Student jailed for 56 days for racial comments

Palmach

tigger123 wrote: »

No, he wrecked his life for what was a "stupid comment". He's responsible for his own actions.

He didn't make any racist comments. he was stupid but no stretch of the pc imagination was what he said racist.

wes

suicide_circus wrote: »

no, it would only result in police action if you were a non white person being targeted. being racist againts white people isn't racism, it's justified critisism for our centuries of opression, do you see?

There was an Asian guy who is in court over comment being made about British soldiers:

UK teenager to stand trial for 'grossly offensive' Afghan war post on Facebook

So what your saying is simply untrue.

talkinyite

Palmach wrote: »

He didn't make any racist comments. he was stupid but no stretch of the pc imagination was what he said racist.

um he called someone a cotton-picking wog

GLaDOS

Palmach wrote: »

He didn't make any racist comments. he was stupid but no stretch of the pc imagination was what he said racist.

He did say

I ain't your friend you wog ****... go pick some cotton

Seems a like a racist slur to me.

tigger123

Palmach wrote: »

He didn't make any racist comments. he was stupid but no stretch of the pc imagination was what he said racist.

"Wog c*nt"? "Go pick some cotton?" "N*gger"?

These arent racist comments?

hatrickpatrick

Freedom of Speech anyone? lol decaying Britain.

Education is definately the real solution.
I don't really agree or disagree with the sentence, it may change his views or deepen them, the fact that he expressed this opinion via twitter is the only reason he is getting prison time and kicked out of his college.

Other racists who have more intelligence than to post on twitter will still carry on with their freedoms (of speech).

suicide_circus

wes wrote: »

There was an Asian guy who is in court over comment being made about British soldiers:

UK teenager to stand trial for 'grossly offensive' Afghan war post on Facebook

So what your saying is simply untrue.

'british soldier' is not a race.
he didnt make a racist comment, heres what he said: http://www.sabotagetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/azharahmed-1.jpeg

wes

suicide_circus wrote: »

'british soldier' is not a race.
he didnt make a racist comment, heres what he said: http://www.sabotagetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/azharahmed-1.jpeg

Yeah he didn't say anything racist, but I was just pointing out that it isn't just white people who are being sent to court for saying nasty stuff online. In the case Azhar, he didn't even say anything racist, which make it even dumber.

Palmach

talkinyite wrote: »

um he called someone a cotton-picking wog

ScienceNerd wrote: »

He did say
Seems a like a racist slur to me.

tigger123 wrote: »

"Wog c*nt"? "Go pick some cotton?" "N*gger"?
These arent racist comments?

Jesus I didn't see those. Hell that is racist. But 56 days is still too harsh. I'd force him to watch re-runs of the Cosby show on a loop for a week while listening to speechs from Al Sharpton.

talkinyite

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Freedom of Speech anyone? lol decaying Britain.

no blacks no dogs no irish

leggit

wes wrote: »

There was an Asian guy who is in court over comment being made about British soldiers:

UK teenager to stand trial for 'grossly offensive' Afghan war post on Facebook

So what your saying is simply untrue.

Still shouldn't go to jail though surely?

gemma188

Are some of the Boards members that post in the Thunderdome any different to this guy? I've seem numerous posts there that would be considered 'inciting violence'. While I dont agree with the punishment the guy received I am glad t see action is now been taken against these Cyber Bullies/Keyboard Warriors

leggit

leggit wrote: »

Still shouldn't go to jail though surely?

Well that was an opinion (offensive yes to soldiers and their families) and prison for that is a bit mad.

wes

leggit wrote: »

Still shouldn't go to jail though surely?

Nope, he shouldn't go to jail imho.

suicide_circus

wes wrote: »

Yeah he didn't say anything racist, but I was just pointing out that it isn't just white people who are being sent to court for saying nasty stuff online. In the case Azhar, he didn't even say anything racist, which make it even dumber.

right, so what i said wasnt "simply untrue" then. I made a comment that racism against whites is seen as a lesser crime than racism against non whites, then you posted a link showing that an asian guy is being tried for offensive coments about british soldiers....i dont see the connection and my original point stands.

wes

suicide_circus wrote: »

right, so what i said wasnt "simply untrue" then. I made a comment that racism against whites is seen as a lesser crime than racism against non whites, then you posted a link showing that an asian guy is being tried for offensive coments about british soldiers....i dont see the connection and my original point stands.

He was originally accused of being racist, despite the fact that no comment about race were made. So, this guy was actually originally charged for being racist, despite saying nothing racist at all, and they only changed it later. So I would consider his case to be worse than this, as he never actually said anything racist, and they changed the charges afterwards, to still try and get him on something. Also, I fail to see much difference even after the change, both are being charged with saying something offensive online.

Seachmall

talkinyite wrote: »

no blacks no dogs no irish

That's discrimination.

There is a difference.

suicide_circus

wes wrote: »

He was originally accused of being racist, despite the fact that no comment about race were made. So, this guy was actually originally charged for being racist, despite saying nothing racist at all, and they only changed it later.

your legs must be tired from all that back-peddling

wes

suicide_circus wrote: »

your legs must be tired from all that back-peddling

Oh please, the Asian guy was charged for the same thing, there was even a thread on it here a few days ago. They changed the charges after they realised how stupid they were. The fact remains that the police are just as happy to go after people aren't white for saying offensive crap online. There is very little difference between the 2, but if you prefer to play the victim card, go right ahead.

Kolido

I think the punishment is harsh, but sometimes verbal/mental abuse is just as bad as physcal abuse.
To educate him, well I think he is old enough to know what right and wrong to say/write.
If that is his attitude towards people then soceity is better of without him.

Beefy78

The trouble is that this isn't somethnig said in a pub whilst drunk with friends. It's something which he has published to the internet, on a profile which carries his name and the name of his university. The nature of twitter is that it's so easy for anything you say on there to quickly spiral out of control and there's been a few high profile campaigns lately around getting anti-social or racist tweets reported to the authorities. And people should know this.

Basically, I find it very difficult to have any sympathy for this individual.

tfitzgerald

I think the sentence is a joke . If he attacked somebody over their race then fair enough . But to get jail over calling somebody a few names is a joke IMHO

Duggys Housemate

The popular demand for free speech is never as universal as I would like. as a previous poster said being called a racist name is not more, or less insulting, depending on the individual than calling someone fat, or stupid, or whatever. Ask a teenager.

Racism is the new Super-Morality, we replaced sex talk with race talk as the most prudish violation, politically its like attacking the Pope in 1950's Ireland.

suicide_circus

maybe we could set up camps where people like this student can be sent to be 're-educated' to think the same way as the rest of us? They could be taught to embrace the modern liberal ethos of our society. We cant have these people running around spouting opinions which dont conform to the approved orthodoxy.

Logical Fallacy

To be honest I'm delighted. More of this kind of thing and you'll see the keyboard warriors dying down a little bit.

Can you imagine the look on this dudes face when the cops showed up?

People tend to act super brave online but have nothing in real life to back it up. This guy was happy to insult people, cast racist slurs and actually celebrate the possible death of someone he had never met and did not know from Adam. Then when he gets collared for it he was drunk, when that didn't fly his account was hacked...all the usual **** you get from folk like this who don't think before they speak, or in this case, type.

sdanseo

While I agree what he said, and his attiude in general, makes him an absolute waste of matter - people like this, especially those in college and on track to a half-decent career - generally grow out of it.

56 days in jail is nothing short of another shining example of the UK's PC culture gone way overboard. Again. They seem to be working on the school of thought that saying something like this on twitter is the same as shouting it in the street - it's simply not.

sbsquarepants

Jesus, 2 months in jail is a bit severe. People get probabtion for serious assaults and so on. Yes the guy is an a grade asshole, but come on now, 2 months for using the word wog when all manner of voilent scumbags, rapists and peados roam free is fúcking ridiculous!

Duggys Housemate

suicide_circus wrote: »

maybe we could set up camps where people like this student can be sent to be 're-educated' to think the same way as the rest of us? They could be taught to embrace the modern liberal ethos of our society. We cant have these people running around spouting opinions which dont conform to the approved orthodoxy.

There was a south park episode...

Beefy78

sdeire wrote: »

While I agree what he said, and his attiude in general, makes him an absolute waste of matter - people like this, especially those in college and on track to a half-decent career - generally grow out of it.

56 days in jail is nothing short of another shining example of the UK's PC culture gone way overboard. Again. They seem to be working on the school of thought that saying something like this on twitter is the same as shouting it in the street - it's simply not.

But Britain doesn't have absolute freedom of speech. Even at speakers corner there are limits to what can be said.

Saying something on twitter isn't the same as shouting it in the street. In the street it might only be heard by a dozen people and will be gone as soon as the breath leaves your lungs. On twitter it's broadcast to hundreds of millions of people and is potentially there as a permenent record.

Dudess

pacquiao wrote: »

So much for free speech.

It doesn't exist and never did. Surely you, a Christian and stuff, would disapprove of such comments anyway?

Sentence appears very harsh though IMO. The guy got caught, that has a lot to do with it. Unfair tbh. But it's nothing to do with "hurting black people's feelings" :rolleyes: it's to do with anti-racism legislation.

The people who say "Free speech anyone?" sound like teenagers whingeing at their parents, and absolutely clueless. Do a bit of research ffs. So you can say anything about anyone eh? I'm sure you'd disagree with that if you were the target. Cool with being called a "Backwards, thick, inbred, paddy savage" yeah? You can't say anything you want about anyone - and never could. There is a limit to what you can say when it comes to stuff that damages individuals - but you'd prefer the person making the comments to be more protected? People who go into tirades about free speech also seem like they're annoyed that they can't be asses to others.

token101

tigger123 wrote: »

He wasn't talking, he was tweeting, he was publishing content to the Internet.

What difference does that make? The size of the audience shouldn't matter. He didn't incite violence towards anyone. He said horrible, nasty, racist things. But that should be his right as a citizen in a free democracy. I can't read the article at work, but I'm assuming he was convicted of inciting hatred? Inciting violence is one thing and quite serious, but inciting hatred is a f*cking daft offence. He's incited hatred towards himself if anything! Does that make him a victim? It's nonsense! And this is Britain, where Muslims openly preach hatred towards Brits in mosques and black rappers can say whatever they like! I'm sure if I did a quick Google search I'd find some garage singer calling white people all sorts. It's a double standard. You should be allowed to say whatever you like as long you don't explicitly incite people to commit violent acts. Insults can't hurt people, they offend.

token101

Beefy78 wrote: »

But Britain doesn't have absolute freedom of speech. Even at speakers corner there are limits to what can be said.

Saying something on twitter isn't the same as shouting it in the street. In the street it might only be heard by a dozen people and will be gone as soon as the breath leaves your lungs. On twitter it's broadcast to hundreds of millions of people and is potentially there as a permenent record.

It's the exact same thing. What if you shout it when you're at a big Pope mass at the Vatican where there are 1000's? Or when Obama is in town? What difference does the size of the audience make? Do you have to count the people around you before you talk now? Somebody could record you on the street? There's a record.

Seachmall

Dudess wrote: »

So you can say anything about anyone eh? I'm sure you'd disagree with that if you were the target.

That's a bullshit argument.

Telling someone that when they lose objectivity in the matter they'll feel different doesn't invalidate the point they made when they had objectivity in the matter.

People don't have the right to say anything. You're right. But that's not what this discussion is about.

There is a limit to what you can say when it comes to stuff that damages individuals - but you'd prefer the person making the comments to be more protected?

It's not about protecting the person it's about protecting a fundamental right. A right that everyone should share.

People who go into tirades about free speech also seem like they're annoyed that they can't be asses to others.

:rolleyes:

An appeal to emotion, followed by a strawman, followed by an ad hominem.

Is that a record?

token101

Dudess wrote: »

It doesn't exist and never did. Surely you, a Christian and stuff, would disapprove of such comments anyway?

Sentence appears very harsh though IMO. The guy got caught, that has a lot to do with it. Unfair tbh. But it's nothing to do with "hurting black people's feelings" :rolleyes: it's to do with anti-racism legislation.

The people who say "Free speech anyone?" sound like teenagers whingeing at their parents, and absolutely clueless. Do a bit of research ffs. So you can say anything about anyone eh? I'm sure you'd disagree with that if you were the target. Cool with being called a "Backwards, thick, inbred, paddy savage" yeah? You can't say anything you want about anyone - and never could. There is a limit to what you can say when it comes to stuff that damages individuals - but you'd prefer the person making the comments to be more protected? People who go into tirades about free speech also seem like they're annoyed that they can't be asses to others.

Yes, as long as the person doesn't say 'Someone please murder the Paddy savage'. How far do you go with that one? What if you call someone a fat c*nt? Incitement to hate fatties? People call each other retards every day. Is that incitement to hate disabled people? It's a daft concept. Insults offend, that's what they do. You've a right to be offended. Off you go. As long as someone isn't actively seeking to threaten or commit violence against someone it shouldn't matter what you say. Having a criminal record for insulting someone is a dangerous thing.

Beefy78

token101 wrote: »

It's the exact same thing. What if you shout it when you're at a big Pope mass at the Vatican where there are 1000's? Or when Obama is in town? What difference does the size of the audience make? Do you have to count the people around you before you talk now? Somebody could record you on the street? There's a record.

The guy pleaded guilty to incitement to racial hatred. Surely you can see how broadcasting his opinions to hundreds of millions of people is more likely to incite racial hatred than if he just shouted them at twelve people on a street corner?

Grayson

Beefy78 wrote: »

Saying something on twitter isn't the same as shouting it in the street. In the street it might only be heard by a dozen people and will be gone as soon as the breath leaves your lungs. On twitter it's broadcast to hundreds of millions of people and is potentially there as a permenent record.

I think you're exaggerating the power of twitter. How many followers do you think he had. Retweets are like someone saying I heard someone say xxxxxxx

Herrick

Look if he had said "I'm calling round to kill that nagger" then fair enough, he is threatening violence.

Throwing him out of college is a joke, but perhaps thats because of some college rule and if its down in black and white (:pac:) then ok, he broke it.

Jailing him is absolutely ridiculous. I'm sorry I know a lot of people here think different, but I think making it a crime for using offensive words (unless part of a clearcut threat) is sheer stupidity.

I really have trouble believing that if you replaced Fabrice Muamba with an Irish (or tbh any white person) player and he said something like "That paddy bastard is no loss" among other comments that there would be any of this happening and even if it were to be treated the same, it does not sit well with me that you can be jailed for for non-threatening comments.

Look at it this way, this has happened because he made comments on the guy because of skin colour. Whats next? Are we facing jail time for calling someone a fat bastard because we targeting their appearance as well?

Seachmall

Beefy78 wrote: »

The guy pleaded guilty to incitement to racial hatred. Surely you can see how broadcasting his opinions to hundreds of millions of people is more likely to incite racial hatred than if he just shouted them at twelve people on a street corner?

At what number should we determine the difference between expressing an opinion and inciting racial hatred?

Or should we distinguish between the two using a non-arbitrary method?

Beefy78

Grayson wrote: »

I think you're exaggerating the power of twitter. How many followers do you think he had. Retweets are like someone saying I heard someone say xxxxxxx

I read what he said within minutes of him saying it. I had no prior knowledge of him and no link to him. Anyone who spends any amount of time on twitter can see how things can snowball very quickly. Particularly when it's anything to do with something which is big in the news at that minute. Muamba was the #1 trending topic in the World when it happened and anything anyone said about him was being broadcasted around the World to millions of people to read.

wandatowell

I wonder would a (for example) black man get the same punishment if he racially abused a white man???

I very much doubt it

Beefy78

Beefy78 wrote: »

But Britain doesn't have absolute freedom of speech. Even at speakers corner there are limits to what can be said.

Saying something on twitter isn't the same as shouting it in the street. In the street it might only be heard by a dozen people and will be gone as soon as the breath leaves your lungs. On twitter it's broadcast to hundreds of millions of people and is potentially there as a permenent record.

He had hundreds of millions of followers?

token101

Beefy78 wrote: »

The guy pleaded guilty to incitement to racial hatred. Surely you can see how broadcasting his opinions to hundreds of millions of people is more likely to incite racial hatred than if he just shouted them at twelve people on a street corner?

He probably only pleaded guilty because he was advised he'd have been f*cked over even more if he didn't. No I don't. Charles Manson had only a few followers and he did enough damage didn't he? Certainly a lot more than this guy.

Logical Fallacy

Herrick wrote: »

Look if he had said "I'm calling round to kill that nagger" then fair enough, he is threatening violence.

Throwing him out of college is a joke, but perhaps thats because of some college rule and if its down in black and white (:pac:) then ok, he broke it.

Jailing him is absolutely ridiculous. I'm sorry I know a lot of people here think different, but I think making it a crime for using offensive words (unless part of a clearcut threat) is sheer stupidity.

I really have trouble believing that if you replaced Fabrice Muamba with an Irish (or tbh any white person) player and he said something like "That paddy bastard is no loss" among other comments that there would be any of this happening and even if it were to be treated the same, it does not sit well with me that you can be jailed for for non-threatening comments.

Look at it this way, this has happened because he made comments on the guy because of skin colour. Whats next? Are we facing jail time for calling someone a fat bastard because we targeting their appearance as well?

He told a person on Twitter he would "stamp on their face until it is flat", and he implied another posters father was a rapist. So that's threatening assault and slander (well, libel i guess as he wrote it) right there.

Seachmall

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

He told a person on Twitter he would "stamp on their face until it is flat", and he implied another posters father was a rapist. So that's threatening assault and slander (well, libel i guess as he wrote it) right there.

Not what he was charged with though.

And if we charge everyone who posts threatening messages online half the internet would be down by the end of the week.

Beefy78

Seachmall wrote: »

At what number should we determine the difference between expressing an opinion and inciting racial hatred?

Or should we distinguish between the two using a non-arbitrary method?

The two are easy to distinguish between, as you well know. Just quoting from Wiki:
Under the Law of the United Kingdom, "incitement to racial hatred" was established as an offence by the provisions of §§ 17-29 of the Public Order Act 1986. It was first established as a criminal offence in the Race Relations Act 1976. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made publication of material that incited racial hatred an arrestable offence.
This offence refers to:

• deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group
• distributing racist material to the public
• making inflammatory public speeches
• creating racist websites on the Internet
• inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred

Making a statement to someone in the pub wouldn't qualify under this law. Posting a tweet to your followers on twitter would. Again, the guy pleaded guilty.

token101

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

He told a person on Twitter he would "stamp on their face until it is flat", and he implied another posters father was a rapist. So that's threatening assault and slander (well, libel i guess as he wrote it) right there.

He wasn't charged or convicted of those offences though.

Logical Fallacy

token101 wrote: »

He wasn't charged or convicted of those offences though.

I don't really care, i just think it's ****ing hilarious he is in jail tbh.

What a dumb ****.

Seachmall

Beefy78 wrote: »

Posting a tweet to your followers on twitter would.

Under which of those criteria?

Beefy78

token101 wrote: »

He probably only pleaded guilty because he was advised he'd have been f*cked over even more if he didn't. No I don't. Charles Manson had only a few followers and he did enough damage didn't he? Certainly a lot more than this guy.

Fine. I'm not arguing the point any further. As I said a while back, this sort of thing is a difficult topic but the laws are in place for a reason and allowing people carte blanche to say what they like on twitter under the incorrect assumption that Britain (and other Western Countries) allow freedom of speech is a point that I find difficult to defend.