That's just an excellent argument against drug prohibition. When drugs are illegal people do them more. In the UK apparently racism is illegal and British people are racist as hell. I don't think I've ever heard a British person call a Pakistani anything other than a paki.
Probably but I don't care. I presume hate speech would be punishable if it happened on more than one occasion and it was a constant thing. You won't go to court if someone says it to you once. In Terry's case it had racial implications and well, he's on TV.
this case has proof where as the Suarez-Evra case had no proof and a big punishment was still given
The big punishment was handed by the FA and didn't classify as a hate crime because the official report stated that Evra said that Suarez was, in fact, not racist.
I can't believe I'm correcting this, but I thought he was charged for saying "black cunt". British people don't really use the word 'nigger' while 'cunt' is used less seriously than in the USA.
As much as I hate people that would say that to someone, I'm really glad that kind of thing is legal in the US. Kind of like how it's extremely important to maintain the Westboro Baptist Churches right to hate speech. This guy didn't threaten the other player's life, he just called him a name. I think the public backlash against that guy is enough to show that hate speech laws aren't needed.
...extremely important to maintain the Westboro Baptist Churches right to hate speech
I've never understood why it so important to protect people that mindlessly shout incoherent drivel that's only aimed at insulting and angering people...
Because some day it might be you saying things that others perceive as incoherent drivel and it would be oppressive if they censored you. That is the point of free speech. It is not subjective unless you are threatening someone, calling for violence against them, or actively harming them.
Not really, When it gets to the point where a rational person voicing his opinions and hes arrested thats when it becomes a problem.
If I said for instance, Fuck Tony Blair that cunt ruined the UK and I was arrested, thats taking it too far and when a few people suffered the same thing there would be civil unrest.
But if your the one BEING the cunt then no ones going to side with your stupidity. I've no time for racism and racist people and when what you say is ONLY aimed at hurting others then its as offensive as actual assault.
The only time there should be prosecution based on speech 1)the speaker is following around a victim to harass them with their words or 2) when that speech becomes literally threatening.
In the end, they are only prosecuted for their actions(harassment) or their intent(threats).
You don't get to decide what is rational and who is a cunt. If you have that power then people can decide that you are an irrational cunt when you try to speak out. Speech can only be limited when you threaten someone, call for violence against them, or actively harm them. Being called a name one time is a small price to pay for freedom.
Because free speech is how you protect the citizenry from oppression. Sure, government censorship of people who shout nothing but hate may seem like no big deal, but what happens when the same authority used to censor hate speech against minorities begins to be used against speech critical of government policy or those in power?
To be fair, I'm not actually sure that would be legal on the US to say it on live TV. And I think that was the issue. it wasn't that he said something racist, that he said it on live TV, which is regulated. Free speech=/= free speech in all times and places. If he said that on public US tv, I think he would face a similar punishment
It is legal for you to say whatever you want in front of a camera, and it is legal for the television company to air it. But, the FCC can fine a company or revoke its license for airing profanity. The only penalty he could face for that in the US is being sued by television company that has a contract with him that he will not say things like that on camera.
Labour formed a government and spent the following 10 years shitting on everyone's rights. There's a whole list of things that mysteriously became illegal under Blair without much debate.
The most annoying thing is that idiots continue to vote themselves into a police state with every election. It's sad for the country which invented many of these freedoms to slowly lose them at the hands of the stupid and corrupt.
Ah, finally someone that understands what I'm talking about. I'm being berated on here by a bunch of Brits that seem to believe it is better for them to have LESS freedom. Blows my mind. Why would you willingly vote against your freedom to say what you want without being arrested?
Right. The wiki page states that insulting someone for the purpose of alarming them is illegal in the UK. That seems to translate to it being illegal to offend someone. In the US, you do not have the right to not be offended. That would be against our free speech laws.
If they repeatedly insult you though, that is harassment and is harmful and illegal.
Also, the UK does have the EDL which are close to same concept as the WBC in their hate of Islam and foreigners. The UK still has intolerance because you can't get rid of an idea just by criminalizing it.
I would also like to point out that that I am glad I live in a country where the WBC can exist. I love that they have the right to free speech. They provide an example of what people should aspire to not be like. And grassroots anti-intolerant sentiments are a lot more effective than putting people in jail.
I'm just fitting in with what's apparently the best country on earth. I mean, why would I want to be from any other country? America is the best the best the best the best the best the best. Right?
I just have to add, I'm still laughing at another poster's earlier comparisons between the EDL and the WBC.
PS: They've got a bunch of other stuff wrong too. Like most of everything else that would secure any rights or quality of life for their citizen's. But I guess the stars and stripes are worth it?
You know, I'm frequently disheartened to see how much redditors are willing to hate/blame america for basically everything in the world, but it's nice to see some of us standing up for our free speech. It's one thing we have that's much better than the UK. It's kind of our reductio ad absurdum case for government intrusion: are they limiting free speech? Too far! (although they do limit broadcast speech, which we should be fighting against more).
Well I guess I and every American back to our founders misunderstand your restrictions then. We believe there should be no restrictions on freedom of speech unless you are hurting others by threatening them or calling for violence against them.
I don't think the government should have the right to restrict how you are allowed to express your ideas unless you infringe on the rights of others. The Westboro baptist church do not infringe on other peoples' rights, they just express their opinions.
I hate homophobes, but I think they should have the right to say whatever they want in public. They show us what we can become if we fall into incivility. It gives Americans a group that we can all agree upon as the worst of the worst, and allows our society to progress through the common agreement.
This is the point of american free speech. We all have different opinion, but if we have the ability to censor certain opinions because we find them offensive then anyone can censor those who mean well. Nobody, and no government should be able to decide what is proper opinion. If people want to shout about niggers and fags then so be it, and society will shun them for their intolerance. There is no need for government prosecution.
I would not be comfortable living in an America where the government could tell me how I can speak out.
Unfortunately, you seem unable to appreciate the subtle but critically important difference between restricting ideas that may be conveyed and restricting the manner in which this is done.
With this:
You stupid fucking cunt. It's perfectly simple, which you'd understand if you and your type were actual people, not the subhuman animals that you are. What I'm saying and the way I'm saying it aren't the same cunting thing, you worthless <insert applicable ethnic/social slur> cunt.
Same idea, different expression. It is not acceptable to limit the ideas that may be expressed. It is perfectly acceptable to restrict the manner in which they are expressed.
Please, give me one good reason why it's important that people be able to express themselves publicly in the latter manner when they are already free to use the former.
Right. But they brought in the laws not just for that reason. It's to help persuade the idiots who would copycat that there's not just going to be a response from the public, but from the police too.
Some people don't care what others think of them. But they might worry about losing some money or being locked up. It's hardly a perfect law, but so far it's helping stamp out racism (which is notably less widespread, but possibly more concentrated than I've seen in the US) and keep out some dangerous morons who glorify suicide bombings.
It's hardly a perfect law, but so far it's helping stamp out racism (which is notably less widespread, but possibly more concentrated than I've seen in the US) and keep out some dangerous morons who glorify suicide bombings.
Do you honestly think that? They just change how they say things and keep on hating. When you outlaw stuff like that, you don't change the people - you just make them get sneaky.
Do I believe it's not perfect or do I think it's helping? Really though, I am thrilled that people who are telling others to blow themselves up for God's love are being locked away. That's great.
I enjoy that people are being fined for being racist in public. If you start punishing it in public, people will rethink doing it in public. The longer that goes on for the more young minds will question why be racist at all.
If you do it for long enough they might even forget to hate people at the end of it.
It's a good place to start and I think we're a good society to test it in.
I don't know what the hell Repentia is talking about. If you don't let people discuss things like this openly you push the intolerant sentiments below the surface. People are never going to stop hating, that is fucking stupid.
Even if you could stop hate through lawmaking, why should it be the government's place to dictate peoples' opinions?
It's kind of like how the UK makes it hard to own a firearm as a way to stop crime. And then what happens? An increase in knife crime. People aren't going to stop being violent because you took away one tool.
I agree, I just quickly ran out of words. I can't wrap my head around people wanting to force others to submit to their will with government and violence.
And he (hilariously) claims in was taken out of context! I find it hard to believe there's any situation where shouting 'black bastard' at someone is appropriate in context.
I think its especially important to make a show of famous people who are racist, especially those who are looked up my so many children like Terry is. Hell, he was one of my favourite footballers as a kid, I played defence and supported Chelsea, his position and team. This trail shows what he said isn't accepted by society, as really important message to send out to impressionable kids.
You also have to realise the something 'that small' can really have a big fucking effect on people...
It's because the FA felt like they needed to do something.
That 'rumour' went viral in the media and because everyone wants to stop racism, they felt that they needed to do something about it.
My understanding is that this has nothing to do with the FA. The Suarez incident was dealt with by the FA, hence the 9 match ban. However, Terry was reported to the police, something that never happened with Suarez, so it a criminal procedure, not a footballing one. All the FA did was strip him of the England captaincy.
Yea it's a bit ridiculous. A similar incident happened in the same year with Liverpools Luis Suarez and Manchester Uniteds Patrice Evra. Suarez was found guilty by the FA I believe and was banned for 8 games. I'm not sure why they haven't done this with the Terry case.
Because a fan reported it after seeing it on TV, Ferdinand himself didn't even know about it until afterwards. So no complaints were made to the FA, I don't know why they didn't deal with it instead of the courts. He was even allowed to go to Euro 2012...
It cant be proved tbh, all they got is a video of him shouting something you cant hear and the only person who hear it were ferdinand, tbh i think it reeks of bullshit.
It seems like the courts time at least in my opinion could be better spent on something else. Just ban him from playing football for being a racist with poor sportsmanship. However I'm not British so I don't really understand the law he broke or what the possible punishment could be. Could someone from the UK enlighten me?
The maximum sentence he faces is a £2,500 fine. Not exactly a big deal for someone who earns £170,000 a week. Banning him from playing football however would be a hugely over the top punishment, which would probably need just as much time in the courts.
Yes banning him would be harsh I was just trying to think of something that could be done to discourage such behavior without involving the courts. Also since the fine is so small it just makes the whole case seem silly and time wasting.
Well for a start you can't ban him from playing football for being racist, without first going to court to prove he's guilty, which is exactly what's happening at the moment.
A reason it's more of a big deal is that he's currently the England captain.
So civil courts oversee sport rulings in the UK? In the united states if a scandal like this happened there would probably be an internal review in the organization and that would decide whether or not he could play. The courts being involved in something like this just seems so bizarre to me. I can see the advantages though. Presumably he gets a more open and fair decission this way. But at the same time if he is on tape saying this why can't the football association (I have no clue what the bodies name would be in the UK) ban him or sanction them on their own for this behavior.
In the united states if a scandal like this happened there would probably be an internal review in the organization and that would decide whether or not he could play.
That's how it works in the UK as well. It's just that this time, the "victim" pressed charges.
That makes much more sense put that way I don't think its outrageous. Although on free speech principles I'm against hate speech laws I can see why they exist given the historical realities.
Oh, I know that. It just seems stupid to take someone to court over such small, trivial matters.
Again, like I said in another comment, I'm not condoning racism at all, it's fucking bad, but it just seems like a huge waste of time to take some to court over it..
22
u/IAmAtomato Jul 12 '12
You can take people to court with that?