[hyakushiki1234]

(Original post by Aack)
If you're arguing for your right to call a black person a "******", then you're either racist or a senseless toss pot.

In other words, if you don't want the right for your own use, why do you want it for someone else?

Anti-racial hatred laws are a good thing in civilized society. Believe it or not, it criminalizes "rights" that the vast majority of us are more than happy to forgo.

In any case, I don't believe that I, or anyone else on this planet, has the moral, let alone legal, right to insult someone based on the colour of their skin.

I'll take this point by point:

1: I'm not racist. I couldn't care less about skin colour - we're all human beings and that's that. Nor am I a 'senseless tosspot' - ever consider that some people have different views?

2: That argument is unbelievably ridiculous. Seriously, think about it. Neither I nor most people want political parties like UKIP and the BNP to exist. But do I support their right to exist? Yes, because they are - whether we like them, want to join them or agree with their policies or not - they are legitimate parties. This is the same situation - I don't support the action, I support the right to take said action.

3: Anti-racism laws are themselves racist. This is the irony of them - by creating the distinction between races, you are promoting the idea that they are fundamentally different. If a white man hits a white man, it's assault. If a white man hits a black man, it's a hate crime. In civilized society, people are treated equally, regardless of skin colour. And removing rights is a slippery slope. Imposing the sweeping will of the majority on the minority who still want those rights makes you no better than those people.

4: I don't believe that people should be attacked based on the colour of their skin either. But people have that right in the same way that you exercised the right to call me a 'senseless tosspot' - it's simple, basic freedom of speech, as distasteful as we may find it.

[Aack]

(Original post by hyakushiki1234)
If a white man hits a white man, it's assault. If a white man hits a black man, it's a hate crime.

When you join the real world instead of taking everything in South Park literally, we can continue this discussion.

[Aack]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Hahaha because it's irrelevant and I explained to you that I'm not sure although I lean towards allowing all forms of hate speech. I was hoping that you could provide an argument for to reconsider my stance.

The simple answer to your question is that the law makers of this country don't have the time of day to go through each sector of society and legislate against words/sentences they consider offensive.

It's usual, and logical, to legislate for the most serious acts against the majority view point.

[dgeorge]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Yes it is. It's a part of speech ergo by making it illegal you're effecting freedom of speech when means freedom to say whatever. This is like China saying criticism of the government is illegal, nothing to do with free speech. Any restriction on speech effects freedom of speech. This includes libel laws which most people agree with. I'm not saying I'm against restrictions on speech.

Don't agree. Freedom of speech comes with certain RESPONSIBILITIES. If you have not exercised your freedom of speech responsible (e.g. by harrasment, libel, etc) then it doesn't apply

Thats at least my interpretation of it

[Aack]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Latest tweet

"had a chat with the police today, they wanted to press charges but then I showed em the vid of Ashley Young's PK, and they let me go"

Hahaah

It seems his account has vanished now...shortly after he changed his profile picture to an English Defense League emblem. What a surprise...

[dgeorge]

(Original post by thebruciebonus)
its such BS, its twitter for gods sake! What next, man arrested for post on thestudentroom? Or racist remarks written on back of dirty white van using finger. Prints taken, man held suspect.

Nanny state!

Your post makes absolutely no sense. So someone should not be held responsible for a CRIME because it was posted on twitter? Or facebook? Or any social media, which can be MANY MANY more times more damaging than if it was published in say a newspaper or over the tv?

Secondly, have you even read the tweets? I was going to put them up on the student room, but these are so vile I don't think I will

[Negaduck]

If you are stupid enough to post racist jokes on Twitter then enjoy your punishment. You can go and be racist all you like in private but social networks are not private.

[hyakushiki1234]

(Original post by Aack)
When you join the real world instead of taking everything in South Park literally, we can continue this discussion.

'Join the real world'? Are we having a reasonable discussion or do you just want to continue with personal insults? If it's the latter then you're no better than the people you want to stop. An insult is still an insult and it doesn't matter whether it's based on skin colour.

Interesting how you didn't reply to any of the points I made, either...

[dgeorge]

(Original post by Aack)
It seems his account has vanished now...shortly after he changed his profile picture to an English Defense League emblem. What a surprise...

I'm amused at the people trying to defend this guy. I can't even say that they are using kindergarten logic.

Even taking out the racial element, this guy would be contravening the Public Order act

" Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1988 says it is an offence to use abusive, threatening or insulting words language or behaviour with the intention of casuing alarm distress of harrassment. (That is clearly what happened in the incident that you described)"

I hope this idiot gets charged

[dgeorge]

(Original post by hyakushiki1234)
'Join the real world'? Are we having a reasonable discussion or do you just want to continue with personal insults? If it's the latter then you're no better than the people you want to stop. An insult is still an insult and it doesn't matter whether it's based on skin colour.

Interesting how you didn't reply to any of the points I made, either...

As I said in my other post, even taking OUT the racial element, this guy obviously contravened the Public Order act as i pointed out above.

[Aack]

(Original post by hyakushiki1234)
'Join the real world'? Are we having a reasonable discussion or do you just want to continue with personal insults? If it's the latter then you're no better than the people you want to stop. An insult is still an insult and it doesn't matter whether it's based on skin colour.

Interesting how you didn't reply to any of the points I made, either...

Ok, where's your evidence to back up your pathetic assertion below?

"If a white man hits a white man, it's assault. If a white man hits a black man, it's a hate crime."

[hyakushiki1234]

(Original post by Aack)
It's usual, and logical, to legislate for the most serious acts against the majority view point.

Again, an imposition of the will of the majority on the minority. I believe that similar arguments were used in Nazi Germany, Napoleonic France and against homosexuals before the 1950s. Saying that it's the majority view doesn't make it right.

[Aack]

(Original post by hyakushiki1234)
Again, an imposition of the will of the majority on the minority. I believe that similar arguments were used in Nazi Germany, Napoleonic France and against homosexuals before the 1950s. Saying that it's the majority view doesn't make it right.

I didn't say that that the majority view is equal to correct viewpoints.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Aack)
The simple answer to your question is that the law makers of this country don't have the time of day to go through each sector of society and legislate against words/sentences they consider offensive.

It's usual, and logical, to legislate for the most serious acts against the majority view point.

You think the majority agree that racism should be a crime? I don't think they would.

(Original post by dgeorge)
Don't agree. Freedom of speech comes with certain RESPONSIBILITIES. If you have not exercised your freedom of speech responsible (e.g. by harrasment, libel, etc) then it doesn't apply

Thats at least my interpretation of it

Then it's not freedom of speech rather restricted speech.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by dgeorge)
As I said in my other post, even taking OUT the racial element, this guy obviously contravened the Public Order act as i pointed out above.

How can you prove his intent?

[dgeorge]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
You think the majority agree that racism should be a crime? I don't think they would.



Then it's not freedom of speech rather restricted speech.

There is no such thing as "absolute freedom of speech". EVER. It has never existed. Freedom of speech, even in it's origin, has never given anyone the right to say whatever they want however they want.


One good example of freedom of speech is this definition:

The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law

[dgeorge]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
How can you prove his intent?

Did you read the tweets?

[Aack]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
You think the majority agree that racism should be a crime? I don't think they would.

The majority of your friends, or the majority of the UK electorate?

[Maerzin]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Then it's not freedom of speech rather restricted speech.

I have to agree with this.

If the man in question broke a law then he should be punished, that's fair. However, when we take the law itself into question, it is incompatible with freedom of speech. Thus, if such laws exist there cannot be said to be free speech in the country. Whether this is a good or bad thing is not something I'm commenting on above.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by dgeorge)
Did you read the tweets?

Yeah. Doesn't prove intent though.

(Original post by Aack)
The majority of your friends, or the majority of the UK electorate?

Majority of UK electorate.*

(Original post by dgeorge)
There is no such thing as "absolute freedom of speech". EVER. It has never existed. Freedom of speech, even in it's origin, has never given anyone the right to say whatever they want however they want.


One good example of freedom of speech is this definition:

The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law

Pointless definition. China has freedom of speech according to that definition. I agree with you freedom of speech has never existed. I think we should come up with a new term and stop abusing this term. Call it restricted speech or some ****.