Slashdot Mirror
Three Years in Prison for Posting Hatespeak
Vainglorious Coward writes "In the UK, a man has been sentenced to three years in prison for posting inflammatory messages to a website. Pleading guilty to inciting racial hatred on a site dedicated to the memory of a murdered black teenager, the 30-year old accused stated that he was not racist, and had intended to stir up an argument on the website, but did not believe in what he had written. The defending lawyer described her client as 'isolated and living in a fantasy world, spending hours on his computer in his room where his persona could be as he made it, good or bad.'"
...they'd start charging all the -1 Trolls on Slashdot. Now that would be progress.
3 years for trolling? Isn't it a bit too much?
The blurb (IDNRTFA) makes it sound like he was posting in a private board. If it was, it'd be easy to just have him banned, and require new users to be approved by a moderator.
The GNAA better watch out. The interweb is getting dangerous...
Eeerk, I didn't realise we had laws like that in the UK... I need to step up my "move to sweden" plan.
He got 6 months of his sentence for child pornography charges.
In the former case, some choose to place their faith in the government and legal system, and draw satisfaction at three years incarceration for ignorant speech, at the risk of social fragmentation.
I think the Amish community would have simply shunned such a foul-mouthed fool, without putting money into lawyer's pockets, or wasting real estate on a prison.
Social progress.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
It sounds like the guy needs help. Trolling is one thing, but trolling on website dedicated to the memory of a recently murdered teenager? Combined with the child pornography aspect, it's very worrying indeed.
So how does locking the guy up help anyone? He may have problems but that doesn't mean he's dangerous now; conversely, if he is dangerous now, then he needs psychiatric help, not prison. In either case prison is not the answer.
as if millions of GNAA trolls screamed out in horror then were thrown in prison...
Monstar L
The defending lawyer described her client as 'isolated and living in a fantasy world, spending hours on his computer in his room where his persona could be as he made it, good or bad.'
How did she know that he read slashdot?
Push Button, Receive Bacon
http://verkiezingen2006.nl/
"Hitler started with an idea, slavery started with an idea, so it is good that this was stopped in time."
*Shudder*
Eerie resemblance to "thoughtcrime"...
Bad submitter, bad!
TFA doesn't say anything about what crime in particular he was jailed for, and his sentence may have been partly or completely due to his having 33 images of child pornography on his computer.
TFA is also very lacking in details, and doesn't say anything about the reason for the search warrant, and the aforementioned lack of explanation for his sentence.
While I'm pretty sympathetic to electronic free speech, only the most ardent advocates would deny that statements can cause real damage unless all parties are into the online trolling game. That's why I think it's reasonable to give people freedom to say what they want, but they have to stand behind what they say: with their real name! Basically, the veil of anonymity should only last as long as someone isn't offended enough (by standards similar to what one would need for a search warrant) to want to know who's doing the talking. This could apply to racist statements and hate speech against women and gays: no lobbing mortars from a safe distance, ya gotta do it in the public eye! I think this is a pretty fair compromise between the brutal damage "speech acts" (and other verbal abuse that many in history have suffered) and free speech.
Whilst I can't find the actual message I dare say that the length of the sentence was more to do with where he posted the message. The child porn sentence was only 6 months, and I think that child porn does more damage to society (and the individuals involved) than posting insulting words - the sentence seems disconnected to reality and manifestly severe (so expect him in the court of appeal).
I also wish that the rules would be applied evenly to everyone who breaks the law, how many of the people who carried signs including "behead those who insult islam" or messages supporting 9/11 and 7/7 ended up in prison? (other than the one who was on licence from prision already, and that was just for breaking bail conditions)...
Which isn't to say I support this guy, I just want the law to be fair and colour blind
Regardless of what you think of hate speech, once the infrastructure for persecuting people on their thoughts/attitudes/opinions is in place it becomes quite trivial to make it encompass your personal/ideological enemies. All you have to do is redefine "hate."
Anti-government speech --> anti-American speech --> hate.
Anti-religion speech --> hate.
Pro-religion speech --> hate. (look at verse X of book Y! so intolerant!)
. . .
Maybe it would would end up being more specific, or more round about, but what matters is that motivating ideology is now on the table as something that can be legislated for/against.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
FTA: When he was arrested in September, officers also found 33 images of child pornography on his computer.
And there went any stirrings of sympathy I was feeling for him for getting jailed for trolling.
Oh no... it's the future.
Most European countries have these, so it's not as though he was within social norms regarding illegal speech. It's illegal to display swastikas in Germany, for example, and European countries frequently outlaw other froms of racist, etc. speech. A Holocaust denier was recently sent to jail for expressing his beliefs; it's illegal in some other countries to criticize Islam. A difference between them and us: you can lose your job for using the n-word, but they can't put you in jail.
Even as a left-wing American, I like our way better in this respect; I'm all in favor of nationalized healthcare, six-week vacations, strong labor unions, and tasty food, but I do believe in freedom of speech.
It's available in Sweden too, labeled "racial hatred incitement" ("hets mot folkgrupp")...
So... he defending lawyer described her client as 'isolated and living in a fantasy world, spending hours... in his room where his persona could be as he made it, good or bad.'"
I guess being in a prison cell will be a whole lot different.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
The UK in recent years has been claiming the right to take away the freedoms of its subjects, despite the fact that it was once on the forefront of individual liberty. First, it banned guns, contradicting at least 400 years of common law, and now it's going after people for free speech. The authoritarians can invent a rationale for their tyranny against the people, but they'll never stop going after one freedom after another.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
- The guy's an obvious live-in-his-moms-basement nutter.
- They also found child porn on his 'puter.
- It may not hold up on appeal as it is, indeed, questionably opposed to the freedom of speech.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
There is a crisis as Britain's prisons are full...
It strikes me that what I was trying to get at in the parent was that mutually consenting adults should be able to say whatever they want about each other, to each other. But when talking to others, or about others, there should be no protections afforded unless you're willing to reveal your idendity so that you have to take your reputation into account: what goes around comes around.
I was initially relieved to hear that his sentence might have been entirely due to the child pornography found on his computer, but other articles have shown that he was in fact given time for writing something on a website. Scary.
s ide/5412558.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/mersey
"He pleaded guilty at Liverpool Crown Court to publishing material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred."
Curious: Is this sort of law universally accepted by people in the UK or is there any sort of sizable opposition to it?
You're a moron. It's speech. Moreover, it's "anonymous" speech. There's no loaw at all against me walking right up to you on the subway and calling you an idiot - in fact, there's no law against me hitting on a 16 year old in the subway. But somehow you petty little twats have decided you can't get past the inability to get the last word in, or to seek "vengeance" for your hurt little feelings, so you need big brother to step in and protect you frpom the mean and evil people...
Its twats like you who are fucking up this world. get over yourselves. Do us all a vafor and kill yourselves - save us from having to do it for you when *that* time comes...
Maddox, say it ain't so!
While I am all for Free Speech, there is a limit when someone starts actually calling for murdering specific persons. According to TFA, the perpetrator posted in response to the killing of Anthony Walker, a black teenager:
That's incitement to murder, hardly a category of protected speech.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Oh, I suppose I need to move to Finland then.
Is this sort of law universally accepted by people in the UK or is there any sort of sizable opposition to it?
There is no sizeable opposition to any laws ever in the UK.
As long as Brits can get to work without "leaves on the rails delaying the trains" in autumn, and can go out to the pub in the evening or switch on the gogglebox, they couldn't give a toss if they're shafted daily through the ass with a bulldozer.
And that's why we are now living in a police state. Apathy.
Is just one step worse then trying to legislate morals.
.. pretty simple. ( yes, i know , its all about state control of the population, but i dont have to agree with it )
Its my right to hate who ever i want, for any reason i want, AND to tell people about it. You dont like what i say? Then dont read/listen
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Mood +1
If only they would put those people through mandatory school in prison.
there is no issue with my network
We do have a bit of a problem with that in the UK. (This is a general comment, without reference to the particular case under discussion about which I know nothing other than what has been in the news.)
... but we no longer have anywhere else.
Once upon a time people who were unable to lead a normal life in society were locked up in mental hospitals. But we've closed all those and replaced them with "care in the community". This policy, which in fact is implemented as "neglect in the community", has a variety of outcomes for the people concerned.
Some do actually cope with life on the outside (maybe they didn't need to be in the mental hospitals in the first place), with or without any extra support that they are lucky enough to receive. Some don't cope, and end up homeless and living on the streets, maybe dying of drug overdoses or exposure in winter. Some cope fine with keeping themselves alive but end up in prison because their behaviour, which they can't do anything about, is unacceptable to society.
Prison is generally reckoned not to be a suitable place to keep these people locked up, as you say
First off, note that I completely oppose his actions and comments. However, hasn't this guy got some right to free speech? Yes, what he has said is extremely distateful, but that shouldn't be anywhere near enough to put him in jail - many hours of compulsory talking to a psychologist, yes, but not jail.
Also, note that he got 6 months for having 33 child pornography images on his computer. I would personally count that as a more serious crime than racism, but he got much less time for it?
Using a Nazi tactic to protect people from unacceptable speech. The main difference being that in Germany, at the time, it was hate of the leader of the state, an individual, that was banned, rather than hate of a group of people.
History, for those that refuse to learn from it, will repeat itself. Speaking of history repeating itself, why can't the UK repeat some more useful history, like the 5th of November?
... that I was not good enough for her, and very poor in bed also. She said it with all intentions of being cruel and causing me pain. I was heartbroken and devastated for weeks. Yet, she never served any jailtime for what she said. I have also had people make fun of me and call me names and insult my appearance because I'm fat and bald and short and have lots of acne. I have suffered this all my life. I've had a shattered sense of self image because of it. Yet none of them have ever been given a fine for hurting me. If everyone who ever said anything cruel to me went to jail, I'd be very lonely.
hate'em
fantasy worlds rule!
its harmless fun really.To get people riled up over a forum post, I sit back and laugh that they think Im serious.
Generally I start topics that I know will rile up certain forum members, yet get others to defend my position. Then a short while later Ill change sides and rile up the other side. Its just mind games, playing with people. To get arrested for that? LOL what a joke.
Well now he'll have a bit over 3 years to start a fight with several who would be more then glad to fight with him, of course he'll learn real fast fighting is a bad idea :)
I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it
- Voltaire
A quaint idea in todays world.
In the US if you were thinking the wrong thing at the time you commit a crime, your guilty of a hate crime. In France you can be charged with a crime for selling, and or distributing NAZI items. This UK example isn't unique to that isle. The ideal of free speech is being eroded, and nothing shows that more than the self censorship and reaction to the Mohammad cartoons.
It causes myself to ask questions like -
If we do not shun, or speak out against vile (but currently legal) speech, do we eventually loose the right to hear such speech because the state steps in?
Why are we (as a society) so afraid of words and their potential impact? Are we so imature, violent and framented that speech alone will destroy the cohesion of our societey?
While there are aspects of this case that seem to cry out for some attention, on the face of it, this guy committed a thought crime and is being sent to jail for it.
cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
I'm guessing the limit on the child pornography charge was 6 months so the judge, out of disgust, gave him the maximum on the inciting charge...we see things like that all the time in the states.
Marky Mark Killed Jason Bourne!
Of course the majority of people here will be in favour of no punishment for hate speech. They've never been on the other side of things to experience how hate speech always leads to physical violence.
They would prefer to protect their privilege of "free speech" while denying the minority of protection from harassment and physical violence.
This post will be modded down for sure, which seems pretty hypocritical of those advocates of "free speech".. this whole site is susceptible to group-think which also happens to be the WASP point of view.
"What if it was muslim extremists discussing how great 9/11 was and how they really wanted to do it again..."
Then in the UK, they would be protected as expression religious beliefs. That's what's happening now.
No, it's not dangerous at all, it's still a thought, until someone acts upon it.
"Hate speech" should never be a crime if it's spoken by an anonymous poster. It's only a crime if it's posted by someone recognizable as an authority figure, someone people would feel compelled to obey.
If I say "someone should kill G.W.Bush" that's my opinion, it's not better than anybody else's opinion. That's not hate speech. But if a military officer, for instance, says that in front of his troops, or a preacher says that in his church, it could be interpreted as an order to be obeyed. Then it's hate speech.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
While such comments are totally unacceptable, the establishment does seem to be very selective in who they punish. For instance why are the people who made these statments not being locked up. Does political correctness only apply to white anglo-saxon protestants.
"I believe the whole of Britain has become Dar ul-Harb (land of war)," the Syria-born Mohammed said. Therefore, "the kafir (non-believer) has no sanctity for their own life or property," - Omar Bakri Mohammed
was Re:Crap, we have laws like that?
davecb5620@gmail.com
'Cause if there's one thing that prison does, it's to improve your opinion of Black people.
Not so. Maybe a grudging respect, but racists band together for protection, same as they do on the outside.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
As a foil, lets put this story in perspective to current "crimes" in the States. This person is alleged to have posted "hatespeak". Which would supposedly "lead" to hate crimes, etc. Now lets look at the fairly recent Hurricane Katrina incident in the US. The government was responsible for the evacuation and rescue of many US citizens. Including many Americans whom were poor and could not evacuate before the storm hit and levies broke. Among these Americans were many African Americans Thousands drowned and died while there own gov't waited a few days before actually starting rescue efforts. So, by fact of not doing anything, the gov't effectively killed thousands of there own citizen. Which is high concept idea. Kill people you don't like nor care about. By not doing anything for a couple of days during a natural disaster. Not ONE gov't official has been held responsible for the deaths. Not a three year sentence in prison for anyone involved. Not even a one day sentence to prison. So the only point I'm going to try to make here. Which is a worse crime in the world. In this early 21st century? A troll on a website saying "hatespeak" to a black family. Or gov't officials letting thousands of there own citizens to drown and die horribly. Many citizens whom were African Americans? Which is worth a 3 year sentence to prison?
The most important goal in any modern country should be to insure civil liberties.
Oh crap! I forgot to insure my civil liberties. I better go get a quote at GEICO.
I just saved a ton of money on my Civil Liberty Insurance! That should ensure that I'll always have them.
I'm a big tall mofo.
This is what happens when editors don't do their job and actually *edit* the title to reflect what the article is about.
/. community for protecting freedom of speech and thus all the responses are diverted away from the actual topic.
The article says that the offender was charged with speech to incite murder. Not just hate, but calling upon other people to kill the remainding family members. In addition he also was charged with carrying child pornography on his computer.
However, the title tries to incite the deep feelings of the
The UK had hardly any gun control laws prior to about 1920, when the government began to worry about Bolshevik uprisings.
Prior to that, there had actually been a history of private firearm ownership *and legal protection for same*. See an historian's book about UK/US firearm regulation history for details. The Glorious Revolution produced a charter of rights guaranteeing weapons posession (by Protestants only, but that's another issue). This is all well documented but almost forgotten.
(Not to mention that our notions about using force in self-defense come from UK law).
The US may be unusually devoted to free speech, but our reasons come from your own philosopher John Stuart Mill. For one thing, the arguments on the side of good (e.g. cooperation among racial groups) need to be refined and tested against counter-arguments to make sure they will convince people and thus improve society. For another, it's important to know how widespread racism actually is. Driving something underground only gives you the illusion of safety. For another, it's also good speech that can be unpopular. In 1830 you abolished slavery, after decades of abolitionists speaking against the "property rights" of slavers and calling them names. Fortunately the abolitionists were not suppressed for "hate speech".
The US also has a problem that makes regulation of speech dangerous. Some people here are far too quick to label any criticism as being racist. Fallacious scientific research, objections to affirmative action, and references to the Mafia have all drawn allegations of racism. Hernstein and Murray deserve to be exposed as wrong, not to be imprisoned. Affirmative action may not be working the way it's supposed to and that's a subject that needs careful discussion to protect everyone's rights.
In the real world, you have the right to be offended... Are his remarks inflammatory? Yes. Racist? Definately. Without tact? Absolutely. But they are protected. (guess not anymore). I tire of people trying to prevent people from speaking their minds. I have a friend whose father said it best. "Back when I was a young boy, things were easier. When a white person diddn't like you, they just told you so... Now everyone just conceals their hate. Before at least you could see it was coming." If a person makes direct threats that's one thing, but tastless and tactless discussion of any kind should be protected. If you say something like "people should die for doing something", well, its stupid, but it should be protected. If someone says, I'm going to do something to these people", that's a warning, and should be taken seriously. So this guy does time for speaking his filthy little mind. Meanwhile, rapists get 3 months in prison... What a joke. Maybe give him 3 years for the child porno (six months, wtf?), but for saying some shit, I don't think so.
always. If someone ELSE is provoked to violence, it is THAT OTHER PERSON'S fault, not yours.
the Political Inquirer
I think the common ground here which we can all agree on is that racism is a problem, and that we want to protect the public. From there, we can have a dialog on how to best accomplish it while maintaining individual civil liberties.
I disagree with the second half of your first sentence. Yes, "racism is a problem." But as far as I can tell, "we want to protect the public" means, "we want to use law -- the threat of violence -- to forbid people from expressing hurtful opinions." The cure is worse than the disease!
How about saying that the common ground is, "Racism is a problem, but we're committed to maintaining individual freedom of opinion and expression. Let's have a dialog on how to fight racism within that framework"?
Revive the Constitution.
I suspect these laws are not being applied to everyone, otherwise a large number of Imams and other radical Islam devotees would be in jail. Inciting hatred and violence for them is a reflex.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
then the means should at least lead toward the ends.
>crushing race hate is worth losing some smaller liberties.
What happens next? Will race hatred be crushed? Or will the skinheads have a martyr they can point to?
Sieg Heil!
As much as i hate racism, and trolls, i think this sentence is bullshit, no matter what he did, no matter how big of an asshole he is, he is still protected by freedom of speech, its not like he went to his funeral naked and started insulting people, he made posts on a website!!, and contrary to popular belief, people DO NOT have "the right to not be offended". if that were the case id put in jail all the religious types for i know their ingnorance offends my intelligence far more than those people could ever get offended by the things he said about the dead of the child (and yes i have had deatch in the family and i know how it feels).
Check this out
Let the excuses begin. "It's a private commercial decision, nothing to do with the government blah blah blah....."
PS. Yes the jail sentence for trolling a message board was censorship as well. The UK does not recognize private conscience nor freedom of speech and has no written constitution, which is why the US backs the UK to the hilt.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
He should have gained little more power and money before doing stupid things like that.
What happened to free speech? If the UK government put someone in jail for expressing racist comment, then it is the same as Chinese government put someone in jail for expressing anti-CCP comment. Actually Chinese government is more lenient, one person I know only got 1 year in jail for posting anti-CCP comment in various internet forums in China. I believe free speech should be absolute, you can not be put in jail for any kind of speech. The United States have a better record at this, but I believe there are still some anti-racism laws in the US that prohibit free speech.
The Muslims march on the streets, publicly declaring things like "Prepare for the real holocaust", "Slay those who insult Islam", and other typical Muslim sobriquets. They are observed by the police. They are not arrested, and the few who are arrested are released without charge.
Maybe this is a religous belief especially among one very very *ahem* peaceful religion, but if you protect *that* as a "belief", the desire to repeat a 3000-fold murder, you'd be insane.
I'm not defending the guy, what he did was wrong. If the kid was white and the man black nothing would've come of it though. I think the black community should also just start to ignore remarks like the white community does. In movies, songs and the general media white people are singled out often and it is not regarded as racism.
This is my sig.
Are you insane? The whole point of free speech has precious little to do with whether or not you offend someone. Who gives a rats ass. You know those kids in Tianamen Square offended the hell out of the government and its supporters. So...when attempting to keep your slipping nation free, you should have to identify yourself publicly as a dissenter? So wiretaps and the like don't bother you either right? Because you should only be free when you identify yourself. The same holds true of corruption, when you blow the whistle on corruption you lose reputation with the people in power that are corrupt, if you can do it anonymously you can maintain your safety and still help justice be done.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
At what point does rude/antisocial behaviour become illegal?
There is a line to be crossed, I think in this case harrassing at such a memorial is disgusting, and is close to the line of what should and should not be permitted.
Inciting violence is never acceptable, since there was no context to imply that it wasn't a serious attempt I think it is unacceptable.
Protesting at abortion clinits, making some noise but leaving everyone else basically unaffected?
Protesting the Iraq war and blocking the streets that my tax dollars paid for?
Protesting the WTO and cause a riot resulting in damage and inconvenience to thousands of residents
Protesting at funerals for Iraq war dead?
Assassinating abortion doctors because you disagree with them?
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
That's incitement to murder, hardly a category of protected speech.
Just calling for violence doesn't automatically exempt speech from protection - SCOTUS ruled in 1969 that "[f]reedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
One can hardly argue that a posting on a web forum is an incitement to imminent lawless action - if he had been speaking at a rally of armed white supremacists who were already whipped into a race-hate frenzy, his ass would be hanging out in the breeze, but in this situation he would be untouched in the US. I doubt there would even be an investigation. One of the few good things left about this country - I don't agree with his beliefs; I find them downright repugnant, but I believe he has every right to express them and certainly don't think he's crossed the line in this case.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
ah, but that's what the purpose of a metamod system is. If an individual truly IS a fanatic with an agenda, he/she will find themselves unable to moderate for much longer. Plus, if mods are browsing at -1 as they should be insightful comments unfairly modded down should be modded back up in short order.
In Britain, they already have anti-social laws.
When certain groups or cultures, refuse to mainstream them selves and correct members of their own group,
why cannot we hate them?
I hate people who cannot abide by the law. Most other people/groups do abibe, but when the 'few' fail to
get the message AND I really dislike(hate) them for it, it becomes against the law?
Why do we have laws then? To hate repeat offenders or cultures that encourage repeat offenses,
is that unusual? Bullshit. That is human nature.
We have a system of laws to discourage this type of behavior. Now we have 'political correctness' which USURPS our rights.
I say shoot anyone who believes there is an entity such as a "hate crime". They HAVE NO CLUE.
Why should society repeatedly ALLOW crimimals to be assholes? Only idiots support this idea.
5 bucks says this guy regulary posts to 4chan.org
I can only assume that your sarcasm detector has been corrupted by too many Hollywood prison buddy-buddy buddies.
I'm a Green lefty and here is my perspective on this, while I find racism abhorant speech acts cause physical to harm to on one, OTH the governments of the U.S. and the U.K. have KILLED tens of thousands of Muslims in an unprovoked war of aggression. Lets lock up war criminals who actually kill tens of thousands of mainly poor innocent Muslim civilians BEFORE we even consider banning speech acts?
Yes this guy is undoubtedly a great big dumbass to post hate speech on a forum commemorating the death of an innocent person. Whether being a giant jackass is a crime though I think should be open to the highest levels of doubt. Would reading Huckleberry Finn also be a crime in Britain since it contains the N word and an aborted lynching scene? Shouldn't we on the left be focused on educating people against doing actual physical racist crimes and not on censoring thoughts? IMO this only makes legitimate anti racist work look bad.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
See also Red Herring.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
The defending lawyer described her client as 'isolated and living in a fantasy world, spending hours on his computer in his room where his persona could be as he made it, good or bad
Sounds like the average Slashdot reader, except they sit in their bedroom pretending they are laywers.
Nothing costs nothing
They also threw a guy in jail, for nine months. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pag ename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid =968163964505&cid=1152784687286&col=968705899037&c all_page=TS_World&call_pageid=968332188854&call_pa gepath=News/World
What the defenders of thought crime aka "hate speech" don't recognize, deliberately or ignorantly, is how easy the law is to abuse. The Canadian law was almost immediately used abusively by a politician to attack his opponent. The law is also so vaguely written it can cover just about anyone for any occasion. As well, the law includes specifics like "hate" against immigrants. Don't like the country getting flooded with illegal and legal immigration? Voice your opposition and it's deemed hate speech. Wronged by a designated "minority"? You're just a racist/anti-semite and anything you say against them is hate speech. God forbid a minority group gets control of a part of government; you can't speak out because it will be labeled, that right, hate speech. Don't like what Israel is doing? You know.. hate speech. It's also like how the Bush administration labels anyone who doesn't agree with their atrocities terrorists and supporters. The root of these various things are forbidden speech. "hate speech" laws aren't a slippery slope, they are a free fall.
and it was WWII, you woulda been put in a concentration camp and ALL of your properly woulda been confiscated.
Learn your history. USA is NOT the paradise you think
>> Which UN stats? Which national stats? Which study in Sweden? Which newspapers, in Wales or elsewhere?
There are lots of very detailed stats available on this subject. I don't know which sources the parent had in mind, but NationMaster is pretty thorough and fairly neutral:
The UK has a slightly higher per-capita crime rate than the US, although neither of them has anything to brag about, as they're respectively 6th and 8th in world rankings.
For "advanced 1st world" countries whose populations do not need crime to survive, that's an utter disgrace. And this figure does tell you that allowing or not allowing guns makes little difference to your overall per-capita crime rate.
The biggest danger about guns is that people talk incessantly about them and so lose focus of the real issues. Pro or anti firearm policy is a red herring, because disallowing guns doesn't eliminate or even reduce your crime problem.
If you have criminals, they will perform crimes, it's in their nature, and changing the tools of their "trade" isn't going to make them get a job and take up basket-weaving instead.
The real reason why governments don't want civilians to carry firearms is because policemen often get shot when chasing gun-equiped criminals. Other weapons don't have this property; thieves don't run back and fight it out with the police using knives and fists, but they will fire shots back when running. Whenever a police death happens in the UK, all politicians get on this easy bandwagon, and the outcome is predictable. And of course, police don't like being on a more even playing field with criminals, nor getting shot at, so you won't find any police chiefs being liberal about this.
It has nothing to do with reducing crime. Because it doesn't.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
That damn Dubya! Always taking away the freedoms of Americans that us Europeans enj--
Oh, wait...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Spoken as an European: It is true. Say something the majority (and/or goverment) don't like, and if it is not already illegal they will create laws against it. This is not limited to racisim and people promoting violence. In Sweden a non violent preacher was charged for preaching things the goverment did not want to hear.
Someone writing a violent, but unlikely to be fulfilled internet post, or allowing the genocide in Darfur to continue without intervention?
Everybody seems pretty upset about the "banana boat" comment... I don't get what the big deal here is. Doesn't everybody love Polish quartets?
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Did they put him in cyber prison where the crime was committed?
"Hitler started with an idea, slavery started with an idea, so it is good that this was stopped in time."
The solution to these "ideas"? Crimestop!
Alright, so it's not like the fellow was having any revolutionary thoughts to help free the masses (in fact, he was sort of talking about the exact opposite), but come on. Stopping ideas at their root because you don't agree with them is too reminiscent of Oceania.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Fields
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
I fully believe that 6 million Jews died during the Holocaust. However it seems that a lot of people want to deny genocide occurred under Communist rule. When you take both the actions of the Communists and the actions of the National Socialists into perspective, you come to the realization that the type of government not the beliefs of the government are responsible. Socialism is the belief that everyone would live in an egalitarian and peaceful world if there were not a small group of people who were conspiring to keep control. The Nazis believed that it was a race who were responsible and most Socialists are racially neutral. But the results are the same.
You can't ban Socialist speech. If someone wants universal health care or the right to form a union, you can't throw them in jail. Yet we all have to acknowledge that if Socialists were to gain absolute power, they are capable of genocide. Just as a racist with absolute power would be capable of genocide. The key is to prevent anyone from gaining absolute power.
Genocide requires that a government has complete control. It requires that it cannot be stopped by courts, demonstrations or free public speech. One of the key elements of any totalitarian society is the idea that no one can speak freely. All speech is government approved. To have free speech in a society is to undermine totalitarianism.
If only they would apply these laws to everyone, except to only the native english, Maybe we could get rid of some of the radical islamic hate speach that is taking place all over London on a daily basis.
and the GP makes a good case. Rights are not necessarily a compromise, while liberties may. Hope that helps.
the Amish community would have simply shunned such a foul-mouthed fool, without putting money into lawyer's pockets, or wasting real estate on a prison.
So it's better to just unload your problem cases on the next community over? Because that's what they're doing, shunning is sending the guy in exile to mess up another community.
You can't take the sky from me...
"I just instructed my gang of bank robbers to take out a bank. I didn't go along, so I'm completely innocent of any crime, right? Right? All I did was talk, and speech is protected!"
Now you have left the realm of hate speech and have entered the realm of conspiracy.
It's legal to say "All banks should be robbed" or "All Jews should be shot". Those are opinions. They may be exortations toward action. But they are not directly connected with particular actions.
However, statements like "Let's rob bank X at time Y", or "take this gun go to address X and shoot Rabbi Y" are particular enough to be conspiracy, and thus are illegal.
There is a whole body of case law on exactly what constitutes conspiracy, and the exact border is hard to define. But it is different from hate speech, and different from incitement.
Anytime Blacks make racist speeches (nowadays), nothing really happens regarding "disgust" on their end. You really think the Blacks will agree to punishing their own when they disparage Whitey?
I heavily favor egalitarian ideals, but I'm sorry: Racism is a manner of thinking, an attitude. Tyrrany has its seeds in the idea that citizens' attitudes qualify as "problems" that the state needs to solve via criminilazition. The ideal of tolerance can be elevated in ways that are less threatening to a free society. China can call anything that glorifies democracy "incitement to violence" if you allow enough indirection in the definition of the crime.
Incitement to violence is a legitimate thing to criminalize, but the ideal of a free society isn't compatible with loose construals thereof as was done here. A necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) test for guilt on this charge should be that violence was actually incited.
All manner of horrors are committed by states in the name of "protecting the public," so we can't just say "well this instance may be a bit extreme, but we can all agree that the public needs to be protected," and by extension agree that the basic concept of outlawing hate speech is valid and only the implementation is left to quibble about. The concept is not valid, and the justifcation for it is more insidious than that which it purports to protect society from.
Pi Ran Out
when you give a government that much power, they own you and can do whatever they please.
Its my right to hate who ever i want, for any reason i want, AND to tell people about it. You dont like what i say? Then dont read/listen .. pretty simple.
It is not your right to go on a private board dedicated to a murder victim to threaten his family, a board where you know it WILL be read by his relatives.
Your right to free speech is on YOUR board, where people opt-in to you read your worthless thougths.
You can't take the sky from me...
This is what happens when editors don't do their job and actually *edit* the title to reflect what the article is about.
/. community for protecting freedom of speech and thus all the responses are
That is not their job. Their job is to provide page views to their advertising clients.
the title tries to incite the deep feelings of the
Profitable.
You can't take the sky from me...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convictism_in_Austral ia
;)
(I know, that was generations ago, and one of my best friends is australian
Britain's got a serious problem with Muslim whack jobs trying to take over the country.
And they spend their time imprisoning someone for what he posted to a web site somewhere. If they applied that standard to everyine, all the "kill the infidel" crap that gets posted to UK Muslim web sites would be prosecuted too.
But political correctness is preventing anyone from even discussing that. Radical Islam is not just the elephant in the room - it's the elephant that's shitting all over the room, and everyone in it.
For example I don't think that "overrated" gets meta modded. At least I don't recall seeing it in there. That also, perhaps not coincidentally, is what my posts tend to get moderated most often when they go against the groupthink on Slashdot. I like Windows so I make posts that are unpopular from time to time. So I'll find a post getting moderated up insightful or informative, and down as overrated. Only happens to the posts that go against the groupthink, when I make one propping up OSS, or some that simply deals with another topic I never find it happening.
Basically people are modding it down since they disagree with what I'm saying, and I don't think meta moderation catches them.
Even if it does, that's no guarantee, again because of the whole groupthink thing. If a bunch of metamods decide that they don't like what I said and give props to the overrated mod then nothing happens (supposing it even shows up).
The system isn't bad, but it still has the problem that the quality of moderators is checked by other moderators.
Why don't you take a cue from one of your princes...
"I'm surprised how thin everyone is." - Prince Charles on his most recent visit to the US.
Just because you came to believe it based upon what you saw on TV doesn't make it true. It only makes it relevant to how you act upon your assumptions.
As to racist speech, I think we have two different climates here. In the US I think it is okay that racist speech is protected. However, we don't have problems with racist chants ringing out at sporting events. I'm not a fan of ritual ridicule of someone based upon their race. So I think that in the EU regulation of racist speech to some degree is necessary. This could change some day if people decide to start acting more mature and not abusing their rights and forgetting their responsibilities. It could also change the other way in terms of the US.
And yes, I am aware the UK is getting much more than they are giving in terms of racist chants at soccer matches. That's why I said EU above. Even if no Brit engages in these chants, you still need laws to stop them by away team fans at games on British soil.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
I left it out deliberately, as it is a confusing subject.
The root words CON and SPRIRE, literally, 'to breathe together', indicate how English common law treated the matter: to speak about it was enough - no overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was neccesary.
The US congress, when passing laws on conspiracy, did not specifically mention an overt act. So when the US supreme court was asked to rule on it in United States v. Shabani, they said that in the absence of that specific mention, the old common law was what counted.
But numerous states - the majority, IIRC - do require an overt act.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I'm the submitter, and the title is mine, not Zonk's. And I stand by the language I used. This guy was charged with "incitement to racial hatred" - that's what the crime actually is called in the UK - and I don't think my shorthand for that as "hatespeak" is at all misrepresentative. I don't understand what you mean by "diverted away from the topic" - I posted this precisely because the slashdot community has strong interest in freedom of speech, and being imprisoned for three years for something someone said/wrote seems exactly on topic. Look, I hate racist thugs as much as any normal person, and this 'tard was especially disgusting, but I can't help thinking that if he'd gone out and actually physically assaulted someone, he would have got less than three years. That's the issue here and that's why I posted the story.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
In a time where personal freedoms are being threatened on every side, this sort of thing is just another reason to fight for free speech as was intended by our founding fathers here in U.S.
Does this mean that we can lock Bill O'Reilly up too?
to become the norm. How long before the OS comes with standard software utilizing highly anon proxies?
I regret that I only have one mod point to give per post.
Same in France. Only worse.
No one has the balls to take them head on and fling their shit back into their faces because the laws don't allow any real free speech anymore. Political correctness and auto-censorship are the rule.
The Uncle Scrooges of the world need that silence to be able to hear the tinkle of their gold
when they take a bath in their giant safe. Their flag ? The banknote.
It still won't prevent what's brewing from happening.
This is a copy of a post I made some time ago, but still is worth mentionning because it directly relates to free speech, of which, you will notice, I am a stark proponent in the finest (cough) libertarian sense :
;-)
Well, this may be a bit off topic, but what the heck. I've just been out with some friends, and, as always when we get moderately drunk, we talked about politics, religion, philosophy etc. (when we are real drunk or when no babes are present, we usually talk about sex
Well, anyhow, being all european, and all friends (birds of a feather) we fully agreed on a lot of topics. Israel, Iraq, USA, etc...opinions didn't differ much there. But then it came to a typical european concept of free speech, which, I presume, may strike USA-citizens as a bit weird. While, seen at large, we have the same concept of free speech as in the USA, this opinion, curiously, always seem to shift to a more restricted idea of free speech when it concerns things as racism. In this respect (one of the few, I might add), I think the usa concept of it is much more honest and fair. This has undoubtably to do with our historic heritage, notably WWII.
I was argumenting that revisionistic books, as an expression of an opinion, should be allowed. Thus, not agreeing with the law(s) in most euro-countries, where such books are forbidden. To my astonishment, many of my friends agreed with this censorship, however. This is something I do not understand; you CAN NOT claim to be for free speech and expression of opinion, and then say "exept when it's *that* opinion". Allowing free speech only if you agree with it, but forbid it when you totally disagree with it, is not allowing free speech at all. I've tried to argument it, but it just didn't seem to get through to them; they started with the premise that it's wrong, and therefor it should be forbidden, whatever. The fact that this leads to hypocrytical contradictions was something they ignored too. One said: 'it's a fact, and thus it shouldn't be disputed' another said 'it hurts the jews'...but, are that, on itself, enough reasons to forbid an opinion? Is there a 'fact' so absolute, it can't be disputed? Can't anyone feel hurt be an opinion of another dude, and should we thus, forbid everything that someone claims is hurting their feelings?
These arguments do not make any sense, and what's more, to forbid an opinion is EXACTLY what ultra-right wing or despotic governments would do with the opinions that my friends (and I myself) hold dear; that of being non-racist, etc. The difference is, they start with the presumtion that they (the idea they have about it) are right, and thus oposing views can be forbidden, while I think people are allowed to have racist opinions, even when I totally disagree with them... After all, that is EXACTLY what a dictator (or ultra-right-winged-government) would do, if he ever got the power: claim something is a 'fact' and forbid oposing views. The REAL difference, thus, between a democracy and a dictatorship is that that the one alows (or should allow) diffirent opinions, while the other does not. Thus, in conclusion, this is a treat, not of democraccy, but of a dictatorship, and unworthy to be used in a democracy, IMHO. It also shows that laws are not always justified, and, again IMHO, should not ALWAYS be regarded as an absolutism, something that should be followed blindly. (Of course, it happens to be my opinion that revisionists are telling crap too, but the point is I think they have a right to express that opinion).
I got a bit worked up about it, really, because, after all, it restricts other people, because of the mere opinion of others, who think they have the right to forbid it (and have the power - which is the dangerous part, because; what if the power shifts?). Why am I writing all this? Well, because it made it clear to me again, why I'm doing all this trouble for a project such as Freenet. Sometimes, with all the tech babble and the problems and all that, I ask myself why I'm doing all this. And I gues
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Well said. This is very true and is a symptom of most religions. This is what truly makes America similar to the Middle East. We both think in irreconcilable extremes. We are the black to their white and vice versa.
And that is exactly why I don't think the war on terror will work, or that it is justified. Undermining their culture is our version of terrorism.
(Sorry, I realise we're getting into -1 Offtopic area)
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
what he did was messed up, i think he deserves 3 years.. and a couple of nasty replies to his emails.
With exemption for the smaller local fish, such as mayors, etc, I - nor anyone in my social circle - have never personally had dinner with, shook hands with, met, or otherwise associated with somebody whom is or has been in the upper balances of government. Moreover, if I had, said person would be very unlikely to have had any time for me.
Why? Because I'm not rich, famous, influential. I am a normal citizen, possibly about average financially for my age, but by no means wealthy nor powerful. Don't kid yourself that I am other common folk are on the same scale as most politicians in this manner, as most come from wealthy or otherwise heavily influencial and/or powerful families.
The last time I heard of a more common man in government in this continent, it was after the people rose up and overthrew the existing government.
As for making an example of somebody, believe it or not but that is part of what the criminal system does. Not everyone gets a speeding ticket, not everyone gets a prison sentence, but the possibility that one might is supposed to be part of the dissuasive factor in the system. No, jailtime might not make this individual a better person, in fact I'd side with "probably won't", but it may dissuade others with similar notions.
should have lived in the usa. here you can get away with murder.
You know, you could make a slippery-slope arguement about pretty much anything if you really wanted...
Yes, and believe it or not, in most places that prohibit "hate speech", hateful speech is still allowed. If I'm voicing a private opinion that group X is bad, or I call my neighbour an ethnic slur (such as my grandparents' neighbour, who refers to him as hitler because he's German) it's a personal attack, but not covered as hate speech. Now, if I pipe up to a group of people (such as a posting on a highly visible internet site) that person X should be hurt or killed, etc, it's hate speech.
Similarly, I could probably get away with saying that the government should be overthrown. If I was publicly declaring the beheading of key government members, that might be a bit different, but in practice some of these things seem to be given more tolerance for highly public features, so saying "Bush should be shot" in a group of people would probably be tolerable, but perhaps not shouting it out wih posters in downtown *Vancouver. Many laws can be abused, and hate-speech laws may be, but I haven't seen any cases so far where it ha.
*p.s. I'm Canadian, we have hate-speech laws
I don't know about attempted murder, but I believe it might fall closer to "conspiracy to commit murder" - which I believe is an actual charge. There's a fine line between a nasty "what if" scenario and a conspiracy at times.
He got what he deserves, it just seems that nowadays every case is taken beyond it's own merits...
Thoughtcrime is in your head. The premise was that cops with brain-scanners could read your mind as you thought seditious thought. This was out-load-and-person, in a public forum dedicated to the victim, calling for further violence against his family. I couldn't say yes or no as to whether the idiot who posted it was kooky enough to try something, or gather others, but I could see people such as KKK members and other gathering to this call.
When somebody is stuffed in jail for thinking - just thinking - of something, then it will be thoughtcrime. When he's arrested for mentioning it to a friend or two, that's still a step beyond. When he posts on a FUCKING FORUM, visible to the world, and setup by the family's victim, it is not thoughtcrime. When the posting calls for violence against the family, it's can go beyond even hatespeak into the areas of conspiracy to commit murder (not used). You don't know if that's what the guy intended, I don't know, but personally I'm pretty damn happy that they slammed him before he ended up on front page news for following it through.
3 years, there's a criminal system and that's the punishment it decided on. Maybe you can judge on that. If you think what the guy did, threatening the family in an area dedicated to the victim - akin doing the same at a funeral - is something he, or anyone else should be allowed to do, then I'd say the world outcome is no better than Orwell's. In fact, with the increasing amount of people desensitized to this sort of things, that's likely exactly you'll get.
Regardless, it's not fucking thought-crime, at least not in the oft-quoted Orwell variety.
Now some bastard may mod me down because I dropped an F-bomb too many times, but perhaps those who keep using the same b.s. cliches will at least learn WHEN they apply.
laws(also having written them) in most of the countries that have them and they've been pushing to implement the same laws in the US. Of course, pointing this out is "hate speech." See how that works? The very people doing bad things can't be called out for doing so as any opposition to what they do gets labeled as "hate speech." If you want to read more, just look up what groups like the ADL are doing.
This guy gets prison. And the douche on the O'Rielly Factor on Fox the other day (head of the Minutemen political group) called the kids who protested his organization at Columbia University, terrorists and the new face of the KKK. 5 bucks says he didn't get in one f-ing bit of trouble for speaking his mind. I'm not condoning hate speak at all here. I'm saying that this man, for speaking out nationally and calling all kids who are members of these democratic political on campus groups terrorists, should either step down from his position or at least make a public apology. And I'm neither a student, nor a parent of a student, but I took offense to these comments.
This sig will self destruct in 5 seconds.
Oh, it's probably just that "unparsable" is not even a word. But since it utilizes correct English rules to make the word, we'll give it to you. ;)
It was not adeath threat, nor against the president - they guy showed up in person and harrassed Cheny and they had him thrown in the hoosgow on trumped up charges, with no lasting repercussions.
It's not quite the same as taking him back for torture and then a session with a wood chipper, or years of chipping ice off the tundra...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
To all the free speech advocates who cannot believe how this could happen in England and who are so self-assured about free speech in the US, a guy named Steve Howards got thrown in jail accused of assaulting the vice-president for saying the following to him:
Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible.
http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc100406
If you think this sucks, do something about it here at home and support Steve Howard's lawsuit in support of his right to free speech.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
They hanged Julius Streicher for exercising his right to free speech, and he deserved it.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
That he got more time for his speech, than for his child porn?
That's fsck'd up!!!
Amnesty International says "AI's vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"...
...I look forward to their defence of this guy.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-udhr-eng
Having said which, IMHO many posts on this subject are a bit binary/ all-or-nothing: I personally feel that (in spite of the declaration above) that it's fair enough to give this chap a fine or maybe a week inside. But almost THREE YEARS?!? That is clearly unfair. I was talking to a friend from China, and she commented that sentences of this length for such trivial utterances were a characteristic of the Cultural Revolution.
Part of the problem is the law: it outlaws "publishing" hatespeak -- but the law was framed (I assume) at a time when to "publish" something required printing presses -- and thus plenty of effort and forethought. Surely sticking something on a webpage is far closer to casual speech.
Britain's got a serious problem with Muslim whack jobs trying to take over the country.
Only according to white-supremacist whack-jobs.
Most of the Muslims I've known have just wanted to keep their heads down, work hard, and contribute to our society as much as they can without being targeted by racist mobs. If any of them are planning to lead a bloody jihad across the nation, they haven't shown much inclination yet.
If they applied that standard to everyine, all the "kill the infidel" crap that gets posted to UK Muslim web sites would be prosecuted too.
Uh, Abu Hamza got 7 years, remember? Radical Muslims are being prosecuted too. Hate speech is illegal regardless of what community you belong to, and Muslims aren't getting special treatment, whatever the racists might desire.
As for the smug Americans sneering that we don't have proper freedom because we have chosen to outlaw certain forms of speech, I'll accept criticism on issues of freedom from Americans when they clean up their own act. Is three years in jail for hate speech really worse than life in jail for petty theft?
Good old Europe, beacon of freedom and social advancement to the whole world!
So, it was more likely that the court wanted to punish him for child porn possession (another thought crime, fwiw), but the penalty for that was not harsh enough and they had to use another charge against him to achieve a long enough sentence (in the court's view).
How's that for inflamatory? And (human) racist, too!
Anybody who disagrees can bite my shiny metal ass.
Please tell me what it is.
Getting arrested in front of your son will not have "lasting repercussions"? I guess we have different definitions there.
I guess we do because being put in jail only overnight is not that big a deal. If you think a child is that fragile of mind, I guess you don't have kids. Also I'm pretty sure they guy brought his kid along as a "shield" thinking it would make him less likely to be arrested, which is really pretty despicable even if very minor child exploitation.
And the point here is thus: I have the right to walk up as close as the Secret Service will allow anyone to Cheney (or Bush, or Rumsfeld, or any of 'em) and tell them I think they suck in any number of ways.
Sure you do. And then overzelous police have a right to haul you off (public nuisance laws if nothing else), then you have a right to a trial by jury. Seems great so far.
Basically this guy is just blowing the incident all out of proportion because a police guy went overboard. The officer arresting should be reprimanded. But suing over it? Bad taste.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Of course that is going out of fashion as well.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Its funny the idiots don't understand the more you supress an opnion the more widespread it gets.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Maybe now, they'll arrest those Muslims who carried signs saying "Behead those who insult Islam" and "Behead those who say Islam is violent". Probably not, though. That would lead to riots.
No, it really isn't.
Yes it is. People are made examples of with every traffic ticket. Sometimes, if a specific crime is on the rise, larger punishments than normal may arise.
Benevolent dictatorship works best, regardless of political system.
Isn't that sad?
That means the person you hired/vote for that position is more important than the position itself when it comes to getting things done.
At least is an abuse of speech, at wosrt is harrasment.
In any case, it should be punished.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Even in a system so corrupted as the US's the people in the high echelons of power have a trackable history to when they were small fish.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The hate speech that is commonly forbidden in sensible countries is the one that incites in no uncertain terms to harm other identifiable, immediately close, group of people.
It is perfectly legal in the UK to form a racist party (like the BNP, google it and have fun) or for Islamists to express their derided views about global jihad.
Those are ideas, some more distateful than others, but since they are not targeting specific groups of people in the UK, they can speak them until the end of times.
When the game changes is when they say "lets kill x" or "lets beat Z". In the moment they name specific aims they become subject of criminal investigation. And that IMHO is a good thing.
Your point seems to be "the flames are burning, lets throw some more petrol to extinguish them" which frankly makes no sense to me.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Considering that Mrs Walter has forgiven the killers of his soon (google it, don't be lazy) and that she has beheaved in the most gracious and impecable manner, I will assign to USianess and distance your misguided attemt to compare both unfortunate cases.
Mrs Walter has behaved herself in the same admirable fashion as the Amish community you are alluding. One thing is to be nice, but another very different would be to be stupid.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
This idiot was refering to a very specific group of people in a kind of behaviour that society, by means of its elected representatives, finds so reprehensible and abhorrent that penalties should be imposed.
Many US people keep this liberal rosy "hey speech freedom is absolute". Typical black and white view of life. Well, here in real life, where most of Europe is, the shades of gray are many and some lines have to be drawn in the sands of history.
By not keeping an eye on people like you know who and his ilk, Europe allowed itself to be trhown into mayhem almost 70 years ago.
If the instigators of hate would have been dealt with in the early stages of their delussional carrers, we may have avoided several years of the most unimaginable carnage.
Think about it the next time you want to defend the absolute rights of a bigot (which btw, still can spaek his dreadful ideas as long as he does not threaten specific people or groups of people, because in spite of what you think, most countries in Europe recognize that these people should be heard, but will not tolerate when they cross certain limits of common human decency).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
New legislation was passed recently to account for such comments.
In recent demonstrations (agains the Danish cartoons or the Pope) people have got out of line and they have been questioned by police.
If you want to make a point first inform yourself first (unless you are trolling, in which case, by our guest).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And society has decided that "all black people deserve to die and should be killed" is a bad idea.
Not even that, it is such a bad idea that whoever utters it with the intent to causing harm can be brought to court and be punished.
There is a point where crackpots have to be brought to explain themselves, specially if they have the potential to become dangerous.
YOu are missing the point regarding this legislation. The ideas are not being banned. Their use as a hate tool are, you are allowed to postulate certain things, but the moment your are intent into harming people by inciting others to do so, you become a suspected criminal.
Nobody would bat an eyelid if you want to ban a Black festivity. It would be deemed inconsiderate and ill adviced, but it would never be considered inciting to hate.
As for the others, they are policies, not incitmenets to hate. I think you got so thoroughly confussed there that you lost completely the thread of what you wanted to say...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The hate speech that is commonly forbidden in sensible countries is the one that incites in no uncertain terms to harm other identifiable, immediately close, group of people.
Really? Here in Canada a man was convicted for hate speech when he simply published a reverence to 3 bible verses which forbid homosexuality. He didn't say anything violent, anything threatening, he actually didn't even say anything about homosexuality period. All he did was place an add with the chapter and verse in the bible a person could look up, which happened to contain the verses in the bible that forbid homosexuality. The courts ruled that simply publishing a chapter and verse of the bible that homosexuals may find offensive, even without any sort of interpretation or comment on those passages, could be considered a hate crime.
At the same time, a well-respected political leader in Canada, one who had ties to the Liberal party in Canada, and had won the "Order of Canada" the highest civilian honor that the Canadian government gives, advocated the Nazi party, and called for Canada to exterminate Jews in the same way the Nazis exterminated Jews. He was of course, not only found innocent of hate speech, they didn't even feel it was nessicary to revoke his "Order of Canada" award - They said he still exemplified the highest ideals of Canada, despite what he said.
Clearly, even the most harmless statements can get you arrested for hate speech violations (if you don't have friends in high places), and even the most racist, violent, calls for genocide are not only tolerated, but those people are still endorced as people exemplifying the national honour (so long as you have friends in high places).
Clearly the hate speech laws in Canada have nothing to do with saying anything racist, so much as they do with cracking down on people who don't have friends in the Liberal party. There is no reason to think that it is any different in the U.K...
When the game changes is when they say "lets kill x" or "lets beat Z". In the moment they name specific aims they become subject of criminal investigation. And that IMHO is a good thing.
Absolutly not... I know of no Western country that bans Marxism. Marxism calls on violent revolution, and demands direct violent action on people of specific social classes. In the U.K. in particular, Imams have called for violent attacks on Jews, Americans, and Europeans in general. Most have not been the target of public investigation, let alone punished for what they say. These people have not faced punishment, because they are organized political groups with a lot of political power... where as the guy who went to prison for 3 years was a lonely crazed individual with no political power and probably very few financial resources. His real crime wasn't calling for racist violence (which goes unpunished in the U.K. provided you have some political power), his crime was being poor and mentally unstable.
Your point seems to be "the flames are burning, lets throw some more petrol to extinguish them" which frankly makes no sense to me.
No, it is because racist ideology is particularly weak. It isn't particularly compelling stuff. If people are allowed to freely discuss the racist ideology, it doesn't take much to poke it full of holes and disuade many people from becoming racist.
Where as if racists must hide their views from the public because they are afraid of going to jail, it eliminates the possibility of engaging them in open discussion and convincing them that their racist ideology is bad. The only people they will discuss their views with are other racists who simply reenforce their world view.
By banning them from making racist statements, you are banning other people from countering their racist statements. You are denying non-racists the opportunity to engage them in free discussion.
Of course, the goal of hate speech laws isn't to stop hate. The goal of hate speech laws are to put in place a censorship infrastructure, by jus
"Three more people were found guilty of helping Barton and Taylor flee to Holland before their eventual arrest. On 10 May 2006 Robert Williams was convicted of providing money and booking a hotel room for the pair. He was sentenced to two years and four months. Paul Morson sentenced to 11 months in prison for providing a getaway car. Tracy Garner admitted assisting an offender and received an 11-month suspended sentence."
So a guy mouths off some garbage on a web site and gets three years, however people who assisted the murders attempts to escape got from 2 years 4 months to 11 months.
Anyone else think that there's a little be of imbalance there?
http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
If he ONLY exercised his free speech, he didn't deserve it, how reprehensable his writings might have been.
The problem with nazism was exactly that which I try to convey with my parent post: they didn't allow any other views than what THEY deemed appropriate.
Censorship, therefor, is the halmark sign of a totalitarian regime, not that of an open democracy. And the more we censor, the more we act like those that we despise.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"Providing material support to an organization hostile to the US is providing aid to the enemy and therefore treason"
Does that mean anyone who donated to Bush's campaign was committing treason?
GW Bush is probably one of the top enemies of the USA. Just judge him by his actions and the results of his actions.
Diebold is another.
I'm not a US citizen, so you could consider me biased and ignorant. But in my opinion it is hard to find anyone who has done more damage to the USA in the past 20 years than G W Bush and his "friends".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Well considering how much fun it is to play devil's advocate for the most repugnant things online for many of us, that's certainly a wake up call. Damn fools. First they took prank phone calls away from us with caller ID and now this. How's a guy supposed to get his work out to the people?
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o