Man arrested for racial abuse of Chelsea striker Demba Ba

[Namarus]

What baffles me is, why are people assuming this is stopping other crimes being investigated? As Zhangfei has stated many, many times in this thread, why are other countries police so inept that they can only focus on "major" crimes, so much so that when the British police are able to investigate rascism / hate speach crimes it comes as such a shock?

Since most of the people making this point seem to be from the USA I can understand their thinking. After all the US has 4 times as many murders as the UK does per 100,000 population. Clearly they have a hard time catching all these killers, so other crimes are just ignored by their over stretched police departments.

In the UK since our population doesn't seem hell bent on shooting people who accidentally drive into someone's drive way or shoot down school bus drivers to get kids our police departments have the resources to investigate other crimes that are reported to them.

[Deleted]

I think what a few people fail to realise is that this was reported to the police by a person who viewed the comment, they didn't go trawling through the Internet looking for people to arrest. A member of the public brought this to the police's attention which gives them a responsibility to look into it to see if a crime was committed.

Au contrare, I know this. The police should just dismiss random racist/anti-religious slurs and insults. On most reputable websites most people who act like that will get banned or blocked by members anyway. Now if it becomes a sustained campaign of harassment or hatred towards a group or individuals or involves direct threats then it becomes entirely different.

On that basis I think the police *could* operate just by sending virtual warnings towards would-be racists (people who do the above) informing them about their behaviour. That would probably deter most people right there.

I've asked before but what if an American or someone from any nation signs up to and uses a UK based website to insult someone based in the UK? Would it be plausible or should it be plausible to extradite them if their comments are viewed as hate speech? Why or why not?

[Deleted]

Au contrare, I know this. The police should just dismiss random racist/anti-religious slurs and insults. On most reputable websites most people who act like that will get banned or blocked by members anyway. Now if it becomes a sustained campaign of harassment or hatred towards a group or individuals or involves direct threats then it becomes entirely different.

On that basis I think the police *could* operate just by sending virtual warnings towards would-be racists (people who do the above) informing them about their behaviour. That would probably deter most people right there.

I've asked before but what if an American or someone from any nation signs up to and uses a UK based website to insult someone based in the UK? Would it be plausible or should it be plausible to extradite them if their comments are viewed as hate speech? Why or why not?

When the end punishment tends to be an appology from the guilty party, and perhaps a fine, why would any UK police force push for extradition? For any reported crime to even make it to court, the police have to be sure of a conviction, and as a source I already linked in this thread states most online "hate speach" is ignored unless "grossly offensive", and then if the perp apoligises the police tend not to follow it up.

As you, and others keep stating, it is a minor crime (with punishments to suit this), however it is STILL A CRIME. If you live in the UK, you abide by the law, or you spend a lot of time being interviewed by the police. How is this going over your head, when your locationg states you live in the UK?

[Magpai]

I wasn't aware that it was the government's role to use police to "stamp out" racism. And there's people supporting it... it's like people don't even know what freedom of speech means anymore.

[wow2011]

Like a significant amount of law. Why do courts even exist in your world? I'll ignore your barb about the UK, I can't understand why you'd defend a person like that.

I said earlier that hate speech needs to be defended out of necessity, not exactly out of willingness.

But yeah, courts exist to decide laws and in US, it has been decided that freedom of speech should be a right, not a previledge. This right is also limited by several things whenever a clear line can be drawn. And also like I said before, hate speech does not have a defined line and it's purely up to the judge to interpret what hate speech is. This gives the court system too much power and as citizens we need to watch out for those things to prevent it from happening. (Human history has shown that corruption follows power without fail when there is no opposing force. So unless UK judges have transcended mankind into some higher being, too much power will result in corruption. Putting this in bracket since it's a bit off topic.)

In this particular racial hatred example, it is easy for us to point and say "hate speech!" and want to imprison him. Let me ask you this, what if a judge decided parts of quran is hate speech after a UK citizen self bombed a school yelling "allahu akbar"? Maybe he decided that it is better for parts of the quran to be removed under "hate speech" and anyone printing them can be jailed. You might want to call this a slippery slope argument but it is not. As I can sit here and argue part of quran qualify for hate speech rigth now and I would have grounds to do so. They are not hate speech now because judge has decided it is not. But if I were judge, I can very well decide that part of quran is and I can welcome a healthy debate against other people in a logical and none religious manner (law and religion are separate in UK right? if not then nvm).

[Deleted]

When the end punishment tends to be an appology from the guilty party, and perhaps a fine, why would any UK police force push for extradition?

Because, as we're so often told online interaction of this nature is no different than if they did it in person. So if you're insulting someone on a UK website it is as if you actually did it on UK soil.

Or does the comparison to real life suddenly end there arbitrarily?

For any reported crime to even make it to court, the police have to be sure of a conviction, and as a source I already linked in this thread states most online "hate speach" is ignored unless "grossly offensive", and then if the perp apoligises the police tend not to follow it up.

Yet in almost all circumstances there's no need for the police to be involved. At most it could be sending out warnings to someone continuously verbally abusing someone. That kind of warning from the police would likely stop most people from doing it.

As you, and others keep stating, it is a minor crime (with punishments to suit this), however it is STILL A CRIME. If you live in the UK, you abide by the law, or you spend a lot of time being interviewed by the police. How is this going over your head, when your locationg states you live in the UK?

Actually I do not view it as a crime at all.

[Activi-T]

Au contrare, I know this. The police should just dismiss random racist/anti-religious slurs and insults [1]. On most reputable websites most people who act like that will get banned or blocked by members anyway[2]. Now if it becomes a sustained campaign of harassment or hatred towards a group or individuals or involves direct threats then it becomes entirely different.

On that basis I think the police *could* operate just by sending virtual warnings towards would-be racists (people who do the above) informing them about their behaviour. That would probably deter most people right there. [3]

I've asked before but what if an American or someone from any nation signs up to and uses a UK based website to insult someone based in the UK? Would it be plausible or should it be plausible to extradite them if their comments are viewed as hate speech? Why or why not?

[1] The job of the police is to enforce the law. We have laws governing hate speech therefore the police are required to enforce them, 'should' doesn't really enter into it.

[2] While I applaud the sites that do ban/punish members that act like that some sites don't.

[3] for a system like that to work you would need to get rid of anonymity on the Internet. Either that or write legislation to force UK based sites to divulge information of it's user on police request (Something a lot of people would be majorly against). Not to mention the fact that you are creating a potential problem with regards to people sending 'official' communications to scam/intimidate other Internet users. You have then just created more work for the police trying to catch those people not to mention you would need an amendment to 'impersonating a police officer', I would have thought.

As for your questions at the end;
Would it be possible? Yes, just like it is possible to be arrested and extradited for hosting links to copyright content, which isn't a crime in the UK but is in the USA.

Should it be possible? For this particular crime, no. However I am happy to leave it up to the courts of the countries involved to determine if extradition of individuals is compatible with their own 'brand of justice'.

[Deleted]

[1] The job of the police is to enforce the law. We have laws governing hate speech therefore the police are required to enforce them, 'should' doesn't really enter into it.

Fine, then my opinion is the law ought to change. You knew that already though.

[2] While I applaud the sites that do ban/punish members that act like that some sites don't.

Indeed, they don't. They would then gain a negative reputation and/or become notable even on a minor scale for being 'dark' and delicate doilies would probably know to stay away. At any rate, individual members on most of these sites can choose to just ignore said people, block them or just leave said websites.

[3] for a system like that to work you would need to get rid of anonymity on the Internet. Either that or write legislation to force UK based sites to divulge information of it's user on police request (Something a lot of people would be majorly against).

You might as well say that in order to arrest people now who do things like that you would have to get rid of anonymity on the internet. My suggestion there would only be in more extreme cases where someone is involved in a campaign of harassment, racist abuse or making threats and not just idle insults (even if they are race based) on some hidden away forum.

Not to mention the fact that you are creating a potential problem with regards to people sending 'official' communications to scam/intimidate other Internet users.

You would be, yes.

You have then just created more work for the police trying to catch those people not to mention you would need an amendment to 'impersonating a police officer', I would have thought.

I presume impersonating a police officer already does involve mimicking them online.

As for your questions at the end;
Would it be possible? Yes, just like it is possible to be arrested and extradited for hosting links to copyright content, which isn't a crime in the UK but is in the USA.

Should it be possible? For this particular crime, no. However I am happy to leave it up to the courts of the countries involved to determine if extradition of individuals is compatible with their own 'brand of justice'.

Your last sentence is confusing there. You don't think it should be possible for the UK to request citizens of other nations be extradited for insulting others on UK websites but you would leave that kind of decision up to courts of both nations and approve whatever they conclude?

[Xanjori]

I wasn't aware that it was the government's role to use police to "stamp out" racism. And there's people supporting it... it's like people don't even know what freedom of speech means anymore.

It's almost like people don't understand these incidents have to be reported to the police, at which point they investigate it. And there's people talking shit about it without even understanding this, its like they dont even have a clue.

[Wildtree]

I don't see anything to argue about this, really...
Facts:
- The internet is not (and never was - nor will it ever be) a law free space.
- The case at hand applies to the laws of the UK, and freedom of speech has it's meaningful limitations there. Racism and insult are excluded and subject to punishment by law.

I support that. Kudo's to the UK's law enforcement. In fact, I see a relation to out of control spiral violence and basically no limitation to freedom of speech whatsoever.
Freedom is not unlimited, and common sense commands this. Yet, we learn every day, that there is not a single society on this planet where people can resort to common sense to limit and restrain itself from abuse of freedom at the expense of other individuals, and with that basically outright violate their freedom. Hence there need to be laws to put those in check who cannot responsibly handle their freedom.

[Deleted]

I don't see anything to argue about this, really...
Facts:
- The internet is not (and never was - nor will it ever be) a law free space.
- The case at hand applies to the laws of the UK, and freedom of speech has it's meaningful limitations there. Racism and insult are excluded and subject to punishment by law.

Wait.

You think all insults with no exception should be against the law?

[Xanjori]

Wait.

You think all insults with no exception should be against the law?

It's almost like you are deliberately misreading people to start an argument.

[Deleted]

In this particular racial hatred example, it is easy for us to point and say "hate speech!" and want to imprison him. Let me ask you this, what if a judge decided parts of quran is hate speech after a UK citizen self bombed a school yelling "allahu akbar"? Maybe he decided that it is better for parts of the quran to be removed under "hate speech" and anyone printing them can be jailed. You might want to call this a slippery slope argument but it is not. As I can sit here and argue part of quran qualify for hate speech rigth now and I would have grounds to do so. They are not hate speech now because judge has decided it is not. But if I were judge, I can very well decide that part of quran is and I can welcome a healthy debate against other people in a logical and none religious manner (law and religion are separate in UK right? if not then nvm).

As has been repeated numerous times now, where is anyone who has sided with the UK stance on this stating he needs to be locked up? Not all crimes require a custodial sentence, so I am completely baffled by everyone stating "we" want him sent to jail????

With regards to your comments on the Quran (will keep this part as short as possible, no religous discussion etc.), can you point out the parts in it that state people should become suicide bombers? I have never read it myself, but I am fairly sure there are no such passages in the book. Most followers of all religions agree that extremists (not just muslims) warp the ideals of said religion to their own beliefs. Using it as part of your slippery slope argument makes you look, how do I put this, racist?

[Deleted]

It's almost like you are deliberately misreading people to start an argument.

What did I misread sir?

I'll quote:

"- The case at hand applies to the laws of the UK, and freedom of speech has it's meaningful limitations there. Racism and insult are excluded and subject to punishment by law."

"I support that. Kudo's to the UK's law enforcement. In fact, I see a relation to out of control spiral violence and basically no limitation to freedom of speech whatsoever. "

It concerns me just how laisse-faire people are in supporting restrictions on free speech. It is one thing to oppose hate speech, which can only (to me) be objectively defined as speech designed with the deliberate intent to encourage, call for or threaten violence or harassment towards an individual or a group of people. It is another thing to declare free speech to end where it causes offense or insult.

I find such suggestions "offensive".

[Deleted]

As has been repeated numerous times now, where is anyone who has sided with the UK stance on this stating he needs to be locked up? Not all crimes require a custodial sentence, so I am completely baffled by everyone stating "we" want him sent to jail????

With regards to your comments on the Quran (will keep this part as short as possible, no religous discussion etc.), can you point out the parts in it that state people should become suicide bombers? I have never read it myself, but I am fairly sure there are no such passages in the book. Most followers of all religions agree that extremists (not just muslims) warp the ideals of said religion to their own beliefs. Using it as part of your slippery slope argument makes you look, how do I put this, racist?

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,"

Ah damn, wrong fable.

[Activi-T]

Fine, then my opinion is the law ought to change. You knew that already though. [1]


Indeed, they don't. They would then gain a negative reputation and/or become notable even on a minor scale for being 'dark' and delicate doilies would probably know to stay away. At any rate, individual members on most of these sites can choose to just ignore said people, block them or just leave said websites.


You might as well say that in order to arrest people now who do things like that you would have to get rid of anonymity on the internet. My suggestion there would only be in more extreme cases where someone is involved in a campaign of harassment, racist abuse or making threats and not just idle insults (even if they are race based) on some hidden away forum. [2]


You would be, yes.


I presume impersonating a police officer already does involve mimicking them online.


Your last sentence is confusing there. You don't think it should be possible for the UK to request citizens of other nations be extradited for insulting others on UK websites but you would leave that kind of decision up to courts of both nations and approve whatever they conclude?[3]

[1] And you are perfectly entitled to that opinion. Yes I did already know that.

[2] The majority of the arrests have come from venues like Facebook and Twitter, places that actively encourage you to use your real name/email address. I think I am going to take a page out of your play book here and say 'Can you objectively define what constitutes a campaign of harassment? Or what the difference between an idle abuse and racist abuse?

[3] For clarification. My opinion is that citizens of other countries shouldn't be extradited for actions that aren't crimes in the country they live in but are in other countries. For actions that are crimes in both countries it should be up to the courts of the person being requested for extradition if the extradition order should be complied with.

[Deleted]

[2] The majority of the arrests have come from venues like Facebook and Twitter, places that actively encourage you to use your real name/email address. I think I am going to take a page out of your play book here and say 'Can you objectively define what constitutes a campaign of harassment? Or what the difference between an idle abuse and racist abuse?

Yes, so if the police operated on this issue by way of warnings (which I still maintain would pacify many) it would be functionally no different than them arresting. Anonymity is a problem either way.

[3] For clarification. My opinion is that citizens of other countries shouldn't be extradited for actions that aren't crimes in the country they live in but are in other countries. For actions that are crimes in both countries it should be up to the courts of the person being requested for extradition if the extradition order should be complied with.

If we're taking though, as many do the claim that interaction on the internet is always identical or to be considered identical with real life interaction would racially abusing someone on a UK website be effectively identical to abusing them in a UK city? Would it not be as if they actually were in the UK?

[Magpai]

Pretty pathetic to see people relying on government to not only provide moral guidance on speech, but also to protect them from hearing speech they deem unacceptable.

[Wildtree]

Wait.

You think all insults with no exception should be against the law?

you are in the UK...
Here's the applicable parts of Freedom of Speech for your country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...United_Kingdom

I want to add one more thing... As European, I am also a very passionate Football fan. But I also happen to be a passionate opponent of everything related to Ultras and the kind of consorts who are counterproductive, and are more interested in violence in and around the stadiums (keyword 3rd half). Those people need to be banned from the stadiums and let the true fans enjoy their games and support their teams.
Rivalry against the other teams fans is perfectly fine. Fighting them used to be done by singing them into the ground. Outperforming them in my own fan curve.
Chanting down on the other teams players is one thing. No problem boo'ing and what not.. But personal insult outside the stadium is crossing a line.
And more than often it's also hypocrisy at it's purest form.
Artificial hate against players, while they wearing their clubs jersey.. The moment they put on the national jersey those who hated them so much, become passionate fans.... Bullshit.. outright bullshit...
Violence in Football got out of line.. Started decades ago.. The UK could sing a song about it..... How was it when the entire UK was banned from all UEFA events?
Thanks to Hools and the lack of proper law enforcement... Those days are over, law enforcement works today. I admit, sometimes it's too much enforcement. But it only boils down to a bunch of idiots ruining it for everyone else. If you got a problem with that, and you are somewhat sane, then go after those idiots who act so far beyond everything tolerable that the freedom given from the law gets cut down, and the law as it existed for the longest time gets enforced.

[Deleted]

you are in the UK...
Here's the applicable parts of Freedom of Speech for your country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...United_Kingdom

I want to add one more thing... As European, I am also a very passionate Football fan. But I also happen to be a passionate opponent of everything related to Ultras and the kind of consorts who are counterproductive, and are more interested in violence in and around the stadiums (keyword 3rd half). Those people need to be banned from the stadiums and let the true fans enjoy their games and support their teams.
Rivalry against the other teams fans is perfectly fine. Fighting them used to be done by singing them into the ground. Outperforming them in my own fan curve.
Chanting down on the other teams players is one thing. No problem boo'ing and what not.. But personal insult outside the stadium is crossing a line.
And more than often it's also hypocrisy at it's purest form.
Artificial hate against players, while they wearing their clubs jersey.. The moment they put on the national jersey those who hated them so much, become passionate fans.... Bullshit.. outright bullshit...
Violence in Football got out of line.. Started decades ago.. The UK could sing a song about it..... How was it when the entire UK was banned from all UEFA events?
Thanks to Hools and the lack of proper law enforcement... Those days are over, law enforcement works today. I admit, sometimes it's too much enforcement. But it only boils down to a bunch of idiots ruining it for everyone else. If you got a problem with that, and you are somewhat sane, then go after those idiots who act so far beyond everything tolerable that the freedom given from the law gets cut down, and the law as it existed for the longest time gets enforced.

Do you think all insult should be illegal?