There have been a couple of arrests surrounding twitter, the one mentioned about the footballer who collapsed - the arrested individual posted “LOL, Fuck Muamba. He’s dead.” (and more beside, which I don’t particularly care to repost). He served half of a 56 day jail term.
There was another sporting one I can remember, regarding swimmer Tom Daley, he came 4th and the arrested individual sent something about how he’d ‘let his father down’ (who had died of cancer).
In the US, it’s understood that certain things should be left to the states and others to localities. Conservatives sometimes allude to Subsidiarism: “The principle that problems should be dealt with at the lowest level of government possible.” That’s certainly not a majority view in the US, which is why I chose the phrase “federalist values”.
In some countries (not Britain) the central government will appoint mayors of cities. In Britain, Margaret Thatcher was able to abolish the Greater London Council without worries that some cosmic principle was under assault. Both of those actions perplex me to some extent: both actions seem to me to be out of the purview of the central government, but I understand that’s merely a reflection of my American upbringing.
Given that the Westboro Baptist Church has been given the right to protest at funerals, I can safely say there are no limits to speech in America that is hideous and disgraceful but non-violent.
And I think that is how it should be. The same free speech that gives that bunch of twats the right to spout their venom is the same one that gives me or you the right to expose their hatred to the world. Daylight is the best antiseptic yes?
Actually that’s not true. The UK banned a radio talk show host over his comments. Can’t think of his name off the top of my head. He’s on the West Coast. Talks like he’s from the East Coast.
Anyway, he can’t travel to the UK.
Details?
Banning someone from coming into the country is not trying to prosecute someone, you know. The US bans shitloads of people from entering your country. Technically I will not be allowed in under your visa waiver scheme due to being done for “narcotics”.
We’ve also banned Fred Phelps, actually. That doesn’t mean we seek to prosecute him. Same with all the Phelps family AIUI.
By the way I am a huge freedom of speech fan and do not support any of those bans but they are very different to prosecuting someone and seeking their extradition for an offence, so I invite you to give more details.
(Similarly, yes, our libel law is fucked up. But it is ALL civil law. So if some DJ has been succesffully sued for some stupid reason, again he certainy ain’t been prosecuted, nor would he ever be. And we won’t imprison debtors here so he’s fine to visit…)
I would be shocked and outraged if a law were passed to outlaw such speech, and if someone got arrested for it, I’d be happy to see it summarily dismissed in a court of law, ultimately the supreme court, which would unanimously declare it unconstitutional.
Yes, I agree that’s it’s not the same as prosecuting him but it is a legal decision to ban people based on their thoughts so I threw it out for discussion.
It’s not based on his thoughts. Believe it or not, British people can’t read minds. Anyway, banning him from the country is a million miles from “asserting jurisdiction” over him.
Don’t worry. Savage will come out of the closet soon and they’ll take him off the list.
:rolleyes:
It’s clearly based on what he said which are his thoughts.
We did have a case of a veteran being incarcerated into a mental institution over anti-government posts on facebook back on August. The incarceration was later overturned by a federal judge.
No, that’s his statements, which are an action. His statements may reflect his thoughts, but are not in themselves his thoughts.
Well if this isn’t the most pedantic quote of the day I’ll eat my hat. Is “he wasn’t banned for his thoughts he was banned for voicing his thoughts” really an important distinction in your book?
Yup.
Because thoughts are private and do not impact anyone else. I cannot judge you or anyone else on their thoughts.
It is when those thoughts are verbalized in order to influence the behaviour of others, or when they are acted upon, that the person can be judged and, if the results of those actions are negative for society, then the person should be corrected.
In the same way a murder conviction is based on one’s thoughts, in that you stabbed that guy because you thought you should.
I am happy to live in a country with hate speech laws. I don’t know if he should have been sent to jail but I have no problem with him being sanctioned for spreading hate.
Free speech runs amok when it permits Westboro Baptist to carry hate filled signage to funerals and medical clinics, in my opinion.
If you don’t think the purposeful spreading of hate has consequences, you should examine history a little closer.
(American’s often say they’d die to protect the free speech rights of another, but I often wonder how true that really is. How many people would really be willing to die to protect the Westboro Baptist’s free speech rights? Seriously? Give their lives? I’d have to see it to believe it, I think.)
For the record, I am not in favor of this prosecution.
I partially agree. I believe our concept of “freedom” has been transmuted into a doctrine of “irresponsibility,” where nothing means anything and no one can be held accountable for their actions or failures. Our society as a whole suffers for it, and sometimes I wonder if “freedom” will shortly become synonymous with “anarchy.”
That said, the real problem with legislating speech is the question of who watches the Watchmen. Who decides the difference between speech that is “hateful” and how is it different from that which is merely “aggravating” or “disagreeable?” If they legislate hateful speech today, what prevents them from legislating legal speech tomorrow? You create a slippery slope of creeping standards, and eventually someone will attempt to use the law to silence an opponent or critic for personal gain.
Our collective conclusion, thus far, has been that it is better to permit all speech than take the risk that the legislature will use censorship for corrupt purposes.
No one said it wouldn’t get messy. But your point could be used to undermine almost any line delineated in the law, for anything. But society has to have lines so it can enforce laws, messy though that may be.
No doubt there are those who, at 15yrs, possessed the maturity and skills to safely drive. As, no doubt, there are some who at 20yrs and with permits are lousy drivers. But, as a society, we’ve agreed where to draw that line. Like the age to vote, or to buy liquor.
Maybe you don’t think a little pushing and shoving with your mate is ‘abusive’. Maybe sanctioning you will get the message across that we don’t tolerate that here. They are all slippery slopes, and all open to abuse, but we agree to take on the chore of sorting out the messy bits, as best we can, in the name of the greater good. Hate speech laws do the same thing, in my mind.
Absolutely Spot On.