Yorkshire police arrest teenager for Facebook comments.

[andygardener]

I'm afraid I just don't see it; can you clarify which parts of what was said you think fall foul of the law please?

 

What he said in public is clearly a section 4a/5 public order offence. What he said under caution has led the police and CPS to agree it was racially motivated.

[Zamo]

I'm afraid I just don't see it; can you clarify which parts of what was said you think fall foul of the law please?

 

You now can't see all his postings but the allegation is that he singled out his vitriol for British soldiers... which is racist according to the definition provided on the EHRC website.

 

I'm not saying that I agree with the definition because I think it goes too far and will stifle free speech. However, what annoys me just as much as this is the liberal elite coming up with excuses like 'Britain isn't a race so this isn't racism". If this was an EDL member suggesting that pakis should burn in hell then I have to ask would these same people leap to the defence of freedom of speech on the basis that Pakistan isn't a race either? Somehow I think not.

 

Unless there is consistency there is no credibility.

[anywebsite]

So what would the answer be if the words were reversed like I asked?

 

What? Saying all Taliban should die & go to hell? That's official government policy.

[Green Web]

You now can't see all his postings but the allegation is that he singled out his vitriol for British soldiers... which is racist according to the definition provided on the EHRC website.

 

I'm not saying that I agree with the definition because I think it goes too far and will stifle free speech. However, what annoys me just as much as this is the liberal elite coming up with excuses like 'Britain isn't a race so this isn't racism". If this was an EDL member suggesting that pakis should burn in hell then I have to ask would these same people leap to the defence of freedom of speech on the basis that Pakistan isn't a race either? Somehow I think not.

 

Unless there is consistency there is no credibility.

 

Well said Zamo and good to see ya back, when people are deprived of not being allowed to say what they want it only breeds more resentment and hatred towards towards said group, religion, culture, race etc....

 

Simple folk need to speak their minds about things without the branded liberal elite interfering with their PC nonsense.

[Cyclone]

Why shouldnt they..Oh Cyclone say no more usual trolling

 

That's the thing, when you make a suggestion about what a company should be doing, you have to justify why they should do it.

 

I can say why they shouldn't, it's really easy, they have no obligation to do so and it would cost money.

 

Now why should they?

 

How bizarre that you think being challenged to justify a statement is trolling. You do realise that this is a forum for debate right, it's not a soap box for you to make pronouncements that everyone else must just accept.

[Cyclone]

You're confusing two issues. He's very likely been charged with either a section 4a or section 5. Thats for the thing he wrote. Whether it's racially aggrevated or not depends on the reasons behind why he did the thing he's accused of, not that that thing was in itself racist. So what explanation at arrest, under interview or both he's given for doing the thing he's accused of has in this case led the police to believe it was motivated by racism, and the CPS to concur.

If he had any sense he said "no comment" a lot.

I'd like to see someone prove the reason behind a comment without the assistance of the person commenting.

 

So, in a hypothetical example white woman A hit's white woman B in an unprovoked assault. Thats the only publically available information. Under interview she gives the reason for the assault that woman B has an Asian boyfriend which she vehemently disaproves of for racist reasons. She would probably be charged with racially aggrevated common assault, however until the trial it would seem like an odd charge as the only information available in public was one white woman hit another white woman.

Maybe, if under interview she said "no comment" then she'd be a slightly smarter racist though.

[Cyclone]

I think you are wrong on this one Cyclone. Below is a link to the Equalities & Human Rights Commission where you can see their definition.

 

EHRC website

 

According to their definition this is clearly an offence under the RRA.

 

I think this thread does raise an interesting question. Why are people seeking to excuse his offensive behaviour using technicalities?

Because being offensive shouldn't be a crime.

If it was someone being prosecuted for posting about wanting killing pakis dead, then there would rightly be no quarter given. You certainly wouldn't have the liberal elite saying "arghh but Pakistan isn't a race it's a country with many different races so it isn't racist".

 

I do however agree with posters who point out that we are in danger of suppressing free speech by making the causing of offence a crime. I think we are still trying to work out where the line is but what is clear is we need the same line for all.

There's a poster who said yesterday that we should nuke Iran, should we report them to the police for hate speech and expect to see them prosecuted?

[Glamrocker]

That's the thing, when you make a suggestion about what a company should be doing, you have to justify why they should do it.

 

I can say why they shouldn't, it's really easy, they have no obligation to do so and it would cost money.

 

Now why should they?

 

How bizarre that you think being challenged to justify a statement is trolling. You do realise that this is a forum for debate right, it's not a soap box for you to make pronouncements that everyone else must just accept.

And that soap box faces both ways I made a statement and it was you who made the throwaway statement"why should they" so by your own description it seems you made "a pronouncements that everyone else must just accept."

Of course it would cost money,they have plenty and yes they have an obligation, its their money producing web site.

[Cyclone]

You now can't see all his postings but the allegation is that he singled out his vitriol for British soldiers... which is racist according to the definition provided on the EHRC website.

How can a reference to the British military be considered racist? What's the definition that makes it so?

 

I'm not saying that I agree with the definition because I think it goes too far and will stifle free speech. However, what annoys me just as much as this is the liberal elite coming up with excuses like 'Britain isn't a race so this isn't racism". If this was an EDL member suggesting that pakis should burn in hell then I have to ask would these same people leap to the defence of freedom of speech on the basis that Pakistan isn't a race either? Somehow I think not.

 

Unless there is consistency there is no credibility.

If someone posted that the armed taliban should all be killed would there be an outcry about that? Or is it just because he happens to believe it the other way around that it's a problem?

[Cyclone]

And that soap box faces both ways I made a statement and it was you who made the throwaway statement"why should they" so by your own description it seems you made "a pronouncements that everyone else must just accept."

Of course it would cost money,they have plenty and yes they have an obligation, its their money producing web site.

 

You don't even know what a statement is.

 

"They should do this" - that's a statement

 

"Why should they?" - that's a question

 

You don't have to accept a question, you have to answer it to justify your statement. Can you?

 

They have no obligation, neither legal nor moral to take responsibility for the behaviour of adults. In fact in US law they are specifically exempt as a media carrier from being required to do so.

 

What do you think imposed the obligation that means they should censor what is written? (Or, in shorter form, Why should they).