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
"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.
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'?
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.
I don't know about the UK, but I never heard of any movement in Holland that wanted to get rid of this law.
:-)
I must admit that I have no idea what you'd have to write on a website to get you in that much trouble, but I'm pretty sure that if you'd go around spreading leaflets about how the Holocaust was an okay thing to do and that we should in fact continue to send Jews to their deaths you'd wind up in jail pretty soon and most people would be relieved to have you off the streets.
But of course I'm not The Dutch People so I might be wrong
There is pretty much no opposition to it.
Most people really do believe that they have nothing to fear because they are not racists.
20% of us are actually employed by the government, and to vote for another party would put their livelyhood at risk.
15% of us are unemployed and so again voting for another party would jeopardize their income.
A lot of people will simply vote Labour until the day they die because they are from the North and can not conceive of doing otherwise.
Huh? Maybe you're just trolling, but I'll try anyway. I'm in fact not trying to stop you from saying anything, but if it hurts, you shouldn't be anonymous. Yes, you can call me an idiot in the subway, but then everyone there sees you do it, as do I. If you do that a lot, people get to know what kind of guy you are, and will ignore you. That's my point: the payback for being a verbal dinkus is that no one will take you seriously. About the 16-year-old: that's physical, and currently illegal. About big brother protecting us from mean people: I'm not saying big brother should stop people from freely speaking garbage to unconsenting minors, etc., but that big brother shouldn't protect your anonymity you if you choose to do it. Basically, there are a lot of people that have suffered systematically from speech acts, like say, women and visible minorities, and for millenia.
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
Oops, I read "hitting", not "hitting on", my bad. So sure you can continue to get rejected by 16-year-olds.
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
Until I get more information than TFA has, I'll stick to generalities. But as a general rule, you don't have the right to walk up to him on the subway and start yelling "This man's an idiot! He should die. We should kill him. Let's beat him up!"
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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?
So, you are Dutch but you know of no movement for more free speech?
Amazing.
Pim Fortuyn asked for more free speech. Theo van Gogh asked for more free speech.
Last thursday Diederik Ebbinge was in the socialist TV show Pauw en Witteman. to talk about the manifest he made together with Hans Teeuwen and Eddy Terstall which pleads for more freedom of speech. They offered the manifest to the Dutch parliament.
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?
Trying to incite hatred against anonymous people who fear retaliation for speaking up, eh? Those pesky environmentalists criticizing waste dumpers; damn good if we could find out who they were and really nail them to the wall. And abused women speaking up? We really need to know who they are. Oh, and pro-lifers, definitely them. Etc. Ad infinitum.
There are a whole lot of people who have a vastly different opinion on what is 'hurtful' than what you might have.
"there are a lot of people that have suffered systematically from speech acts"
And there are a lot of people that have suffered physically because they've spoken without anonymity. Even more likely to be weaker minorities. It's usually not the strong or agressive that have a need for the protection of anonymity.
... 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.
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 :)
There was a bit of noise made when the law was changed recently, as previously only racial groups were protected from hate speech, and this was extended to religious groups. The law was basically the government trying to salvage some Muslim votes after the Iraq war, rather than addressing an urgent issue - since we have in the UK a credible third party (the Liberal Democrats), a small swing of votes away from Labour to the Lib Dems as a protest vote can hand the seat away to the Conservatives - this happened at least in the Shipley constituency at the last election - the Tories took the seat from Labour even though the Conservative share of the vote was down.
Back to the main point, the protest was quite high-profile, with several comedians claiming that it could stop them satirising religion (no more Monty Python and The Holy Grail, etc.). As it has happenes, religion is still (currently) satirised and criticised, despite the occasional violent protest.
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
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!
You guys should take a look at preferential voting. It works a charm over here in .au
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
I'm certainly not trying to expose weaker minorities, and I believe current hate speech laws do not affect them. I believe hate speech laws go too far, but shouldn't be eliminated entirely: the "punishment" should be the loss of anonymity, and, again, only if there's hate speech, and the set of what's hate speech should be very small, but nonzero. I think there's a worthwhile debate to be had on what exactly should be considered hateful. And if anything it should start on a more limited basis, e.g., toward minors.
Well, there are certainly campaigns to reform the UK voting system, focused mainly around AV+ or STV (my preference), but currently we're told there is no widespread suppost for reform to the parliamentary elections - why then, people are creating DIY proportional voting is something that is ignored.
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yeah yeah, "the minorities" cannot break the law on "hate speech", only the majority can, right? Thank you, we have enough of that. Before the law, all people are equal, nothing else is acceptable. No exceptions, no clauses. One sentence for one crime, regardless of who did it.
As a sidenote: I find your attitude towards speech and law disturbing, to say the least. No one can properly define what "hate" speech actually is, as it's entirely dependent on the victim. And you should NEVER allow the victim to set the sentence for a crime, I hope you'd at least agree on that.
Take for example the dreaded Mohammed cartoons: is this hate speech? Fundamentalist Muslims certainly spell doom and death over this one, like they did over the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. The Popetown-Cartoon on MTV were shrugged at by most Christians and no onee burned embassies. Does that make a difference in "hate speech", how the adresses behave? Do you think there's ANY objective measure on what actually constitutes hate other than a) directly influenced actions and b) the amount of "anger" at the target?
If that'd be the case, we better learn to speak only lovingly good of Islam and Mohammed, because *everything* else incites hatred among fundamentalist Muslims. So effectively anyone could turn any argument into hate speech just by acting insulted and seething and whining. For great justice... I hope now you see why no one can define hate speech, only the victim could, but lawful order prohibits exactly that and for good reason.
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.
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.
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
>> 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?
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.
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.
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
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
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
Did i say *threaten* others? No, i didnt.
'i hate you beacuse you are green, and im going to come kill you', is over the line. But i can shure as hell say "i hate you beacuse you are green and shouldnt be allowed to exist" on *any* public forum.
Public forums are just that, public. If they dont want public comments to be posted, then they arent public. If they are open to the public then they arent 'private' as you seem to believe they are.. Private boards do exist too. If you are so scared of what someone mght say to you, dont read a public board, or go out side.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
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." ---
At the last general election, 64.8% of votes were against labour . So while there's a nugget of truth in your polemic, there's actually huge opposition to the government - it's just hidden by the undemocratic electoral system.
I almost broke my TV when I saw Tony Blair claiming he had a popular mandate.....
no taxation without representation!
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.
That's the fascinating thing about protest votes: the same war that is moving your votes to the right is moving our votes to the left. There has got to be a way to register a protest against one policy without sacrificing the 99% of other policies the candidate holds that caused you to vote for him last time. I propose a list of conditions be put on a yearly ballot that would make any incumbents ineligible for re-election. That way, they'll be more accountable to the will of the people, but still get a chance to correct their mistakes before the election.
This space intentionally left blank.
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.
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
Lib Dems have only historically been to the right of Labour. These days, I think labour have moved far enough right to have passed them.
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!!!
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!
Please tell me what it is.
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
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.
In America, you are happy to let people spout racist filth on television, but have no problem censoring bad language or nudity.
I prefer the compromises to absolute freedom of speech in the UK over those in America, but whatever your opinion, you can't pretend that even America has total freedom.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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
If you think a child is that fragile of mind, I guess you don't have kids
Except for my three daughters, nope, none at all. And I can tell you for damn sure me getting arrested would shake 'em up. Not as bad as some things, granted, but it'd not be a -good- thing.
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.
People bring their children to political events all the time. I'm sure many supporters had their children there. Is there somehow another standard for dissenters?
Sure you do. And then overzelous police have a right to haul you off (public nuisance laws if nothing else),
They absolutely do not, arrest requires probable cause to believe you've committed a crime, and "public nuisance" does NOT mean "I don't like what you have to say." Freedom from false arrest is -explicitly- guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment, freedom of speech under the first. This arrest violated both. The police have no "right" to arrest anyone without such cause, and they certainly have no "right" to arrest whoever the hell they want.
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.
False arrest is a civil rights violation. Arresting someone with no cause is assault, at the very least. I guarantee you that in the reverse situation (the citizen assaulting the officer) the citizen will get worse then a "reprimand"! Why the double standard?
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
"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