Fridge chutney
Full Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2016
- Messages
- 8,961
Sympathy for an adult who makes the DECISION to be racist is a bizarre take.
Not anything no.So out of interest, would you be comfortable for anyone to say anything without any legal consequences?
It is an interesting conversation I think, my take is free speech should be hugely respected in the sense it shouldn't be abused, it doesn't give anyone the right to say horrible racist things without punishment, hate speech shouldn't be tolerated.
I guess no society is truly free because one can't go around stealing or murdering without consequences.Not anything no.
But my point was it's just absurd to say racially abusing Rashford is 'free speech but with consequences'. Because if a state imprisons you for saying something it's clearly ridiculous to try and say that still counts as free speech.
Racially abusing Rashford in this instance is classed as hate speech which is against the law. Where a society draws the line at defining what is and isn't hate speech is a different issue.
Racism is classified as hate speech, not free speech.Not anything no.
But my point was it's just absurd to say racially abusing Rashford is 'free speech but with consequences'. Because if a state imprisons you for saying something it's clearly ridiculous to try and say that still counts as free speech.
Racially abusing Rashford in this instance is classed as hate speech which is against the law. Where a society draws the line at defining what is and isn't hate speech is a different issue.
Might add to that, one of them has a Nobel peace prize.Any hint...
Why are Obama and Bush free after commiting war crimes?
From what i read prison isnt exactly race friendly. At least in the USHopefully it's the last, but not the last, if you know what I mean... deserved nothing less the little bastard. Hopefully a few lads in the cells will teach him a valuable lesson in respect.
Too many times - I see freedom of speech being espoused while completely ignoring the importance of responsibility. One can have the freedom to speak but have to also be responsible for the consequences as defined by society, and by extension, the law. Abuse, racism, malingering can be very divisive to society.Not anything no.
But my point was it's just absurd to say racially abusing Rashford is 'free speech but with consequences'. Because if a state imprisons you for saying something it's clearly ridiculous to try and say that still counts as free speech.
Racially abusing Rashford in this instance is classed as hate speech which is against the law. Where a society draws the line at defining what is and isn't hate speech is a different issue.
A kid can't be sent to jail though. X hrs of Volunteer work to help the needy would be a good rehabilitative consequence IMHO.I don't agree with this jail time but that's just me. At this rate you will have to lock up every kid on the street that yells faggot for example.
Not anything no.
But my point was it's just absurd to say racially abusing Rashford is 'free speech but with consequences'. Because if a state imprisons you for saying something it's clearly ridiculous to try and say that still counts as free speech.
Racially abusing Rashford in this instance is classed as hate speech which is against the law. Where a society draws the line at defining what is and isn't hate speech is a different issue.
That's because there are no specific offenses for hate speech so no route to prosecution other than via the malicious communications act. Or the public order act if it's not based on social media.This actually wasnt a charge related to hate speech. He was charged and pled guilty on sending a grossly offensive message prosecutable by section 127 of the communications act. Laws regarding hate speech actually werent applied at all.
Generally the police investigate incidents that are reported to them. They aren't going to trawl through twitter looking for racist tweets originating from the UK.So are they now going to arrest every person on Twitter who racially abuses someone? Because there’s not enough jails in the world for that, so how do they choose who goes to jail and who doesn’t ? What’s the abuse meter for it ? Until they actually take peoples I.D and start permanently banning people who are abusive it won’t stop. Also hitting people financially will hurt too. I don’t think putting people in prison is sustainable enough.
another point here is a majority of people who write abuse like this on the internet are probably kids. Not all but a lot.
Well, I suppose you either agree with the current justice system or you don't. They make laws and punish people who break them. How effective that is at preventing crime is debatable, if you ask me.I haven't looked into it but I would be very doubtful it did anything positive.
Cheers. Yeah I'm not sure it is a step in the right direction, they've basically given a teenager a criminal record for life in the hopes it will make people less racist online.
But it's not an absolute right, even in the US (though admittedly broader than in most countries).Yeah, I know. I'm commenting as an American on a situation that is different from what we have here.
Even funnier the fact that he refused to use the word when talking to the police was used against himMakes me laugh that his lawyer said he had only heard the slur in rap songs and didn't know it was bad. Guy used the N word ffs.
Which is just plain silly because racism is classed as hate speech, at least it is in the UK and most of Europe anyway.The “free speech” argument has solidified itself as the default defence for bigotry and racism.
Agree with your post and it is not just UK who have those laws. However this (bold) is where I see the problem. Where do we start and where do we end? I asked earlier about if this should only apply to celeberties because it is not common to put people in jail for being out of line or being ignorant. Twitter and social media are full of hate speech and I'm not sure it is even possible to put all those people in jail. So were do we draw a line? Because we can't or shouldn't make any difference between any of those groups.Racism is classified as hate speech, not free speech.
There is a wide distinction between the two:
Free speech allows people to discuss their beliefs, thoughts and ideas openly and without consequence if done peacefully. Free speech is a good thing.
Hate speech is aimed at a specific group such as race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc and is intended to abuse, harass and threaten people. It incites violence in many cases too, thus it is banned in public places in the UK.
You make a valid point, you can't jail everyone who is guilty of hate speech because there simply isn't enough room.Agree with your post and it is not just UK who have those laws. However this (bold) is where I see the problem. Where do we start and where do we end? I asked earlier about if this should only apply to celeberties because it is not common to put people in jail for being out of line or being ignorant. Twitter and social media are full of hate speech and I'm not sure it is even possible to put all those people in jail. So were do we draw a line? Because we can't or shouldn't make any difference between any of those groups.
There is also sometimes a gray zone between what is hate and what is free although in this case with Rashford that I have read there is no gray zone.
There's absolutely no clear distinction though. What about criticism of religion? This is often classified as hate speech (or islamophobia for example). Is it? Not in my opinion.Which is just plain silly because racism is classed as hate speech, at least it is in the UK and most of Europe anyway.
There is a clear distinction between the two terms. I can't understand how people fail to recognize that.
Context is everything.There's absolutely no clear distinction though. What about criticism of religion? This is often classified as hate speech (or islamophobia for example). Is it? Not in my opinion.
Or what about J.K. Rowling saying a woman has a womb? A lot of people were calling that hate speech. Same with Jimmy Carr and his gypsy joke. Where's the line exactly?
The preposterous illusion that hate speech is easily defined is what makes this type of "justice" very dangerous imo. It can very easily be used as a pretext to silence any kind of dissent.
so any incidence reported will get arrested? For every footballer or athlete?Generally the police investigate incidents that are reported to them. They aren't going to trawl through twitter looking for racist tweets originating from the UK.
If you make a report and a crime has been deemed to have been committed the police will investigate as far as I'm aware. You don't have to be famous. I'm a little confused though. Are you trying to suggest Rashford got special treatment or we that we shouldn't bother because there are so many incidents?so any incidence reported will get arrested? For every footballer or athlete?