[cl_steele]

whilst i see your point of this being an infringement on freedom of speech and all that i personally see a difference between free speech and being prick, this chap in my opinion was doing the latter not the former.

[beepbeeprichie]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Because it's all about whether the reasonable person would find it offensive.

Last bit is pure and utter garbage. Freedom of speech does and always lasted up until a point where it impedes other peoples rights and that is how it should be. Nowhere in freedom of speech does it say that it should be allowed over all and every other right or law.

Appealing to the law of the land is futile in justifying the law of the land.

[laura130490]

I've seen what he said and I don't really see how he was inciting racial hatred. What he was saying was disgusting and racist, but he wasn't encouraging or asking anyone to do anything, just publishing his own racist views on twitter. It was a poor attempt at trolling and I have no sympathy for him, but are they going to arrest everyone who makes sexist or homophobic comments on the internet as well?

[pinda.college]

(Original post by beepbeeprichie)
Appealing to the law of the land is futile in justifying the law of the land.

What is the name of the women in your sig?

[Lamps08]

Complete waste of police time. I think it's far worse when people make groups on facebook and make actual personal attacks against others. Similarly if troll kid was to make a group after Muamba died and made personal jibes then that would warrant police intervention, maybe.

[beepbeeprichie]

(Original post by Dr. Von Nostrand)
Good, freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the freedom to be a complete cock while hiding behind your laptop screen.

Yes, it really does.

[beepbeeprichie]

(Original post by pinda.college)
What is the name of the women in your sig?

Kayden Kross.

[Dr. Von Nostrand]

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it and neither has internet trolling. It's against the law to spout racist bull**** in public, he's done that and hopefully will go to prison for it

[Dr. Von Nostrand]

(Original post by beepbeeprichie)
Yes, it really does.

Not in this case it doesn't, there are limitations which he has crossed which is why he's been charged and probably why he has plead guilty

[Beebumble]

We also have the freedom to have sex with whoever we like. Doesn't make rape anymore legal or acceptable.

[Lamps08]

(Original post by Beebumble)
We also have the freedom to have sex with whoever we like. Doesn't make rape anymore legal or acceptable.

hoe.much? *keepyourfacecovered*

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by Kiss)
But what if no one finds it, what then? For one thing it's existence is not doing anyone any harm as it's not being read. Secondly, you sound like the type of person who wouldn't like the thought of any racism existing in any place at any time even if it's not directly affecting anyone/offending people - let's transfer this example of an account which no one can see or read to someone thinking - someone's thoughts can't be read (currently) but what if someone who thought racist thoughts in their head but didn't ever mention anything racist out loud? I'm sure most people would be satisfied with that but you wouldn't - you, knowing that it exists, would no doubt want that person to think your 'perfect world' thoughts.

Well if it no-one finds it then how are we sure it exists? what a stupid thing to say. If we dont find a mass murderer who is in hiding, does that mean he shouldnt be punished ? No. If we cant find someone who stole an old ladys bag, should he then not be punished? No.

If you had any clue what you are talking about you would know such racist views and remarks are not 'illegal' and such if they are in a palce where the person has reasonable reason to think no1 can hear and no1 would be offended. I dont care to arrest everyone who has racist views, merely those whose sole idea is to express those views in ways that make sure others see it and thus offend them. Writing 'i hate blacks' on a small piece of paper and putting it in your drawer is entirely different than me say, posting a facebook status saying it. Both is about expressing your views but only one has the aim to offend those who view it.

You're quite ignorant to think everyone agrees with you and that no one is racist when there quite a few people in the world, perhaps not the majority but a significant number, hence why racism exists. And you can't simply censor the views of people you disagree with. That's called facism . And frankly you strike me as a facist.

None of that makes sense whatsoever. I never stated anything about everyone agreeing with me. I simply stated that if what someone said was racist, and given people are offended by racism by the sheer nature of what racism is, than what he said was offensive and should be taken down as it is offensive published material, which is much different than spoken words

. We are limiting ourselves if people don't stand up for little incidents like this, they make up the bigger picture to what the UK is going to turn into.

Lol.. such nonsense.

(Original post by limetang)
Why are we putting the pathetic 'right not to be offended' above the right of all citizens to speak their mind without fear of arrest. And that includes citizens who we'd rather didn't speak their minds.

Do you want to know what you do if someone uses their right to free speech to express views you find distasteful. You use your right to free speech to make it clear how horrible their views are.

Pathetic is subjective.

Such sad views on freedom of speech, ah well, your loss.

[Tommyjw]

(Original post by beepbeeprichie)
Yes, it really does.

Funny how the very idea of freedom of speech states limits, but that every 'omg our country is so crap' idiotic child on this forum just ignores it completely.

"According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights."

But, alas, everyone ignores this because 'omg we cant say what we want anymore'

[Beebumble]

(Original post by Lamps08)
hoe.much? *keepyourfacecovered*

[Beebumble]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Funny how the very idea of freedom of speech states limits, but that every 'omg our country is so crap' idiotic child on this forum just ignores it completely.

"According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights."

But, alas, everyone ignores this because 'omg we cant say what we want anymore'

You sir, have spoken a lot of sense throughout this thread.
Unfortunately I have no rep left.

[Algorithm69]

(Original post by Beebumble)
You sir, have spoken a lot of sense throughout this thread.
Unfortunately I have no rep left.

Actually, no he hasn't. I would recommend he watch Christopher Hitchen's talk on free speech or his debate with Shashi Tharoor. Maybe then he will realise his (and your) position on free speech is indefensible.

[NB_ide]

I presume it's still ok to express that you dislike people (and organisations) for reasons other than their race, gender or sexuality?

Like if I say that all tesco staff are ****ing useless ***** and should be fired, that's worth a few "likes" and not much else. Or would I get arrested for that as well? I dunno man, there have been quite a few "no name-calling!" arrests recently, is there any very clear guidance on what we are and are not allowed to say at the moment?

Shouldn't there be a published list of forbidden words or something? How else can anyone know for sure what they can still say? If it's simply down to whether or not some poor darling "gets offended" then, hell, I'll have most of TSR arrested right now.

[pr0view]

We may not like what he said, put he hasn't harmed anyone.

In fascist Italy you could be arrested for inciting class hatred, in liberal Britain you can be arrested for inciting racial hatred.

[Beebumble]

(Original post by Algorithm69)
Actually, no he hasn't. I would recommend he watch Christopher Hitchen's talk on free speech or his debate with Shashi Tharoor. Maybe then he will realise his (and your) position on free speech is indefensible.

I know what is right and wrong and no 'talk' is going to change the fact that I think racial (or any other kind) hate speech is wrong and people should be punished for trying to inflict hate on someone else.

Tommyjw has put up a argument that best represent my beliefs therefore he's talking a lot of sense to me.

[limetang]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Well if it no-one finds it then how are we sure it exists? what a stupid thing to say. If we dont find a mass murderer who is in hiding, does that mean he shouldnt be punished ? No. If we cant find someone who stole an old ladys bag, should he then not be punished? No.

If you had any clue what you are talking about you would know such racist views and remarks are not 'illegal' and such if they are in a palce where the person has reasonable reason to think no1 can hear and no1 would be offended. I dont care to arrest everyone who has racist views, merely those whose sole idea is to express those views in ways that make sure others see it and thus offend them. Writing 'i hate blacks' on a small piece of paper and putting it in your drawer is entirely different than me say, posting a facebook status saying it. Both is about expressing your views but only one has the aim to offend those who view it.




None of that makes sense whatsoever. I never stated anything about everyone agreeing with me. I simply stated that if what someone said was racist, and given people are offended by racism by the sheer nature of what racism is, than what he said was offensive and should be taken down as it is offensive published material, which is much different than spoken words



Lol.. such nonsense.



Pathetic is subjective.

Such sad views on freedom of speech, ah well, your loss.

How is it a sad view to think that if you put restrictions on speech then you automatically stop having free speech.