[dgeorge]

(Original post by Maerzin)
Verbal abuse does have a negative effect and I do not think it's okay or insignificant. However, the act of suicide is committed by the victim and they are not physically coerced into doing that. Again, I'm not trying to trvialise the problems people face.

If a single off-hand remark and years of bullying have the same effect on an individual should the perpetrator be held accountable in both the instances? If we also take into account what the perpetrator has done (in this case verbally) then some people might consider certain things as valid verbal abuse while others won't.

As I pointed out there are guidelines as to what is acceptable and what isn't. It isn't as subjective as you're trying to make it sound. Depending on the LAWS that are legislating it, the perpetrator will be punished accordingly.

If one person considers it abuse while the other doesn't, again there are laws, judges and juries to determine whether or not they will be criminally liable.

[Maerzin]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
<snip>

(Original post by dgeorge)
<snip>

I deleted my posts because I just wanted to tackle the issue at hand instead of posting a myriad of confusing tangential posts

Personally, I don't believe verbal abuse should be prosecuted. The reason I agreed with the bomb scare issue was because it is an admission of a physical act with direct, physical ramifications. If it only constituted as abuse of a psychological nature, I would not agree with it.

I don't know what the exact comments by the man in the original story were. However, I gather they were racial slurs and the like. Considering the examples you both have given me of the effects of psychological abuse, do you think those comments have affected the players in that way?

With that said, I don't think my views on free speech are "right" and "moral". Furthermore, verbal abuse can have relatively grave consequences and it should be tackled in a way which doesn't involve the legal prosecution of the perpetrator.

[dgeorge]

(Original post by Maerzin)
I deleted my posts because I just wanted to tackle the issue at hand instead of posting a myriad of confusing tangential posts

Personally, I don't believe verbal abuse should be prosecuted. The reason I agreed with the bomb scare issue was because it is an admission of a physical act with direct, physical ramifications. If it only constituted as abuse of a psychological nature, I would not agree with it.

I don't know what the exact comments by the man in the original story were. However, I gather they were racial slurs and the like. Considering the examples you both have given me of the effects of psychological abuse, do you think those comments have affected the players in that way?

With that said, I don't think my views on free speech are "right" and "moral". Furthermore, verbal abuse can have relatively grave consequences and it should be tackled in a way which doesn't involve the legal prosecution of the perpetrator.

The twitter person also replied to someone (a pakistani) who had replied to him, saying that he had skin the colour of ****, called the players in question monkeys, said that all black people couldn't read/were stupid, and thats the ones that stood out. There were others, but I had a glance over it right before it was deleted.

We agree both agree that verbal abuse can be psychologically damaging, and that crimes that threaten one's physical well being should be punished, even when no physical harm comes to them. So why not verbal abuse which is beyond and above what is called for? Why shouldn't that be a crime as well? Again, there are laws IN PLACE which specifies what does constitute criminal verbal abuse, and while there is SOME subjectivity involved, there is room for interpretation and subjectivity in ANY law. Why should a psychologically damaging action be simply ignored? What punishments would you propose then?

[thebruciebonus]

(Original post by dgeorge)
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

My post makes perfect sense.

NO, nobody should be prosecuted / go to prison over TWEETS. If you think they should, it would seem that you are more motivated by empowering black people given the subject nature. I wouldnt say a black man should go to prison / be prosecuted over racist white tweets. So it works both ways, something pro black people dont seem to think about. You seem to let the anger cloud your judgement....................... ......

uhoh, racist alert!

*SIRENS*

*never heard from again*

Government officials overwhelmed by mass immigration nod approvingly

[navarre]

If ever I were to become PM, being a libertarian at heart, free speech would be the first thing I would implement. Complete free speech. No matter how abhorrent, disgusting, offensive or racist someone is, they should be allowed to express their opinion without being arrested.

I just don't see the point in free speech if every time someone says something offensive they're arrested. Free speech doesn't exist to protect inoffensive remarks, but offensive ones.

[Kiss]

Freedom of speech never existed in the first place, but the ideals of the UN's Human Rights Convention have been chiselled away into a fine and useless powder. I don't think what they said was appropriate but I wouldn't arrest them, same for Liam Stacey. They directly addressed both players which was stupid because that is direct abuse, but had they voiced their opinion in a tweet then they should not be arrested or charged.

The UK is slowly turning into an authoratarian state no better than the likes of China or Iran, and with the new measures to monitor the internet and 'report trolls', the free speech we have left will be gone within 4 years tops.

[Beebumble]

(Original post by navarre)
If ever I were to become PM, being a libertarian at heart, free speech would be the first thing I would implement. Complete free speech. No matter how abhorrent, disgusting, offensive or racist someone is, they should be allowed to express their opinion without being arrested.

I just don't see the point in free speech if every time someone says something offensive they're arrested. Free speech doesn't exist to protect inoffensive remarks, but offensive ones.

So if you were PM I'd be able to harass people, threaten people basically make their lives a living hell and then just get away with it because of 'free speech'. What about peoples rights to live their life without fear or harassment or is freedom to spout crap more important then that?

[Beebumble]

(Original post by Kiss)

The UK is slowly turning into an authoratarian state no better than the likes of China or Iran, and with the new measures to monitor the internet and 'report trolls', the free speech we have left will be gone within 4 years tops.

Saying that's an overstatement would be an understatement.

[navarre]

(Original post by Beebumble)
So if you were PM I'd be able to harass people, threaten people basically make their lives a living hell and then just get away with it because of 'free speech'. What about peoples rights to live their life without fear or harassment or is freedom to spout crap more important then that?

Yep. You absolutely would. Anything short of violence is completely allowed. That doesn't mean it's acceptable, or encouraged. It just means that free speech is an inalienable right that should be used as people see fit, for good or for worse, and that the State has no right whatsoever to arrest people for the words that come out of their mouths.

[Beebumble]

(Original post by navarre)
Yep. You absolutely would. Anything short of violence is completely allowed. That doesn't mean it's acceptable, or encouraged. It just means that free speech is an inalienable right that should be used as people see fit, for good or for worse, and that the State has no right whatsoever to arrest people for the words that come out of their mouths.

So I'd be able to wait outside my neighbors door and swear at them for no reason even at their children? I'd be able to bully kids until they want to commit suicide? I'd be able to play music at the highest level all night not letting anyone having any peace? I'd be able to walk into hospitals and tell people who are dying or grieving that I'm glad they'll be dead. I'd be allowed to protest at funerals? All without repercussion?

Jeesh I'm glad you're not prime minister. The whole country would be in mayhem many peoples lives will be destroyed and you'll be standing there shrugging your shoulders!

What you're basically saying is people should not have the right to not be harassed but only have the right to harass.

[navarre]

(Original post by Beebumble)
So I'd be able to wait outside my neighbors door and swear at them for no reason even at their children? I'd be able to bully kids until they want to commit suicide? I'd be able to play music at the highest level all night not letting anyone having any peace? I'd be able to walk into hospitals and tell people who are dying or grieving that I'm glad they'll be dead. I'd be allowed to protest at funerals? All without repercussion?

Jeesh I'm glad you're not prime minister. The whole country would be in mayhem many peoples lives will be destroyed and you'll be standing there shrugging your shoulders!

What you're basically saying is people should not have the right to not be harassed but only have the right to harass.

From the State. I'm not saying your actions won't have consequences. All I'm saying is that you will not be arrested for saying things. Your consequences may drive your victims to punch you, take out a restraining order against you or to turn against you in other ways. However, you won't be arrested for them.

And I'll never be prime minister because my ideas are dangerous and too revolutionary and I'm that dangerous breed of people that sticks to their principles.

[Beebumble]

(Original post by navarre)
From the State. I'm not saying your actions won't have consequences. All I'm saying is that you will not be arrested for saying things. Your consequences may drive your victims to punch you, take out a restraining order against you or to turn against you in other ways. However, you won't be arrested for them.

And I'll never be prime minister because my ideas are dangerous and too revolutionary and I'm that dangerous breed of people that sticks to their principles.

But ultimately you need laws. Smoking is not encouraged either there are lots of consequences for smoking but it's still common because ultimately there's nothing that can be done about it unless they break the law and are then arrested. What's to stop anyone from harassing people if they can't get arrested for it? If, they can cry freedom of speech and take people to court every time they feel there right to spout crap is being infringed. Then they can basically get away with anything.

Sticking to your principles is not always this brilliant idea. I believe people should be able to have sex with who they like but only if that person is a consenting adult. Many things need boundaries.

[navarre]

(Original post by Beebumble)
But ultimately you need laws. Smoking is not encouraged either there are lots of consequences for smoking but it's still common because ultimately there's nothing that can be done about it unless they break the law and are then arrested. What's to stop anyone from harassing people if they can't get arrested for it? If, they can cry freedom of speech and take people to court every time they feel there right to spout crap is being infringed. Then they can basically get away with anything.

Sticking to your principles is not always this brilliant idea. I believe people should be able to have sex with who they like but only if that person is a consenting adult. Many things need boundaries.

Social consequences, threat of violence, restraining orders...

There are sooo many alternatives to being arrested. And even with the law as it is, it doesn't work very well. We still have racism, we still have bullying, we still have harrassment, we still have offensive things being spouted left, right and centre. The law as it stands doesn't stop people from speaking their mind- it just arrests them for it, and is applied sparodically and inconsistently. Arresting people for speaking their mind wastes taxpayers money, distracts and wastes the time of the police from solving more serious crimes, and creates prisoners of thought and conscience, and even created martyrs.

People don't learn very well from being arrested. Are you going to change a racist's mind by throwing them in prison? More likely, you are going to make them even more resentful, and their views are not going to change.

This is where education comes in too. Also, you haven't considered this: the majority of people are good, and abhor discriminatory and racist thoughts. Most people not only will not partake in such speech, but they will actively laugh at it, ridicule it and marginalise those who practise it to the fringes of society.

There's also the problem of where to draw the line. A comedian telling a sexist joke may be seen as funny by me but could be seen as offensive to someone else. If someone was arrested every time something offensive was said, everyone would be imprisoned.

[Kiss]

(Original post by Beebumble)
Saying that's an overstatement would be an understatement.

You didn't reply directly to any of the content which only suggests you don't have much to provide on the matter.

[Beebumble]

(Original post by Kiss)
You didn't reply directly to any of the content which only suggests you don't have much to provide on the matter.

There's no point arguing someone who exaggerate to that extent.

[limetang]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
No need to bring in the 'free speech' stuff into this, in my opinion...

If they have mentioned anything that only offends or harasses then fair enough for police action, if not and they were a bit oversensitive (for lack of a better word), then yh, it may be something to talk about, but I wouldn't say it's detrimental to freedom of speech...

If it harasses someone then maybe there is call for police action, but I genuinely do think that punishing someone for 'offending' someone is unacceptable. Offence is just something that is going to happen if people are free to speak their minds.

I mean seriously. I'm offended by lots of things, but it absolutely ludicrous for me to try and claim that those things should be made illegal.

[Beebumble]

(Original post by navarre)
Social consequences, threat of violence, restraining orders...

There are sooo many alternatives to being arrested. And even with the law as it is, it doesn't work very well. We still have racism, we still have bullying, we still have harrassment, we still have offensive things being spouted left, right and centre. The law as it stands doesn't stop people from speaking their mind- it just arrests them for it, and is applied sparodically and inconsistently. Arresting people for speaking their mind wastes taxpayers money, distracts and wastes the time of the police from solving more serious crimes, and creates prisoners of thought and conscience, and even created martyrs.

People don't learn very well from being arrested. Are you going to change a racist's mind by throwing them in prison? More likely, you are going to make them even more resentful, and their views are not going to change.

This is where education comes in too. Also, you haven't considered this: the majority of people are good, and abhor discriminatory and racist thoughts. Most people not only will not partake in such speech, but they will actively laugh at it, ridicule it and marginalise those who practise it to the fringes of society.

There's also the problem of where to draw the line. A comedian telling a sexist joke may be seen as funny by me but could be seen as offensive to someone else. If someone was arrested every time something offensive was said, everyone would be imprisoned.

I'm not saying arrest someone every time something offensive has been said but if someone's behavior is becoming such a problem that is affecting someone's life then that person's right to live their life without fear or harassment goes above the perpetrators right to harass them. Why should someone have to take responsibility for someonelse's actions using threats and violence when the law is supposed to protect their well being.

Of course we still have all those things there's no way to eliminate it completely. We still have rape and murderers. Does that mean we should just get rid of murder and rape laws because 'they're not working'? The law helps to contain the problem and set those who are in the wrong on the right path. It may not change their views. I'm ok with them having views I'm not ok with them forcing it on someone else and making someone else's life a misery. The victim should always come first.

One of many reasons as to why bullying is such a problem in schools is because for some reason the law is not enforced as well in schools as it is in the outside world. Maybe if children learnt to take responsibility for their actions and got a bit of a shock once in a while without someone rushing to protect their freedom to be a bully there'd be a lot more children who are happier and achieving in society.

[navarre]

(Original post by Beebumble)
I'm not saying arrest someone every time something offensive has been said but if someone's behavior is becoming such a problem that is affecting someone's life then that person's right to live their life without fear or harassment goes above the perpetrators right to harass them. Why should someone have to take responsibility for someonelse's actions using threats and violence when the law is supposed to protect their well being.

Of course we still have all those things there's no way to eliminate it completely. We still have rape and murderers. Does that mean we should just get rid of murder and rape laws because 'they're not working'? The law helps to contain the problem and set those who are in the wrong on the right path. It may not change their views. I'm ok with them having views I'm not ok with them forcing it on someone else and making someone else's life a misery. The victim should always come first.

One of many reasons as to why bullying is such a problem in schools is because for some reason the law is not enforced as well in schools as it is in the outside world. Maybe if children learnt to take responsibility for their actions and got a bit of a shock once in a while without someone rushing to protect their freedom to be a bully there'd be a lot more children who are happier and achieving in society.

I knew you'd fall into this argument. Rape and murder are not, in any way, comparable to free speech. Not only are rape and murder immeasurably worse that saying insulting and offensive things, but free speech is a right- rape and murder are not rights.

Free speech is healthy for any society. And yes, that means we have to take the bad with the good. But then, how is that different from anything else in life?

[Beebumble]

(Original post by navarre)
I knew you'd fall into this argument. Rape and murder are not, in any way, comparable to free speech. Not only are rape and murder immeasurably worse that saying insulting and offensive things, but free speech is a right- rape and murder are not rights.

Free speech is healthy for any society. And yes, that means we have to take the bad with the good. But then, how is that different from anything else in life?

No there not the same thing but the principle is the same. You said you stick to your principles then why is it you think that rape laws work perfectly well even though there are still rapists but race laws doesn't work because there are still racists?

I suppose it could be compared to murder if someone harassed someone, knowing they were in a frail state of mind, and that person then committed suicide.

Sometimes we have to take the good with the bad but in this instance I don't think the supposed 'good' that comes with complete free speech is worth it.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by limetang)
If it harasses someone then maybe there is call for police action, but I genuinely do think that punishing someone for 'offending' someone is unacceptable. Offence is just something that is going to happen if people are free to speak their minds.

I mean seriously. I'm offended by lots of things, but it absolutely ludicrous for me to try and claim that those things should be made illegal.

Like I said before with another user, offencive material is subjective, but there are areas where it is pretty much safe to call objective. I'm not saying everything that is offensive should be involved.

There is also the matter of what the motive behind the speech is, which turns this into one big gooey mess of subjectivity