Jump to content

Fabrice Muamba: Racist Twitter user jailed for 56 days


Recommended Posts

He didn't harass them though.

 

Besides, I don't think he's been sentenced for harassment. He's been sentenced for racial insults.

 

It was you talking about harassment, I was just pointing out that he had targeted individuals, which you said he hadn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And punishable by jail-time and a life messed up by a criminal record according to some.

 

Indeed.

 

I know it's not the point you (or I) were making, but even pre-prison sentence/charge his life was possibly messed up. Any employer or friend who typed his name into a search engine would have this pulled up and he'd have to deal with their questions or opinions of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't target them specifically. He was interacting with them already. There is a difference.

 

Again genuinely, please explain. As far as I understand it he made a comment in poor taste (nothing else), someone/people messaged him back and then he replied to some of them individually with racist abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again genuinely, please explain. As far as I understand it he made a comment in poor taste (nothing else), someone/people messaged him back and then he replied to some of them individually with racist abuse.

I don't now how else to explain to you the difference between a heated exchange (with juvenile insults thrown in) and harassment.

 

This man's tweets were neither persistent nor targeted. They were part of some angry exchanges. That is the difference between the mailing people, shouting at black people in the street and this incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote name='opinions4u' timestamp='1332861914' post='540334']

inciting racial hatred

This is where my main concern comes about - surely he was doing racial hatred, not inciting it? Incitement is a very dubious area to be going after convictions or stiffer sentences, much like conspiracy. Regardless of that, I can't quite see how using the medium of Twitter would be different in law from any other - it doesn't have the immediate threat of potential violence that shouting it in the street would be it is surely comparable to some degree to sending a letter. I suspect the main change is that it is quick and easy to tweet, if you set off to write someone a :censored:ty letter you would sober up before you found a stamp. So for me it goes to the heart of whether abuse of that type should be a crime or not, regardless of the medium.

 

I guess it's OK to show the comments (although not the context) Linky"]here?[/url]

 

Anyway, I did a degree in Toleration at totally the wrong time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't now how else to explain to you the difference between a heated exchange (with juvenile insults thrown in) and harassment.

 

This man's tweets were neither persistent nor targeted. They were part of some angry exchanges. That is the difference between the mailing people, shouting at black people in the street and this incident.

alright Mr Stacey isnt it about time you collected your stuff to get ready your 56 days sentence ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who cry for freedom of speech shouldn't be too scared to start with freedom of thought.

 

Racism is a hate crime. Racism is wrong.

I agree.

 

 

Racism is not any crime by my definition.

Unfortunately the law is not based on your definition of racism or hate crimes. You've got an opinion and you're welcome to it.

 

But your wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the law is not based on your definition of racism or hate crimes. You've got an opinion and you're welcome to it.

 

But your wrong.

I am arguing for what should or shouldn't be law in my opinion. Not what is.

 

Racism as a crime is thought crime. I am disgusted with any legal system that outlaws thoughts, or outlaws free speech deriving from those thought unless it directly incites violence or injury.

 

In short, our current legal system with regards this issue is a disgrace.

Edited by PhilStarbucksSilkySkills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't say why though

There's freedom of speech in terms of declaring an injustice and bringing this to the public domain, or voicing an opinion on any given subject, and then there's this which isn't about freedom of speech at all. It's about racism. An idiotic prick now has a criminal record for not thinking before he acted; it was racism and it's a hate crime. It's discriminatory, hateful, divisive, and usually carries a whole load of cultural and historical significance.

 

'Go pick some cotton you wog'

 

I know we live in better times than we did in the 70's and the 80's; some of the things said on prime time television during that period would make your toes curl, so in some respects we've come a long way. These days people keep their racial beliefs to themselves by-and-large and even the BNP try their damnedest to distance themselves from it, however as soon as that opinion becomes vocal it carries weight - he targeted a victim because of his or their perceived membership in a certain social group, and is a hate crime; by law it is an offence. Being a racist is not illegal, acting on that belief is. I'm fine with that and that's the way it should be, there is really no place for this in today's society. If people want to defend a stupid youth who discriminated with historical description a race of people, that's great - but it's not helping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scratch2000uk

Have a look on some youtube comments on videos, there are some vile things said on there, racist, homophobic you name it , it's there. :unsure:

There is no freedom of speech anymore, if some one can be offeneded, no doubt they they will be. :blush:

It's sign of the times, there are many other cases involving racism that don't seem to be dealt with the same way when sentences are dished out, but that's the judicial system. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am arguing for what should or shouldn't be law in my opinion. Not what is.

 

Racism as a crime is thought crime. I am disgusted with any legal system that outlaws thoughts, or outlaws free speech deriving from those thought unless it directly incites violence or injury.

 

In short, our current legal system with regards this issue is a disgrace.

 

Fair enough, your opinions are duly noted. I for one have the opinion that 'I disagree'. Hence a stalemate and we can agree to disagree.

Edited by jimsleftfoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have a look on some youtube comments on videos, there are some vile things said on there, racist, homophobic you name it , it's there. :unsure:

There is no freedom of speech anymore, if some one can be offeneded, no doubt they they will be. :blush:

It's sign of the times, there are many other cases involving racism that don't seem to be dealt with the same way when sentences are dished out, but that's the judicial system. :shock:

 

Perhaps some people should eduacate themselves truly about what free speech is about. It's not about casting insults at your fellow man and getting away with it, its about the ability to question what is going on in the world around you without ending up in a body bag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bloke who racially abused Stan Collymore got 200 hours community service, another 50 hours unpaid work and a fine (plus costs). There was a rumour going round that he had previous for being abusive to a taxi driver.

 

Why is this any different? They both got a reasonable amount of publicity, they were both racist, Stacey actually pleaded guilty, Josh Cryer only pleaded guilty after a day in court, some would say the sentences should have been the other way round because of that.

 

As for free speech, as someone who has been abused on twitter by people I don't know, some of it bordering on the illegal side of abuse, its a load of bollocks. Free speech doesn't give you the right to be a knob and be abusive someone you never met just because they are on telly, free speech is about far, far more important things than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bloke who racially abused Stan Collymore got 200 hours community service, another 50 hours unpaid work and a fine (plus costs). There was a rumour going round that he had previous for being abusive to a taxi driver.

 

Why is this any different? They both got a reasonable amount of publicity, they were both racist, Stacey actually pleaded guilty, Josh Cryer only pleaded guilty after a day in court, some would say the sentences should have been the other way round because of that.

 

As for free speech, as someone who has been abused on twitter by people I don't know, some of it bordering on the illegal side of abuse, its a load of bollocks. Free speech doesn't give you the right to be a knob and be abusive someone you never met just because they are on telly, free speech is about far, far more important things than that.

 

I am not 100% au fait with the Collymore case but my understanding was that that was direct messages to SC who could only be read by him. Stacey was convicted of incitement to racial hatred - the difference being his words were in public and for all to see rather than just by the recipient. This is speculation but just my brief understanding and I'm happy to be proved wrong - I am at work and haven't the time to research at length...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to allow freedom of speech for sentiments you agree with, the question is when to allow those you don't like. I have tried to find an argument to defend this guy but I'm not sure i can. I do find the sentence harsh but that's the chance you take

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scratch2000uk

IMO, Having an offensive opinion isn't deserving of a bodybag or a criminal record, although to some special interest groups, or the offended, they probably are. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to allow freedom of speech for sentiments you agree with, the question is when to allow those you don't like.

Indeed

 

But the answer should more or less be "always"

 

Perhaps some people should eduacate themselves truly about what free speech is about. It's not about casting insults at your fellow man and getting away with it, its about the ability to question what is going on in the world around you without ending up in a body bag.

No

 

Free speech is simply to protect unpopular speech from being censored or punished. Afterall, popular speech doesn't need protecting. The only exceptions should be where the speech is directly responsible for dangerous situations (shouting "fire" in a theatre, encouraging terrorism etc). Any other time you punish words that you don't like, then you are in opposition to the essence of freedom of speech.

Edited by PhilStarbucksSilkySkills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...