The Student Room Group

Man Arrested Over Offensive Twitter Comments Over Muamba

Scroll to see replies

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?
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?
Reply 42
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.
(edited 12 years ago)
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.
Original post by pinda.college
What is the name of the women in your sig?


Kayden Kross.
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
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
We also have the freedom to have sex with whoever we like. Doesn't make rape anymore legal or acceptable.
Reply 48
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*
Reply 49
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 :smile:. 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 :fyi:

. 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.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 50
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'
Original post by Lamps08
hoe.much? *keepyourfacecovered*


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.:frown:
Reply 53
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.
Reply 54
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.
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.
Reply 56
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 :fyi:



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.
Reply 57
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'


What has he said that conflicts with someone's rights? Nothing he was offensive, you want someone locked up for been offensive?

I want you locked up conflicting with one of my "values" freedom of speech.
Reply 58
Original post by limetang
How is it a sad view to think that if you put restrictions on speech then you automatically stop having free speech.


So explain why the very idea of freedom of speech imposes and recognises limits? Or do we just ignore that and come up with our own definition completely void of what the actual idea is?
Original post by Tommyjw
Of course it exists legally otherwise assault, harrassment etc wouldnt be real..... .....

IF you had no right not to be offended than public harassment laws would not exist. Laws with regards to people running around shouting racial abuse would not exist. These and other laws are all ways to limit what a person can say to another in order to protect that person.


You're talking as if harrassment and offense are the same thing. They're totally different. You can be offended by a joke about a disabled person, without being harassed by it. (I'm not saying the two are mutually exclusive, btw, merely that being offended is in no way the same thing as being harassed.)

Yes, yes it does.
If someone is likely to be offended by what you are saying, then it is illegal. If you have reasonable reason to think no1 can hear or no1 will be offended then it is not illegal. You are ignoring the very basics of the public order act.

"The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.". If a person is within sight, but it is not reasonable to suggest he was likely to be distressed by those words, than it is not an offense.


You're using definitions from different parts of the act. The bit you cite refers directly to harassment (ie Section 5), and it means that if you say "God, I want to kill Jane for what she did!" to a friend, it's not harassment. If you say "I want to kill Jane!" to Jane, it IS, because if she can't hear it, she isn't being harassed.

Which is wholly different to Section 3A, which is the one that deals with inciting racial hatred, and has no such defence.

Quick Reply

Latest