PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 And IMO you are wrong! So instead of arguing against any of my points or even acknowledging them (especially the incorrect paraphrase you tried to use in your argument) you simply repeat yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 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. I would agree with you on this as you were replying to my point about expressing sentiment. I actually would go a little further than you and say that no opinion should ever be prohibited in expression, and I don't even agree with the principal of incitement. If I tell you that someone is evil because they offended the Pixie-God who lives at the bottom of the garden then I reckon it's up to you to decide whether to do anything about it. However, expressing a sentiment can also form part of a separate action, in this case a form of assault. It isn't, and never should be, an offense to swing your arm, but if you choose to do it when someone's face is in the way of where it leads your hand, there is a problem. It's for the same reason that shouting "Fire" isn't a restriction of freedom of speech in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmad Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 So instead of arguing against any of my points or even acknowledging them (especially the incorrect paraphrase you tried to use in your argument) you simply repeat yourself. No I am forcing my point home as I do not agree with anything you have said. Everyone has the right to speech. However, there are exceptions to this as stated in the paragraph above. Being racially abusive is one of them. Therefore, he was was right to be charged and punished. Although I do agree a prison sentence was harsh. You have stated your point and this is your freedom of speech. However, I wholeheartedly disagree with everything you say. I notice one of your hobbies is 'arguing' and on that note I will leave you to it. Please can someone else continue this discussion with Phil I am worn out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 I would agree with you on this as you were replying to my point about expressing sentiment. I actually would go a little further than you and say that no opinion should ever be prohibited in expression, and I don't even agree with the principal of incitement. If I tell you that someone is evil because they offended the Pixie-God who lives at the bottom of the garden then I reckon it's up to you to decide whether to do anything about it. However, expressing a sentiment can also form part of a separate action, in this case a form of assault. It isn't, and never should be, an offense to swing your arm, but if you choose to do it when someone's face is in the way of where it leads your hand, there is a problem. It's for the same reason that shouting "Fire" isn't a restriction of freedom of speech in any way. True. However I wouldn't say calling someone evil is something I would include as incitement to violence either. It would need to be far more direct than that in order for it to be excluded from free speech IMO. Plus "evil" is such a nebulous and nonsense term. One other exception to free speech which I didn't include before, would be defamation. eg if your actions falsely gave someone the reputation of being a pedophile. That would certainly be a matter for the courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmad Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 So instead of arguing against any of my points or even acknowledging them (especially the incorrect paraphrase you tried to use in your argument) you simply repeat yourself. Nope straight from wikipedia. Word for word copy and paste ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 True. However I wouldn't say calling someone evil is something I would include as incitement to violence either. I wouldn't call it incitement at all, but the circumstances of how you did it could possibly constitute assault. Plus "evil" is such a nebulous and nonsense term. I disagree, although I am painfully aware of how many beliefs there are about how it should be defined. Much wrong has been done through describing things as evil which aren't (shagging, drinking, knob-jockey shagging, swearing, betting) but we've also lost something in a world that denies that there is right and wrong. To place this into context, I believe that this sheep-shagging leek-muncher bloke committed one evil act in mocking Muamba's circumstances, and another in addressing people as cotton picking wogs in the follow up. I can't see how the the first could be a crime, but I can the second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 One other exception to free speech which I didn't include before, would be defamation. eg if your actions falsely gave someone the reputation of being a pedophile. That would certainly be a matter for the courts. A defamation case that actually came to a court would almost certainly consist of the accused being rich, famous or powerful. Therefor it's unfortunate that it only serves to protect them. The average Joe wouldn't get a sniff in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 Nope straight from wikipedia. Word for word copy and paste ;) what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmad Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 what? My point being not the reliabilty of the source but that it is not paraphased. However, it is a piece of legislation that has been copied onto wiki. You are such a cock (hey Freedom of speech before you think of putting in a complaint) ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 My point being not the reliabilty of the source but that it is not paraphased. However, it is a piece of legislation that has been copied onto wiki. You are such a cock (hey Freedom of speech before you think of putting in a complaint) ;) Well no, it's not racist so the courts won't punish you. Do you have a problem with reading? I clearly told you that you paraphrased something that Liam Stacey said incorrectly in order to further your argument. You have so far failed to acknowledge your mistake. I was NOT talking about legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmad Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Well no, it's not racist so the courts won't punish you. Do you have a problem with reading? I clearly told you that you paraphrased something that Liam Stacey said incorrectly in order to further your argument. You have so far failed to acknowledge your mistake. I was NOT talking about legislation. ahh fair enough but next time make your point more clearly ;) No mistake here pal, except to disagree that being racist is totally unacceptable behaviour in society ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 No mistake here pal, except to disagree that being racist is totally unacceptable behaviour in society ;) We don't disagree on that point. Please don't strawman me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmad Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 We don't disagree on that point. Please don't strawman me We do disagree! You are saying a racist should not be punished other than a telling off from his peers. I am saying he has broke the law and should be dealt with accordingly by the authorities (e.g warning, fine, community service). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 We do disagree! You are saying a racist should not be punished other than a telling off from his peers. I am saying he has broke the law and should be dealt with accordingly by the authorities (e.g warning, fine, community service). But that wasn't what you said. You accused me of not finding racism unacceptable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 So instead of arguing against any of my points or even acknowledging them (especially the incorrect paraphrase you tried to use in your argument) you simply repeat yourself. Again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 Again Your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) Your point? Your argument is 'fluid and flexible'. I think the issue here is many people including myself were looking at what you put in your original post, 'what has happened to free speech in this country' and have tried to answer it. It seems that you actually disagree with how society/the law views free speech in the first place as you have mentioned many times, you have no interest in what the law says. Therefore, perhaps your question/statement could have been coined better. In regards to the tarriff given to Mr Stacey, I accept that there perhaps are inconsistencies and yes there is more of an argument for and against, though I myself are happy with the outcome. Edited March 30, 2012 by jimsleftfoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmad Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 But that wasn't what you said. You accused me of not finding racism unacceptable You obviously do find racism acceptable if you think it should not be punished by law. You really think by a few of his mates saying you are avery naughty boy that that is deterrant enough!!! I'll answer no it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 You obviously do find racism acceptable if you think it should not be punished by law. You really think by a few of his mates saying you are avery naughty boy that that is deterrant enough!!! I'll answer no it isn't. Welcome to a (latics)mad world. Anything he finds unacceptable must be punished by law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 Your argument is 'fluid and flexible'. I think the issue here is many people including myself were looking at what you put in your original post, 'what has happened to free speech in this country' and have tried to answer it. It seems that you actually disagree with how society/the law views free speech in the first place as you have mentioned many times, you have no interest in what the law says. Therefore, perhaps your question/statement could have been coined better. In regards to the tarriff given to Mr Stacey, I accept that there perhaps are inconsistencies and yes there is more of an argument for and against, though I myself are happy with the outcome. My question was accurate, although maybe needed padding out more. It is all about how the law is being interpreted in recent times at the expense of freedom of speech. There is nothing explicit or particularly implicit within the law that would exclude this twitter case from freedom of speech no matter how much some people on this board like to claim (and even if there was, the law would still be wrong). It's just that certain people have chosen to interpret the law to in order to appease public outrage. This is flat out wrong and a very worrying trend. I'm used to seeing it in some murder trials and other high profile cases. But now I'm seeing more and more cases of offensive words being punished. Not words directly leading to violence or defamation, just straight up words. Juvenile, stupid, but ultimately offensive words. And now they are punishable by law. This is bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) My question was accurate, although maybe needed padding out more. It is all about how the law is being interpreted in recent times at the expense of freedom of speech. There is nothing explicit or particularly implicit within the law that would exclude this twitter case from freedom of speech no matter how much some people on this board like to claim (and even if there was, the law would still be wrong). It's just that certain people have chosen to interpret the law to in order to appease public outrage. This is flat out wrong and a very worrying trend. You keep saying this but continue to ignore Article 10 itself. 10(b ): T he exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Many would argue the judiciary's interpretation is protecting morals, even if you don't think so. Edited March 30, 2012 by jsslatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 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. My question was accurate, although maybe needed padding out more. It is all about how the law is being interpreted in recent times at the expense of freedom of speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 You keep saying this but continue to ignore Article 10 itself. 10(b ): T Many would argue the judiciary's interpretation is protecting morals, even if you don't think so. Protecting morals? Whose morals need protecting? What does it even mean to protect morals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 Jim, I only just said in my padding out of my initial question that even if it was in the law then it doesn't matter because the law is wrong. It is possible to think that the law backs me up on this and also think that it would be largely irrelevant because all that matters is what is right or wrong. Please stop trying to make out that I am changing my stance. I think I have made my opinion quite clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) He was convicted of Inciting racial hatred. This offence refers to: deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group distributing racist material to the public making inflammatory public speeches creating racist websites on the Internet inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent. The tweets i saw didn't seem to match the charge, although i may have interpretated it wrongly?. The Judge also said "I have no choice but to impose an immediate custodial sentence to reflect the public outrage at what you have done" The medias reporting and the whipping up of the publics outrage has influenced the judges decision. That is quite worrying. I think his mistake was failing to realise that his drunken racist rants crossed the line between conversations with other tweeters, and publishing. I still think the sentence was a disgrace, seeing as rapists, paedophiles, benefit cheats, thieves,thugs, and more serious criminals are free to walk the streets with a suspended sentences. Edited March 30, 2012 by Scratch2000uk 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.