http://uk.news.yahoo.com...race-rant-103140396.html

Firstly, I do not condone racism or silly racist comments, but the above news article grabbed my attention.
I fear the time is fast approaching where they will have an excuse to ruin a life for the slightest of transgressions. Sad times indeed are upon us.

Orwell was only off by 20-25 years, not bad as prophecy goes.

Nexians beware!

Nexians relax.

Abuse is abuse. Verbal abuse has been a crime for a long time, nothing new here except it has opened up new meaning with social networking. Abuse is wrong any way you slice it. And 56 days in jail is in no way is it a life ruining sentence.

I guess he was punished to make an example of him, to show what happens when you dish out such abuse. The same has happened when people have made abusive posts on facebook memorial pages etc.

Nice to see Muamba making a recovery by the way, it sounds to me like he suffers from Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. It reminds me of Miklos Feher, back in 2004, who unfortunately wasn't as lucky.

Peace

Macre

If I recall correctly the UK does not have the same free speech we have in the US. Racist comments are not allowed in the UK and have been prosecuted in the past as well. If someone wants to post the exact law that would be cool.

edit: here is some more info https://en.wikipedia.org...y_country#United_Kingdom
http://books.google.com/...nepage&q&f=false

Note that the gov only reacted after receiving numerous complaints, it's not like they were monitoring his every word or anything... pretty funny, though, I guess that's what you get from Swansea uni

Hate speech is not constitutionally protected in the US...

The issue here is not that verbal abuse , racial or otherwise is right or wrong,( that was clear in my opening statement) it's the fact that the long arm of the law has the right to come knocking on your door with an arrest warrant for something you wrote on the web.

Who defines abuse? what parameters are there to differentiate from a bad taste rant, or lampooning? Who gets punished? who is let of with a warning? What if someone else wrote it on your device?

This particular case is worrisome, it sets a precedent for further repressive measures that are infringing on the right of free speech. Think of all the reasons and devices that have been dreamnt up lately to curtail civil liberties. TSA patdown searhes ( even on the open highway), X-ray scanning at check ins, Call monitoring.Fingerprinting. ( the list goes on and on)

The web forums are absolutely seething with abusive posts, should they all be locked up?

The ruining the life part relates to the fact that the person in question will likely loose his position at University ( into his 3yrd year if I read correctly)
Also try a stint out in jail for 1 month with hardened criminals as room mates, you may alter your view point during that time frame..

So if you support the governments definition of crime, I'd be correct in assuming that you are also a supporter of the war on drugs? That simple possession of class A substances justifies lengthy jail terms? Or are you picking and choosing here to suit your own moral stance?

Thanks Tele, I'll sleep well tonight.

Basically I believe our freedom of speech is solid here. Yes we do things that are illegal in most places but we have the right to do so as humans considering the nature of our doings. Also we shouldn't worry about cops coming after us as our IP addresses are protected here.

When was hate speech limited in the United States? Westboro Baptist Church protests funerals of dead soldiers, children, and victims of natural disasters all across the country with signs proclaiming "GOD HATES FAGS"

relevent court case

It is protected by the 1st Amendment, unless it contains obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, or fighting words.

I dunno about the US but here in the UK we do have freedom of speech BUT its the response of the audience to whom its pitched to that determines whether or not one gets away with it.Say what you will......but if 'the crowd' doesnt like it expect a slap.

TWITTER That Which Is Thought Then Expressed Regardless.

LOL

Ummm... hard to divide the two. If you stand up in a mall, or school, or street corner and scream racial hate, someone will report you and the police will arrive and arrest you - please explain the difference to me? Writing hate, speaking hate, screaming hate, publicly, whether on the web or live, is unnacceptable and in any decent society is punishable. THINK hate, and you are a hateful person, but have not broken any laws and I will defend to the death anyone's right to THINK. Try and SPREAD hate publicly, and I will defend any governement's right to PERSECUTE you, regardless of FORMAT, and regardless of how it came to their attention.

Think before you spread ideas. And think before you support the spreading of others' ideas...



This is the weakest argument in support of hatred I have ever seen! I mean, really? The governement indicts hate crimes AND indicts drug users, so if you are a DRUG USER you must by association support HATE? That is some twisted logic my good friend...

JBArk

I am by no means condoning the spread of hateful messages, but I think in any decent society that values freedom of speech, one should have the right to utter anything they please as long as it isn't physically threatening or verging on harassment. Racist statements about a football player on the web should not be grounds for arrest. Though the comments are ignorant, I am surprised this person is being prosecuted.

uhh, yes, you are actually condoning it... if you don't agree (which apparently you DON'T) that hateful messages are just that: harrassment, you most certainly are condoning it whether you realize it or not.

WIKIPEDIA:

Where do we draw the lines on harassment? When I used the word harassment I was referring to repeated unwanted contact perpetrated by one individual to another. When it comes to people interpreting definitions of words there is a problem. Calling someone a racial obscenity is no different than someone calling an individual a generic obscenity. I am NOT condoning it, I am condoning free speech. Hateful messages are not harassment unless they persist directly to an individual. Posting things online to a stranger on a public forum can hardly be interpreted as harassment.

"Calling someone a racial obscenity is no different than someone calling an individual a generic obscenity."

Do you REALLY believe this? That, say, calling someone a dimwit is the same as calling them a racial epithet that lumps them in with a racial stereotype that is insulting and demeaning to an entire race of persons? And is meant to demean them through association with a racial group that is inferred inferior?

If you TRULY believe this, you need to seriously rethink your stance and do a little more reading, particularly in the history department. Extreme right wing bigots and neo Nazi haters and religious fundamentalists absolutely RELY on this kind of reasoning to perpetrate their agenda.

"I am NOT condoning it, I am condoning free speech. Hateful messages are not harassment unless they persist directly to an individual."

Free speech, in any country that espouses it that I am aware of, sees HATRED as an exception to free speech, because it impinges on the freedoms of others. Condoning hatred under the banner of free speech is, AGAIN, what hate groups always fall back on in defence of their stance. It seems clear to me that you have either not clearly thought this through, or are advocating hatred behind a thin veil of "freedom". Freedom HAS to be universal, or it is not freedom. Ironically, this means restrictions on YOUR freedoms in order to protect those of others. Indulging in the propagation of hate, I don't know how much clearer I can express this, is a FALSE freedom that puts your perceived freedoms above the real freedoms of others.

In the world we live in, it is wrong, and hurtful and destructive and, yes, PUNISHABLE. This is how we protect the freedom of ALL, by limiting the freedoms of ALL. Ironic, but necessary.

JBArk