Man arrested for racial abuse of Chelsea striker Demba Ba

[wow2011]

Making racist comments IS a racial act.

And I agree. So I'm going to leave it to my represented government to make laws to define it, ergo, it's not free speech.

It's not a one-to-one correlation. Even if it's one to ten-thousand correlation, that's too much.

While I think your examples are very poor, this forum has banned religious talk. Can we skip this over and/or find a comparative example that doesn't involve religion?

What do you mean ok to me? I'm not the police. I didn't make the law. Of course I find it repugnant - but is it incitement? No. Supporting Hitler is, frankly, a bit of a waste of time in political theory right now given he's dead.

I am not talking about religion or political theory. I am talking about hate speech and freedom of speech and how messages can be disguised/hidden in many different ways. And how different people can use that to incite a group to do crazy things.

Besides, do you even know what the person said that you are so quick to agree with the actions of police? Making a racist comment is a racist act? Did you know plenty of rappers say ni**** on a regular basis? And refer to white cops and how they need to disappear?

What I see is a dangerous mentality to quickly agree with the police's actions without even knowing what the guy did.

[Zhangfei]

I personally don't like how you use the government to tell me what I can and can't say. Leave it to society's discourse to figure out what's popular and what should be shunned (i.e. racism). But why get the jails involved with this? Let their punishment be the free speech of others. You will, in time, see that you're fastening your own shackles by promoting the censoring and criminalization of speech.

I personally couldn't care less; I'm interested in preserving specific rights to safety and life that trumps the right to hate speech and inciting violence. We've seen violence against footballers very recently (objects thrown onto pitch) and I do not believe in fostering and endorsing people who encourage this behaviour.

Oh look, you're from the UK. No wonder you will defend your government's infringement upon freedom of speech.

Oh look, you follow an archaic and out of date economic school. No wonder you spout incredibly ignorant and nonsensical beliefs.

but seriously league of legends needs Latin american servers.

I actually agree with this, but mainly for team communication.

Besides, do you even know what the person said that you are so quick to agree with the actions of police?

For the last time because you're so rude to not bother reading my first two posts in this thread, I said I am not suggesting the person in question DID commit an incitement against violence - I said that the courts will determine his innocence or guilt. I am not having him hung, drawn and quartered in the court of public opinion because I find that incredibly loathesome and wrong, unlike Raybourne.

If he's guilty, the police did their job. If he's not guilty, the police still did their job because their job is to enforce the law. It doesn't mean I support every police action ever.

[Hiricine]

This is what happens when nanny state countries start deciding to regulate people's speech.

Society without the force of government can do a fine job of regulating speech. Regulating people's speech is fascist and unethical, even if it is racist. Lets not forget that prosecution and incarceration of this person is costing taxpayers money, most of whom think that money is better in their pockets or doing other things. Basically, you're forcibly taking money from the public to forcibly tell the public what not to say. Its the same thing the Soviets did, the Maoists, and North Korea. Its a third world policy in a first world country.

---------- Post added 2013-01-31 at 09:34 PM ----------

I personally couldn't care less; I'm interested in preserving specific rights to safety and life that trumps the right to hate speech and inciting violence. We've seen violence against footballers very recently (objects thrown onto pitch) and I do not believe in fostering and endorsing people who encourage this behaviour.

You can't draw a line in the sand for normally legal behavior that incites normally illegal behavior, especially when its this vague. Why not just outlaw football, you wouldn't get armies of drunks screaming at each other and attacking players at all.

[Zhangfei]

You can't draw a line in the sand for normally legal behavior that incites normally illegal behavior, especially when its this vague. Why not just outlaw football, you wouldn't get armies of drunks screaming at each other and attacking players at all.

Right, so we drew a line in the sand and said it was illegal to do. How is that complicated?

Every country with free speech has myriad laws limiting it. This just comes across as nation-bashing at this point.

[grayscale-warfare]

There should never be any sort of legal action against people for being racist unless they are actively harassing the person. Social media statements are not harrassment.

[Kraenen]

Right, so we drew a line in the sand and said it was illegal to do. How is that complicated?

Every country with free speech has myriad laws limiting it. This just comes across as nation-bashing at this point.

Wait, what???

The criticism isn't that it's complicated, it's that it's impossible to be fair.

Nation bashing....Red herring much?

[Hiricine]

Every country with free speech has myriad laws limiting it. This just comes across as nation-bashing at this point.

The myriad of laws is usually in place to strongly restrict what limitations you can put on free speech, and its almost always restricted to directly detrimental activity. Off the top of my head in the US, Libel and slander, which requires a strong burden of proof that the person was knowingly lying, and fighting words, basically directly attempting to incite violence. The laws in most countries just outline the definitions of those three things, because they can cause direct damage to someone.

Well it is nation bashing, with rationale of course. IF the US had a policy to execute people randomly in the street I'd beg for some nation bashing. If I'm mistaken and its a local ordinance I'll be glad to bash the city, and apologize to the nation.

[Zhangfei]

Wait, what???

The criticism isn't that it's complicated, it's that it's impossible to be fair.

Nation bashing....Red herring much?

Sorry, did someone not say we no longer had free speech in the UK? It's amazing how the Brits have a right to complain about this then.

It very well might be impossible to be objectively fair and neutral at more grey issues, but it's a new policy with little precedent.

The myriad of laws is usually in place to strongly restrict what limitations you can put on free speech

No they're not! Every free speech law is designed to limit the First Amendment in some way.

[Hiricine]

No they're not! Every free speech law is designed to limit the First Amendment in some way.

Well if we're talking about the US constitution, I can tell you that you're wrong because no law can trump the First Amendment or any part of the constitution, that's what makes it the constitution and not a law. Free speech laws can only enforce the exceptions left in the first amendment. Of course, the Federal Government in the US conveniently forgets about that until the Supreme Court knocks some sense into them.

Besides that fact, I don't think theres much interesting to discuss over the legal status of free speech laws in the US no matter what even the most celebrated judicial scholars might say. Even without a constitution, there should be outrage over any law that limits speech outside of directly putting people in danger (yelling "fire" in a theater, or telling someone else to beat the shit of someone)

[Sunseeker]

Its about punishment and reeducation, which sadly is not as effective as it could be, still though... racist should be punished heavily with jail.

Why? So we can pay for their living for the rest of their days 'cause they're a jerk?

[Zhangfei]

Well if we're talking about the US constitution, I can tell you that you're wrong because no law can trump the First Amendment or any part of the constitution, that's what makes it the constitution and not a law.

I know. The point is that since day one, the idea of free speech is not, was not and will never be being able to say what you want, when you want, how you want. It's always been limited. When people proclaim the "death" or "absence" of free speech, they like to ignore the limitations that already exist to protect people. I see this law as an extension and legitimate use of protecting individuals, as apparently the government did.

It is in no way demolishing or removing free speech, anymore than preventing people yelling "fire" in a crowded room stopping free speech.

[Hiricine]

It is in no way demolishing or removing free speech, anymore than preventing people yelling "fire" in a crowded room stopping free speech.

I will admit that you do bring up a good point, that we already limit free speech for public safety reasons. However, dropping an N-bomb on facebook, or anything racially charged that basically doesn't involve telling people to physically harm someone, or commit some other illegal act is hardly in the realm of public safety. It would be an enourmous stretch of the imagination to go from (in this specific case) the man saying something negative about the Soccer player for being a Muslim, and then someone throwing a rock at him because he read what the man said. And even if it were to actually occur, and the perpetrator of the violence admitted that a racial facebook post caused him to attack someone, the poster still isn't responsible for how some idiot reacted to reading his opinion.

And the substance to most free speech limitations has been just that--- Was what the person saying an opinion, or did the person simply try to say something to make other people unsafe or incite activity to injure others. In this case, its 100% clear that calling someone a name is an opinion (Although a pretty silly and stupid one)

[Zhangfei]

I will admit that you do bring up a good point, that we already limit free speech for public safety reasons. However, dropping an N-bomb on facebook, or anything racially charged that basically doesn't involve telling people to physically harm someone, or commit some other illegal act is hardly in the realm of public safety. It would be an enourmous stretch of the imagination to go from (in this specific case) the man saying something negative about the Soccer player for being a Muslim, and then someone throwing a rock at him because he read what the man said. And even if it were to actually occur, and the perpetrator of the violence admitted that a racial facebook post caused him to attack someone, the poster still isn't responsible for how some idiot reacted to reading his opinion.

But this is a very specific attack on an individual, not "generic" idiocy. It's clearly aimed at one person and the attacks are based on who he is.

The point is that it all collects together. If you allow everyone to spout vitriolic and hateful, aggressive racism this then more people will feel ok doing it and months later you have a seething hotbed of racism ready to explode. It's the same logic behind defamation; people react to it and can harm a person's reputation (which is completely retarded,) while this hate speech can cause violence against innocent people because of inherent characteristics.

People have been throwing coins at certain players based on reactions to racism. In my mind this is despicable and people creating and encouraging a society that allows for this are culpable in the guilt.

[wow2011]

For the last time because you're so rude to not bother reading my first two posts in this thread, I said I am not suggesting the person in question DID commit an incitement against violence - I said that the courts will determine his innocence or guilt. I am not having him hung, drawn and quartered in the court of public opinion because I find that incredibly loathesome and wrong, unlike Raybourne.

If he's guilty, the police did their job. If he's not guilty, the police still did their job because their job is to enforce the law. It doesn't mean I support every police action ever.

Ok, I didn't read your 1st 2 posts and you have made your position clear: you do not know what the person said so you will leave the person to police.

But you have not addressed the post's main point about defining hate speech and freedom of speech. Why wouldn't hate speech be protected under freedom of speech? There are many forms of hate speech and how can you correctly identify which is which (what do you consider hate speech anyways or what is hate speech by law as you understand it)? Why should law allow certain form while making other forms illegal? Since hate speech cannot be fully defined then the job of categorizing hate speech is left to subjective views and this is very dangerous.

So to me, protecting hate speech for freedom of speech is a required necessity. Once you run into the grey area and let subjective views to rule then many people can be wrongfully jailed.


EDIT

Also, you mentioned that people have been throwing coins at certain players based on reaction to racism and people creating and encouraging a society that allows for this are culpable in the guilt but but how can you be certain that hate speech is cause? Maybe it's entertainment that shows that particular race in a negative light? Perhaps it's in comedy where comedians make fun of that particular race? Perhaps it's a collection of video games that protray that race as bad guys? Perhaps it's the combination of all of those? If you want to think it is right to attack speech then perhaps you would like stronger restrictions on all of the things I have mentioned?

[Deleted]

Next step: Ban speech about certain political ideologies and religions, because promoting those is bad for society as a whole. Racism doesn't fundamentally differ too much from certain ideoligies and religions.

I don't like racists, but I am even less fond of people who assault free speech.

[Hiricine]

The point is that it all collects together. If you allow everyone to spout vitriolic and hateful, aggressive racism this then more people will feel ok doing it and months later you have a seething hotbed of racism ready to explode. It's the same logic behind defamation; people react to it and can harm a person's reputation (which is completely retarded,) while this hate speech can cause violence against innocent people because of inherent characteristics.

People have been throwing coins at certain players based on reactions to racism. In my mind this is despicable and people creating and encouraging a society that allows for this are culpable in the guilt.

You're looking at a society today that treats racism just the opposite way. "Real uncloseted" racism rarely happens these days, because people get put in the public spotlight, humiliated, fired from their jobs, and demonized. Defamation is a bit of a different issue, especially in a legal sense, saying things that are true about someone that harm their reputation is different than lying about them, though.

As to your second point, we don't treat violence in today's society the way we should. This man gets arrested and put in the public spotlight for making a facebook post, but the perpetrators of the actual violence (even if its just throwing coins) rarely get put in the news or get thrown in jail. On that note, I'd say if you had the honest truth, the reason players were attacked was either because they were on the other team, because the people themselves were racist (not a reaction to someone else's racism), or a combination of both. If anything, cases like this bring into the spotlight just how rediculous these people are and work against these types of behaviors, like sitting a kid in the corner of the classroom because he bullied someone.

Next step: Ban speech about certain political ideologies and religions, because promoting those is bad for society as a whole. Racism doesn't fundamentally differ too much from certain ideoligies and religions.

While I do agree the slippery slope argument stands, its really an argument for when you can't win the immediate point, which basically is, you should never be able to prevent someone from stating their opinion, no matter how stupid.

[Zhangfei]

Next step: Ban speech about certain political ideologies and religions, because promoting those is bad for society as a whole. Racism doesn't fundamentally differ too much from certain ideoligies and religions.

I don't like racists, but I am even less fond of people who assault free speech.

You think racist behaviour like slavery is more acceptable than stopping violence before it occurs? REALLY?!

Why wouldn't hate speech be protected under freedom of speech? There are many forms of hate speech and how can you correctly identify which is which (what do you consider hate speech anyways or what is hate speech by law as you understand it)? Why should law allow certain form while making other forms illegal? Since hate speech cannot be fully defined then the job of categorizing hate speech is left to subjective views and this is very dangerous.

Precedent. I'll let the courts decide and re-decide, as in the grand tradition of the British system.

So to me, protecting hate speech for freedom of speech is a required necessity. Once you run into the grey area and let subjective views to rule then many people can be wrongfully jailed.

Lots of laws are subjective or rely upon grey areas (God forbid we look into the market trading system.)

You're looking at a society today that treats racism just the opposite way.

Right. We made laws about it. That's my point. Racism didn't stop and we could finally relax and have a nice cup of tea, we must be ever vigilant against it.

but the perpetrators of the actual violence (even if its just throwing coins) rarely get put in the news or get thrown in jail.

Yes, they do. It's just the media, especially incredibly terrible newspapers like the Mail, love to play up or down speech more than violence for their agenda because the vast majority of us are pretty sure we really don't like violence and the laws to deal with it aren't the current hot topic issue.

[Deleted]

I just looked up the guy on wiki. He is a African French muslim/soccer player.

What I don't understand is what exactly did the person post to get him arrested. Is saying ni**** an arrestable offense in Europe? Or maybe fu***** ni****? Or perhaps the person was suggesting an elimination of the entire race? While hate speech is detestable, I am not sure about being physically arrested for saying you hate a certain race. Or is hate speech a crime in Europe?

Does anyone know what the facebook post was?

It's not a crime in all of Europe, but it is in the UK.

[Sorensen]

You think racist behaviour like slavery is more acceptable than stopping violence before it occurs? REALLY?!

Do you really think a racist person is going to star enslaving the people he hates?

[Zhangfei]

Do you really think a racist person is going to star enslaving the people he hates?

If he can use mindless slippery slope arguments, so can I. He says we are banning free speech, I say he wants to institute slavery.