[Annoying-Mouse]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-18087379 #
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/54...acked-facebook

I'm going to take a controversial stance and say I agree with the decision.

Are you against libel/defamation laws? Should the daily mail be allowed to call you a pedophile without no legal consequences? Are you against illegibility of threats? Should I be allowed to tell you I'm going to kill you without any legal consequences? Are you against the illegibility of causing public disorder? Should the Guardian be allowed to say that terrorist now have access to nuclear weapons and will strike Britain in 6 hours without any legal consequences?

These are all speech. Freedom of speech means freedom to say whatever you want. If you're against any of these, you're for restricted speech and against freedom of speech. I don't see how you can be against the Guardian falsely scaring the population whereas for the ability for someone to burn the Qu'ran which results in massive rioting due to it's nature (in the same way slagging of someone's mom will result in you being beaten).

Freedom of speech is ridiculous and goes under the assumption that speech has no negative effects. True freedom of speech would be disastrous.

Following from this previous post of mine, this type of hate speech does disrupt the peace and incite fear in the Jewish community, especially when there were racially motivated attacks against the Jewish community in this area previously. Words have effects. It's not the fact that their racist that is the problem, it's due to the effects of their racism.

[ckingalt]

Should the daily mail be allowed to call you a pedophile without no legal consequences? Are you against illegibility of threats? Should I be allowed to tell you I'm going to kill you without any legal consequences? Are you against the illegibility of causing public disorder? Should the Guardian be allowed to say that terrorist now have access to nuclear weapons and will strike Britain in 6 hours without any legal consequences?

The examples above all can cause harm due to the rational reactions people may have to false/unfounded information or threats. A rational reaction to harmful speech which causes hurt or injury is an example of injustice. This instance deserves protection

the ability for someone to burn the Qu'ran which results in massive rioting due to it's nature (in the same way slagging of someone's mom will result in you being beaten).

The examples here can only cause harm if people have emotional reactions to offensive acts or speech. An emotional reaction to offensive acts or speech is a matter of being offended. This instance deserves no protection.

To clarify further in line with your examples. If someone claims terrorists are about to strike an there is ensuing chaos due to people trying to flee the city etc.. then the misinformed acted rationally and they are the victims. If someone burns a Koran and there is ensuing chaos due to riots then the offended rioters acted emotionally and they are the perpetrators.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by ckingalt)
The examples above all can cause harm due to the rational reactions people may have to false/unfounded information or threats. A rational reaction to harmful speech which causes hurt or injury is an example of injustice. This instance deserves protection

The examples here can only cause harm if people have emotional reactions to offensive acts or speech. An emotional reaction to offensive acts or speech is a matter of being offended. This instance deserves no protection.

To clarify further in line with your examples. If someone claims terrorists are about to strike an there is ensuing chaos due to people trying to flee the city etc.. then the misinformed acted rationally and they are the victims. If someone burns a Koran and there is ensuing chaos due to riots then the offended rioters acted emotionally and they are the perpetrators.

But, their all negative reactions. If we know X (burning the Qu'ran) will lead to Y (rioting) then why should we allow it? Shouldn't we be consequential instead of deontological? I'm not saying that those who are rioting should get away with it, they shouldn't and should face jail time, I'm just saying we should avoid it if we can. This principle has been adopted multiple times e.g. in the summer Notting hill carnival, a large group were halted from coming due to the belief that will cause mass violence, same with the separation between two football teams who hate each other. If we're being deontological, the police shouldn't be separating anyone and should only react when criminal behavior is displayed which would be costly both financially and amount of violence.

[Banishingboredom]

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

Can't really see any justification for arrests in this case, based on the news articles. There's no mention of incitement to commit any crimes.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
Can't really see any justification for arrests in this case, based on the news articles. There's no mention of incitement to commit any crimes.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...rt/III/enacted

[fosterwho]

freedom of speech is gone completely

[Bonged.]

Who is the victim in this case? I'm sure there will be plenty of Jewish people from Glasgow that would chuckle at the joke/crime mentioned. Not everyone is a politically correct retard.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...rt/III/enacted

This only details what the law is. It doesn't mean that the things which this law criminalises actually should be criminalised.

[Florrick]

Good.


If I had a penny for every time I saw something hateful incited towards Muslims, I'd be a billionaire.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
This only details what the law is. It doesn't mean that the things which this law criminalises actually should be criminalised.

You said "There's no mention of incitement to commit any crimes" which there was, crime is legally defined. The justification for the arrest follows that those things are illegal. You might have a problem with the law but the arrest wasn't wrong.

(Original post by Florrick)
Good.


If I had a penny for every time I saw something hateful incited towards Muslims, I'd be a billionaire.

Maybe you should report it and see how they take it? Then, we can really put the whole "police act different when it's Muslims we're dealing with" to the test. Preferably from a anti-Muslim facebook page in an area that has a semi-present Muslim community.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
You said "There's no mention of incitement to commit any crimes" which there was, crime is legally defined. The justification for the arrest follows that those things are illegal. You might have a problem with the law but the arrest wasn't wrong.

No, there was (arguably) a crime. There was not incitement to commit a crime. The crime of incitement to racial hatred involves incitement to something which is not a crime.

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
You might have a problem with the law but the arrest wasn't wrong.

This is indeed what is in dispute. When you say that the arrest wasn't wrong presumably you mean that the arrest wasn't illegal, as things which are legal can still be wrong if it is wrong for them to be legal in the first place.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(Original post by Florrick)
Good.


If I had a penny for every time I saw something hateful incited towards Muslims, I'd be a billionaire.

How does the latter statement follow from the former?

[Nephilim]

(Original post by Florrick)
Good.


If I had a penny for every time I saw something hateful incited towards Muslims, I'd be a billionaire.

If I had a penny for every time I saw someone incite hatred toward Christians, I'd be a billionaire aswell . I seriously don't know why you worded that as "Muslims" and not "religious people"; people of Islam aren't the only ones who get vilified.

[Bonged.]

I wonder if it would be illegal to put up on your facebook "I dislike (insert protected group)". Just that opinion, without inciting any racial meaness against anyone, just saying that you, personally, dislike "protected group".

Which is obv stupid , wrong, yada yada, but it gets a bit tricky if people simply are not allowed to come to their own conclusions and must not dislike certain groups. In law.

[Snagprophet]

At the end of the day arrests were made due to insults. Slagging a group of people off is arguably laughable compared to actually holding a group of people back from success. I don't see why 'racial hatred' through insults is treated as a separate crime to harassment. Why does it matter why you're harassing someone? You're still harassing someone.

Burning a Koran is not harassment. If you followed someone round with a picture of you burning it at shoving it in their face, yes that is harassment. We need to stop categorising harassing someone 'racial hatred' just because people are doing it on the basis of race or something unrelated to race which people often confuse with race. There is always a reason why someone harasses someone, usually by their appearance. You might have glasses, you might have silly hair. Why does someone's race or religion need to make the situation somehow more serious? We're a so called 'multicultural nation'. Of course we're going to be slagging off people from different races and religions. Of course we're going to harass those the most different from us. Jesus Christ!

Edit: And for the record, I don't have a problem with people on the internet saying 'F*** WHITE PEOPLE/EUROPEANS' because at the end of the day I have better things to do than search facebook for nonsense groups. If someone harasses me online by following me around then I would have a problem. If someone hit me because I am white or held me back because I am white then that is a genuine problem. Random comments online do not affect my life, nor do they affect the lives of non-natives.

[SilverSurfer22]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-18087379 #
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/54...acked-facebook

I'm going to take a controversial stance and say I agree with the decision.



Following from this previous post of mine, this type of hate speech does disrupt the peace and incite fear in the Jewish community, especially when there were racially motivated attacks against the Jewish community in this area previously. Words have effects. It's not the fact that their racist that is the problem, it's due to the effects of their racism.

I completely disagree
they should not have been arrested.

[eggaforbreakfast]

complete double standards here. there is so much abuse on facebook directed towards all sorts of people and no arrests are ever made unless it is against certain privileged minority groups.

[Beebumble]

It's called freedom of speech not freedom to be a dick.

[ckingalt]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
But, their all negative reactions. If we know X (burning the Qu'ran) will lead to Y (rioting) then why should we allow it

We knew allowing Martin Luther King to march for civil rights would offend many whites and cause civil unrest so why did we allow it.