Man arrested for racial abuse of Chelsea striker Demba Ba

[Hiricine]

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

Well the above poster didn't say that slavery was more acceptable, and also slavery is a violent act, it requires confinement and the threat of violence, generally speaking.

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.

While you're right in spirit that they do get arrested, we rarely see real sentences for violent offenders in most of society. I've seen people throw punches at nurses in Emergency Rooms get released when the police escorted them out of the building. I've heard of people hitting (sorry for being a broken record) a pregnant nurse and getting put on probation. The justice system has bigger priorities than speech offenders, and society needs to find ways to punish violent offenders great enough that it prevents violence, even simple acts like throwing small objects.

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.

A good point, but Ill point out that slaves weren't wantonly kidnapped and dragged across the Atlantic, they were sold to Europeans by their own people, who were clearly not racist (at least in a skin tone/macro sense)

[wow2011]

Precedent. I'll let the courts decide and re-decide, as in the grand tradition of the British system. Lots of laws are subjective or rely upon grey areas (God forbid we look into the market trading system.)

If you believe in democracy then you should also believe that people run the government by election and speaking up the view point. Government is made by people and is as fallible as citizens. So as citizens in a democratic country, we need to watch the government policies and be vigiliant to not give government too much power.

Unless you plan to be ruled over then you need to speak up when you think something is done incorrectly. What if one day pope gained a lot of power and had influence in the court system and suddenly "those pedo priests" get categorized as hate speech? You will submit and say "precedent, I will let the court decide and redecide"?

[Zhangfei]

Well the above poster didn't say that slavery was more acceptable, and also slavery is a violent act, it requires confinement and the threat of violence, generally speaking.

And I, nor the government, didn't say that we should abolish free speech, so we can all make stuff up and make ourselves sound petty and childish and have hissy fits rather than create logical arguments.

While you're right in spirit that they do get arrested, we rarely see real sentences for violent offenders in most of society. I've seen people throw punches at nurses in Emergency Rooms get released when the police escorted them out of the building. I've heard of people hitting (sorry for being a broken record) a pregnant nurse and getting put on probation. The justice system has bigger priorities than speech offenders, and society needs to find ways to punish violent offenders great enough that it prevents violence, even simple acts like throwing small objects.

Priorities? I think they're all wrong and we shouldn't cherry pick what is illegal or punishable. That just endorses corruption and what is a major problem to you might not be to me (although we both clearly agree violence is far worse than hate speech.)

A good point, but Ill point out that slaves weren't wantonly kidnapped and dragged across the Atlantic, they were sold to Europeans by their own people, who were clearly not racist

There were plenty sold but European raids farther and farther inland became common for centuries. The entire west coast of Africa by the mid-19th century was severely depopulated. Slavery itself was still racist.

If you believe in democracy then you should also believe that people run the government by election and speaking up the view point.

I absolutely believe this, but never if it involves hate speech or tries to incite violence against it unless the government is being unduly violent against her own people. Then all bets are off.

I don't see why attacking an individual based on their race in a vitriolic, racist, hateful manner is defensible. It serves no purpose. The only argument against it I've seen is a slippery slope argument, which is a logical fallacy.

[Deleted]

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

Slavery isn't inherently racist. It can be racially motivated though. So my biggest beef with such a guy will be enslaving others, not racist speech.

[Zhangfei]

Slavery isn't inherently racist. It can be racially motivated though. So my biggest beef with such a guy will be enslaving others, not racist speech.

Good point, although I'd be against both. I certainly would be against a post-racial society supporting racist actions.

[Archangel Tyrael]

"Senegalese star Ba, who joined Chelsea this month, was subjected to abuse about his religion.

arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated harassment"

I didn't have time to read the articles, but from the original post of this thread, this is what is stated.

Since when is muslim a race? How is someone arrested for ''racially aggravating'' someone when he made comments about the person's religion?

[Hiricine]

And I, nor the government, didn't say that we should abolish free speech, so we can all make stuff up and make ourselves sound petty and childish and have hissy fits rather than create logical arguments.

Well slippery slope arguments are partially logical, I do think you probably reached a little bit farther than the other poster did. He slid down a small hill, you slid down Mount Everest.

Priorities? I think they're all wrong and we shouldn't cherry pick what is illegal or punishable. That just endorses corruption and what is a major problem to you might not be to me (although we both clearly agree violence is far worse than hate speech.)

Another good point, but Ill also point out that the UK is basically the capital of the first world in battery, and in a massive amount of debt, the money being spent on prosecuting free speech could be put to a MUCH better use. Like paying down the debt or preventing streetfights. On some level, in order to prosecute any law, you have to prioritize it over another law enforcement initiative unless you're living in a crime free society. Look at the prosecuting attorney's salary who works on these crimes, the amount of time the judge has to put in, and the cost of defending himself, and realize that the money would be better spent on more officers preventing violent crime.

[Sorensen]

"Senegalese star Ba, who joined Chelsea this month, was subjected to abuse about his religion.

arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated harassment"

I didn't have time to read the articles, but from the original post of this thread, this is what is stated.

Since when is muslim a race? How is someone arrested for ''racially aggravating'' someone when he made comments about the person's religion?

About the only time that works is for Jewish people because they do not proselytize so people of the jewish faith are almost always ethnicly jewish.

[Deleted]

Good point, although I'd be against both. I certainly would be against a post-racial society supporting racist actions.

No one's saying anything about supporting racist actions. It should be condemned through social sanctions, which is what society in general uses to punish undesireable behaviour.

[Zhangfei]

Well slippery slope arguments are partially logical, I do think you probably reached a little bit farther than the other poster did. He slid down a small hill, you slid down Mount Everest.

No, they are always illogical in debate. It's irrelevant to "how far" you go - it hasn't gone there nor is there any suggestion of it. If he can point to X, I can point to Y, end of story.

Another good point, but Ill also point out that the UK is basically the capital of the first world in battery, and in a massive amount of debt, the money being spent on prosecuting free speech could be put to a MUCH better use. Like paying down the debt or preventing streetfights. On some level, in order to prosecute any law, you have to prioritize it over another law enforcement initiative unless you're living in a crime free society. Look at the prosecuting attorney's salary who works on these crimes, the amount of time the judge has to put in, and the cost of defending himself, and realize that the money would be better spent on more officers preventing violent crime.

This again just sounds like trying not to enforce laws. If the resources aren't there, that's a major problem of society. The money "could" be spent upon a billion things, just like money could be taken from elsewhere, or taxes raised, or government holdings sold. I'm more worried about merely fulfilling the law; not every racist comment qualifies as illegal nor should they be investigated. Only ones that are reported and clearly upsets people enough to phone the police should, and even then it just takes one lad to ask a few questions.

No one's saying anything about supporting racist actions. It should be condemned through social sanctions, which is what society in general uses to punish undesireable behaviour.

So violence and rape should be punished with shunning? The law is the law. That IS the "social sanction," whatever the hell that means.

[wow2011]

I don't see why attacking an individual based on their race in a vitriolic, racist, hateful manner is defensible. It serves no purpose. The only argument against it I've seen is a slippery slope argument, which is a logical fallacy.

Because attacking an individual based on their race in a vitriolic, racist, hateful manner in no way harms another individual physically. It might hurt their feelings but so can nasty purposeless statements like "yo mama is" jokes. We cannot send people to jail because of hurt feelings.

[Zhangfei]

Because attacking an individual based on their race in a vitriolic, racist, hateful manner in no way harms another individual physically. It might hurt their feelings but so can nasty purposeless statements like "yo mama is" jokes. We cannot send people to jail because of hurt feelings.

But it can be seen as inciting violence and is clearly an attempt to establish a society that supports attacking a minority and treating them poorly.

Physical harm is not the only harm. Once again, libel and slander are also illegal. Why not attack them? They don't cause physical harm.

[Hiricine]

No, they are always illogical in debate. It's irrelevant to "how far" you go - it hasn't gone there nor is there any suggestion of it. If he can point to X, I can point to Y, end of story.

Hardly always illogical, it depends on context, though I guess that might go against the definition of "slippery slope". If you look at the history of Supreme Court decisions in the US its basically a gigantic slippery slope of gradual changes in interpretation.

If the resources aren't there, that's a major problem of society.

I find myself half agreeing. Theres a problem with society because its seeking to do things it doesnt have the resources to do (punish speech crime AND prevent violence). Ask any police officer if they could prevent more crime if they had more resources (police, equipment, cameras, etc) and every single one of them will say yes. The reality is that resources are always limited, and in order to do or create one thing you lose the opportunity to do or create another.

So violence and rape should be punished with shunning? The law is the law. That IS the "social sanction," whatever the hell that means.

Aside from the fact that they are punished with shunning, the punishment should fit the crime. We punish violent offenders by imprisoning them (or we should) a violent action against their freedom. We should punish people who attack others on the internet and in society with words by insulting them and harassing them in society.

[Zhangfei]

Hardly always illogical, it depends on context, though I guess that might go against the definition of "slippery slope". If you look at the history of Supreme Court decisions in the US its basically a gigantic slippery slope of gradual changes in interpretation.

Slipper slope? How is reinterpretation a slippery slope? A slippery slope argument is "if you accept/support A, B will naturally follow!" without logical reason. Making hate speech illegal has no bearing on making protests against the government illegal. I find them completely disconnected.

I find myself half agreeing. Theres a problem with society because its seeking to do things it doesnt have the resources to do (punish speech crime AND prevent violence). Ask any police officer if they could prevent more crime if they had more resources (police, equipment, cameras, etc) and every single one of them will say yes. The reality is that resources are always limited, and in order to do or create one thing you lose the opportunity to do or create another.

I think we're fairly close here. Obviously we both have similar priorities and we understand the limitations and we both know hate speech shouldn't be put above much more significant crimes - the only difference is I think investigating hate speech isn't quite as time consuming as other more serious issues.

Aside from the fact that they are punished with shunning, the punishment should fit the crime. We punish violent offenders by imprisoning them (or we should) a violent action against their freedom. We should punish people who attack others on the internet and in society with words by insulting them and harassing them in society.

Justice is not revenge. We don't libel the libelous, we don't defame defamers, we don't spray paint graffiti artists, we don't steal from robbers. I'm not a big fan of imprisoning people who commit "hate speech" whatsoever (but am for "incitement to cause violence") but nor will I accept society being a useful barometer or resource to correct the actions of people. If society did that, we'd have no racism but it's becoming more vocal and more popular.

[wow2011]

But it can be seen as inciting violence and is clearly an attempt to establish a society that supports attacking a minority and treating them poorly.

Physical harm is not the only harm. Once again, libel and slander are also illegal. Why not attack them? They don't cause physical harm.

Yes, it can be seen as inciting violence. But GTA can also be seen as inciting violence in a more direct manner.
No, a racist comment is not a clear attempt to establish a society that supports attacking a minority and treating them poorly. You need a society that supports racists already for this comment to be seen as such.
Libel and slander only take hold (at least in US), if you can prove damage. In most cases it is financial damage that people sue over. No lawyer will take your case if someone said "your failed out of college and never graduated" unless you can prove that statement somehow directly linked to you loosing something.

So if you have problem with speech that is seen as "inciting violence" then you might need to ban many things. What if someone heard "those pedo priests deserve the harshest punishment possible" and went out to torture/kill them. Should the surviving priests sue this person who said that statement or sue the person who did the act? Or maybe both should be responsible in your view point?

[Hiricine]

But it can be seen as inciting violence and is clearly an attempt to establish a society that supports attacking a minority and treating them poorly.

Thats also a slippery slope. Even assuming the person is successful in changing people's minds to hate someone based on race, that doesn't mean it will lead to violence.

As for libel and slander--- not only do you have to defame someone, it has multiple burdens of proof. You have to prove that the person had malicious intent, the person knew the actual facts about what they were saying, and that the person intentionally lied. Even if I were to say something outlandish like "President Obama probably smokes a lot of crack in the White House", the fact that no one knows if he actually smokes crack makes it impossible to prosecute.

[Zhangfei]

Yes, it can be seen as inciting violence. But GTA can also be seen as inciting violence in a more direct manner.

Right, both illegal in the UK.

No, a racist comment is not a clear attempt to establish a society that supports attacking a minority and treating them poorly. You need a society that supports racists already for this comment to be seen as such.

No you don't. Having support =/= trying to get support/change people's minds/get your point across in an offensive, damaging way.

Libel and slander only take hold (at least in US), if you can prove damage. In most cases it is financial damage that people sue over.

No physical harm though. Now you're using the correct legal term, "damages" - which should explain to you that free speech's limitations are based on differing factors.

So if you have problem with speech that is seen as "inciting violence" then you might need to ban many things. What if someone heard "those pedo priests deserve the harshest punishment possible" and went out to torture/kill them. Should the surviving priests sue this person who said that statement or sue the person who did the act? Or maybe both should be responsible in your view point?

Both? One's an unjustified attack on an innocent group of people who CLEARLY meant they deserved "the harshest punishment possible" (death, outside of the law.) The other did it. The second person is clearly worse in my eyes and the law's eyes, but the first is not remotely innocent.

Thats also a slippery slope. Even assuming the person is successful in changing people's minds to hate someone based on race, that doesn't mean it will lead to violence.

Racism by definition means treating people poorly. Violence is the worst extent, discrimination is a natural result. Are we now suggesting there are no crimes based on race? That racism doesn't naturally lead to mistreatment of a group?

That's not a slippery slope, that's historical fact.

As for libel and slander--- not only do you have to defame someone, it has multiple burdens of proof. You have to prove that the person had malicious intent, the person knew the actual facts about what they were saying, and that the person intentionally lied. Even if I were to say something outlandish like "President Obama probably smokes a lot of crack in the White House", the fact that no one knows if he actually smokes crack makes it impossible to prosecute.

But people can be prosecuted for free speech. That's all I needed to know.

[Hiricine]

Slipper slope? How is reinterpretation a slippery slope? A slippery slope argument is "if you accept/support A, B will naturally follow!" without logical reason. Making hate speech illegal has no bearing on making protests against the government illegal. I find them completely disconnected.

IF we're using my example, one might say that allowing the government to regulate how much of his crops a farmer sells is a slippery slope, because eventually, due to the precedent, the Government will be able to regulate anything.

the only difference is I think investigating hate speech isn't quite as time consuming as other more serious issues.

Though I agree with this point as well, Id say even if the amount of money is 1/40th of an officer on the street or 1 pound paid into the national debt, its not worth it. The only thing that would make it worth it is if you could prove that you actually make money prosecuting it.

[Kraenen]

No, they are always illogical in debate. It's irrelevant to "how far" you go - it hasn't gone there nor is there any suggestion of it. If he can point to X, I can point to Y, end of story.



This again just sounds like trying not to enforce laws. If the resources aren't there, that's a major problem of society. The money "could" be spent upon a billion things, just like money could be taken from elsewhere, or taxes raised, or government holdings sold. I'm more worried about merely fulfilling the law; not every racist comment qualifies as illegal nor should they be investigated. Only ones that are reported and clearly upsets people enough to phone the police should, and even then it just takes one lad to ask a few questions.



So violence and rape should be punished with shunning? The law is the law. That IS the "social sanction," whatever the hell that means.

Your fault is that you equated speech with violence and rape. You lose the argument.

[Zhangfei]

IF we're using my example, one might say that allowing the government to regulate how much of his crops a farmer sells is a slippery slope, because eventually, due to the precedent, the Government will be able to regulate anything.

Why? Again, I see no connection.

Though I agree with this point as well, Id say even if the amount of money is 1/40th of an officer on the street or 1 pound paid into the national debt, its not worth it. The only thing that would make it worth it is if you could prove that you actually make money prosecuting it.

That's where I disagree. If you stop one person out of a hundred committing a very serious crime, it's been worth it.

Your fault is that you equated HATE speech with violence and rape. You lose the argument.

Don't be a pillock. I said they're all illegal acts and should be prosecuted as illegal acts.