Student jailed for 56 days for racial comments

token101

keith16 wrote: »

Why was it outrageous if it was 'just a comment'?

It's outrageous socially. It was a nasty, offensive thing to say. But you could say a million other nasty things and there would be no issue. It's still just a comment. It can't hurt anyone. He hasn't incited anyone to do anything. He's said insulting things. He's offended people, but you can't hurt anyone by offending them.

token101

Bob the Seducer wrote: »

The jail time might seem harsh but he got off lightly compared to these guys...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/uk-riots-four-years-disorder-facebook

They tried to incite a riot! There's a bit of a difference! They could have potentially put 100's in danger, depending on who was moronic enough to turn up, who was unfortunate enough to get caught in crossfire, the police, etc. The only person this guy put in danger was himself.

MrPudding

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

The time spent in jail won't even impact him that much to be honest.

Tell him that when he can't get a job due to the time he spent in prison.

MrP

keith16

token101 wrote: »

It's outrageous socially. It was a nasty, offensive thing to say. But you could say a million other nasty things and there would be no issue. It's still just a comment. It can't hurt anyone. He hasn't incited anyone to do anything. He's said insulting things. He's offended people, but you can't hurt anyone by offending them.

Indeed. Socially being the key word here. Regardless of the way the law sees it, the guy has put out those comments for all to see forever more. So even if he escaped jail, anytime he is googled by a potential employer he is screwed.

"So Mr. Stacey, I see you're a racist lowlife with no regard for human life AND/OR an uncontrolled raving drunk".

So society has and will continue to punish him and rightly so IMO. The fact that he now has a custodial sentence is almost incidental at this stage.

Dubit10

Very harsh sentence.

Blisterman

Anyone who uses the argument that there should be free speech, as long as you don't offend anyone, clearly doesn't understand the concept of free speech.

The whole purpose of free speech laws is to protect people who are being offensive. If you're not being offensive you don't need protection.

strobe

Where this lad screwed the pooch was threatening to stamp someone's face flat and using other violent aggressive language within the same flurry of posts/tweets that contained the racist language I think. Had he 'just' tweeted 'haha that ni**er Muamba is dead' or words to that effect, or 'just' called a fellow twitter person 'a wog' then I don't think he would have been prosecuted (even if the law may have allowed him to be(?)) and certainly don't think he'd be facing jail time. But mixing the racist sentiment with threatening and violent imagery sort of put's it in a more serious and actionable context in the eyes of the state, I'd imagine.

take everything

nickcave wrote: »

But do you think people are less racist because they don't harbour those opinions anymore, or is it simply because they fear prison? And which situation do you think is better?

I mean, I don't throw bananas at John Barnes because it's a disgustingly offensive thing to do - not because the state tells me not to.

Assholes may want to do all sorts.
Are you maintaining that it's more important that people don't think like assholes than making sure people don't think and behave like assholes.
Great if you can convince an asshole to stop thinking like one (might be difficult). But in the meantime, it doesn't mean you stop curbing asshole behaviour.

keith16

MrPudding wrote: »

Tell him that when he can't get a job due to the time he spent in prison.

MrP

I'm sorry MrP, that is bollox. His tweets spread like wildfire. I was staring at his twitter feed literally minutes after first hearing about Muamba.

What an idiot for using his real name on his account.

Do you think potential employers don't google candidates? And what would you think if an employer did hire him purely on the grounds that he didn't get jail?

The sentence is purely incidental at this stage. It's only purpose would appear to make an example and if that reduces his kind of crap on the internet, then that may not be such a bad thing?

Doc Ruby

keith16 wrote: »

Indeed. Socially being the key word here. Regardless of the way the law sees it, the guy has put out those comments for all to see forever more. So even if he escaped jail, anytime he is googled by a potential employer he is screwed.

"So Mr. Stacey, I see you're a racist lowlife with no regard for human life AND/OR an uncontrolled raving drunk".

So society has and will continue to punish him and rightly so IMO. The fact that he now has a custodial sentence is almost incidental at this stage.

Tweets resulting in a life sentence. Great.

I still can't find the energy to muster up any sympathy though. Much as my beliefs tend towards allowing people to express their opinions, and the possibility of rehabilitation for even the most disturbed individual, this guy just stands for so much that's wrong.

CreepingDeath

lividduck wrote: »

For my money he got away easy.
Incitment to hatred is a very serious offence.D

Yeah, I've yet to hear the sentence of the 3 African immigrants who attacked 5 white people and broke the skull of a busking DJ in Temple Bar.

There's intentional censorship of black violence in the Irish media.
I can't find a link anywhere showing what sentence they got.

They were probably silently deported without any fuss.
So in effect we have a crime tourism culture, where immigrants can come in, commit crimes and just face being deported.

Link

keith16

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Tweets resulting in a life sentence. Great.

I still can't find the energy to muster up any sympathy though. Much as my beliefs tend towards allowing people to express their opinions, and the possibility of rehabilitation for even the most disturbed individual, this guy just stands for so much that's wrong.

Well there you have it. A life sentence indeed. He wrote the tweets. They are there for everyone to see. Prison sentence or not.

Anyone who ever wants to know more about this guy by using the internet, will very likely come across this.

I'm all for free speech, have all the free speech you want. Just don't come crying to me when your particular brand of free speech is rightly deemed unacceptable by those around you.

I personally think what he said was highly offensive and that's fine, I choose to be offended. But I move on with my life. I'm nothing to him.

But this sh1t is gonna stick to him for a long time to come. Especially if those who will be influential in the direction of his life form the same opinion of him I and no doubt countless others did.

Nodin

Too harsh, IMO.

Bob the Seducer

token101 wrote: »

They tried to incite a riot! There's a bit of a difference! They could have potentially put 100's in danger, depending on who was moronic enough to turn up, who was unfortunate enough to get caught in crossfire, the police, etc. The only person this guy put in danger was himself.

One started a facebook group called "Smash Down Northwich Town", the other created a page called "Let's have a riot in Latchford", no disorder took place as a result of either - they were sentenced to four years in prison.

Surely that signposted how seriously the legal system in the UK now takes posting inciting material online. They were convicted of inciting people to create disorder, Stacey was convicted of inciting racial hatred. They got four years, Stacey got 56 days. He got off lightly considering the amount of leeway judges appear to have in relation to severity of sentencing.

People in the UK are being held to account for the content of what they post on social networks whether there are real world consequences or not. This lad's conviction is clearly meant to act as a deterrent in the same way as those other two convictions were.

I don't know if it's official policy in the UK or not, but there's clearly a move to put an end to the days of people having free reign to post whatever they want online. This guy's case simply forms part of that move.

Duggys Housemate

Bob the Seducer wrote: »

One started a facebook group called "Smash Down Northwich Town", the other created a page called "Let's have a riot in Latchford", no disorder took place as a result of either - they were sentenced to four years in prison.

Surely that signposted how seriously the legal system in the UK now takes posting inciting material online. They were convicted of inciting people to create disorder, Stacey was convicted of inciting racial hatred. They got four years, Stacey got 56 days. He got off lightly considering the amount of leeway judges appear to have in relation to severity of sentencing.

People in the UK are being held to account for the content of what they post on social networks whether there are real world consequences or not. This lad's conviction is clearly meant to act as a deterrent in the same way as those other two convictions were.

I don't know if it's official policy in the UK or not, but there's clearly a move to put an end to the days of people having free reign to post whatever they want online. This guy's case simply forms part of that move.

How about this - all these sentences are non-sensical, and obscene unless - in the case of incitement - they can prove the actual incitement. Which I doubt.

The guys on Facebook - probably having a lark - will be in jail for as long as some of our man slaughterers. Both systems are crazy.

The Master of Disaster

PC gone mad and it just seems to be getting worse! While I don't condone or agree with the sentiments he expressed I also believe the punishment is seriously OTT. We are in danger of creating a society of weaklings and moaners who run crying any time somebody says something they find even slightly offensive.

Witness the recent furore over the John Terry incident. I know as a footballer he's supposed to set an example so surely it's up to his club and the FA to deal with it. But then it gets almost comical with Scotland Yard saying they're opening a case (in fairness I think they were obliged because a member of the public complained to them directly). I know if I was a taxpayer living in the UK I'd want SY to concentrate it's cash-strapped resources on catching knife killers, drug dealers etc., not on whether or not one man called another man a name.

Frankly there's a lot of people in the world these days who need to grow a pair!

LH Pathe

Wasn't just the racial comments as such, just worse that the racist part was his retort. Football of all places should be free of racism as the reason anyone us out there is merely based on their footballing abilities. And he would have bn chosen above many, many impoverished africans vying for that place at that so all the more a triumph.. less able albeit more local footballers on the basis of chemistry is the preferred option unless they're stupid good

leggit

The Master of Disaster wrote: »

Frankly there's a lot of people in the world these days who need to grow a pair!

^^^^^exactly!

I feel physically sick when I see that we're turning into a generation of absolute pansies. Reminds me of little children running to mammy!

fullstop

Delighted for him, seems like an absolute prick. Acting the hard man on twitter and then crying when he's brought to court

carbon nanotube

Sykk wrote: »

Good to see the no tolerance for racism.. Discharged from college? A bit harsh..

well firstly he was an idiot, cant argue with that

secondly the judges sentence is ...like ridiculous

i mean come on now. you get all sorts of unreal $hit going on the uk, pedos and guys breeding girls of 13 for $ex and f**k all happens them

has to be put in perspective., i am in the uk, i think the law is just so outdated its quite funny.


he should have been given a slap on the wrists but to have his future career likely messed up over a few beevies is just nuts

Dudess

Absolute free speech does not exist so much of the arguing is moot. Libel and slander are examples of this being the case and I don't get why some don't recognise that these prove absolute free speech doesn't exist. If you express a view that damages a person's reputation e.g. that they seem like a paedo, isn't that just exercising free speech?

Seachmall, roll your eyes all you like - it's obvious plenty who have an issue with lack of absolute free speech (when it suits them of course - doubt they'd appreciate e.g. Muslims exercising same) are just pissed off at not being able to racially abuse. The same types who say "Political correctness gone mad".

"You can't even call a black man a n*gger c*nt anymore - it's PC gone mad and it violates my free speech!" What about mere decorum and manners and mere reasonable social interaction too? Again, things the "Free speech no matter what!" brigade would not appreciate an absence of methinks.

And of course it's logical to be more concerned with those on the receiving end than those dishing it out. IMO it's weird to be of the inverse persuasion. It's not simply about protecting hurt feelings, it's about not tolerating hate-filled abuse, and I'm not using the "thick, spud-munching paddy" insult to be emotive, I'm using it because it's relevant.

And it ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it. If a person spoke moderately about their issues with a particular group, instead of being abusive and foulmouthed re them, they're still exercising free speech but far less likely to get into trouble.

Again though, the guy's punishment does seem way too harsh.

carbon nanotube

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

How about this - all these sentences are non-sensical, and obscene unless - in the case of incitement - they can prove the actual incitement. Which I doubt.

The guys on Facebook - probably having a lark - will be in jail for as long as some of our man slaughterers. Both systems are crazy.

exactly

can imagine in the not distant future somone on facebook pissed out of his mind and slates the queen


gets 5 years jail sentence a week after a man get 3 years for man slaughter...

nice

keep it up chaps

This has most likely be covered here already I wonder if such a sentence or witch hunt would have been undertaken had it been a coloured individual posting comments about a white footballer.

What was posted was vile and disgusting but I fail to see how it was deserving of a prison sentence. Yes he should have been named and shamed but to be kicked out of university and then jailed seems rather harsh. By all accounts a few stupid tweets has ruined his life and yes there is done justice there but do we really want to live in a society where posting ones possible opinion no matter how disgusting it is could leave us facing a jail term?

LH Pathe

Unlucky son

That's what I'd tell his father, really unfortunate to have concieved this cretin let alone have put money aside to put him through college. Muamba would not have gotten that opportunity, yet the boy did better - this is an example of more priveledged consequentially being more obnoxious

dfx-

So I wonder if the PSNI will go after the Derry lad who posted about Bloody Sunday after the Linfield v Derry match last week.

He has had to flee the city for his own safety according to himself, so presumably people know who he is and the images of what he said are there too. This appears to be enough evidence in the Muamba case..

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/561269_10150616416083869_595903868_9135507_554054574_n.jpg

BarackPyjama

This pretty much sums up my attitude on people who get 'offended' http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=29555

The sentence sets a very dangerous precedent in the UK and gives all manner of people who perceive to be offended, and their greedy lawyers, a nice clear pathway to clog up the judicial system with nonsense cases about being 'offended'.

"He called me fat your honour, and I have witnesses"

"I'm suing the entire Westlife fanclub your honour, because I find Brian McFadden offensive"

Where exactly do you stop? Do we just stop with racism? Do we just stop with racism against minorities or can we prosecute, say, Muslims for calling 'peacefully' for 'death to the west'?

If I was to be jailed every time I 'offended' someone, I'd never see the outside of a prison again.

LH Pathe

matters close to the heart are close to the heart, for the many thousands that tuned ib to see muamba's played out brought morality into question. Foolish lad.. and the audacity to follow it up with a re-twit. spewing his bile upon the public effectively, and rubbing it in. How many followers

Show Time

With luck he will have a big black man to keep him company in his cell at night.

BarackPyjama

Show Time wrote: »

With luck he will have a big black man to keep him company in his cell at night.

Are you suggesting that black prisoners are rapists? I'm offended and might contact the Gardaí about your post.

Seachmall

Dudess wrote: »

Seachmall, roll your eyes all you like - it's obvious plenty who have an issue with lack of absolute free speech (when it suits them of course - doubt they'd appreciate e.g. Muslims exercising same) are just pissed off at not being able to racially abuse. The same types who say "Political correctness gone mad".

And when those people aren't in the discussion they're irrelevant.

I'd prefer absolute, or closer to absolute, free speech, but I'm not a racist.

I don't fit neatly into your generalisation, so care to address my position?

foxyboxer

What stays in sober, comes out drunk.

So the sentence has ruined his career prospects?
He has done that himself.

Imagine you're a company looking to hire Mr Stacey.
You outsource the background checks to an external agency.

They do a thorough job and come back with the twitter postings.

Would you hire him?

token101

keith16 wrote: »

Indeed. Socially being the key word here. Regardless of the way the law sees it, the guy has put out those comments for all to see forever more. So even if he escaped jail, anytime he is googled by a potential employer he is screwed.

"So Mr. Stacey, I see you're a racist lowlife with no regard for human life AND/OR an uncontrolled raving drunk".

So society has and will continue to punish him and rightly so IMO. The fact that he now has a custodial sentence is almost incidental at this stage.

The law has plenty to do with it. The conviction means he can't emigrate and start fresh elsewhere. It means he can never apply for certain jobs. It means he is classified as a convicted criminal. And for what? Twitter comments? In fairness, how many times have you gotten drunk and said stupid things that you regret the next day? If you're an average person probably at least once or twice. He didn't hurt anyone. He offended people. Casting people out socially for this type of thing is totally counter productive. It will just radicalise him, and anyone that has sympathy for him.

Duggys Housemate

I don't know about the criminal record. That may be expunged over time. Probably it will be. However his tweets are still on the record so he is f*cked anyway.

Pyr0

smash wrote: »

Why don't you hear about bully's going to prison for making comments on FB which result in suicide?

Because it wasn't a celebrity making the comments or on the receiving end.

booboo88

Pyr0 wrote: »

Because it wasn't a celebrity making the comments or on the receiving end.

not true


http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/TheLaw/teens-charged-bullying-mass-girl-kill/story?id=10231357#.T3MBK5iwMUU
The case of phoebe prince, a name you'll never forget for all the wrong reasons.

EdenHazard

people take online too seriously. the guys a moron and at the time i was like what are you doing you clown but i'd like what he was saying to a edward norton in american history x. the guy was just looking for attention, doubt he's racist.

prinz

booboo88 wrote: »

not trueThe case of phoebe prince, a name you'll never forget for all the wrong reasons.

There was a lot more to that case than online harrassment. If it had been a single comment posted on fb none of them would be seeing the inside of a court room.

MaxSteele

What he said was vile and sick , no doubt. But two months in jail, kicked out of college and a criminal record for the rest of his life for drunken, twitter comments ?? No way. Waste of tax-payer money and at the end of the day is counter productive and won't change his opinions on black people either IMO. If it had been a random non-white person preaching anti-white hate for colonialism or a young muslim preaching "death to the west" or "britain for an islamic state", nothing would be said.

Sure look at the british military parades in Luton and the likes, theres always an extremist group chanting hate speech, while under police protection. His comments weren't really inciting someone to commit violence against another, more insults than anything else. Racist comments or silly, drunken, ignorant opinions should just be ignored. PC gone mad I think.

talkinyite

pretty much telling someone that no matter what their ancestors and people have gone through that they and their kids will still always be subhuman slaves is not on at all, but I don't think the force of the state should be used against trolls.

daRobot

Absolutely wrong for him to be jailed.

The comments are racist yes, and in poor taste, but Jail???

The whole thing makes no sense to me.

lividduck

token101 wrote: »

The law has plenty to do with it. The conviction means he can't emigrate and start fresh elsewhere. It means he can never apply for certain jobs. It means he is classified as a convicted criminal. And for what? Twitter comments? In fairness, how many times have you gotten drunk and said stupid things that you regret the next day? If you're an average person probably at least once or twice. He didn't hurt anyone. He offended people. Casting people out socially for this type of thing is totally counter productive. It will just radicalise him, and anyone that has sympathy for him.

He is classified as a convicted criminal , but not for "Twitter comments" for incitment to Racial Hatred.
good luck to him, he deserves his lot.

batman_oh

Joke of a sentence. Plus i find it funny that the British Police can chase a Brazilian guy for looking wrong and riddle him with bullets and this isnt racist enough for similar to happen

token101

foxyboxer wrote: »

What stays in sober, comes out drunk.

So the sentence has ruined his career prospects?
He has done that himself.

Imagine you're a company looking to hire Mr Stacey.
You outsource the background checks to an external agency.

They do a thorough job and come back with the twitter postings.

Would you hire him?

Yes I probably still would if he was the best candidate. People's opinions are their own. I don't care what they are, as long as you do the job and you don't impact negatively on my company I could care less what you think. His mistake was making it public, and I would guess he probably only did that because he was drunk. He didn't incite violence, he offended people in a really nasty way. He should have apologised publicly and that should have been the end of it. Just like Ron Atkinson, Jade Goody and every other person who makes daft f**king remarks. This is a public hanging really. No need for it.

Logical Fallacy

Seachmall wrote: »

And when those people aren't in the discussion they're irrelevant.

I'd prefer absolute, or closer to absolute, free speech, but I'm not a racist.

I don't fit neatly into your generalisation, so care to address my position?

You can't have absolute free speech, that's why we need stuff like libel and slander laws.

Free Speech is a nice idea but it's also deeply flawed.

tigger123

token101 wrote: »

Yes I probably still would if he was the best candidate. People's opinions are their own. I don't care what they are, as long as you do the job and you don't impact negatively on my company I could care less what you think. His mistake was making it public, and I would guess he probably only did that because he was drunk. He didn't incite violence, he offended people in a really nasty way. He should have apologised publicly and that should have been the end of it. Just like Ron Atkinson, Jade Goody and every other person who makes daft f**king remarks. This is a public hanging really. No need for it.

So, if an apology is sufficient, where's the deterrant? If you can just say sorry afterwards what's to stop people saying whatever the hell they want, wih no filter whatsoever and apologising afterwards.

Ron Atkinson, Jade Goody - not great examples to be using.

inforfun

During the riots in London, people were caught calling peopel to take part in those riots via twitter and such.

How many days did they stay in prison?

Somehow i dont think it was 2 months, i could be wrong though.

Kylo Ren

Seachmall wrote: »

What he did was express an opinion. A controversial and retarded opinion, sure, but an opinion none the less.

He is now jailed for expressing that opinion.

That is stupid.

We don't have free speech in its truest sense. The constitution states that the publication of "blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter" be a criminal offence.

Duggys Housemate

Keno 92 wrote: »

We don't have free speech in its truest sense. The constitution states that the publication of "blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter" be a criminal offence.

And he is in England.

However despite what the constitution says, it depends on parliament, the police and the courts to enforce with legislation, investigation and sentencing. In most cases there is none of the last two for these cases, making the first toothless.

There is no prohibition in the Irish constitution on racist speech.

inforfun

Keno 92 wrote: »

We don't have free speech in its truest sense. The constitution states that the publication of "blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter" be a criminal offence.

Trouble is that most people on twitter havent a ****ing clue what at least 2 out of those 3 words mean.

OldNotWIse

smash wrote: »

Why don't you hear about bully's going to prison for making comments on FB which result in suicide?

Good point. Also homophobia which is a big problem in schools now. only certain crimes seem to go punished.