble, its the abuse he posted after the opinion. To one extent or another, abusing someone else verbally or in writing has been illegal over here for a very long time, all Twitter has done is allowed the authorities to gather much better evidence as to who said what, to whom and when.

RevDisk · « **Reply #21 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:25:53 PM »

Quote from: agricola on March 28, 2012, 11:13:38 PM

Perhaps, though as I tried to point out earlier its not the opinion that has got him into trouble, its the abuse he posted after the opinion. To one extent or another, abusing someone else verbally or in writing has been illegal over here for a very long time, all Twitter has done is allowed the authorities to gather much better evidence as to who said what, to whom and when.

So it's ok to have an opinion, just not express it verbally or in writing?

agricola · « **Reply #22 on:** March 28, 2012, 11:28:52 PM »

Quote from: RevDisk on March 28, 2012, 11:25:53 PM

So it's ok to have an opinion, just not express it verbally or in writing?

Surely its a bit much to dignify a load of drunken comments on Twitter with the word "opinion"?

AJ Dual · « **Reply #23 on:** March 29, 2012, 12:28:13 AM »

Quote from: agricola on March 28, 2012, 11:28:52 PM

Surely its a bit much to dignify a load of drunken comments on Twitter with the word "opinion"?

Wow...

I sat here for over 15 minutes trying to figure out what to say.

You are a seriously beaten people if you can't really understand why freedom of speech needs to be a near absolute. Or wonder that such a person or his comments are even a worthy use of the state's time and resources even if you don't accept the first premise.

RevDisk · « **Reply #24 on:** March 29, 2012, 01:00:58 AM »

Quote from: agricola on March 28, 2012, 11:28:52 PM

Surely its a bit much to dignify a load of drunken comments on Twitter with the word "opinion"?

A hundred million deaths defending a load of drunken comments on Twitter wouldn't be enough to properly dignify it, sir.

Killing 40,000 of your countrymen was but a drop in the bucket of the true worth of the ability to have any opinion we wish. I, for one, thank your ancestors for making it difficult for us. If we had freedom and independence handed to us on a silver platter, we'd be no better off than Canada, Egypt or any other former British "possession".

News:

Author Topic: Free speech in the UK (Read 7234 times)