[hyakushiki1234]

(Original post by Aack)
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."

That was badly worded. Look at it this way: A white man punches a white man in the face. It's assault. A white man punches a black man in the face on the basis of his race and goes to jail for longer. Why is that? A punch in the face is still a punch in the face. It's racist the black man that the white man goes to jail for longer because it encourages the idea that the black man is different and that different rules apply to him. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by hyakushiki1234)
That was badly worded. Look at it this way: A white man punches a white man in the face. It's assault. A white man punches a black man in the face on the basis of his race and goes to jail for longer. Why is that? A punch in the face is still a punch in the face. It's racist the black man that the white man goes to jail for longer because it encourages the idea that the black man is different and that different rules apply to him. Positive discrimination is still discrimination.

No. Because if the black man punched a white man on the basis of his race it would be a hate crime.

[hyakushiki1234]

(Original post by Aack)
I didn't say that that the majority view is equal to correct viewpoints.

That's what you're suggesting, though. Both to me and to several others you've suggested that the majority would agree with certain restrictions as a means to justify your points.

[hyakushiki1234]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
No. Because if the black man punched a white man on the basis of his race it would be a hate crime.

That's true, but I only gave that above example as exactly that - an example. The point was that increasing sentences by defining separate racial groups is a racist act in itself. It's racist to all parties because it encourages the idea that we should treat members of different races differently to how we treat our own races.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

F

(Original post by internetguru)
It depends how you define free speech. If you are a true advocate of free speech then yes it is an attack on free speech as it is saying you can't say what you want.

I consider free speech, the right to be able to voice your opinion in the same sense as having the right to vote. It should be able to allow you to have your voice heard I.e. the act of being able to get it heard, not so that you can have the freedom to offend/harass others. That isn't freedom of speech, that's just abusing a right in order to take the piss. It would be like saying free speech=freedom to verbally bully others... That's mental.

Freedom of speech has or should have boundaries

[dgeorge]

(Original post by Maerzin)
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.

No, freedom of speech has ALWAYS factored in that it can be abused. There is no "absolute" freedom of speech, but it is instead relative. The right to free speech carries along with it certain responsibilities: Thus if these responsibilities are breached, then it would not be covered

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by hyakushiki1234)
That's true, but I only gave that above example as exactly that - an example. The point was that increasing sentences by defining separate racial groups is a racist act in itself. It's racist to all parties because it encourages the idea that we should treat members of different races differently to how we treat our own races.

Oh I see fair enough

[internetguru]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
I consider free speech, the right to be able to voice your opinion in the same sense as having the right to vote. It should be able to allow you to have your voice heard, not so that you can have the freedom to offend/harass others. That isn't freedom of speech, that's just abusing a right in order to take the piss

Offensiveness is entirely subjective though and can lead to the crushing of free speech. We can no longer challenge different opinions because people find it offensive etc. Yes sometimes nasty things can be heard but that is the sacrifice we have to make for freedom of speech.

[Maerzin]

(Original post by dgeorge)
No, freedom of speech has ALWAYS factored in that it can be abused. There is no "absolute" freedom of speech, but it is instead relative. The right to free speech carries along with it certain responsibilities: Thus if these responsibilities are breached, then it would not be covered

I guess we have different ways of defining free speech. For me, under the wider freedom of expression, it should not have any limitations to be considered a "freedom". Also, if you do use that definition than I guess it could be said every country in the world has free speech. While you may agree to that as well, many contradict themselves when dealing with the concept of free speech.

Anyway, you are right in saying that this case is not going against the UK's definition of "free speech".

[dgeorge]

(Original post by internetguru)
Offensiveness is entirely subjective though and can lead to the crushing of free speech. We can no longer challenge different opinions because people find it offensive etc. Yes sometimes nasty things can be heard but that is the sacrifice we have to make for freedom of speech.

We can no longer challenge different opinions because people find it offensive etc

I disagree. You can challenge any opinion you want, but it should be done in the appropriate and respectful manner. Calling someone a "black ****ing ****" as was done in the tweets was definitely NOT respectful nor responsible.

Yes sometimes nasty things can be heard but that is the sacrifice we have to make for freedom of speech.

You speak of freedom of speech as if it was ABSOLUTE freedom of speech, and that we have had it before and are somehow in danger of losing it. When has there ever been absolute freedom of speech?

Are you trying to say that mental pain and anguish are something we should just allow, despite the fact that ideas can be communicated without name calling or cursing?

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Maerzin)
I guess we have different ways of defining free speech. For me, under the wider freedom of expression, it should not have any limitations to be considered a "freedom". Also, if you do use that definition than I guess it could be said every country in the world has free speech. While you may agree to that as well, many contradict themselves when dealing with the concept of free speech.

Anyway, you are right in saying that this case is not going against the UK's definition of "free speech".

Any? You think people should be able to threaten to kill David Cameron, write libellous remarks about various people and verbally harass/bully somebody without reprisals?

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by internetguru)
Offensiveness is entirely subjective though and can lead to the crushing of free speech. We can no longer challenge different opinions because people find it offensive etc. Yes sometimes nasty things can be heard but that is the sacrifice we have to make for freedom of speech.

Yes, offensive material can be subjective, but we can take solace in the fact that there are areas where such material is so offensive, it can be arguably objective if that makes sense.

Putting it another way, It is a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable, it is extremely wrong to say it is a building. In this case, both are wrong but the latter is more obvious.

We can challenge... In the same way you can challenge an overly PC society. What makes you think it's not possible?

It shouldn't. Again, the point should be having the freedom to have the ability to express your views. It is right to use it to voice your disagreement with something, look at Dawkins and religion, you should be able to criticise. It is wrong to use it for the sole purpose of offending others. In this case, it's just using free speech as a scape goat for people to act like a **** and this is wrong

Regarding the subjective/objective offence. I may be wrong but the subjectivityis mainly due to being able to criticise others which like you say, we have to deal with. But the objective variant, we do not. It is a crime and it needs to be resolved.

This is why, despite my dislike for the bnp, I will support their right to voice their opinion, but that's pretty much it, other than that, they can go to hell...

[dgeorge]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Yeah. Doesn't prove intent though.



Majority of UK electorate.*



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 ****.

Yeah. Doesn't prove intent though

Explain to me how the tweets would have had to be constructed to "prove" intent.

Surely if I call someone a "black ****ing ****" (as was done in the tweets) I INTEND to cause them alarm, distress or harassment?

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 ****

You can't make up your own definition for what you want. Its not an abuse of the term, simply because from its INCEPTION it was understood that freedom of speech does not extend to people who have abused such freedom of speech. It simply doesn't mean what you WANT to interpret it as

[internetguru]

(Original post by dgeorge)
I disagree. You can challenge any opinion you want, but it should be done in the appropriate and respectful manner. Calling someone a "black ****ing ****" as was done in the tweets was definitely NOT respectful nor responsible.



You speak of freedom of speech as if it was ABSOLUTE freedom of speech, and that we have had it before and are somehow in danger of losing it. When has there ever been absolute freedom of speech?

Are you trying to say that mental pain and anguish are something we should just allow, despite the fact that ideas can be communicated without name calling or cursing?

What someone says on the internet is irrelevant to real life it isn't real. I say stuff on the internet all the time it doesn't mean I would say it in real life. People complain when children can't distinguish between computer games and reality and end up murdering someone. Well I am complaining that people can't distinguish between the internet and reality.

[dgeorge]

(Original post by Maerzin)
I guess we have different ways of defining free speech. For me, under the wider freedom of expression, it should not have any limitations to be considered a "freedom". Also, if you do use that definition than I guess it could be said every country in the world has free speech. While you may agree to that as well, many contradict themselves when dealing with the concept of free speech.

Anyway, you are right in saying that this case is not going against the UK's definition of "free speech".

I guess we have different ways of defining free speech

No we don't. YOU have a different way of defining freedom of speech. As I said earlier, from its inception it was acknowledged that "freedom of speech" can be abused. The problem is, you and others who are arguing for "freedom of speech" do not understand the concept.

Again, freedom of speech has never meant that you can say whatever you want, whenever and however you want to say it.

[dgeorge]

(Original post by internetguru)
What someone says on the internet is irrelevant to real life it isn't real. I say stuff on the internet all the time it doesn't mean I would say it in real life. People complain when children can't distinguish between computer games and reality and end up murdering someone. Well I am complaining that people can't distinguish between the internet and reality.

Are we living in some kind of virtual reality? How is what someone says on the internet not real? How is less real than print media? Or television? Why should something I say in a forum, which is accessible for people around the world to see at any time they want, be more irrelevant than something that is shown on tv or printed in a newspaper or magazine?



And just because YOU have lower standards for expressing yourself on the internet does not mean that you SHOULD.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by internetguru)
What someone says on the internet is irrelevant to real life it isn't real. I say stuff on the internet all the time it doesn't mean I would say it in real life. People complain when children can't distinguish between computer games and reality and end up murdering someone. Well I am complaining that people can't distinguish between the internet and reality.

It is real. To assume it doesn't means you have utterly ignored the numerous cases of cyber bullying which is a very REAL problem.

There was a documentary about this and social networking. People trolling R.I.P sites, it was shown on BBC3, if you have time, you should try to watch it.

You talking on the Internet=/= a dream.
There is a very real person on the other end of the Ethernet cable, you know

[Maerzin]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Any? You think people should be able to threaten to kill David Cameron, write libellous remarks about various people and verbally harass/bully somebody without reprisals?

Well, while I may not agree with it, yes they should. This doesn't mean such a threat to a leading political figure cannot be investigated but the person should not be reprimanded just because of that.

The whole issue for me is that how offensive or how threatening a remark is, is highly subjective. A freedom of expression, meaning without limitations in this case, can be determined objectively but the limitations put on it cannot. While one may think such a remark is a threat, others may think a remark against the Chinese government is a threat.

Just to clarify, I'm arguing from a theoretical standpoint and not discussing what the law should be like in any particular country.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by dgeorge)
Explain to me how the tweets would have had to be constructed to "prove" intent.

Surely if I call someone a "black ****ing ****" (as was done in the tweets) I INTEND to cause them alarm, distress or harassment?

Nope, only a case for racial harassment can be made and you said excluding racial aspect.

[internetguru]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
It is real. To assume it doesn't means you have utterly ignored the numerous cases of cyber bullying which is a very REAL problem.

There was a documentary about this and social networking. People trolling R.I.P sites, it was shown on BBC3, if you have time, you should try to watch it.

You talking on the Internet=/= a dream.
There is a very real person on the other end of the Ethernet cable, you know

Which is why vulnerable people shouldn't use the internet. The internet has been like this for a lot longer than they have been using it. It is either adapt to your surroundings or die not change your surroundings to suit yourself.