RIP:Freedom of speech

Seachmall

Dudess wrote: »

And there you have it - libel. Proof that absolute free speech does not exist.

Free speech, in the sense everyone has the right to express themselves without restriction, is what should exist.

The right to deceive and manipulate others, under the guise of free speech, is a separate matter all together.

My name is URL

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

http://www.sabotagetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/azharahmed-1.jpeg

That is what he said, that should not be a crime and he should never have been arrested in the first place.

I wonder if the reaction would be the same if his name was something like Rupert Barrington-Williams instead of Azhar Ahmed.. somehow I don't quite think it would.

AnonoBoy

Seachmall wrote: »

If you set up a website called "independant.ie" with the intent of deceiving someone into believing that it is a reputable source of information and use that deception to tarnish my good name then you should be guilty of libel.

If you go on Facebook, or into a pub, and call me a "dog-lover" then you should not be.

But surely any statement of it is an attempt to deceive someone into believing it to be true. Where do you draw the line?

Do you not realise that there has to be a definite law about it and merely stating 'if stupid people believe it' is way too vague a statement to be consistent?

Giselle

Gbear wrote: »

The best way to fight racist/hateful or other damaging speech is to expose it to sunlight and let everyone see what an idiot the person saying it is.

I'm not so sure.

Hitler was able to give his hate light and air, and it didn't turn out too well for his favourite targets.

AnonoBoy

Seachmall wrote: »

The right to deceive and manipulate others, under the guise of free speech, is a separate matter all together.

What if the person making the statements believes it was true because they trusted the person who told them. Are they ok because they're not trying to deceive?

longhalloween

People should be allowed to say whatever they want so long as it's said in a civilized, mannerly fashion.
You can agree or disagree with whatever you want, but when it comes down to racist slurs and calling soldiers, who at the end of the day are just doing their job (and can face jail if they don't) 'lowlife scum' you should be prepared to stand by your statement and face the consequences.

longhalloween

People should be allowed to say whatever they want so long as it's said in a civilized, mannerly fashion.
You can agree or disagree with whatever you want, but when it comes down to racist slurs and calling soldiers, who at the end of the day are just doing their job (and can face jail if they don't) 'lowlife scum' you should be prepared to stand by your statement and face the consequences.

wes

There is clearly nothing racist in what the man said, so that charge was utterly ridiculous to begin with. The 2nd charge is not much better.

Now, what was said was certainly nasty, but he hardly deserves jail time, and tbh I am sure there are more pressing matter for the police to deal with.

Also, the police are just making this guy a martyr for free speech for prosecuting him this way. Also, the arrest meant that his views have gotten far more reach then they would have otherwise. It may even encourage others to say similar things, in the name of free speech, so may be completely counter productive.

Otacon

If the earlier screenshot is what he has been pulled up on, then I don't see anything criminal in it. Utterly stupid yes, but nothing illegal.

thomasj

Irrespective of whether or not he was right its his own fault for posting it.

We have seen the results of a certain norweigans actions after his postings. Whats not to say that this guy would gave got so "emotional" over his opinions that he would take action with consequences.

The recent london riots and the role social networking played in it has made sure that there is no longer freedom of speech online.

Seachmall

AnonoBoy wrote: »

But surely any statement of it is an attempt to deceive someone into believing it to be true. Where do you draw the line?

If I say someone is "literally a dickhead" I obviously am not trying to convince people that that person is "literally a dickhead", I'm just expressing my opinion of them.

Replace "dickhead" with "rapist" and it's libel.


So there are two possible solutions,

1. Get creative with your insults in case someone should confuse you for a reliable source.
2. Teach people Caveat Emptor

Both are good options.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

What if the person making the statements believes it was true because they trusted the person who told them. Are they ok because they're not trying to deceive?

If we arrested everyone for unknowingly spreading BS there'd be a whole lot less people in the streets.

Ellis Dee

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Disgusting policing of free speech by the PC brigade. You should be able to say anything , no matter how offensive on the internet and not fear conviction

I agree with you about the "disgusting" bit, but it looks to me like it is not the PC brigade that is incensed, but rather those who have become hyper-sensitive to criticism of their involvement in a war that they are losing - and deserve to lose. And you certainly could not describe the 40+ members of the extreme right-wing wannabe lynch mob who demonstrated outside the court as being in any way supporters of political correctness.:rolleyes:

I also agree with the sentiment of your second sentence as well, but would qualify it with the proviso that you have to be rather adept at how you say it, because otherwise you will leave yourself open to attack/harassment. Call it "creative hypocrisy" if you like.:D

Double standards certainly apply in Britain. When the Argentine battleship Belgrano was sunk by a British submarine outside the exclusion zone and hundreds of sailors perished, one British paper had a front-page banner headline: "Gotcha!". Not many in Britain found that in poor taste and legally there was nothing that could be done about it. That's why my advice to those who want the Brits to get out of Afghanistan would be to avoid comments that could be interpreted as racist or something equally negative.;)

Just stick to pointing out obvious facts, such as the war is unwinnable and many Afghan women and children are being killed and maimed. At the same time, the amount of heroin reaching the streets of Europe has never been as great.

Anyway, the guy is on bail until July, so they obviously are not going to throw the book at him. And he has a good chance of being acquitted.:cool:

wes

thomasj wrote: »

We have seen the results of a certain norweigans actions after his postings.

None of the peoples online postings who he read were put in jail. So why should this guy be put in jail? All you have done is highlight a double standard.

AnonoBoy

Seachmall wrote: »

If I say someone is "literally a dickhead" I obviously am not trying to convince people that that person is "literally a dickhead", I'm just expressing my opinion of them.

Replace "dickhead" with "rapist" and it's libel.

So you admit that freedom of speech does have to be curtailed then?

If we arrested everyone for unknowingly spreading BS there'd be a whole lot less people in the streets.

If people state something in public though it's different to just telling a friend about it over a pint. I'm talking about the former, not the latter.

Morlar

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

http://www.sabotagetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/azharahmed-1.jpeg

That is what he said, that should not be a crime and he should never have been arrested in the first place.

I would not agree with what he said or the sentiment behind it, but if someone got arrested for posting that, then in my view there is something seriously wrong there.

It's an expression of a legitimate opinion/belief, you are not required to agree with it to accept that the person has the right to hold and express their opinion.

All this cliched bs about 'fire in a theatre' & 'freedom comes with responsibility' adds nothing to the discussion, or all the 'Oh, so I guess that means I can call you bluh blah bluh blah. . .. . ' this case seems to have nothing to do with that sort of nonsense at all.

I think it's pretty worrying if a person can get arrested for posting that:

http://www.sabotagetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/azharahmed-1.jpeg

Assuming that is the full extent of what he said.

Seachmall

AnonoBoy wrote: »

So you admit that freedom of speech does have to be curtailed then?

I thought it was implied how stupid I believed the distinction between the two statements were.

Sure, it's more likely that someone is "literally a rapist" than "literally a dickhead" but the reliability of the source is the same.

The only real reason to distinguish between the two is based on what people to believe to be possible, not anything to do with the reliability of the source.


So in some places me saying "You are reincarnated from old-man finger-nails!" could be libelous, which is pretty fucking stupid.


Address the issue and let people have their free speech.

If people state something in public though it's different to just telling a friend about it over a pint. I'm talking about the former, not the latter.

What does the number of listeners have to do with it?

AnonoBoy

Seachmall wrote: »

What does the number of listeners have to do with it?

I would presume that in court if only one person heard a statement then it wouldn't be counted as be made 'in public'. I'm not sure about that mind.

I'd just like to point out that I'm all for freedom of speech - I just don't believe people who say that it should never be curtailed at all.

leggo

TV & movies have conditioned a lot of people into assuming that they are entitled to say what they want under the First Amendment of the US Constitution (which does protect freedom of speech in most instances). And since most TV/movies we likely watch are from America, we figure we abide by the same laws.

I've said it here before and I'll say it again: if you approach the law using assumptions, and especially base it on what you see on the telly, you're in for a severe shock down the line.

In addition to libel/defamation laws, you also have incitement to hatred and privacy/data protection laws to contend with.

No you can't say anything that you want and expect to get away with it. And, even if you have done so before, it doesn't mean its legal or you won't eventually be pulled up on it. Though I would love someone to say "But I've been calling black people n****s on Twitter for MONTHS and got in no trouble! Look!"

Sounds dumb, but it's essentially the same argument a lot of people give when fighting for this mythical ideology of 'freedom of speech' that simply does not exist. And it shouldn't. Because realistically all these laws restrict us from is being absolute twats. So only absolute twats really want to disobey them. And they shouldn't be allowed to make up their own minds...because they're absolute twats.

pickarooney

Dudess wrote: »

And there you have it - libel. Proof that absolute free speech does not exist.

You have the freedom to say what you want and the person you say it about has the freedom to sue you for it.

charlemont

Ghandee wrote: »

Yes.

The Brits shouldnt be in Afghanistan.

If they werent over there, the deaths wouldnt have happened.

Death is a possibilty of war, a possibilty every Brit soldier should be aware of when signing up to the army.

Bang on, Man.
Feckin' protecting the Heroin crop the dirty *****.

token101

Bit of a joke that he was arrested and I can't imagine he'll be convicted. It's flimsy at best. But he's managed to make himself a hate figure. He's clearly a f*cking moron, 'innocent harmful familys'. Idiot.

ilovesleep

That poor young man. He wrote something nasty probably with a spur of the moment thing with no thought put into it and he's been arrested and charged for written words.

Many here at boards.ie hate politicians and many people call some politicians exactly what they are when they do wrong or don't perform at all in office. Now such opinions may/will be curtailed if/when another persons disagrees with this and takes offence.

Where is it going to stop? Say for example there is a couple with one partner being a lying, cheating physopath filled with ego and who is arrogant and obnoxious. Lets call him Jim. They say love is blind and over time the other partner wakes to her partners ways. Lets call her Bobby. Things are off between them and Bobby writes a lengthy email to Jim calling him exactly what he is. Jim is completely ignorant and oblivious to his ways. He takes offence to this email and is a spiteful pr1ck and decides to further dig his boot into her by slapping her with an arrest for nasty words.

P.K

earpiece wrote: »

Well, an opinion, whether you or I agree with or not, it looks like can get you locked up:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/20/teenager-offensive-facebook-message-soldiers

"A teenager has denied posting a grossly offensive message on Facebook about the deaths in Afghanistan of six British soldiers whose bodies are due to return to the UK on Tuesday.
Azhar Ahmed, 19, appeared briefly at Dewsbury magistrates court in West Yorkshire, which was guarded by a heavy police presence as some 40 far-right demonstrators shouted abuse outside.
A racially aggravated public order charge was withdrawn and replaced with the new accusation under the 2003 Communications Act.

am i the only one who read this and thought,

"Right, so its alright to be a smart arse just once you do it in person?"

Standman

I think it's high time somebody godwinned this thread.

ilovesleep

His comment was bad taste and disrespectful and that's all it was. I really don't think the man should be up in court for it.

TwoShedsJackson

It'd also be great if people could stop endlessly re-using terms like 'pc brigade' that they seem to think should carry some negative connotation...

af_thefragile

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

It'd also be great if people could stop endlessly re-using terms like 'pc brigade' that they seem to think should carry some negative connotation...

PC is a good thing.

Do you really want people on daytime TV or mainstream newspapers which would be watched and read by families and children, go on about n*ggers and evil moslems and white supremism and other stuff that would be deeply offensive to many people?

PC is there for a reason and in most cases it is a good thing.

pickarooney

af_thefragile wrote: »

PC is a good thing.

Do you really want people on daytime TV or mainstream newspapers which would be watched and read by families and children, go on about n*ggers and evil moslems and white supremism and other stuff that would be deeply offensive to many people?

PC is there for a reason and in most cases it is a good thing.

There really shouldn't need to be such a thing as PC for people not to behave like arseholes.

Logical Fallacy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Disgusting policing of free speech by the PC brigade , You should be able to say anything , no matter how offensive on the internet and not fear conviction

Are the PC brigade like the Fire Brigade?

I am curious enough about the hats they wear to state the presence of said curiosity, but not to actually ask about it.

frozenfrozen

I hate every person from every race and I hope you all die.

I hope I don't get arrested for this.

AnonoBoy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Are the PC brigade like the Fire Brigade?

Yes. They have sexy calendars for charity every year too.

AnonoBoy

Standman wrote: »

I think it's high time somebody godwinned this thread.

It's already happened I think.

af_thefragile

pickarooney wrote: »

There really shouldn't need to be such a thing as PC for people not to behave like arseholes.

Well unfortunately some people are twats and arseholes.
You know the kind of people who join the BNP and such...

Its comes back to parents not bringing up their children properly because in many cases they themselves haven't been bought up properly or they simply don't know how to bring up their children because they're too young and immature for the job!

DB21

AnonoBoy wrote: »

It's already happened I think.

Just to be on the safe side:

NAZIS

P_1

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

http://www.sabotagetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/azharahmed-1.jpeg

That is what he said, that should not be a crime and he should never have been arrested in the first place.

The first 7 lines, no problem, the remaining 5 he possibly shouldn't have posted.

Millicent

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Disgusting policing of free speech by the PC brigade

Awesome--the PC brigade are actually policing PCs. Hahahahahahahaha! :pac: :pac: :pac:

AudreyHepburn

I'm all for free speech but there has to be some limits, some line that you just don't cross.

If I were to start commenting negatively about some-based on their skin colour or country of origin or religion etc I'd be reprimanded and rightly so. Ditto making jokes or nasty remarks about serious topics that should not be joked about as happens here regularly.

With freedom and free will comes responsibilty, something this young man clearly lacks. The first few lines were unsavoury but his own opinion to which he is entitled. The problem is everything after 'all soldiers should die'. Imagine being on Facebook and seeing that after your Father/Brother/Husband/Son died in battle?

df1985

Im allfor free speech but look at examples of how far it can go, westboro baptist church for example in the states-they should be strung up for incitement to hatred, homophobia, racism etc etc.

RichieC

df1985 wrote: »

Im allfor free speech but look at examples of how far it can go, westboro baptist church for example in the states-they should be strung up for incitement to hatred, homophobia, racism etc etc.

The wesboro crowd do not even fart without long legal council. They are all sent to law school. it's how they make their money. they do outrageous things to the letter of the law then sue anyone who crosses the line against them.

It's disgusting.

Eric Cartman

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Disgusting policing of free speech by the PC brigade , You should be able to say anything , no matter how offensive on the internet and not fear conviction

Are the PC brigade like the Fire Brigade?

Yeah , they sit around all day until they find something minor to go mental about , then its all hands on deck until they quash the opinions of anybody who doesnt like somebody different to them.

Logical Fallacy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Yeah , they sit around all day until they find something minor to go mental about , then its all hands on deck until they quash the opinions of anybody who doesnt like somebody different to them.

I have to say, the new trend of absolutely EVERYONE proclaiming themselves to be the poor shouted down minority is ****ing hilarious.

Pace2008

Funny that people are bleating about the PC-brigade considering it's the skinheads who are kicking up all the stink about the comments of the accused.

KeithAFC

RIP to the British Soldiers. This is a case for the courts now.

Logical Fallacy

Pace2008 wrote: »

Funny that people are bleating about the PC-brigade considering it's the skinheads who are kicking up all the stink about the comments of the accused.

Yeah, but that's different.

Somehow.

Or something.

Eric Cartman

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I have to say, the new trend of absolutely EVERYONE proclaiming themselves to be the poor shouted down minority is ****ing hilarious.

Im not being shouted down, neither are these 'trolls' the fact its resulting in court convictions is proof that people are paying attention to it. Im just saying that me airing any of my personal opinions on soldiers from anywhere, any race, religion, skin colour or ethnicity should never result in any kind of legal proceedings.

If that post was about taliban soldiers that kid would have been thanked by all his mates, not arrested.

RichieC

Pace2008 wrote: »

Funny that people are bleating about the PC-brigade considering it's the skinheads who are kicking up all the stink about the comments of the accused.

That's all a bit nuanced for the harsh critics of Political correctness...

Logical Fallacy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im not being shouted down, neither are these 'trolls' the fact its resulting in court convictions is proof that people are paying attention to it. Im just saying that me airing any of my personal opinions on soldiers from anywhere, any race, religion, skin colour or ethnicity should never result in any kind of legal proceedings.

If that post was about taliban soldiers that kid would have been thanked by all his mates, not arrested.

You see Eric, you are missing the point.

Any kind of logical point, with a degree of merit, can be expressed without the race, religion, skin colour or ethnicity of the person you are commenting on even being an issue.

That is your first stumbling block right there.

Lets look at an example.

A white man in Dublin kills his wife, a Muslim man kills his wife and a black man kills his wife.

Do we say "That ****ing wanker murdered his wife, what a total scumbag" or do we say "that ****ing Paddy/Raghead/****** killed his wife and his behaviour is indicative of all Paddy/Raghead/****** people and they are all wanker/scumbags/inferior to us who are not like them".

One of those points is a reasonable emotive reaction to hearing a man murdered his wife, the other is jumping on the opportunity to take shots and speak ill of a huge range of people...however, the former still expresses strong sentiment without the need for, well, idiocy.

ilovesleep

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm all for free speech but there has to be some limits, some line that you just don't cross.

If I were to start commenting negatively about some-based on their skin colour or country of origin or religion etc I'd be reprimanded and rightly so. Ditto making jokes or nasty remarks about serious topics that should not be joked about as happens here regularly.

With freedom and free will comes responsibilty, something this young man clearly lacks. The first few lines were unsavoury but his own opinion to which he is entitled. The problem is everything after 'all soldiers should die'. Imagine being on Facebook and seeing that after your Father/Brother/Husband/Son died in battle?

Yes, it's absolutely completely disrespectful, offensive and a downright nasty thing to write but the comment was made online over the internet and more than likely from an absolute stranger. If you had someone die in battle, reading a comment like that would be no doubt upsetting but it would be worse coming from someone you know in person.

IMO an arrest and court appearance and perhaps a conviction is too much. Would counselling perhaps for hatred issues or whatever be more suitable?

Politics.ie is notorious for users going off topic and for insults and other bits and pieces. Like a rule here in boards is to attack the post, not the poster. Other way around almost over in politics.ie. You don't see people there dragging each other to court for different opinions and insults.

RobbingBandit

Last I checked West Yorkshire is in the magical land of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,which to the great disappointment of many members here the land we live in is not a part of the Uk. Who really gives a **** about Freedom of speech in England,we are Irish not English,we have our own problems with laws on speech here,example being the blasphemy law.

Logical Fallacy

The simple fact is that free speech is a lovely concept, but people are not really able to deal with it in any great sense.

Lets say you say something I strongly disagree with and there is true Freedom of Speech.

Rather than debate the issue with you, or ignore you, i choose to follow your mother around all day calling her a whore, or your son around telling him that Daddy is a Pedophile, or whatever.

Freedom of Speech, brilliant!

You need to ad annoying little things called "laws" because the concept of other things like "common decency" and "morals" are not universal things.

It's not that hard to wrap the auld head around, and anyone in this thread complaining about it, while perfectly entitled to make that complaint, is a wally.