Man jailed for racially abusing Marcus Rashford on twitter

[Solius]

So if a Russian criticises Putin and is immediately arrested and then thrown in a gulag a week later, that’s still free speech?

No because those consequences aren’t right. Politicians should be allowed to be questioned and held accountable for things. Racial abuse should never be tolerated and therefore the punishments fits the crime. He was free to say it.

 

[Cassidy]

So if a Russian criticises Putin and is immediately arrested and then thrown in a gulag a week later, that’s still free speech?

What a nonsense arguement

 

[Carolina Red]

Yeah, I know. I'm commenting as an American on a situation that is different from what we have here.

I get that, but just prepare yourself for a lot more responses pointing what I said out to you.

 

[big rons sovereign]

Chat shit get banged up.

 

[JuriM]

So if people criticize and call him out for his poor performances, you're saying they should be sent to jail?

Racism = Criticism in your mind?

 

[Random Task]

So if a Russian criticises Putin and is immediately arrested and then thrown in a gulag a week later, that’s still free speech?

Those two things are not even remotely comparable, mate.

 

[sullydnl]

There are always limitations on free speech. The only question is where you draw the line, especially from a legal perspective. And I see no reason that a football fan calling a football player a "fecking stupid n****r" for missing a penalty should be tolerated.

Discussion around this issue tends to take place in the abstract but in terms of specific hard examples there's no real argument for allowing people to racially abuse others that way, either in person or online. Wherever the line is drawn, that should be on the wrong side of it.

 

[Meino]

What is shocking is that people still dont know the difference between hate speech and freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech dont give you the right to racially abuse someone, that makes it hate speech which is illegal.
I do not believe that people will be jailed on most cases but it will still give them a fine and end up on their criminal record which will eventually make the racist donuts think twice before they spew out their racist trash.

 

[big rons sovereign]

There are always limitations on free speech. The only question is where you draw the line, especially from a legal perspective. And I see no reason that a football fan calling a football player a "fecking stupid n****r" for missing a penalty should be tolerated.

Discussion around this issue tends to take place in the abstract but in terms of specific hard examples there's no real argument for allowing people to racially abuse people that way, either in person or online. Wherever the line is drawn, that should be on the wrong side of it.

Could easily have just called him a useless cnut and not been sat in jail tonight.
It's crazy how people have to resort to racism for the slightest of reasons.

 

[hobbers]

Those two things are not even remotely comparable, mate.

Of course they are in the context of what I was quoting.

If you say something and are prosecuted by the state for saying it, it wasn't free speech. The "moral value" of whatever was said is irrelevant.

 

[Ayoba]

Fantastic ruling!

 

[Berbasbullet]

[/QUOTE]

Of course they are in the context of what I was quoting.

If you say something and are prosecuted for saying it, it wasn't free speech. The "moral value" of whatever was said is irrelevant.

You're comparing a judgement in the UK regarding online racist abuse to criticising politician's in Russia which is basically an authoritarian state. Weird comparison to be honest.

 

[hobbers]

You're comparing a judgement in the UK regarding online racist abuse to criticising politician's in Russia which is basically an authoritarian state. Weird comparison to be honest.

No I'm not comparing anything.

I'm saying that if you get arrested for saying something it wasn't free speech. Basic stuff, not sure how it's confused 5 people already.

 

[Random Task]

Of course they are in the context of what I was quoting.

If you say something and are prosecuted by the state for saying it, it wasn't free speech. The "moral value" of whatever was said is irrelevant.

I don't even know why you'd make that comparison, honestly.

 

[donkeyfish]

Yep, totally agree. But look at what Trump did here in the US, with calling the press "the enemy of the people" and saying journalists should be jailed. He took it the next step which was advocating violence against the free press. Look at Putin now, jailing anyone for 15 years if they call this Ukraine war anything but a de-Nazification exercise.

I was in Russia for the World Cup, and as much as I loved my time there, I was well aware that I was in a country where talking shit about the ruler could get me in serious trouble. It's something we take for granted here in the US [I don't know where you're from Sir Donkey of Fish], that we have free speech. It's the right that lets us tell Trump to eat a bag of dicks. It's the right that holds politicians to account. It's the right that shines light into the darkness etc. etc. (cue dramatic music). This 19 year old was an idiot. He did some racist things. Anyone think going to prison is going to lessen anyone's racist beliefs? If anything, he'll find fellow travelers. But again, US prisons are an atrocity, maybe they are a lot nicer in the UK.

There are lots of limits on free speech, it's not absolute. I would be very afraid if someone like Trump were able to get a law like that one passed here.

The land of Fish is actually great, it's compulsory to start every sentence with an anti-hate-speech phrase about donkeyfishes. Otherwise we attack your wing and burn it.

Those two examples have definitely crossed a line in my head, and belongs to the highly problematic category. Likewise, there are other examples where I think it's clear the line is not crossed. Like threats of murder, or say a group of people systematically bullying someone (only with words). Somewhere between those two groups there is a line, and it might be that the current policy sets the line too strict.
It's interesting to reflect on whether power ought to be a factor, whether we should hold person x to a different standard than person y if person x has more power than person y. Like many do in the debates on racism, defining racism as a more severe problem if it comes from a position of power.

Banning e.g. a racist party is problematic, or for that matter a party advocating sharia law, communism or whatever idea they have I think is silly. Then you quickly run into one of these familiar paradoxes in debates on liberty: If I have a political party believing in X, I have the right to rally support for my idea. But if X is already banned, how does a society treat it? Am I morally permitted to use my freedom to oppose it?

 

[Berbasbullet]

No I'm not comparing anything.

I'm saying that if you get arrested for saying something it wasn't free speech. Basic stuff, not sure how it's confused 5 people already.

But it seems like you are confusing free speech with the ability to say whatever you want without consequence. That has never been the case, for example I can't come up to you and say "I am going to beat you up now" because that would be a verbal assault and you would face the consequence of the law, free speech of course has boundaries, and hate speech has always been the other side of that.

 

[90 + 5min]

I don't know exactly what has been said towards Rashford or not but I do think this is a sticky situation. While I think it is right that it should be consequences if rules are broken but jail? For saying something out of line? Words? What I mean with sticky situation is where do we draw line what is offensive or not and do this things only apply to celeberties because I have never heard about someone getting jail for saying something racial in any kind of form. Also, do we have same standards and consenquences if anything is said against any of other sensitive things?

 

[hobbers]

But it seems like you are confusing free speech with the ability to say whatever you want without consequence. That has never been the case, for example I can't come up to you and say "I am going to beat you up now" because that would be a verbal assault and you would face the consequence of the law, free speech of course has boundaries, and hate speech has always been the other side of that.

No there's no confusion. 'No freedom from consequence' obviously doesn't include the consequence of being prosecuted by the state. If you lose your freedom for saying something then what you said wasn't free to say, end of.

If you say something that was legal but resulted in you getting a kicking, or getting fired, etc etc, then it was still free to say.

 

[sullydnl]

I would say this is less a case of "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" and more a case of "freedom of speech doesn't apply to direct racist abuse".

I tend to think of the former logic as applying more to situations where no legal consequences are levelled by the state but someone is nonetheless shunned socially or faces financial/employment consequences.

In this case the state is punishing him for something he wrote, so it is a freedom of speech issue. It's just that the right to free speech isn't absolute and this is rightly an exception to the protection that right provides.

 

[lsd]

Should you be jailed for being racist? Yes

Was he being racist? Yes

 

[PSV]

UK has always been a bit of a weird country hasn't it. Not surprised to see free speech isn't supported over there. The state shouldn't interfere at all in a non-violent matter.

His name is tied to this forever, that's punishment enough. Maybe get his face out there too, then let society decide. Jailing him is a complete waste of resources and will build further resentment.

It's disheartening to see so many people not understand the concept of free speech. If the government can put you in jail for anything that isn't an incitement of violence then you do not have free speech.

 

[Kag]

Good.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

Another case of people claiming to want free speech when what they actually want is the ability to say things without consequences. Free speech existed here because he said it. Doesn’t mean you don’t then get your comeuppance (or c’nuppins as the Caf would say.)

Don't use my comments to advance your own ideas. I never said free speech is absolute. Your argument is not the one I'm making.

 

[robbie81]

So what is the difference between this case and the abuse Muslims faced after 9/11 ( by politicians too) or Russians now? How many empty jail's does the UK have? Even if this guy is a shithouse, I don't like and can't support selective punishment just because it's the popular thing to do now.

 

[NotThatSoph]

UK has always been a bit of a weird country hasn't it. Not surprised to see free speech isn't supported over there. The state shouldn't interfere at all in a non-violent matter.

His name is tied to this forever, that's punishment enough. Maybe get his face out there too, then let society decide. Jailing him is a complete waste of resources and will build further resentment.

It's disheartening to see so many people not understand the concept of free speech. If the government can put you in jail for anything that isn't an incitement of violence then you do not have free speech.

If that's the bar, then free speech has never been a thing anywhere. No one has ever had free speech according to what you're saying.

 

[sullydnl]

UK has always been a bit of a weird country hasn't it. Not surprised to see free speech isn't supported over there. The state shouldn't interfere at all in a non-violent matter.

His name is tied to this forever, that's punishment enough. Maybe get his face out there too, then let society decide. Jailing him is a complete waste of resources and will build further resentment.

It's disheartening to see so many people not understand the concept of free speech. If the government can put you in jail for anything that isn't an incitement of violence then you do not have free speech.

No country has absolute free speech. Absolutists would argue that jailing someone for inciting violence is also an impingement on such. It's just that most rational people recognise that such an impingement is justified. And some countries have more exceptions and restrictions than others while still valuing free speech. But they all have exceptions and restrictions of some kind.

In that context it would be sloppy thinking to frame the the UK as a country that doesn't support free speech versus (for example) the US as a country that does. Because the implication would be that "supporting free speech" means supporting the US's set of exclusions/restrictions around speech (speech inciting violence, speech central to criminal activity, commercial speech, etc.) but no more than that, as if that arbitrary set of exceptions is the standard by which freedom is judged. Where in reality no one country decides or dictates what that acceptable balance between supporting or not supporting free speech is.

 

[Berbasbullet]

So what is the difference between this case and the abuse Muslims faced after 9/11 ( by politicians too) or Russians now? How many empty jail's does the UK have? Even if this guy is a shithouse, I don't like and can't support selective punishment just because it's the popular thing to do now.

Law has always adapted and moved with morals/changes in society.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

No there's no confusion. 'No freedom from consequence' obviously doesn't include the consequence of being prosecuted by the state. If you lose your freedom for saying something then what you said wasn't free to say, end of.

If you say something that was legal but resulted in you getting a kicking, or getting fired, etc etc, then it was still free to say.

Team Hobbers.

 

[I'm David Moyes damnit]

UK has always been a bit of a weird country hasn't it. Not surprised to see free speech isn't supported over there. The state shouldn't interfere at all in a non-violent matter.

His name is tied to this forever, that's punishment enough. Maybe get his face out there too, then let society decide. Jailing him is a complete waste of resources and will build further resentment.

It's disheartening to see so many people not understand the concept of free speech. If the government can put you in jail for anything that isn't an incitement of violence then you do not have free speech.

What an utterly dreadful post. Didn’t think DJ Jeff’s could be topped in that regard, but here we are.

 

[big rons sovereign]

UK has always been a bit of a weird country hasn't it. Not surprised to see free speech isn't supported over there. The state shouldn't interfere at all in a non-violent matter.

His name is tied to this forever, that's punishment enough. Maybe get his face out there too, then let society decide. Jailing him is a complete waste of resources and will build further resentment.

It's disheartening to see so many people not understand the concept of free speech. If the government can put you in jail for anything that isn't an incitement of violence then you do not have free speech.

It's not free speech, it's being a cnut. A racist cnut at that.
And now he's suffering the consequences for his cnutery.

 

[Berbasbullet]

No there's no confusion. 'No freedom from consequence' obviously doesn't include the consequence of being prosecuted by the state. If you lose your freedom for saying something then what you said wasn't free to say, end of.

If you say something that was legal but resulted in you getting a kicking, or getting fired, etc etc, then it was still free to say.

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.

 

[Jericho]

What exactly is the offense that the guy is going to have on his record now? I know he racially abused Rashford, but am I right in presuming the law broken here was more with regard to the fact that he was harassing/abusing someone verbally, and not such that it was racist in nature?

 

[phelans shorts]

My word some of this thread is an absolute car crash

 

[robbie81]

Law has always adapted and moved with morals/changes in society.

Hard to believe when you already knighted Tony Blair this year. It seems more about scoring points in the public eye than actually better society.

 

[sullydnl]

What exactly is the offense that the guy is going to have on his record now? I know he racially abused Rashford, but am I right in presuming the law broken here was more with regard to the fact that he was harassing/abusing someone verbally, and not such that it was racist in nature?

I believe the official charge was "sending a grossly offensive message by a public communication network".

 

[kouroux]

Worked for Trump, didn't it? Just ban the ones he wants to use most.

Trump's high profile so it's not like he'd deliver his messages the same way if he created another or others accounts.
We are talking about someone, in this case, who would still have the possibility of abusing Rashford over and over again

 

[calodo2003]

My word some of this thread is an absolute car crash

Did you really expect anything different?

 

[Fridge chutney]

I reckon this thread will be a disaster in about 17 posts.

I thought you'd be wrong, but you sadly weren't.

 

[phelans shorts]

Did you really expect anything different?

Well, no. It often doesn’t take much pushing for folk to “play devils advocate” by defending racists

 

[Red the Bear]

This wrong but that's my view on most of Europe and probably most of the world's free speech laws so I'll assume most of the users in here agree with it anyway.

I hope he doesn't get a criminal record on his resume because no matter how much of a thick idiotic cnut he had been he still is a teenager so hopefully it doesn't ruin his life too much.