Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Squees Lair. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Freedom of... what?!
Topic Started: Mar 28 2012, 01:23 PM (740 Views)
Dantos4
Member Avatar

Two words sparked this thought while I was in London: "Liam Stacey".

If you have no idea what I'm going on about then I will sum this up:
There was a footballer who had a heart attack on the pitch called Muamba. He went to hospital and was revived by doctors. This 21 year old student got a bit mouthy on Twitter saying "Fuck Muamba, He's dead". After being called a "soft cunt", decided to comment on how everybody should "suck Muamba's big black dead dick". After that, he told the people who were following him to "go pick cotton".

Now I would like to make this perfectly clear before I go on. What he said was morally wrong and not a nice thing to say, at all.

With the disclaimer out of the way: He got 56 days in jail for "incitement of racial hatred".
Was what he did right? No. Should he have gone to jail? That's why I created the topic. Personally, I don't think so. A token fine would have been enough.

There are several reasons I believe he shouldn't have gone to jail:
Firstly, he wasn't inciting any hatred. Racism isn't right, but censoring words is censoring thought. It's not like he had a campaign and website which called for the death of all black people, so I fail to see how it is 'inciting racial hatred'.
Secondly, the only reason this even went to court was because of the media pressure. So here you have to ask yourself: if this was a guy on the street who was arguing with his friend over a guy he disliked, who happened to be black... and that guy had said "I hate the black guy. All he does is piss me off!"... would he have gotten a jail sentence?

In fact, what is the difference between that and "I hate that tall/small/fat/ginger/stupid/ guy. All he does is piss me off!"?
In my opinion... none. Words are words. I don't even believe you can "incite" racial hatred unless you are part of an influential organisation which has the potential to "incite" something (E.g. The media). As humans, we have a degree of free will. Regardless of what we are "incited" to do: we make our own decisions.

Maybe somebody should charge the English media with inciting racial hatred. I've seen hundreds of articles and headlines painting immigrants, Muslims and various other "racial groups" in a negative light.

Not to mention that there was another guy called Joshua Cryer who was bombarding another black football player Stan Collymore with racist remarks every day... yet all he got was community service.

In my world of ethics, it doesn't matter if this guy is in a coma after an accident and you call him a racist term, or if he is the leader of the "whites must die party" and you call him a racist term. The law is supposed to be fair across the board, impartial to emotional circumstances and media pressures.

In my world of ethics, words are just words. If you call me a X, I can call you a Y. They are only words. Luis Suarez, a Liverpudlian footballer from Uruguay was convicted by the UK Football Association for calling Patrice Evra "negro" repeatedly and was banned from playing football for 8 games. Where was his jail sentence? Where was Joshua Cryer's? Muamba couldn't even see Liam Stacey's tweets to be offended. Stan Collymore was hounded by Cryer. I call injustice somewhere along the line. Where is the incitement of racial hatred charge when the Islamic extremists are calling for the blood of the West from a London flat? Where are they when the UK uses the phrase "links with Al Quieda" on anybody they don't like in official government statements?

Unfortunately, we don't live in my world of ethics where celebrities are tried as normal people and the law is fair and blind to emotional/media pressures. We live in a world where one man is a freedom fighting patriot and another is a terrorist. One man is a hero, another is a villain. A world where the media decide which court ruling makes for the best story, not the fairest judgement.

Also, I'm aware that America's judicial system is a little more monetarily based, suing people for small infringements and such. However America also has a freedom of speech, the UK doesn't entirely. Any Americans curious about our freedom of speech laws can take a peek here. In my opinion, freedom of speech should be absolute, or not free at all. There is very little room for a grey area here, as any containment is not freedom when it comes to speech. E.g. I dislike the "you can say anything you like... as long as I agree with you" philosophy. Not true freedom, at all.


Which direction does your moral compass point in this case?
(Information on Liam Stacey, Fabrice Muamba, Joshua Cryer, Stan Collymore & Liverpool's Suarez can easily be found with a quick Google search so I won't insult your intelligence by providing links. Also... I'm lazy.)
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
PvtCryan501
Member Avatar

Of course it is but we are human and he shouln't go to jail cause we are human and let anger slip and gotten a fine but let the media chew him to death
Edited by PvtCryan501, Mar 28 2012, 02:12 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gamerjunkie
Member Avatar

That... Was complete racial hatred. "Go pick cotton?" Um, United States reference here? Slavery, anyone? Personally, I think he should have gone to jail, mostly because racism is a horrible thing. You're demeaning other people with racism!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kagurodraven
Member Avatar

Now I don't know English law well enough to say either way weither or not he lawfully deserved to go to jail or not, just want to put that out there. But in my own opinion, he did not. You have a right to say what you feel, even if it's something that messed up. Acting on those feelings is an entirely different matter, but simply saying it without trying to make others think the same way? I may disagree with the thoughts, but the action in and of itself is not wrong.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
hjk561
Member Avatar
He rules
Freedom of speech is defienetly NOT what it should be, at least in the UK (I know that America actually has almost complete freedom of speech, thanks to their constitution or something). While i dont agree with what this guy said, obviously, the reason he went to jail for that long is because of the media. In the UK, the media sets what is alright to speak about and what isnt. And it would make sense, if you were found to have said something that alot of people find offensive, and the media suddenly rips you a new hole, you are going to back down from doing anything the media doesnt like, right? I would LOVE the whole media industry to be accused of "incitement of racial hatred", they deserve to have something shove them back down to earth....

Im not sure its really the judiciary thats to blame here, they are pretty independant from outside sources compared to a lot of countries (You could say that the judge in question shouldnt have been influenced by the media pressure anyway, then, but come on! Hes human :P )
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Grey
Member Avatar

From an American perspective, The media had a right to chew into him as he was something of a celebrity, being a soccer player and all, and as such is just going to be held to a higher standard. (by that I most certainly don't mean he is being extorted for the amusement of the populous. That would be sadistic.... wait...) As for the jailing, that wasn't right. I might not agree with what he has to say but I will defend your right to say it to the death. (Don't know the actual quote by heart :-/ ) Note that in my opinion he was VERY close to actually deserving what he got. Obviously his twitter was somewhat popular for it to be ripped into by the media. What he wrote, people read. The real one at fault is your legal system. Freedom of speech is the most basic of rights for a human being. Without that "freedom" is just an illusion altogether. No offense meant to you limes.
Edited by Grey, Mar 28 2012, 03:11 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
hjk561
Member Avatar
He rules
Its all very well saying the media CAN rip into them if they want, but they effe.ctively forced the judiciary to charge him with something. Think of all the other racist messages that are thrownaround on Twitter, but arent charged for it. Think of the other examples, Josh Cryer, etc that have been abusive but got off with a realtively light sentence, compared to this Liam guy. That wasnt because the judiciary was being inconsistant, but because the pressure for them to give a harsh conviction to the Liam was much greater.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dantos4
Member Avatar

Greysoul
Mar 28 2012, 02:58 PM
From an American perspective, The media had a right to chew into him as he was something of a celebrity, being a soccer player and all, and as such is just going to be held to a higher standard. (by that I most certainly don't mean he is being extorted for the amusement of the populous. That would be sadistic.... wait...) As for the jailing, that wasn't right. I might not agree with what he has to say but I will defend your right to say it to the death. (Don't know the actual quote by hart :-/ ) Note that in my opinion he was VERY close to actually deserving what he got. Obviously his twitter was somewhat popular for it to be ripped into by the media. What he wrote, people read. The real one at fault is your legal system. Freedom of speech is the most basic of rights for a human being. Without that "freedom" is just an illusion altogether. No offense meant to you limes.
Ah, my apologies Greysoul. I wasn't clear enough (I just re-read it):
The guy who was sent to jail was convicted for calling a footballer racist names. The guy the media tore into wasn't a celebrity, just a regular guy.

Quoting Voltaire? Impressive! I did the EXACT same thing :P

I agree completely with the freedom & illusion mate, no offence taken at all. I wish the UK was more like the US in that respect!

Yeah, I agree HJK. Maybe I am being a little harsh blaming the judge. It is more the media's fault as they should know the influence they have and use it responsibly. They do hide behind that "we speak for the people, freedom of information" etc, far too often. The problem is that they do not 'inform' they 'persuade'. Media bias and media spin are far too commonplace in the UK (I have no idea about US but I'd imagine it was the same, or similar). I remember reading one article where it quoted Liam Stacey's "awful racist remarks" directly, then about the guy who had provoked him as "an innocent member of the public" even though he called him a "stupid cunt" or some negative variant of it. (I can't find the actual article to quote it exactly).
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
hjk561
Member Avatar
He rules
I have an article here maybe explaining some things: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17530450
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Grey
Member Avatar

Dantos4
Mar 28 2012, 03:13 PM
Greysoul
Mar 28 2012, 02:58 PM
From an American perspective, The media had a right to chew into him as he was something of a celebrity, being a soccer player and all, and as such is just going to be held to a higher standard. (by that I most certainly don't mean he is being extorted for the amusement of the populous. That would be sadistic.... wait...) As for the jailing, that wasn't right. I might not agree with what he has to say but I will defend your right to say it to the death. (Don't know the actual quote by hart :-/ ) Note that in my opinion he was VERY close to actually deserving what he got. Obviously his twitter was somewhat popular for it to be ripped into by the media. What he wrote, people read. The real one at fault is your legal system. Freedom of speech is the most basic of rights for a human being. Without that "freedom" is just an illusion altogether. No offense meant to you limes.
Ah, my apologies Greysoul. I wasn't clear enough (I just re-read it):
The guy who was sent to jail was convicted for calling a footballer racist names. The guy the media tore into wasn't a celebrity, just a regular guy.

Quoting Voltaire? Impressive! I did the EXACT same thing :P

I agree completely with the freedom & illusion mate, no offence taken at all. I wish the UK was more like the US in that respect!

Yeah, I agree HJK. Maybe I am being a little harsh blaming the judge. It is more the media's fault as they should know the influence they have and use it responsibly. They do hide behind that "we speak for the people, freedom of information" etc, far too often. The problem is that they do not 'inform' they 'persuade'. Media bias and media spin are far too commonplace in the UK (I have no idea about US but I'd imagine it was the same, or similar). I remember reading one article where it quoted Liam Stacey's "awful racist remarks" directly, then about the guy who had provoked him as "an innocent member of the public" even though he called him a "stupid cunt" or some negative variant of it. (I can't find the actual article to quote it exactly).
THAT changes a lot. I apologize for my now-false statements. The guy was a dick but shouldn't be sent to jail.

I noticed. Great minds think alike?

Ahhh freedom. What a sweet nectar thou art.

I am not sure how it is in the Eng-lands, but in America when a person is charged, the jury is held to where they are not exposed to any media that might sway them. I believe the judge is done the same.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate Section · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Theme Orbital by tiptopolive of Zathyus Network Resources.