The Student Room Group

so what did the troll say to deserve 56 days in prison?

interesting article here in the guardian about the 'wacist' troll who got 56 days in jail for twitter comments. those who mindlessly cheered his jailing should read this.....


--


Now, I'm no fan of racists. I'm prepared to stick my neck out and say that. Reel back in shock, fellow Observer readers! I'm taking the risk, I'm saying it right out: I just don't like 'em.

So, I can understand why people were pleased to see Liam Stacey, the student who posted a nasty Twitter comment about Fabrice Muamba and replied in racist language to those who criticised him, go to prison for it. I can see why newspaper columnists have spent the last week cheering the sentence and the lost appeal.

But if you cheered, let me ask you two questions. Do you know what he's actually gone to prison for? And do you know what he actually tweeted?

continued:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/08/victoria-coren-liam-stacey-tweets
(edited 11 years ago)
No one should be charged for saying something we don't like on Twitter or elsewhere (unless it's genuinely inciteful). It's tyrannous to send a kid to jail for making an off-colour joke.

If we were to lock up all the casual racists and general ********s in the country, there wouldn't be many people left on the streets.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 2
Original post by jismith1989
No one should be charged for saying something we don't like on Twitter or elsewhere (unless it's genuinely inciteful). It's tyrannous to send a kid to jail for making an off-colour joke.

If we were to lock up all the casual racists and general ********s in the country, there wouldn't be many people left on the streets.


I think there was a bit of a difference between casual racism and what that guy said. I live in the same town he was from so it's been in all the local papers and I think he's going to be scared to show his face around here again.

People need to know that they can no longer hide behind an account on the internet. I very much doubt he would say those things in person, but for some reason people think it is acceptable to talk like that on the web.
Original post by Elwyn
I think there was a bit of a difference between casual racism and what that guy said. I live in the same town he was from so it's been in all the local papers and I think he's going to be scared to show his face around here again.

People need to know that they can no longer hide behind an account on the internet. I very much doubt he would say those things in person, but for some reason people think it is acceptable to talk like that on the web.
Sure, but do you really think that putting someone in a locked cell for 60 days is really a way to make them any less racist? Of course it isn't. Nor would I expect is having the whole town baying after him.

There are all kinds of people with all kinds of unpalatable views, but we have to accept that in a liberal society people are allowed to have views we don't like, so long as views are all they are. (And I'd say that a majority of the white working class have racist tendencies -- I can't speak for other races, as I don't really know, but I'd suspect that many of them do too. Racism is a natural human tendency and it's only by overriding it that we're able not to be so.) Otherwise the state/judiciary is in a position of judging who possesses the correct mindset and who doesn't, which is not a position I'd like to see it in.

There are lots of things people say that I don't like, but I wouldn't want the law to intervene. For example, if someone calls another person ugly, I'd say that's just as offensive and discriminatory (on the basis of their looks), yet no one would expect the law to step in there. So it's utterly hypocritical.
(edited 11 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest