UK hate speech laws don't protect people, they victimize free expression

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:46 pm

I imagine this will be rather divisive, but I'm going to come right out and say it -- I agree wholeheartedly that putting people in jail for saying vile things hurts the public more than helping it, and sets a dangerous precedent.

Free expression is a basic human right that should not be allowed to become the sole province of the Fear Gland Brigade.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, usually mistakenly attributed to Voltaire

Tweeting racist or otherwise libelous bile can land you in jail in the UK, but the victim, as ever, is not the target of the tweet but free speech.
When Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman briefly melted down in a post-game interview Sunday, shouting something about his superior skills as a football player and the relative insignificance of a player on the opposing team, the Internet did what the Internet does best: In high dudgeon, it sputtered, typed in all caps, and excreted hundreds of witless tweets. Well, most of it was witless. Some of it, predictably, was racist. A young lad named Travis Ozegovich, representing the latter category, tweeted “Richard Sherman = typical nigger.”

Now, there is likely no person on Earth that I would want to have a drink with less, much less befriend or employ, than a young troglodyte like Travis Ozegovich. And by dribbling out his racist bile on Twitter—and by me writing about it, repeating his name for the spiders and robots of Google—it seems that Travis Ozegovich will have a rather difficult time convincing future friends and employers that he isn’t a racist moron. Mostly because the available evidence suggests that he is.

But imagine if we could levy punishment—fines and jail time, piled on top of the standard obloquy and backlash—on Ozegovich for the crime of being a sad little racist. And imagine if we could deputize bureaucrats and police pencil-pushers to trawl Twitter in search of other sad little racists, filling our already overstuffed prisons with even more racists. In the United States, thankfully, we crowdsource our anti-racism efforts, leaving the public shaming to websites like Deadspin, which flagged Ozegovich’s dead-on George Wallace impression and apparently forced him to shutter his Twitter and Facebook accounts.

But there are plenty of places where people like Ozegovich would be remanded into police custody for their knuckle-dragging comments. Because while an American sports star was being abused on Twitter, sports fans in the United Kingdom were venting their anger at various stars and coaches in various professional soccer leagues—and drawing the attention of prosecutors.

Like the chip shop employee with 23 Twitter followers—all close friends—who vented this measured and enlightened critique of Celtic manager Neil Lennon’s coaching style on the microblogging service. “I seriously do wish that someone would kill that ugly ginger cunt.” It was retweeted an astonishing zero times.

Yes, yes. One shouldn’t be in the business of threatening to kill professional athletes and their coaches, no matter how much their decisions or substandard play ruin your afternoon. And threats of violence, even if hyperbolic and meant in jest, are something rather different than cruelty towards “gingers” (though this is likely also an offense. The flame-haired children of the United Kingdom gathered in London recently to protest wide-spread discrimination against red heads). Had he joked at a pub, and within the earshot of a concerned constable, "I could kill Neil Lennon for that coaching decision," does anyone imagine that the boozy chip merchant would have ended up in the back of a police car? But on Twitter, the man with a half dozen followers and no retweets is presumed to either be a homicidal madman or in possession of the power to suborn murder.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/23/can-a-tweet-land-you-in-prison-it-certainly-will-in-the-uk.html

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:52 pm

I get what you say Ben, but sadly with some ,free speech creates victims Sad

Often abuse is passed off as free speech.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:56 pm

Firstly Ben I could not agree more.

Secondly I am afraid I am going to bring some forum history in - us posters from the old sky used to have a saying and I am guessing still do

"I hope you have your tin helmet at the ready"

Which was applied to statements like that because then tend to cause trench warfare.

This should be a good one.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:56 pm

i agree

this is leftwing PC multiculturalism running riot.

and it wont get better, its become more entrenched in society's' psyche to the point where its becoming "normal" to self censor

if you've ever read Oswell's Nineteen Eighty-Four you can see that instead of taking his work as a warning the party has taken it as a blueprint

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:56 pm

Joy Division wrote:I get what you say Ben, but sadly with some ,free speech creates victims

Often abuse is passed off as free speech.

Abuse is not passed off as free speech it is free speech.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:57 pm

Joy Division wrote:I get what you say Ben, but sadly with some ,free speech creates victims

Often abuse is passed off as free speech.

and even more often, the left climb up their ivory tower and declare free opinions of others they don't agree with to be "abuse" or "hate speech"

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:00 pm

Here in the U.S. we see things quite differently; the far left here does not call for curbs on free expression and it's generally the Fear Gland Brigade that's calling for censorship, of gay themes on shows, violence in video games, etc.

The ACLU is often considered a far-left organization, but they defend the free speech of everyone. They've paid for lawyers for skinheads and the KKK; they successfully defended an anti-abortion pastor's right to hold up a sign with a gruesome photo of an aborted fetus in front of an abortion clinic.

The satirical website The Onion parodyed the ACLU with a story headlined: "ACLU defends right of neo-Nazis to bomb ACLU headquarters"

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:01 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Joy Division wrote:I get what you say Ben, but sadly with some ,free speech creates victims

Often abuse is passed off as free speech.

and even more often, the left climb up their ivory tower and declare free opinions of others they don't agree with to be "abuse" or "hate speech"

Where is that happening then? I've only seen a couple of the right come over here to start abuse.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:03 pm

Basically our law and our philosophy is that you can't legislate people's opinions; you have to let democratic forces determine whether opinions succeed or fail in a "marketplace of ideas."

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't advocate violence against people, but other than that you're pretty much free to say what you want. Of course, others are free to criticize what you say, as well.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:03 pm

Joy Division wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

and even more often, the left climb up their ivory tower and declare free opinions of others they don't agree with to be "abuse" or "hate speech"

Where is that happening then? I've only seen a couple of the right come over here to start abuse.

By whose definition.

And er Catman?

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:04 pm

sphinx wrote:
Joy Division wrote:I get what you say Ben, but sadly with some ,free speech creates victims

Often abuse is passed off as free speech.

Abuse is not passed off as free speech it is free speech.

So if one had gone into a shop and said ' two lotto tickets for tonight you cunt', that would be harmless free speech?

So unwarranted abuse is acceptable free speech then?

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:06 pm

Joy Division wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Abuse is not passed off as free speech it is free speech.

So if one had gone into a shop and said ' two lotto tickets for tonight you cunt', that would be harmless free speech?

So unwarranted abuse is acceptable free speech then?

Harmless yes
Free speech yes

Acceptable no.

With freedom comes responsibility.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:06 pm

sphinx wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Where is that happening then? I've only seen a couple of the right come over here to start abuse.

By whose definition.

And er Catman?

I know Phil can give it back, but he dose not deserve the abuse him and Doug have received, Phil is only hitting back.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:07 pm

Joy Division wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

and even more often, the left climb up their ivory tower and declare free opinions of others they don't agree with to be "abuse" or "hate speech"

Where is that happening then? I've only seen a couple of the right come over here to start abuse.

All that i can say is that if abuse is allowed, and that cunt Smelly Bandit has just posted some abuse about my partner, then people can't complain about riots on here.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:08 pm

If somebody came in and said that to me, I'd toss them out, tell them to get their lotto tickets elsewhere.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:09 pm

sphinx wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

So if one had gone into a shop and said ' two lotto tickets for tonight you cunt', that would be harmless free speech?

So unwarranted abuse is acceptable free speech then?

Harmless yes
Free speech yes

Acceptable no.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Quite right
It is not yet illegal to hold an opinion.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:09 pm

Catman wrote:
Joy Division wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

and even more often, the left climb up their ivory tower and declare free opinions of others they don't agree with to be "abuse" or "hate speech"

Where is that happening then? I've only seen a couple of the right come over here to start abuse.

All that i can say is that if abuse is allowed, and that cunt Smelly Bandit has just posted some abuse about my partner, then people can't complain about riots on here.

We are all judged on the basis of how we handle ourselves and how we respond to assholes. Just saying.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:10 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Catman wrote:

All that i can say is that if abuse is allowed, and that cunt Smelly Bandit has just posted some abuse about my partner, then people can't complain about riots on here.

We are all judged on the basis of how we handle ourselves and how we respond to assholes. Just saying.

AKA what goes around comes around

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:11 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Catman wrote:

All that i can say is that if abuse is allowed, and that cunt Smelly Bandit has just posted some abuse about my partner, then people can't complain about riots on here.

We are all judged on the basis of how we handle ourselves and how we respond to assholes. Just saying.

Free speech doesn't include hate speech, the cunts will get it back, when they fucking well start.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:13 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:If somebody came in and said that to me, I'd toss them out, tell them to get their lotto tickets elsewhere.

That's it Ben, there's a way to talk to folk if you would appreciate being treated well in return.

Good old manners and sense cheers

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:15 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:If somebody came in and said that to me, I'd toss them out, tell them to get their lotto tickets elsewhere.

That's it Ben, there's a way to talk to folk if you would appreciate being treated well in return.

Good old manners and sense

Well said JD

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:15 pm

NemsAgain wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Catman wrote:

All that i can say is that if abuse is allowed, and that cunt Smelly Bandit has just posted some abuse about my partner, then people can't complain about riots on here.

We are all judged on the basis of how we handle ourselves and how we respond to assholes. Just saying.

AKA what goes around comes around

AKA when confronted by an asshole, you're always best served to pull out your best Ghandi impression rather than look like an equal asshole :D

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:16 pm

NemsAgain wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

We are all judged on the basis of how we handle ourselves and how we respond to assholes. Just saying.

AKA what goes around comes around

Shit stirring should be your middle name.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:16 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
NemsAgain wrote:

AKA what goes around comes around

AKA when confronted by an asshole, you're always best served to pull out your best Ghandi impression rather than look like an equal asshole :D

Exactly
No good squealing you're a victim when you are also a perp

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:17 pm

Joy Division wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

and even more often, the left climb up their ivory tower and declare free opinions of others they don't agree with to be "abuse" or "hate speech"

Where is that happening then? I've only seen a couple of the right come over here to start abuse.

WTF!?

are you blind??

it happens all the time

lefties crow from the highest point in the land that they support free speech

the second anyone says anything they don't like they immediately classify the opinion as hate speech and call the poster some kind of "ist" or "phobe" depending on the topic

ive lost count of the times ive been called a racist or a homophobe simply for expressing an opinion that contains neither racist nor homophobic language but runs into the controversial

the people labeling me are ALWAYS lefties and ALWAYS declare their love of free speech except when its being used by a RWer

elizel called me homophobic because he considers my posting style to be overly aggressive

yeah!!!!

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:17 pm

Catman wrote:
NemsAgain wrote:

AKA what goes around comes around

Shit stirring should be your middle name.

Bless

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:18 pm

NemsAgain wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

That's it Ben, there's a way to talk to folk if you would appreciate being treated well in return.

Good old manners and sense

Well said JD

Fank Wooo Nems! :D

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:18 pm

Catman wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Where is that happening then? I've only seen a couple of the right come over here to start abuse.

All that i can say is that if abuse is allowed, and that cunt Smelly Bandit has just posted some abuse about my partner, then people can't complain about riots on here.

what the hell are you talking abot phil??

i said that people shouldn't make fun of the dead?

and they shouldn't

im sorry that doug died but its not my fault

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:23 pm

sphinx wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

So if one had gone into a shop and said ' two lotto tickets for tonight you cunt', that would be harmless free speech?

So unwarranted abuse is acceptable free speech then?

Harmless yes
Free speech yes

Acceptable no.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Well Sphinx,much of what you claim qualifies as free speech are actually arrestable offences.

Let's say a guy goes into another shop and is served by a Pakistani lad..and says to him...

"Twenty benson and hedges you filthy pa** cunt" is that free speech?

Yes or no that's all.

Thanks.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:23 pm

Life is not black or white it has hundreds of grey shades as well, for instance you may not be comfortable hearing a person of a different sexual orientation being called names. I wonder if this stays the same when you hear people calling criminals or politicians names?

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:24 pm

Joy Division wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Harmless yes
Free speech yes

Acceptable no.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Well Sphinx,much of what you claim qualifies as free speech are actually arrestable offences.

Let's say a guy goes into another shop and is served by a Pakistani lad..and says to him...

"Twenty benson and hedges you filthy pa** cunt" is that free speech?

Yes or no that's all.

Thanks.

yes.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:25 pm

....And some people were saying what a joy it would be to have that fucking cunt here...How fucking sad.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:25 pm

Joy Division wrote:
NemsAgain wrote:

Well said JD

Fank Wooo Nems! :D

S'okay

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:27 pm

sphinx wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Well Sphinx,much of what you claim qualifies as free speech are actually arrestable offences.

Let's say a guy goes into another shop and is served by a Pakistani lad..and says to him...

"Twenty benson and hedges you filthy pa** cunt" is that free speech?

Yes or no that's all.

Thanks.

yes.

..then surely it can't be free speech if it is an arrestable offence Sphinx?

Yes one can say it at their own will, but it is not legal, so in other words it's just abuse really isn't it?

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:27 pm

sphinx wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Well Sphinx,much of what you claim qualifies as free speech are actually arrestable offences.

Let's say a guy goes into another shop and is served by a Pakistani lad..and says to him...

"Twenty benson and hedges you filthy pa** cunt" is that free speech?

Yes or no that's all.

Thanks.

yes.

..then surely it can't be free speech if it is an arrestable offence Sphinx?

Yes one can say it at their own will, but it is not legal, so in other words it's just abuse really isn't it?

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Catman wrote:....And some people were saying what a joy it would be to have that fucking cunt here...How fucking sad.

Phil, is that true of Doug what smelly said ?

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:30 pm

Joy Division wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Harmless yes
Free speech yes

Acceptable no.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Well Sphinx,much of what you claim qualifies as free speech are actually arrestable offences.

Let's say a guy goes into another shop and is served by a Pakistani lad..and says to him...

"Twenty benson and hedges you filthy pa** cunt" is that free speech?

Yes or no that's all.

Thanks.

What about if he went in and said you ginger/fat/ugly/spotty c***
is that free speech

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:30 pm

Joy Division wrote:
sphinx wrote:

yes.

..then surely it can't be free speech if it is an arrestable offence Sphinx?

Yes one can say it at their own will, but it is not legal, so in other words it's just abuse really isn't it?

We do not have free speech in the UK JD.

We should have and I would like us to have but we do not have.

If we had free speech it would just be abuse nothing else.

Because we do not have free speech it is inflated into something called hate speech which is legislated against. This makes both it and the idiot giving voice to it look far more important than they are.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:31 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Catman wrote:....And some people were saying what a joy it would be to have that fucking cunt here...How fucking sad.

Phil, is that true of Doug what smelly said ?

Not unless the person sitting next to me is a fucking ghost for fucks sake.

No JD, he's being the vile racist/homophobic psycho, that some people welcomed with open arms.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:33 pm

Catman wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Phil, is that true of Doug what smelly said ?

Not unless the person sitting next to me is a fucking ghost for fucks sake.

No JD, he's being the vile racist/homophobic psycho, that some people welcomed with open arms.

Pheew!, thank goodness Phil, my heart was skipping beats for ya there chief.

I'm horribly astonished how some can use that as an insult.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:34 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Catman wrote:

Not unless the person sitting next to me is a fucking ghost for fucks sake.

No JD, he's being the vile racist/homophobic psycho, that some people welcomed with open arms.

Pheew!, thank goodness Phil, my heart was skipping beats for ya there chief.

I'm horribly astonished how some can use that as an insult.

....Like i said, he's loved by so many people on here. ::zomb::

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:38 pm

this is actually a very interesting topic

when we look back a few decades and we examine what was considered free speech then to what is considered free speech now i think we can easily establish that free speech has become severely restricted and indeed in many areas has become non existent as the years have gone by.

i personally blame it on a lack of war, back i the day when we actually had to defend what was ours we cherished it because it was precious, nowadays with no overt military threat to our way of life we seem moire willing than ever to throw away our most precious possession - our freedom

its become so devalued and taken for granted that its almost hated by certain sectors of our society. how the hell have we reached the point that we are happy to impose more severe restrictions on our free speech than an invading and occupying army would

an invading and occupying army that we would ironically fight tooth and claw to stop them taking our "freedom"

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:38 pm

Hurting someone's feelings should not be against the law.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:39 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:this is actually a very interesting topic

when we look back a few decades and we examine what was considered free speech then to what is considered free speech now i think we can easily establish that free speech has become severely restricted and indeed in many areas has become non existent as the years have gone by.

i personally blame it on a lack of war, back i the day when we actually had to defend what was ours we cherished it because it was precious, nowadays with no overt military threat to our way of life we seem moire willing than ever to throw away our most precious possession - our freedom

its become so devalued and taken for granted that its almost hated by certain sectors of our society. how the hell have we reached the point that we are happy to impose more severe restrictions on our free speech than an invading and occupying army would

an invading and occupying army that we would ironically fight tooth and claw to stop them taking our "freedom"

That, is a very good point

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:41 pm

Catman wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Phil, is that true of Doug what smelly said ?

Not unless the person sitting next to me is a fucking ghost for fucks sake.

No JD, he's being the vile racist/homophobic psycho, that some people welcomed with open arms.

you see JD this is what im talking about

the left in their self righteous arrogance declaring the views of all and sundry to be racist/homophobic

if you can find any homophobic or racist language i have used since being here , then i suggest you report me for breaking the law

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:41 pm

Joy Division wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Abuse is not passed off as free speech it is free speech.

So if one had gone into a shop and said ' two lotto tickets for tonight you cunt', that would be harmless free speech?

So unwarranted abuse is acceptable free speech then?

Yes.
If someone hurt your feelings then you could just refuse to serve them and get the fuck over it like an adult.

Joy Division wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Harmless yes
Free speech yes

Acceptable no.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Well Sphinx,much of what you claim qualifies as free speech are actually arrestable offences.

Let's say a guy goes into another shop and is served by a Pakistani lad..and says to him...

"Twenty benson and hedges you filthy pa** cunt" is that free speech?

Yes or no that's all.

Thanks.

See above.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:42 pm

Queen Of Hearts wrote:Hurting someone's feelings should not be against the law.

Thank goodness the laws won't be changing any time soon!

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:43 pm

Catman wrote:
Queen Of Hearts wrote:Hurting someone's feelings should not be against the law.

Thank goodness the laws won't be changing any time soon!

I'm sorry that you're such a delicate little flower that you need a law to stop people from saying mean things to you.
Do you start bursting into tears every time someone says the word "fag" or something?

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:57 pm

Queen Of Hearts wrote:
Catman wrote:

Thank goodness the laws won't be changing any time soon!

I'm sorry that you're such a delicate little flower that you need a law to stop people from saying mean things to you.
Do you start bursting into tears every time someone says the word "fag" or something?

You haven't been on the receiving end (part of a minority) where the abuse is used to promote attacks.

Of course you are a hypocrite and would complain about free speech, when it comes to the links between anime and paedophelia, or you throw your dolly out of your pram over a woman's right to decide to have an abortion etc, or about Catholic paedophile priests from Ireland. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:05 pm

Catman wrote:
Queen Of Hearts wrote:

I'm sorry that you're such a delicate little flower that you need a law to stop people from saying mean things to you.
Do you start bursting into tears every time someone says the word "fag" or something?

You haven't been on the receiving end (part of a minority) where the abuse is used to promote attacks.

Of course you are a hypocrite and would complain about free speech, when it comes to the links between anime and paedophelia, or you throw your dolly out of your pram over a woman's right to decide to have an abortion etc, or about Catholic paedophile priests from Ireland.

Here is an idea

Physically attacking someone should be illegal

Directly inciting violence should be illegal.

Abuse should not be.

Calling someone a name is not inciting violence.

by Sponsored content