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

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.

sphinx wrote:
Yes lines need to be drawn to prevent hate but trying to draw them in the language is the wrong place.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Anyway, think about it.  I'll be back in a half hour.  I'll stay connected.

I have, and I've concluded that conservatives are always going to act as an anchor on society that prevents the speed of change we'd like to see, and will always force (or seek to force) certain groups of people to suffer as second-class citizens or worse.

The only way around this is to make conservatives themselves into second-class citizens, which would make us hypocrites.

Didge wrote:In the states there are things you cannot say, can you walk into a bank and say everyone on the floor or I will shoot you?

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes jr wrote:
"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

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.

PhilDidge wrote:Free speech is an illusion, as there is consequences for some things we say, thus it ceases to be free.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:In the states there are things you cannot say, can you walk into a bank and say everyone on the floor or I will shoot you?

Those are speech acts, not truly language to express ideas.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes jr wrote:
"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 (1919)  [emphasis added]

But, yes, some of the things you are talking about are speech acts as well.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Joy Division wrote:
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!!!!

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!

Clarkson wrote:

Catman wrote:

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

I have an opinion you are freeloading under the cover of being needed as a carer 24/7 for someone strong enough to beat you up.

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, its benefit fraud.

Clarkson wrote:Quill the left under the guise of political correctness have rewritten the language in a manner very similar to Big Brother Newspeak in 1984.

Their means of enforcement are very similar indeed to McCarthyism.  Use banned words ir express sentiments not regarded as pc lose your job.

This is the left brow beating the population. Qed free speech is being eradicated by the left.

I agree with ben a true racist will ruin his own standing by the use of vile language. Most decent people can discern the difference the left think they are the only arbiters.

Clarkson wrote:

Catman wrote:

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

I have an opinion you are freeloading under the cover of being needed as a carer 24/7 for someone strong enough to beat you up.

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, its benefit fraud.

PhilDidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Those are speech acts, not truly language to express ideas.



Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 (1919)  [emphasis added]

But, yes, some of the things you are talking about are speech acts as well.

Does it matter in regards to my point, that they are consequences to certain things we say?

I understand very well the reality is today people have found a new means better than being offensive to a person face to face, now they can go online and abuse with impunity where before a couple of people might witness a face to face event, now you can have millions see what you say and if it humiliates people. It is like someone has given every one a get of jail free pass with the use of the internet, where people feel empowered to do as they like where in the real world most would shy away from any such comments. It is amasing how something so simple can empower people, who no matter if bullied of not sociable, strive to be giants behind a screen.

Quite a sad reality we are waking up today with that, though as I have said all along free speech is an illusion, , from growing up to adulthood there have always been repercussions for some things we say

Original Quill wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Does it matter in regards to my point, that they are consequences to certain things we say?

I understand very well the reality is today people have found a new means better than being offensive to a person face to face, now they can go online and abuse with impunity where before a couple of people might witness a face to face event, now you can have millions see what you say and if it humiliates people. It is like someone has given every one a get of jail free pass with the use of the internet, where people feel empowered to do as they like where in the real world most would shy away from any such comments. It is amasing how something so simple can empower people, who no matter if bullied of not sociable, strive to be giants behind a screen.

Quite a sad reality we are waking up today with that, though as I have said all along free speech is an illusion, , from growing up to adulthood there have always been repercussions for some things we say

You and I are talking about different things, Didge.  As soon as you say "consequences" it is clear you are coupling speech to action.  

When I say free speech is an illusion, I mean that the unfamiliar isn't even listened to.  This is well understood by marketers and advertisers.  That is why they create brand recognition, first and foremost.  You try to move a brand over into the 'established' realm as quickly as possible--you flood airwaves with a brand name, so that people come to feel the brand is known and familiar.  Why?  Because the masses gravitate toward the known and familiar.

Conversely, there is an instant rejection to a new idea.  Perhaps, as Ben suggests, that is a defense mechanism of man's (social) existence.  Automatic conservatism pulls society back to the tried and true--the proven.  The radical fringe is solely the province of  experimentation.

But that experimentation is also necessary, as we live in a natural selection system of progress.  We must continue to evolve, or as a species we die.  The bias of conservatism is how human nature merges change with the extant culture.

Original Quill wrote:First, lets distinguish between "conservatism" as I am using the term, and "conservative" in the political and economical sense.  Buth mean the same thing, but the latter has a lot of excess baggage.  When I speak of a bias of conservatism, I'm using the term only in it's raw meaning...to favour the established or the past.  What is...the thing in itself, as Kant would say.

We can come back to political and economic conservatism later, but right now I am attaching no ethical meaning or connotation.

grumpy old git wrote:ooooops.....i feel a mega post coming on...

elsewhere on here there is a uuhm....lively...debate about handguns,
the question is do guns kill...well yes they do...if "misused"..however IF you are a responsible person, you can posess a gun, indeed its actually your RIGHT, even in britain to own a gun...PORVIDED you are deemed responsible and law abiding...

here is the clue...RESPONSIBLE

now with freedom of speech comes responsibility.

So, can words kill, well actually YES they can. A signifiacnt number of young people especially, have either killed themselves or self harmed...BECAUSE OF WHAT SOMEONE SAID...bullied to death, literally.

Since clearly we cannot allow "totally free speech" since it is impossible to "licence responsible individuals" to have freedom of speech, whilst others do not.. we have the reasonable imposition of laws against "hate speech" Now I would agree that it has possibly gone too far the culture of "PC" is a stifling blanket on freedom of expression, and it doesnt take a long time to find any number of absurdities due to this.
however it is not only the "direct" effect of words,.I.E go kill a f888kin (insert target here ) but the implied OR perceived meaning of the words. thus calling someone a "ni.........r" MAY be perceived by someone as legitimising their prejudices and lead them to attack some unfortunate... Now one may claim that it is no fault of the guy using such a word that another acts o them, BUT...(here comes the legal fiction...I love this guy) "the reasonable man", simply by living in that society should be aware of the possibility that this could happen, he should be aware that there are nutters out there looking for any excuse, and should thus refrain from making such statements. The fact that some one would, shows a lack of responsibility

therefor by the same arguments applied to guns, freedom of speech should be reasonably regulated....

grumpy old git wrote:ooooops.....i feel a mega post coming on...

elsewhere on here there is a uuhm....lively...debate about handguns,
the question is do guns kill...well yes they do...if "misused"..however IF you are a responsible person, you can posess a gun, indeed its actually your RIGHT, even in britain to own a gun...PORVIDED you are deemed responsible and law abiding...

here is the clue...RESPONSIBLE

now with freedom of speech comes responsibility.

So, can words kill, well actually YES they can. A signifiacnt number of young people especially, have either killed themselves or self harmed...BECAUSE OF WHAT SOMEONE SAID...bullied to death, literally.

Since clearly we cannot allow "totally free speech" since it is impossible to "licence responsible individuals" to have freedom of speech, whilst others do not.. we have the reasonable imposition of laws against "hate speech" Now I would agree that it has possibly gone too far the culture of "PC" is a stifling blanket on freedom of expression, and it doesnt take a long time to find any number of absurdities due to this.
however it is not only the "direct" effect of words,.I.E go kill a f888kin (insert target here ) but the implied OR perceived meaning of the words. thus calling someone a "ni.........r" MAY be perceived by someone as legitimising their prejudices and lead them to attack some unfortunate... Now one may claim that it is no fault of the guy using such a word that another acts o them, BUT...(here comes the legal fiction...I love this guy) "the reasonable man", simply by living in that society should be aware of the possibility that this could happen, he should be aware that there are nutters out there looking for any excuse, and should thus refrain from making such statements. The fact that some one would, shows a lack of responsibility

therefor by the same arguments applied to guns, freedom of speech should be reasonably regulated....

Legal Dictionary wrote:judicial suppression of material that would be published or broadcast, on the grounds that it is libelous or harmful. In US law, the First Amendment severely limits the ability of the government to do this.