Green Web Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 There is free speech, if this particular individual hadn't added the racist element to cause widespread offence he would still be Tweeting today. No there isn't free speech. Free speech means people can say all kinds of crazy, controversial and offensive things, thats exactly how free speech works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 But the law can restrain those selfsame things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Web Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 But the law can restrain those selfsame things. Which is why we don't have free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 So? No-one ever thought that we did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frededwards Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Compare and contrast: “A student who admitted posting racially offensive comments on Twitter about footballer Fabrice Muamba has been jailed for 56 days. Swansea University student Liam Stacey, 21, from Pontypridd, admitted inciting racial hatred over remarks about the Bolton Wanderers player, who collapsed during a FA Cup tie at Tottenham.” “A Muslim extremist who burned replica poppies on the anniversary of Armistice Day has been fined £50 after being found guilty of a public order offence. Emdadur Choudhury, 26, a member of Muslims Against Crusades (MAC), was guilty of a "calculated and deliberate" insult to the dead and those who mourn them when he burned two large plastic poppies during a two-minute silence on November 11,” We are all equal under the law. Really? Which one caused more widespread offence? Whilst I have every sympathy for the footballer and his family, the young man is now on the mend, whereas 400+ families have buried what was left of their offspring. That seems to have been forgotten by a judiciary that seem only too keen to be swayed by the “karaoke sympathy” that has been expressed endlessly by the media since Muamba’s collapse. BBC Radio 5 don’t seem to have been able to let five minutes pass without mentioning it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Compare and contrast: “A student who admitted posting racially offensive comments on Twitter about footballer Fabrice Muamba has been jailed for 56 days. Swansea University student Liam Stacey, 21, from Pontypridd, admitted inciting racial hatred over remarks about the Bolton Wanderers player, who collapsed during a FA Cup tie at Tottenham.” “A Muslim extremist who burned replica poppies on the anniversary of Armistice Day has been fined £50 after being found guilty of a public order offence. Emdadur Choudhury, 26, a member of Muslims Against Crusades (MAC), was guilty of a "calculated and deliberate" insult to the dead and those who mourn them when he burned two large plastic poppies during a two-minute silence on November 11,” We are all equal under the law. Really? Which one caused more widespread offence? Whilst I have every sympathy for the footballer and his family, the young man is now on the mend, whereas 400+ families have buried what was left of their offspring. That seems to have been forgotten by a judiciary that seem only too keen to be swayed by the “karaoke sympathy” that has been expressed endlessly by the media since Muamba’s collapse. BBC Radio 5 don’t seem to have been able to let five minutes pass without mentioning it. They don't appear to be the same offence. Maybe the comparison should be instead given to the infamous 'woman on the train' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 No there isn't free speech. Free speech means people can say all kinds of crazy, controversial and offensive things, thats exactly how free speech works. Yep, that's the kind of free speech I want and it's the sort they have in America, hence the Westboro Baptists that someone linked to above. I really don't think a racist tweet should be a police matter. It wouldn't be in the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 He'd have been inside within 24 hours if he tried that in the USA. Charged with what exactly? The American constitution allows free speech, even racist, sexist, hate, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 There have been a number of cases recently where individuals trolled, leaving vile messages on 'in memoriam' sites set up to commemorate the recently dead. Such messages cause huge offence to the bereaved, and in the cases I've read about those found guilty have recieved a custodial sentence. I agree with a jail term as I can't imagine how hurtful it must be to relatives reading such filth, IMO psychological torment is often worse than being physically attacked . Those responsible are social retards probably in need of some sort of therapy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Yep, that's the kind of free speech I want and it's the sort they have in America, hence the Westboro Baptists that someone linked to above. I really don't think a racist tweet should be a police matter. It wouldn't be in the USA. Yeah, those Westboro Baptists are such a good example of why our law is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.