Slashdot Mirror
UK Man Jailed For 'Offensive Tweets'
Motor writes "A UK judge has jailed a man for 56 days after he posted offensive comments on twitter about a footballer who had a heart attack during a game. He's also been thrown out of his university degree course weeks from graduating. His comments may have been offensive... but do they really justify a prison sentence and ruining his life?"
Can you really be imprisoned in the UK for posting something racially insensitive? Just because he wrote something about a soccer player people liked doesn't mean he should be arrested and sent to jail. What kind of wacky police state does the UK have that this is acceptable legal policy? Don't the police there have better things to do than be made to chase down Twitter trolls?
A UK judge has jailed a man for 56 days after he posted offensive comments on twitter about a footballer who had a heart attack during a game. He's also been thrown out of his university degree course weeks from graduating.
I'm surprised that, being a judge, he hadn't already graduated. Seems a bit political by the university anyway.
NO
I'd have no problem if he was sentenced to, say, 100 hours of community service, but gaol time is excessive. Yes, 'gaol' is correct this side of the Atlantic ;)
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
This took place in a country outside of the United States. They don't have the first amendment. If a person is guilty of "inciting racial hatred" and they admit to it, as is the case here, then they are punishable by local law.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
I assume there was some very specific legal ruling or laws in place that actually make being an asshole online illegal?
Nowhere in the article is it said that the student has been "thrown out"; in actuality he's suspended pending the internal disciplinary process (as is, as far as I know, standard whenever a student is arrested). [For what it's worth I happen to be a postgrad at Swansea]
Not just this story but other stories about censorship of the internet & television channels, indicate to me that free speech is no longer a right in the UK. That's a shame because that's where the right was first re-born in the modern world.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Games are not important.
and names will get you hard time.
Interestingly, Association football is named after the fact that it was originally played by peasants, on foot. (The comparison was to polo, which was played by rich people on horseback.)
As for the importance of our respective footballs, is the championship game of your football season essentially a national holiday?
Liam Stacey was not arrested for offensive comments. He was found guilty of inciting racial hatred.
He wasn't thrown out of university; he is suspended pending an investigation.
The reality of freedom of speech (at least the US concept) is that it is not consequence free speech. While the article does not mention any actual harm committed through racial insensitivity, I can only assume that someone was threatened and that the threat was taken seriously through Liam's postings. If no actual harm was committed, society does not benefit by having someone go to prison.
No - fuck you, colonial traitors!
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
I made a similar submission this morning regarding this issue.
This guy is being prosecuting for making critical remarks about British soldiers.
These guys were sent to prison for encouraging rioting on Facebook.
The BBC has more information here.
Everyone believes that Democracy won the cold war over Communism, but given what's happening in the west today, how true is that?
No way we need a manly game where the players dress up in tights and protective gear. And have a good portion of the game staring at each others butts.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
This criminal monster is now behind bars. Thank God he didnt live in a country that values freedom of thought and expression. I hope the rest of his life is filled with pain and misery. How DARE he not have the same opinions as me!
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
Now you've done it. You going to the slammer now, fool.
Limey bastard LOL
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Uh.. so is anyone else bothered by the fact that the summary and TFA both don't say what he actually said? "Racist tweets" is a bit vague.
a year of community work and x K pounds of fine would be more appropriate ... so there's no need to feed him and still gets the job done ...
Here's what he wrote, according to the Daily Mail: âoeLOL, **** Muamba. Heâ(TM)s dead.â (I assume he actually wrote "fuck", there.)
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
How does one play a game of Football without that "optional game play" element known as the kickoff?
I don't agree with racism in anyway. But to jail someone for voicing thier opionons, no matter how disagreable they are is a disgrace
We had a similar thing in the UK with the riots a few months ago - there was a prison sentence of four years for someone who called for his friends to come to a riot on facebook, even though no-one other than the police turned up. The naivety is with the people that think it's acceptable to incite violence or make racist comments because it's on the internet. This is usually because they think thing like twitter and facebook are some big anonymous system and they won't get caught, whilst ironically in the UK this behaviour is currently less tolerated than similar crimes committed in person.
Before commenting on what a police state we live in.
I agree it is a difficult line to draw. Maybe take the case of Sean Duffy? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-17385042
I am not saying its right or wrong, racism is terrible, and just because you are on the internet, doesn't make it okay.
Not to you, but to politicians. Almost as important as bread.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
and given what's happening today... different subject
freedom is not something that is won once and that's that, close the book, it's been written
freedom must be maintained in all societies for all times and will be continually encroached upon from inside and out, from all directions, forever
that is reality, there is no better deal
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
People are too over sensitive these days...
So someone voices his opinion, and you don't agree with it... No reason to throw him in jail, would be much better for freedom of speech to allow other people to say exactly what they think of this guy. After all, its only words, noone was actually injured by anything this guy said.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Footballers (soccer players) in Europe earn millions of dollars yearly, they are respected stars. The fact that most of them barely know how to read, and sometimes behave like pigs doesn't matter, they're watched and admired, even untouchables for the elite. Especially in the UK. Considering the extremes to where soccer leads sometimes (esp. from supporters) the judge objectivity should be double checked - crazy supporters are everywhere.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Ha! Joke's on you! Colonial traitors aren't a recognised ethnicity in the UK. I can abuse you all I want. In fact, I'm thinking of applying for a government grant. And I bet I can get some cash off Liz too - she's probably still pissed about the whole independence thing.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
No way we need a manly game where the players dress up in tights and protective gear. And have a good portion of the game staring at each others butts.
I'm a rugby fan you insensitive clod! OK replace tights with shorts and reduce the protective gear to a floppy helmet but the rest is the same.
I would think most of the slash fool crowed would applaud this. Don't be like fauxnewsers, you should be all for this on here.
A Swansea University spokesperson said: "The student remains suspended from the university pending the conclusion of our disciplinary proceedings."
He deserves what he got, maybe it'll teach him that you can't go around saying stuff like that.
Damned Limeys
There are many exception to it which can land you in hot water (the fire yelling in theater) or even make you liable in other way (distribution of picture of yourself naked deemed child porn). The things is those exception are culturally different in the US than in Europe/UK. I could watch on prime time (19h) a woman doing a strip tease showing boobs, on a public channel (Stefan Colaro show / TF1). In the US the FTC apparently falls on you like a ton of brick. On the other hand say racist insult and praise the nazi, will do nothing in the US, not so much in my country it can alnd you in hot water.
*shrug*.
And let's put this into the proper perspective. This man insuted another man. He did NOT initiate actual coercion (theft, fraud, physical force) or threat thereof. He simply insulted another man.
Government, on the other hand, has clearly initiated coercion (actual physical force) against this man, the insensitive asshole.
A real crime needs both an aggressor (the initiator of coercion) and a victim (the recipient of coercion). The real crime should be perfectly clear by now. The victim is the insensitive asshole, and the aggressor is government.
The laws of human nature trump the laws of government by definition.
If the guy is a paying student the university can suspend him if they think so, but if it's a college funded by the taxpayers they shouldn't have the right to choose between students. There are people convicted of murder studying and getting degrees in jail but a guy guilty of speechcrime can get suspended?
As for the importance of our respective footballs, is the championship game of your football season essentially a national holiday?
Yes, along with the NCAA Basketball Championship, much of March Madness, and the BCS Championship game. We also have regional holidays, such as an NASCAR Cup race in the south.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I've been unable to find it in text, but here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA5v2eZ5ZZE
people with the skin color in between RGB value of 0,0,0 to 255,255,255. Lets RIOT!
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
At least in the UKoGBaNI?
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Anyone else think they were talking about American football and the University of Kentucky before they opened the link?
Actually we have a kickoff which has to happen at the beginning of each half and after someone scores.
The "optional" plays are:
Punting on fourth down which is the norm unless the coach is confident that a first down can be achieved, or when he want to make a...
Field goal attempt which scores the team 3 points instead of the customary 6 points for a touchdown.
Extra point attempt after the team scores a touchdown. This is down often unless the coach thinks that it's worth the risk to attempt a two-point conversion.
American football gets its name from the type of ball not from the ball making contact with the player's feet. But as evidence above, the football making contact with a players foot isn't that rare of an event.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Us Brits invented Baseball to, you know.
First there was the huge mess about the guy saying he was going to blow up the airport, now this guy for being offensive.
Guys, it's fucking twitter, it's the equivalent of the writing on the bathroom stalls. FFS, stop taking it seriously.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
How does one play a game of Football without that "optional game play" element known as the kickoff?
You could throw the ball instead. However, I think they were referring to the after-the-touchdown kick through the goalposts.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Wow. Who or what did he "incite" to justify the "inciting racial hatred" charge? I don't see him inciting anyone, just being a glib moron.
And I thought we Canadians were sensitive. It seems the UK is just out to legally discriminate against loud-mouthed idiots, as if burying the problem will solve it. Good luck with that.
France banning multiple Muslim practices in public. The UK jailing someone for tweeting something offensive.
When did these allegedly enlightened, first world countries start taking cues about "freedom" from Myanmar? Or, did the freedom of expression ever really exist there in the first place, and the power of the Internet is more readily exposing their countries' lack of true freedom of expression?
Either way, this is a powerful lesson of how important the 1st Amendment truly is - and how important it is to protect it at all costs... even if you do "hate Illinois Nazis".
As for the importance of our respective footballs, is the championship game of your football season essentially a national holiday?
In both cases spectators lose all sense of control and revert to hunter/gather instincts. Witness sports bars / super-bowl parties in the US, and the riots etc elsewhere.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Us Brits...
We Brits! For god's sake man, use the Queen's English!
Go ahead, try to jail me for that, you peeler wanks.
First day of hunting season is a holiday. I swear they try and schedule elections on those days too!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
My town is nicknamed "a drinking town with a football problem" and Saturday afternoons in the fall is like some sort of religious cult. The icons are everywhere, man. It's the same in any university city, really - the rest of the city is drenched in the colors and dripping with the mascot. Cheering for another team is considered blasphemy and wearing the wrong colors on a game day will probably get you burned at the steak (or at the very least harassed and heckled a little bit.)
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
I dont want to sound cynical but is free speech really just a concept nowadays? When will our erosion of rights end? Are we slowly creeping towards a state where we will get so fed up we revolt? I guess the majoriy always wins and thats sad when its the majority being denied and they dont even realise it. I guess in a world with billions 1 guy or a 1000 guys or whatever the minority is it doesnt matter as long as its not you. Maybe thats whats wrong with democracy. It doesnt cater for minorities too. Anyways juat my 2c
No doubt the guy is a douche, but I'm not seeing the racism... lots of trolling, sure, but how the hell is "Fuck [person], he's dead" racist? Is it racism to (apparently, quite strongly) dislike someone who is black, rather than BECAUSE he's black?
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -
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.
What did he tweet? I can't find any news articles saying what he said. Are these it mentioned on the Huffingtonpost or are there more tweets?
Let's say there is absolutely no difference between saying whatever he said online and saying it outloud. If he were to have said his comments outloud in to a bunch of people, and if it's true that he was trying to get people to commit a crime, is that really protected by free speech? I mean, is he conspiring with other people to commit a crime or just ranting?
And this is the Internet. How do you tell if someone is joking or not?
apparently get you imprisoned and kicked out of school just short of graduating.
I wonder what would of happened if he had just walked up to dude and hit him with a stick or thrown a rock at him?
Probably be graduating and paying a small fine, or a few days in jail.
Be seeing you...
"We hope this case will serve as a warning to anyone who may think that comments made online are somehow beyond the law."
oh that's right, because we believe that no matter how offensive a person might be, they have a right to express themselves without fear of legal retaliation. on the other hand, it would be nice to see gingrich behind bars. if this Liam Stacey asshole made slanderous remarks, that would be different. but he's just another drunk, racist moron. par for the human course of events, as it always was. using intolerance to prove that intolerance is wrong is _____________.
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
I played rugby as a kid and never stared at any mans butt. That's only Am Foot.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
How come they haven't cited the actual comments? I would think that a comment that can lead to more than 50 days in prison would be of public interest, no? After all, reading the actual comments are essential to form an independent opinion about the story.
Those explanations are common, but not necessarily true.
Indeed, the term "football" may have either come from the fact that feet could be used to progress the ball, or because it was played on foot. It is not known which is true, though. The one thing that can EASLY be dismissed, though, is that football means that ONLY the feet can progress the ball, given that even some of the precursors to soccer/association football allowed players to use their hands, as well.
Rather, back in the early 1800's, the term "football" was simply a generic name of an entire class of sports, but as time progressed, and these ball games spread throughout the world, different places adopted different rules. Today, the most common variants are Association Football (soccer), Rugby Football, American Football and Australian Rules Football, though there are many others being played as well.
American football was developed largely in New England and southern Quebec, where elements of Rugby football were adopted to make it a "running game" rather than a "kicking" game. It wasn't until the late 1800's that American football distinguished itself from other forms, when Walter Camp included rules on the line of scrimmage and later limited the number of downs. As a result of his rules, the utility of kicking the ball diminished greatly - to the point where there are typically only two players who kick the ball on a given team, and the fair catch kick, while still in the rules, has been attempted three times in the last 20 years, and there has not been a successful attempt since 1976.
As for the importance of our respective footballs, is the championship game of your football season essentially a national holiday?
Given that we have 38 of them every year, this might not be feasible...
I played rugby as a kid and never stared at any mans butt. That's only Am Foot.
Only because you had your head squeezed between two of them!
But I really don't think you should be imprisoned just for being a racist.
It is not illegal to be a racist and that is not what he was jailed for. One can choose to not associate with people of other races and that is fine. It is illegal to use speech that incites racial hatred, a form of speech that is not even protected in the US. Freedom of speech is not absolute there are types of speech that are unprotected. Hate speech is one of those types of unprotected speech.
We also have no idea what was actually said. It could have been innocuous like "he is such a faker: It could have been much worse like "Let the n***** die. J***** b****** should be allowed on our pitches anyway". There is a line between trolling and hate speech and in the eyes of the law he crossed it and is being held accountable.
Slander and libel are handled in the civil courts. If I say, Beckhem can't play the game of soccer, Mr. Beckham can sue me. Fire in a crowded theater is immediately dangerous, accent on immediate. Advertising is commerce.
I'm not saying you're wrong. At all. But our First Amendment says Congress shall make no law ... abridging the Freedom of Speech. It's only these incidents that illuminate differences for us.
As for the penalty, from this side of the pond jailing and getting kicked out of school for being a drunk dick on Twitter, I see that as excessive.
As for the importance of our respective footballs, is the championship game of your football season essentially a national holiday?
Back when I lived in Brazil, during a World Cup business and school would close and let employees / students go home before every Brazil game!
Yes, soccer is considered much more important elsewhere than football is here.
Banning speech for being offensive is a dangerous precedent. This is what Orwell was warning about, because "offensive" covers speech of many different types, including political speech.
I can see banning some kinds of speech or expression. Pedophilia. Nuclear bomb instructions. The home address and security system code of a cheerleader. Your tax return. Your passwords. Your credit card numbers.
Despite all the blather about how "free" we are in democracy, we're seeing people being put in jail for expressing an opinion.
That is a sure sign that we as a culture are falling just like Rome did.
Futurist Traditionalism
Speaking and thinking are not actionable items for criminal prosecution.
When they become so, you are living in a tyranny.
Whether your chains be of the worst kind made of a rusted iron which grinds against your bones like in North Korea, or they be made of Gold and tinsel like they are in Great Britain, tyranny has come to your country.
The West seems to be under a dark cloud since what I would call a very nice and very convient "incident" of 911, which the deaths of a few thousand people, are now paving the way to enslave the world under a new tyranny "for everyones safety" by a few elite politicians and bankers.
911 was a tragedy for sure.
But the complete destruction of the free world as the result of it, isn't a tragedy, it is a new dark age for man kind.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 29
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Wrong football. Reread the parent and grandparents' posts. ;P
The UK has been trying to beat the world to 1984 for a long time now - maybe China will win but the UK trying hard.
The UK lacks the protections of many other nations; they don't have free speech. The only good side is that when you "slander" McDonalds their legal system is more fair and a couple of people can spend their afternoons beating back the megacorporate censorship without going broke; in the USA corporate terrorism is the name of the game-- nobody dares go up against them and they get people to change at the mere thought of being a target (that is those who are terrorized by them.) No, it doesn't take a bomb to make some action terrorism.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Benefit: Rush Limbaugh would probably have been imprisoned for life the first day his show broadcast.
Hmm... boy that's a tough call. On the other hand, I probably wouldn't be able to get away with calling Rush a fat sweaty mongoloid over there, either...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I hate to be an offensive tw*t, but I misread that.
For one, regular free and fair elections that decide our government. Having a constitutional monarch makes us no less of a democracy. I have little doubt that if a majority of people in the UK favoured abolition of the monarchy, it would happen.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sorry, no, he should not be kicked out of school "just for saying nasty things". The school can put its halo on and claim "all comments are those of students and he will be reprimanded". But don't kick him out, because that's financial fraud.
"Let's charge you 200,000 pounds for your education, then use any cheap excuse not even to give you the lousy slip of paper at the end."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Actually, statements of the Crown Prosecutor for the region were statements that pretty clearly indicated their concern was with the deterrence effect, which would suggest that the sole concern was definitely not whether he really deserved all that happened to him because he was a drunk asshole.
"We hope this case will serve as a warning to anyone who may think that comments made online are somehow beyond the law."
I actually disagree with the getting kicked out of school notion more than the liability notion. I could see a misdemeanor for hate speech, so long as there's no misdemeanor if it's political hate speech, but schools are supposed to be places where you value the free exchange of ideas even more than the content of those ideas. At a school, someone using hate speech once or twice should be condemned, and the person should be spoken with, but the person shouldn't be expelled the first time they're a drunken ass.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
A real crime needs both an aggressor (the initiator of coercion) and a victim (the recipient of coercion). The real crime should be perfectly clear by now. The victim is the insensitive asshole, and the aggressor is government.
Post-WW2, we live in modern regulatory states. These penalize, and sometimes criminalize, regulatory infractions. Deliberate failure to pay taxes, for example, or deliberately structuring your transactions to avoid anti-money-laundering techniques, or driving a vehicle without a license.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
You can actually place lots of limits on free expression, but there are also very strong lines they cannot cross. So the government can't (usually) censor your march down main street based on the idea you're marching for, but they can do it if you're going to interfere with traffic.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
The Guardian was not prevented from reporting what was said in Parliament. The Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 ensures that such publication is protected.
What happened had nothing to do with the government. The Guardian came into possession of a legally privileged document that had been produced at the request of Trafigura. Trafigura then went to court to argue that The Guardian should not be allowed to publish the document, or any details which would allow a person to establish the details of the case because to do so would be damaging (and because it was a legally privileged document). When a Parliamentary question was tabled to be asked about the contents of the report, lawyers acting for Trafigura threatened The Guardian with legal action if it reported on what was said. Following a vast amount of negative media attention, including of discussion of this in Parliament (see: Streisand effect), the solicitors withdrew that threat, which was in any event absurd given the aforementioned Act.
This all happened in the space of a month, had nothing to do with the government, and has left courts, companies and lawyers in no doubt that such injunctions are unacceptable.
Magistrates Courts were not an invention of the Blair or Brown governments. For offences like theft and assault where there is a prospect of a more serious sentence being imposed, a person may choose to have their case heard in the Crown Court (where there would be a jury), or this may happen automatically if the Magistrates Court feels they may lack sufficient sentencing powers to deal with the case (ie. to imprison for more than 6 months or fine more than £5000).
I think most people think the current system works quite well.
A republic is a nation governed by laws. A democracy is a form of mob rule. It is possible to have a democracy without freedom of speech, when laws and rights are not respected. "...and to this REPUBLIC for which it stands..."
Either way, the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom
There is no real democracy without freedom of speech. When you aren't allowed to discuss your point of view, how are you going to discuss politics?
There is a huge difference between discussing a political point of view and inciting others to commit violent crimes. This is where the US seems to miss the point completely. The important concept is freedom of conscience and to discuss that with others NOT that you should be free to say whatever you want whenever you want. If your speech impacts the health and wellbeing of others (e.g. making threatening phone calls) then you should expect similar consequences to physical actions with the same impact...after all speech is a physical action.
More like out and out racist.. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100147319/top-banter-liam-stacey-is-an-idiot-thats-punishment-enough-for-his-fabrice-muamba-tweets/ I'm sorry, maybe jail is a bit harsh, but two things: 1) If you had said that in public then there is a good chance you would be jailed. 2) He was chucked off is degree course because he is now an inmate at his local prison - not for being racist. I'm all for freedom of speech and keeping big brother out of the interwebs but.. If you are stupid enough to say something like that then you are probably stupid enough to make your identity known.
How does one play a game of Football without that "optional game play" element known as the kickoff?
You could throw the ball instead. However, I think they were referring to the after-the-touchdown kick through the goalposts.
But there's no reason to opt out of the point-after kick. I think they were referring to punts and field goal attempts, which are optional.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
No, you don't take inciting racial hatred seriously. Britain is just ant-White and anti-Christian. No Muslim clerics calling for Christians and British soldiers to be killed have been jailed, instead they get big welfare checks (Abu Hamza comes to mind). No Blacks in Britain are jailed for their constant, grinding anti-White rhetoric. Or Tweets. Or Facebook posts. Overtly threatening violence.
Lets get real. The guy was jailed because the soccer player was BLACK. Black and Muslim are privileged, First Class subjects. Whites are third or fourth class, basically serf levels.
That's the flaw of "anti-racism" which is just anti-White bigotry. It exalts Blacks (above all) and Muslims to special privileges, endorses anti-White rhetoric and violence, and brutally makes examples of Whites who complain or don't like ugly racism directed at them and respond in kind.
You can't stop people from drinking, or taking drugs, or being racist. Let me assure you that Racism among Black people (directed mostly at Whites) is sky-high and brutal. So too among Muslims. All you've done is convince every non-elite White person of how unfair your system is. Because you never punish Blacks or Muslims, just Whites. Its Animal Farm all over again.
Sounds like the tyrants running england are racist. They hate the white people there and are obviously trying to replace them via immigration. The native whites are smarter and harder to enslave than the immigrants that are available to replace the peons with.
Otherwise, explain why these arabs didn't get jail time for their racist physical attack on a native white: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8939276/Mercy-for-the-drunk-Muslim-girl-gang-who-attacked-woman.html.
And yet a native white gets jail time for a emotional attack on some alien immigrant.
English people do not know how to spell. According to them, obsession about correct spelling is a unique an puzzling American thing.
And before anyone asks, I am referring to the misspelling of "too".
What's the difference between a Sunday and a holiday again?
Homer: There's the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power way.
Bart: Isn't that the wrong way?
Homer: Yes, but faster!
The law against incitement to racial hatred was passed by Margaret Thatcher's government in 1986.
Making the comments is fine. Publishing the comments to a few million people is the criminal offense. What reason could this guy possibly have had for talking to millions of people? That's right, none.
So much like anyone who talks to millions of people, this guy instantly became a public figure -- because millions of people listened -- and so immediately loses a whole whack of rights -- including his own privacy and the right to say what he pleases in his own home.
So it makes perfect sense, and is perfectly justified. You get to say whatever you like about whomever you'd like...to your friends in the privacy of your own home, and to a random stranger sitting next to you at the ball game. That right does not extend to the blimp over the field.
It's that simple.
Of course he was refering to punts and field goals and the extra point kick. And it's true you could play an entire game of football without any of them happening.
That doesn't change the fact that you *have* to kick the football at the very start of the game (and again at the start of the second half). Throwing the ball at that point is against the rules.
in the UK. just ask Lipstadt, she had to spend millions of dollars in court to defend herself against a lunatic named David Irving, a "historian" who thinks that Hitler was not involved in Krystallnacht.
in Australia, we have the first defamation case over the internet against a US financial journal for pointing out that Joseph Gutnick is really not a very nice person, and in fact does many many naughty, naughty things.
are not impressed. i mean, these fucking UK govt assholes want to 'save the world from racism', but when it comes to their foreign policy, they have no problem keeping the system in place where dictatorial asswipes control vast swaths of the planet for the benefit of a few hedge funds and investment banks . its incredibly racist.
in the US would be arrested under this bullshit law? free speech means you can shit all over anyone you want to, any time. its part of why we split from the Uk, so that the government would stop murdering people as 'enemies of the state' simply because they mouthed off at some official who was a corrupt jackass.
the UK is a racist country run by old white men.
the US has freedom of speech and a black president.
We even had a black man run one of our shitty banks that collapsed (Bank of America).
oh well. whatever. in the UK i guess i would be arrested for 'slander and libel'.
That statement is somewhat misleading. That statement implies that the British people, not Americans, invented baseball and the Americans didn't.
The American people in the 1750-1800s were, for all intents and purposes, British. The British "invented America". They were pretty much the one and the same for a long time.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
and proabalby AU too... really you guys are beyond out of hand these days. About the only person I can see enjoying it there now is Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld.
European Convention on Human Rights - Article 10 - incorporated in into the UK by the Human Rights Act 1998 s6
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
I am only a student, and while quite libertarian, would point out that a democratic society can only really function if people are not advocating for each others death. That said the magistrates' courts tend to churn out convictions without due process in a some what haphazard way I gather.
Don't worry. We Americans won't let you it if you tweet about how rad you are going to party in America. And how you will paint the town red.
IT is not to be thought of that the flood
Of British freedom, which, to the open sea
Of the world's praise, from dark antiquity
Hath flow'd, 'with pomp of waters, unwithstood,'
Roused though it be full often to a mood
Which spurns the check of salutary bands, —
That this most famous stream in bogs and sands
Should perish; and to evil and to good
Be lost for ever. In our halls is hung
Armoury of the invincible Knights of old:
We must be free or die, who speak the tongue
That Shakespeare spake; the faith and morals hold
Which Milton held.—In everything we are sprung
Of Earth's first blood, have titles manifold.
As for the importance of our respective footballs, is the championship game of your football season essentially a national holiday?
Essentially, yes. It is an event that even if you are uninterested in the event itself, you often find yourself at a watching party (many go just to watch the advertisements during breaks). In some areas, local churches either close for the afternoon/evening or arrange for public viewing licenses to serve the community. Restaurants that might not normally be considered sports bars suddenly have televisions and local electronics stores tend to make adjustments to their returns policies for large tv sets at this time of year. The winning team usually gets a parade in its own city (a more official holiday).
The UK does have a freedom of expression see the article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Article_10_-_expression just that it doesn't mean you can be an asshole. As the UK/EU prison rate is no where near the US rate it must be working. On the other hand try mentioning the word bomb on a security line in the land of the free whilst you are waiting to be gate raped. Perhaps your reciting the constitution and bill of rights will keep your mind of the proceedings as they spread your ass cheeks.
or is it illegal to read too
The Glorious Revolution was 1688. Close enough though
I assume that the Premier League has a championship game every season. Does any British person want to comment on whether everyone assumes that everyone will show up to work drunk the day after that?
We also have regional holidays, such as an NASCAR Cup race in the south.
Yeah, I don't get this one. I worked with some people in Pennsylvania last year who didn't want to schedule anything on the Monday following the three February holidays: Presidents' Day, Super Bowl Sunday, and the Daytona 500. I grew up 200 miles east of there (in NJ) and never heard of anyone "celebrating" for a NASCAR race.
Different strokes, I guess.
I guess as Americans we don't understand not having as much freedom of speech so we need to be try and realize that on the other side of the ocean there are a lot more rules. It's times like these that I'm appreciative of he freedom we have.
The UK legal system has lost its fucking mind.
In Reason We Trust
Who the hell decided that it would be an appropriate use of public funding to hold a trial for some asshole who said something racist on the internets? Because seriously, if they wanted to uphold that for every birt who does, they'd be broke within a week. Also, they'd run out of prison space real quick and need a new country... hey, this is sounding really familiar.
So much for free speech. Then again, Twitter and Farcebook are full of social retards and narcissists with no idea their activity is being actively monitored.
Drunken tweets aren't anything to be proud of, but neither are attempts to justify the type of heavy-handed punishment meted-down for them.
The latter I find actually significantly more embarrassing.
What about all those uppity colonists in the 1770's-1780s? On this side of the Atlantic, we call that the "Revolutionary War". I don't know how Brits view that historically, but enough people died over it that it would seem it should count.
Its NOT a free country, and we dont have freedom of speech... got that ? good. next question..
Should he have been charged? Maybe, maybe not. But the option was always open to him to plead not guilty, and go to trial. I suspect that he would not have been convicted.
Whether a custodial sentence is appropriate is entirely another matter, but that really is a side issue.
That's crazy, the judge is soooooo wrong.
You want your land back? Come and get it! Bring your biggest guns! Oh... Wait... You don't have guns. Well... Umm... Your biggest knife then! Oh... Umm... Yeah... They banned knives. Well then bring whatever Section. 10892.89, Article 30, paragraph 42(b) of your CONSTITUTION allows
Doesn't matter if the magistrates churn out convictions with or without due process *in this instance* as the guy pleaded guilty.
France banning multiple Muslim practices in public.
There's something profoundly ironic about people defending the freedom for certain sects of Islam to oppress women (which is what the veil is all about). They always have the option of moving to country where it's considered acceptable (mandatory).
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I really don't understand why anyone should be able to be put in jail for saying anything, whether racially insensitive or appearance sensitive (you damn ugly fool!) or whatever else. You can't measure how someone feels as a result of being insulted and, to a degree, it is the receiving persons choice how offended they choose to get. If they want to pursue a civil case on that basis then they should be able to but it should be dealt with privately, not by the state.
The state should only concern itself with physical harm being exerted between people and property crime. When you start trying to put people in jail for hurting someone's feelings it goes too far - eventually it will reach the stage where everyone is scared to break off relationships or friendships because they might hurt someone's feelings thereby opening themselves to state prosecution.
No matter what someone says or how stupid it is perceived to be, they should not go to jail for it and the state has no place in dealing with the issue.
That's a very scary precedent. 0.0