Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: 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.
-
The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades. And gloves. And IR shielding. And a national ID under a fake name.
-
Huh! I though that free speech in the UK was exorcised by rioting!
-
Huh! I though that free speech in the UK was exorcised by rioting!
"Exorcised?" [popcorn] Are you sure you don't mean "excercised?" Or should we warm up some pea soup? =D
-
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.
-
Huh! I though that free speech in the UK was exercised by rioting!
-
"Exorcised?" [popcorn] Are you sure you don't mean "excercised?" Or should we warm up some pea soup? =D
What's a vowel or 2 between friends?
Thanks for the pea soup visual! =D
-
The term "Fascist" is thrown about all too often in political debate these days, but in this case, it fits like a glove.
-
Huh! I though that free speech in the UK was exorcised by rioting government edict!
Now it makes sense.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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"?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke), past Grand Wizard of the KKK, can run for all kinds of stuff, and noone minds.
-
. . . The US is the sort of place where David Duke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. ;)
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
They'd probably lock you up I the UK for saying that. Beaten people indeed.
-
Agricola: what's your opinion on jailing religious leaders for preaching the parts of their holy scrips that are offensive to others? Canada has a good history of it, not sure about England. How offensive do I have to be before I can be thrown in jail?
-
How offensive do I have to be before I can be thrown in jail?
I suspect you merely have to be sufficiently unpopular, or particularly truthsome.
-
I suspect you merely have to be sufficiently unpopular, or particularly truthsome.
No giving away the answers Rev... :P
-
I don't think there's ever actually been free speech under English law - kings and queens don't like to be contradicted by mere mortals.
I remember reading about a case a couple of hundred years ago in Colonial America - John Peter Zenger was arrested and charged with seditious libel for printing critical but true stories about the Crown-appointed Governor of New York Colony. The court asserted that "Truth is no defense!" on the grounds that true stories were worse than lies, since truth would hurt the reputation of the Governor more - but the feisty Colonial jury still refused to convict. (Colonial juries regularly thwarted bad law from the Crown, which retaliated by curtailing trial by jury and other rights for those pesky Colonials, who eventually had the temerity to write a Declaration of Independence - and we all know where that led.)
-
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.
What do you mean by "near absolute", then?
-
What do you mean by "near absolute", then?
I won't speak for AJ, but the common example here for that would be you can't holler "fire" in a crowded theater.
DD
-
What do you mean by "near absolute", then?
Actively inciting a riot or lynch mob. There has to be a mob handy, though. Saying, "Let us lynch George Zimmerman and the 13YO witness!" on Twitter is not sufficient.
More broadly, speech that will have immediate consequences of death or physical harm and is done for evil intent.
That's about it.
-
I remember reading about a case a couple of hundred years ago in Colonial America - John Peter Zenger
Didn't we all read about that one in public school?
-
Imams go unmuzzled--and they should--for telling you that England does not belong to the English, but this is where you choose to fight?
-
I won't speak for AJ, but the common example here for that would be you can't falsely holler "fire" in a crowded theater.
DD
FIFY ;)
-
FIFY ;)
Picker of nits! :lol:
DD
-
What do you mean by "near absolute", then?
With illustrative examples provided above, the operating principle is bias in favor of the "offensive" speaker/speech, requiring direct harm or threat of harm to be actionable.
For me, this is analogous to individual liberty. Yes, there is a social compact, and regulation in the community interest may be necessary, but the decision should be biased as far as possible in favor of individual freedoms.
-
Surely its a bit much to dignify a load of drunken comments on Twitter with the word "opinion"?
If they can be dignified with a conviction, they can certainly be dignified with a word.
-
You know, I came here to make the same argument the rest of you are making, but I was struck by a realization.
Speech codes like this are a necessary result of outlawing other forms of punishment. If you value free speech, you ought to legalize and value even physical reprisals to offensive speech.
People don't care for grave dancing. Nor many other offensive things that are "merely words." In the founder's time, such boorishness would get you beaten and tossed out of town (possibly even tarred and feathered with the implicatation that you are not welcome to return without abject apologies) or challenged to a duel.
This is a part of the idea that "An armed society is a polite society" because you may have to back up your impolite words in a test of arms. Thus, people tended to be more polite as impoliteness could lead to your death.
When we decided that boorish louts were not allowed to be dealt with physically, it inevitably lead to speech codes like this because people don't like boorish louts and desire an enforcement mechanism to deal with them.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am VERY much opposed to speech codes and am well aware that many of my beliefs would get me in trouble in the politically correct speech codes of Great Britain and Canada. I am simply saying that I can understand reasons that likely have led to their existence.
-
You know, I came here to make the same argument the rest of you are making, but I was struck by a realization.
Speech codes like this are a necessary result of outlawing other forms of punishment. If you value free speech, you ought to legalize and value even physical reprisals to offensive speech.
People don't care for grave dancing. Nor many other offensive things that are "merely words." In the founder's time, such boorishness would get you beaten and tossed out of town (possibly even tarred and feathered with the implicatation that you are not welcome to return without abject apologies) or challenged to a duel.
This is a part of the idea that "An armed society is a polite society" because you may have to back up your impolite words in a test of arms. Thus, people tended to be more polite as impoliteness could lead to your death.
When we decided that boorish louts were not allowed to be dealt with physically, it inevitably lead to speech codes like this because people don't like boorish louts and desire an enforcement mechanism to deal with them.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am VERY much opposed to speech codes and am well aware that many of my beliefs would get me in trouble in the politically correct speech codes of Great Britain and Canada. I am simply saying that I can understand reasons that likely have led to their existence.
Huh, lack of self discipline and outlawing of vigorous social sanction leads to discipline being imposed by gov't force. I wonder that no one noticed such a relationship before...
-
I won't speak for AJ, but the common example here for that would be you can't holler "fire" in a crowded theater.
DD
Yep, that about covers it. And the riot/mob situation, and as stated. The mob has to be present and ready to go. And you pretty clearly need to be the guy standing on top the burning car with the bullhorn too. =)
We do have libel and slander laws in this country, however they're civil redress for damages caused by 'speech'. There is no criminal peril to anyone involved.
-
You know, I came here to make the same argument the rest of you are making, but I was struck by a realization.
Speech codes like this are a necessary result of outlawing other forms of punishment. If you value free speech, you ought to legalize and value even physical reprisals to offensive speech.
People don't care for grave dancing. Nor many other offensive things that are "merely words." In the founder's time, such boorishness would get you beaten and tossed out of town (possibly even tarred and feathered with the implicatation that you are not welcome to return without abject apologies) or challenged to a duel.
This is a part of the idea that "An armed society is a polite society" because you may have to back up your impolite words in a test of arms. Thus, people tended to be more polite as impoliteness could lead to your death.
When we decided that boorish louts were not allowed to be dealt with physically, it inevitably lead to speech codes like this because people don't like boorish louts and desire an enforcement mechanism to deal with them.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am VERY much opposed to speech codes and am well aware that many of my beliefs would get me in trouble in the politically correct speech codes of Great Britain and Canada. I am simply saying that I can understand reasons that likely have led to their existence.
No. That is nonsense. Quite a few countries have neither speech codes of this sort, nor physical reprisals for them. They are not necessary in any way.
-
No. That is nonsense. Quite a few countries have neither speech codes of this sort, nor physical reprisals for them. They are not necessary in any way.
Such as?
-
a return to the code duello
-
What, are physical reprisals for tasteless insults common in the US? Funny how all those people wishing for thw heinous death of differwnt political figures or mocking their deaths rwmain free and unhurt.
-
Surely its a bit much to dignify a load of drunken comments on Twitter with the word "opinion"?
Surely it's a bit much to dignify anything except the Queen's English as protected speech?
-
What, are physical reprisals for tasteless insults common in the US? Funny how all those people wishing for thw heinous death of differwnt political figures or mocking their deaths rwmain free and unhurt.
Yeah, OK, good point.
-
What, are physical reprisals for tasteless insults common in the US? Funny how all those people wishing for thw heinous death of differwnt political figures or mocking their deaths rwmain free and unhurt.
No, but if someone is screaming that stuff right in your face, there is some body of American judicial precedent that the bar for proving criminal assault and battery under such provocation is higher. Not enough to get you off from punching someone out, but it can be sufficient to remove the factors of intent, or premeditation etc. from an assault and battery case. And with such factors removed, the odds the prosecuting attorney would allow a plea deal to a lesser charge, or just decline to prosecute the case are pretty high.
Essentially, legalese for "Them's fighting words." http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fighting-words/
Is it applied often? No. Does it take some extraordinary provocation on the part of the speaker? Yes.
But it does exist. And the speaker could themselves be charged and tried with assault.
In essence, standing six inches from their nose and saying how they're going to grind you to a pulp, your wife, your kids too... etc.