Man arrested for racial abuse of Chelsea striker Demba Ba

[Lora]

It's racism in the end, even if it happened through the media called facebook.

If its up to me racists should be punished as hard as possible, there is no excuse for being a racist of any sort.

You have the right to hate, not to hurt. Words mean nothing unless one allows them to mean something. Not saying racism is a good thing because it mostly isnt but if they are just running their mouth then let them. If they take action on their words or threaten violence, that is a separate matter.

---------- Post added 2013-02-01 at 07:27 PM ----------

If the action is defensible, it means you support and accept it (unless you're playing the Devil's advocate in a logical or legal debate.)

And once again, religion is not an eligible topic on these boards.

Free speech is a right. Hate speech is not part of that, just like libel, defamation, endangerment, incitement to cause violence, conspiracy and slander aren't.

Free speech is not limited to the speech that we like and nothing else. You need to grasp the bigger picture. You can't be for freedom of speech and yet want to make hate speech banned. It's a necessary evil, if you will.

[Zhangfei]

Free speech is not limited to the speech that we like and nothing else. You need to grasp the bigger picture. You can't be for freedom of speech and yet want to make hate speech banned. It's a necessary evil, if you will.

Then I call you a hypocrite for saying conspiracy to murder, as free speech, is illegal.

Same argument applies.

The bigger picture is racism is a much greater problem and causes far more harm than banning hate speech does.

[Sorensen]

The only reason you get arrested for racial abuse on the internet is if you get reported by hundreds of people until the police have to intervene. Obviously whatever this guy said must have offended a few hundred idiots. Regardless take responsibility for your actions, just cause its the internet doesnt mean your allowed to be racist, not that it really harms anyone if you make a comment.

Also yeah we here in Britain get whipped on the street for dare speaking up against our gov'nahs! Get a fucking grip people, theres a difference between free speech and hate speech.

So if somebody is like "I hate sourkraut" they get arrested for that?

[Lora]

Then I call you a hypocrite for saying conspiracy to murder, as free speech, is illegal.

I've been called a hypocrite many a times and I call myself one, doesn't invalidate my words in any way. Obviously there are rules for saying out loud that you are going to kill someone because at that point whether it's true or not, you are a public threat. That's the same reason you don't yell fire in a movie theater, it causes public panic and people will think irrationally and could incite a riot or violence.

[Zhangfei]

I've been called a hypocrite many a times and I call myself one, doesn't invalidate my words in any way. Obviously there are rules for saying out loud that you are going to kill someone because at that point whether it's true or not, you are a public threat. That's the same reason you don't yell fire in a movie theater, it causes public panic and people will think irrationally and could incite a riot or violence.

Right. And I think if you're saying racist things then it leads to discrimination and harassment. That's illegal too. Obviously free speech doesn't mean that much to you if you're ok with banning what you think is bad.

[Lora]

Right. And I think if you're saying racist things then it leads to discrimination and harassment. That's illegal too. Obviously free speech doesn't mean that much to you if you're ok with banning what you think is bad.

Please point out where I said something was bad and wanted it banned? Don't put words in my mouth that I did not say. If you're not grown up enough to understand the concept of free speech and how hate speech needs to be defended then just ask for an explanation, don't resort to saying someone said something that was not uttered.

[Nadev]

Is this a real comment? Are you for real?.....

Well if enough people are offended and report the comment, yes.

[Zhangfei]

Please point out where I said something was bad and wanted it banned? Don't put words in my mouth that I did not say. If you're not grown up enough to understand the concept of free speech and how hate speech needs to be defended then just ask for an explanation, don't resort to saying someone said something that was not uttered.

I do understand it. I just don't think you do - you defend free speech by applying a boo-hurrah theory of morality while ignoring the rational argument that hate speech is not free speech, the very same argument that is applicable to other limitations on free speech to protect people.

Well if enough people are offended and report the comment, yes.

Which group or individual would it be an attack on? It's not hate speech if it's not intrinsically tied to an individual or a group.

Sauerkraut is just goddamn delicious. Pickled cabbage has no rights.

[Sorensen]

But hes confusing hate speech (about ethnicity/race) with the fact he hates cabbage... Im not too sure If I should report him for trolling.

Hate is hate whether its cabbage or people. If you want to say hating food or whatever is not hate, its still hate.

If you hate a man because he slept with your wife is that not hate. If you hate getting wet when it rains is that not hate. If somebody cuts you off at an intersection and you hate him for that is that not hate. Hate is more than just racist stuff ok.

[Lora]

I do understand it. I just don't think you do - you defend free speech by applying a boo-hurrah theory of morality while ignoring the rational argument that hate speech is not free speech, the very same argument that is applicable to other limitations on free speech to protect people.

Hate speech is one thing but a hate crime is another. If you call someone a nigger or a faggot then you either hate the targeted group or you are using the words in a jokingly fashion. Words and dialect are different for everyone and something that may be obscene to one person is harmless to another because they realize that WORDS have no meaning unless you allow them to. If however you call someone a nigger or a faggot and then try to physically harm them, that is a crime. Shouting fire in a theater will cause anxiety, panic, and irrational thoughts. People can be offended all they want, that doesn't mean you can ban the words. Words are harmless. Action isnt.

[Endus]

Free speech is not limited to the speech that we like and nothing else. You need to grasp the bigger picture. You can't be for freedom of speech and yet want to make hate speech banned. It's a necessary evil, if you will.

None of this is true. As can easily be seen by the many nations of the world that have laws protecting freedom of speech, and at the same time have laws banning hate speech.

"Free speech" was never without limits. Not even in the US. That's what you're using to argue against hate speech laws, and it's a false premise. Speech has always had limitations beyond which it was not legal to go. Hate speech is merely another limitation. You can't argue that it's "wrong" because it limits speech, not unless you also argue that verbal harassment to every possible degree, verbal fraud, slander, incitement to riot, sedition and treason, and any other form of currently-illegal speech are also unconscionable restrictions on freedom of speech, that all of those should be seen as "necessary evils" as well.

The fact is, many people in the world disagree that there's anything "necessary" about that evil, and thus legislate against it.

---------- Post added 2013-02-01 at 02:51 PM ----------

Hate speech is one thing but a hate crime is another. If you call someone a nigger or a faggot then you either hate the targeted group or you are using the words in a jokingly fashion. Words and dialect are different for everyone and something that may be obscene to one person is harmless to another because they realize that WORDS have no meaning unless you allow them to. If however you call someone a nigger or a faggot and then try to physically harm them, that is a crime. Shouting fire in a theater will cause anxiety, panic, and irrational thoughts. People can be offended all they want, that doesn't mean you can ban the words. Words are harmless. Action isnt.

And this may be the problem, right here.

The issue is that you don't understand what "hate speech" is. Here's a hint; the use of a racial epithet isn't "hate speech". You can commit hate speech crimes without ever saying a word that would get you bleeped on a children's show.

[Zhangfei]

Hate speech is one thing but a hate crime is another. If you call someone a nigger or a faggot then you either hate the targeted group or you are using the words in a jokingly fashion. Words and dialect are different for everyone and something that may be obscene to one person is harmless to another because they realize that WORDS have no meaning unless you allow them to. If however you call someone a nigger or a faggot and then try to physically harm them, that is a crime. Shouting fire in a theater will cause anxiety, panic, and irrational thoughts. People can be offended all they want, that doesn't mean you can ban the words. Words are harmless. Action isnt.

Nobody is banning the words. Satire is protected under free speech. Nobody is banning thoughts. The only thing happening is people are banning the actions of racism. I don't see how this goes against "free speech."

And if words are harmless, why do we have libel, slander, conspiracy to commit murder, incitement etc? If people in a cinema are so thick that screaming fire causes a panic, don't they deserve to die? It's not the screamer's fault after all.

[Lora]

Nobody is banning the words. Satire is protected under free speech. Nobody is banning thoughts. The only thing happening is people are banning the actions of racism. I don't see how this goes against "free speech."

And if words are harmless, why do we have libel, slander, conspiracy to commit murder, incitement etc? If people in a cinema are so thick that screaming fire causes a panic, don't they deserve to die? It's not the screamer's fault after all.

To answer the libel and slander etc part, greed and corruption. That goes to the whole Thomas Hobbes vs John Locke debate. If there is no fire and someone shouts fire when you are in a crowded movie theater, you are only doing so to provoke and incite panic. Theaters aren't confined to one room and we all know how regulations with them aren't always up to date. Look at Aurora and their violations. If there is a fire, then people will get the fuck out of dodge and won't be pissed they got worked up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcqHSAwMHO8

[gryme]

Said it earlier and I'll say it again... you DON'T and SHOULDN'T have the right to not be offended. It is a simple as that.

[Endus]

To answer the libel and slander etc part, greed and corruption. That goes to the whole Thomas Hobbes vs John Locke debate. If there is no fire and someone shouts fire when you are in a crowded movie theater, you are only doing so to provoke and incite panic.

And yet, hate speech is banned for nearly identical reasons in those nations with laws against it, yet you for some reason believe there is a categorical difference between that and these "correct" limitations on speech.

[Sorensen]

And yet, hate speech is banned for nearly identical reasons in those nations with laws against it, yet you for some reason believe there is a categorical difference between that and these "correct" limitations on speech.

Hate speech is just a type of insult. It doesn't hurt anything more than feelings. That's why it should not be limited.

[Endus]

Said it earlier and I'll say it again... you DON'T and SHOULDN'T have the right to not be offended. It is a simple as that.=

And again; hate speech and harassment laws have nothing to do with someone feeling "offended". Nada. Zip. They're based on the same principle that slander and libel are, or incitement to violence.

[Lora]

And yet, hate speech is banned for nearly identical reasons in those nations with laws against it, yet you for some reason believe there is a categorical difference between that and these "correct" limitations on speech.

Majority/consensus =/= right thing. Course, morals are completely subjective.

[Endus]

Hate speech is just a type of insult. It doesn't hurt anything more than feelings. That's why it should not be limited.

No, this is just categorically false. This is the "evolution is just a theory, man" of arguments against hate speech. You not understanding the terminology is not an argument against it.

Edit: Specifically, for something to qualify as "hate speech", it typically needs to involve an incitement to violence against an identifiable group, or to threaten/harass/intimidate said group.

So, if we're going to talk about speech regarding a group of blue-skinned people, to make up an ethnicity that doesn't exist so nobody can get offended;

"I hate all those fucking blue people" isn't hate speech.
"You smurfs are ruining everything" isn't hate speech, even if "smurf" is a racial epithet in this case.
"We need to kill all those goddamned smurfs" is hate speech, due to incitement to violence/genocide.
"Smurfing smurfs smurfing the smurf out of all the smurfing smurf" isn't hate speech, despite the heavy use of "smurf".
"If I see any fucking bluefaces, I'm beating the shit out of them" is hate speech, speech meant to intimidate/harass.

And so on.

It isn't "insults". It isn't stuff that offends people. If that's what you think "hate speech" is, then you aren't paying attention to the actual laws and you're just reacting off either a complete willful ignorance of the legislation in question, where you refuse to actually look up those laws to inform yourself before spouting off, or you're listening to some propaganda mouthpiece that is outright lying to you.

[gryme]

Majority/consensus =/= right thing. Course, morals are completely subjective.

Exactly. I love these people who claim that because its "law" that makes it right. No... law has nothing to do with whats right or wrong in MANY cases.. just with whats popular. Gay marriage in America, anybody?

And how exactly does hate "SPEECH" have NOTHING to do with someone being offended? It has everything to do with people being offended. I agree on anything that doesn't incite violence towards a person or a group of people, but if someone doesn't like, say black people for example, they should have EVERY right to express that, in any way they like, so long as it doesn't incite violence or ruin their "image" so to speak.. ie slander etc.