rudemedic Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 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... No they were tweets. To have read them before Collymore made them public by retweeting them you would have had to have followed Cryer, and to do that depends on his security settings and your relationship with him, presumably someone followed him. I'd fancy someone at Newcastle uni followed him. Furthermore in order to read them before Collymore retweeted them you would have had to have read them before Cryer deleted them, which was part of the problem as Collymore only retweeted them once they had been deleted. What Stacey did was tweet about something in the news, presumably with an appropriate hash tag, so the chances of them being read by more people were much greater. When Collymore retweeted them it didn't take long for the internet do gooders to spam his newcastle mailbox and presumably his mobile phone number as both were available online (I'd be asking questions about Newcastle Uni's inter mural league online security). This was neither productive nor moral and borders on the illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) Indeed But the answer should more or less be "always" 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. A rather poor definition, there are many cases when the popular voice has been stifled in lieu of the less popular controlling minority or elite. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has 30 articles of which the freedom of speech is just one. Article 30 states: ‘Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.’ And Article 12 states: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. So any right to freedom of speech has to be balanced against these rights and every other right mentioned. Edited March 28, 2012 by jimsleftfoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 28, 2012 Author Share Posted March 28, 2012 A rather poor definition, there are many cases when the popular voice has been stifled in lieu of the less popular controlling minority or elite. I was aware of this. However for the purposes of my definition, popular really means "authority opinion", this could either be the people (if they have an influence), the state or whoever. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has 30 articles of which the freedom of speech is just one. Article 30 states: ‘Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.’ Sounds fair I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 A rather poor definition, there are many cases when the popular voice has been stifled in lieu of the less popular controlling minority or elite. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has 30 articles of which the freedom of speech is just one. Article 30 states: ‘Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.’ And Article 12 states: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. So any right to freedom of speech has to be balanced against these rights and every other right mentioned. Not to mention the limits within Article 10 itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I was aware of this. However for the purposes of my definition, popular really means "authority opinion", this could either be the people (if they have an influence), the state or whoever. Sounds fair I think. As a sceptic You know full well what you just did by removing the second Article, 12, from your quote there. I thought you'd be above that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 28, 2012 Author Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) As a sceptic You know full well what you just did by removing the second Article, 12, from your quote there. I thought you'd be above that. Ackey, as a skeptic yourself, you might notice that he updated his post. And so when I constructed my reply to his initial words "Article 12" wasn't there. Not that it matters since: a ) I failed to see any relevance in either of the quoted articles to his argument. I think I agree with both articles as written b ) Whilst it might be interesting to argue about what is or isn't law, I am not doing so. I am arguing for what is right and wrong and what SHOULD be law and upheld as such. This is regardless of whether the law currently agrees with me. Edited March 28, 2012 by PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think this article is bang on!. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100147237/56-days-in-jail-for-a-tweet-when-race-becomes-an-issue-all-sense-goes-out-of-the-window/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 28, 2012 Author Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think this article is bang on!. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100147237/56-days-in-jail-for-a-tweet-when-race-becomes-an-issue-all-sense-goes-out-of-the-window/ Good article, except I don't see this as a left vs right issue. The rights and wrongs of this issue have nothing to do with economics and everything to do with social policy. People like to talk about Left and Right as if they are opposing football teams, and as if political opinions can be summarized so one dimensionally. Does my nut in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 28, 2012 Author Share Posted March 28, 2012 A video from one of my youtube subscriptions that reflects my stance on this pretty well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmad Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 [Here is my view on the subject without reading the last 5 pages. The use of twitter (or any other social networking site) is not an excuse for making such inappropiate comments if it reaches the public domain. For example, you call your boss a :censored: to a work colleague fine. However, if it reaches the public domain and your boss disiplines you then it just plain tough luck. Racially abusing a dying man in the public domain is ,as a comparison for example, going to a funeral and saying in front of the deceased family that man was this that or the other. You just wouldn't do it. A little tact is what is required but certainly no excuse for racial abuse. There is no excuses and any attempt to defend this man's comments under the umbrella of freedom of speech is unthinkable in my eyes. However, I do feel the sentence is very harsh and the chap is being made a scapegoat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmad Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 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. Maybe not but voicing it about someone who is on their deathbed in a very public domain is very wrong. Not sure it deserved jail time but certainly needed to be punished!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I think that people using Twitter at best is worthy of death, and that a prison sentence is lenient. However, I go along with the idea that you are either in or out on the freedom of speech idea. Oh, it's racist/sexist/ageist/OldhamSheridanist argument is just bollocks. If you don't like it, don't allow freedom of speech. Call it censorship. Which is what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Ackey, as a skeptic yourself, you might notice that he updated his post. And so when I constructed my reply to his initial words "Article 12" wasn't there. Not that it matters since: a ) I failed to see any relevance in either of the quoted articles to his argument. I think I agree with both articles as written b ) Whilst it might be interesting to argue about what is or isn't law, I am not doing so. I am arguing for what is right and wrong and what SHOULD be law and upheld as such. This is regardless of whether the law currently agrees with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmad Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I think that people using Twitter at best is worthy of death, and that a prison sentence is lenient. However, I go along with the idea that you are either in or out on the freedom of speech idea. Oh, it's racist/sexist/ageist/OldhamSheridanist argument is just bollocks. If you don't like it, don't allow freedom of speech. Call it censorship. Which is what it is. To racially abuse someone is not exercising your right to freedom of speech. It is just plain wrong and should be punished! Surely, I hope for your own good, you can see the difference! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 To racially abuse someone is not exercising your right to freedom of speech. It is just plain wrong and should be punished! Surely, I hope for your own good, you can see the difference! I don't like what you said! You must be punished! I really don't know why people can't understand exactly how dangerous this line of thinking is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmad Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I don't like what you said! You must be punished! I really don't know why people can't understand exactly how dangerous this line of thinking is. Are you seriously telling me to call someone a black %%%%%%%% is freedom of speech and should be accepted in society? Give over. I repeat if you racially abuse someone and you are unlucky enough that the authorities get wind of it, then it is in the hands of the law. I cannot believe that you are unable to distinguish between freedom of speech and being racially abusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 Are you seriously telling me to call someone a black %%%%%%%% is freedom of speech and should be accepted in society? Give over. I repeat if you racially abuse someone and you are unlucky enough that the authorities get wind of it, then it is in the hands of the law. I cannot believe that you are unable to distinguish between freedom of speech and being racially abusive. You are talking about punishing things that someone finds offensive. This is 100% a free speech issue. You just can't see the fact that you found his comments offensive. Noone was hurt and noone had their livelihoods damaged as a direct result of what he said. He simply caused offense. There is NO difference between freedom of speech and the kind of "racial abuse" highlighted in the Liam Stacey case. He said things that people found offensive. That is all. He is a dick. He was wrong to say those things. But if you value free speech at all, he had every right to say what he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmad Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 For anyone unsure please read the last 3 lines on the explanation of freedom of speech! The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[1][2] I'm quite sure that calling a dying man a black %&$£%£$%^ is a public order offence. Eitherway anyone with an ounce of respect for others just wouldn't say it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmad Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 You are talking about punishing things that someone finds offensive. This is 100% a free speech issue. You just can't see the fact that you found his comments offensive. Noone was hurt and noone had their livelihoods damaged as a direct result of what he said. He simply caused offense. There is NO difference between freedom of speech and the kind of "racial abuse" highlighted in the Liam Stacey case. He said things that people found offensive. That is all. He is a dick. He was wrong to say those things. But if you value free speech at all, he had every right to say what he said. IMO, he absolutely no right to say what he did. Please see above post ^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 For anyone unsure please read the last 3 lines on the explanation of freedom of speech! The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[1][2] I'm quite sure that calling a dying man a black %&$£%£$%^ is a public order offence. Eitherway anyone with an ounce of respect for others just wouldn't say it! He didn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmad Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 He didn't He was racially offence! That is not freedom of speech! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 IMO, he absolutely no right to say what he did. Please see above post ^ I've seen it. It says nothing relevant to this case. Especially the public order thing which was clutching at straws even assuming that your claim about what Stacey said was correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) He was racially offence! That is not freedom of speech! I've covered this unless you are trying to claim there should be a difference between being "offensive" and "racially offensive" Edited March 29, 2012 by PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmad Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I've covered this And IMO you are wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 A video from one of my youtube subscriptions that reflects my stance on this pretty well. Up to 1:17 I agree with everything he says - which really amounts to the consistency of the law. However beyond that his argument is what should happen if everybody thought the same way as he says we should do, but we don't. And there's little in the way of qualifying the street-justice he describes, apart from the replies on Twitter - and that can be easily switched off. He then goes on blather on about why he's taking the side of this... well he starts to rant a bit. I don't think the human race is capable as one huge body of people to make the right decision regarding justice consistently, and that's why (for better or worse) we're at the mercy of the courts. What sentence should it carry? Well we can't make our minds up, so that's one for the courts as long as it's consistent. As a side note, I'd like to know how the police were alerted to this issue. Interesting though. BTW I subscribe to this fellow; I recommend him also... http://www.youtube.com/user/illdoc1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.