FabSwingers.com forum: Jailed for twitter

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Liam Stacey jailed for 56days over his d*unken vile coments on twitter regards the Bolton football player. Whilst I 100% agree that this kind of behavour is wrong and should not be condoned at all in todays society I am thinking are we not now going into uncharted territory regards the internet police spying on people and sending around real police officers to arrest people and jail them for writing things on twitter and the likes of???. Is this not just another case of big brother OTT

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i'm not disputing what he did being wrong but i do think a heafty fine would of surficed rather than having him cost us money being kept in prison

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

the polive werent spying on him, people made complaints against him.

he was inciting racial hatred nd that is never acceptable

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

people these days think they can go around saying what they like and that there will be no cosequences from tht. maybe its time we started saying that there will be

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

"the polive werent spying on him, people made complaints against him.

he was inciting racial hatred nd that is never acceptable"

I agree, he got what he deserved in my opinion

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Freedom of speech means the right to make d*unken vile offensive comments or any other sort of comment.

Right or wrong his coments (tho I personaly do not agree or condone them) should not be scrutinised by the online twitter fun police. To then send around real police officers to his house and then arrest and charge him for a court case to follow at the public expense. Especialy when the likes of pervs pedos rapists thiefs and murders are walking the streets free of charge due to lack of so called evidence form the CPS.

This country once prided its self on the right to freedom of speech. Right or wrong people were able to have there say on things as the right to speak freely.

Now it seems the un written rule that you can say what you like so long as its what the powers that be want to hear and god help the man or waoman who chooses to go against the grain and speak outside the political correct norm these days.

Do I think this young lad is a racist? na probarbly not at all I think he was just a d*unken young idiot who put something on there thinking he was being big and clever.

Do I think he should have been jailed and publicaly named and shamed in all the national news papers like this?. Nope not at all I think its pretty crazy that this has gone to the extremes it has. All at the publics expense like they are doing us some big favour or something. I think a big fine would have been better than a jail sentence on this

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nytimeadeMan
over a year ago

Skegness

Yeah , Watch what you Twitter you might get Bird ..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I support it fully...it's a hate crime at the end of the day and people shouldn't get away with it just because they were hiding behind a computer screen rather than shouting in the street. He put the comments in a public domain viewable by the world...stupid fool basically submitted his own evidence to the police!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

"Freedom of speech means the right to make d*unken vile offensive comments or any other sort of comment.

no it doesnt

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

"Yeah , Watch what you Twitter you might get Bird ..

someone watched the judge on C4 news

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Liam Stacey seemed to think he could use derogatory racial remarks about someone on the internet and get away with it.He couldn't a nor should anyone else

Stupid Welsh Cunt

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

people saying its too much, the guy wont be in jail long, he's gonna come out in 3 weeks or something, if he done it face to face then yeah he probally would of been fined or slapped on the wrist.

but dont know what he said but if he being racist publically on such a grand scale then your setting yourself up to be made an example of.

i do think its mad he got jail time, but racism is one thing this country takes seriousily even if they go overkill sometimes over the wrong things

i cant see him staying in long, its just to make a point then they always let you out early on sentances like that when u hear people get them

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

"Do I think he should have been jailed and publicaly named and shamed in all the national news papers like this?. Nope not at all I think its pretty crazy that this has gone to the extremes it has. All at the publics expense like they are doing us some big favour or something. I think a big fine would have been better than a jail sentence on this"

yet you felt it necessary to name him in your OP - double standards??? hmmmm

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Liam Stacey seemed to think he could use derogatory racial remarks about someone on the internet and get away with it.He couldn't a nor should anyone else

Stupid Welsh Cunt

Is that last bit about Welch C word not only very very offensive but also a contradiction of everything you have said so far on this thread then? haha xx

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

yet you felt it necessary to name him in your OP - double standards??? hmmmm

Nope he has been nammed all over the internet and national news papers hun

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

but dont know what he said but if he being racist publically on such a grand scale then your setting yourself up to be made an example of.

It's not pretty...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100147319/top-banter-liam-stacey-is-an-idiot-thats-punishment-enough-for-his-fabrice-muamba-tweets/

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If you post something publically on a site like twitter it's hardly big brother spying on you if you then find yourself accountable.

Liam Stacey, seems pretty loathesome (based on this incident), but a custodial seems way over the top. I can easily link you to racist morons from the EDL posting unbelievable hate and prejudice yet they aren't been arrested. Likewise there have been people hospitalised in racist attacks that have got less than this. It's ridiculously disproprtionate.

And I'm not condoning him in anyway shape or form, anyone that reads my posts on here knows my views on racism. I spend a lot of time fighting racists, but this will just fuel their moronic views that the white male is a victimised minority in this country.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

yet you felt it necessary to name him in your OP - double standards??? hmmmm

Nope he has been nammed all over the internet and national news papers hun"

i know he has sweetheart but you said he shouldnt be named and shamed publically...'not at all' yet you still did it

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You have the right to free speech - you rescind that right if it incites hatred based on colour creed or sexuality.

The test the CPS use to determine if something can be deem to incite hatred is whether the comment is likely to be seen by others. The main point of Twitter is to have your comments seen by others therefore the test is satisfied

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"If you post something publically on a site like twitter it's hardly big brother spying on you if you then find yourself accountable.

I am not linked nor do I want to be linked to the EDL in any way shape or form lol I do not condone racism at all in any way shape or form. Infact my ex mrs erm well letts not go there lol as I dont need to justify my self here if you knew me personaly you would understand m8

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Freedom of speech means the right to make d*unken vile offensive comments or any other sort of comment.

This country once prided its self on the right to freedom of speech. Right or wrong people were able to have there say on things as the right to speak freely.

Do I think this young lad is a racist? na probarbly not at all I think he was just a d*unken young idiot who put something on there thinking he was being big and clever.

Freedom of speech really doesn't mean that, it means you can have an opinion and it means you can criticise it doesn't mean you can use it to bully, harass or promote violence to an individual or group.

As vile a statement as it is if he'd just said on his own feed "i dont like black people" there would be nothing the law can do, but he didnt he posted insulting comments on someone else's twitter feed stating he felt bad things should be done to them by other people because of there skin colour. Thats inciting violence and racially abusing someone and that's not acceptable and is an abuse of the right to free speach.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

yet you felt it necessary to name him in your OP - double standards??? hmmmm

Nope he has been nammed all over the internet and national news papers hun

i know he has sweetheart but you said he shouldnt be named and shamed publically...'not at all' yet you still did it

Ah but he had already been nammed and shamed tho hadnt he by all and sundri before I put this thread up here

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The reality with what he is studying and hois stated carear aims is that his life in that aspect is pretty much finished. Potential employers use google and if you put his name in google for years to come it will link to this. He is outed as a racist and wants to work in a field where that cannot be seen to be tolerated.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

yet you felt it necessary to name him in your OP - double standards??? hmmmm

Nope he has been nammed all over the internet and national news papers hun

i know he has sweetheart but you said he shouldnt be named and shamed publically...'not at all' yet you still did it

Ah but he had already been nammed and shamed tho hadnt he by all and sundri before I put this thread up here"

never mind, the irony seems to have been missed

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Freedom of speech means the right to make d*unken vile offensive comments or any other sort of comment.

So it would be ok for any one here (on the internet and its not 'real' to call anyone else here a child killer or a peado?

When questioned, we could just say we were d*unk and didnt mean it and its not real.

Get a grip.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atalie..Woman
over a year ago

Bolton

I think its stupid tbh...people think jail is easy when it frigging well aint!! Hopes he has the mental strenth to come through his jail term in one peice. If anything he should have been made to do his time helping the community in some way like picking up dog shite. All we see these days are stories of racial abuse etc and have you noticed it seems to be all one sided, im not saying its right to abuse someone but its only words not physical abuse, rape or murder all that money wasted when it could have been used to save a woman/childs life.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago

glasgow

i'm with eve on this,he got what he deserved.

racist or bigoted comments,should never be acceptable.no matter the medium.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"I think its stupid tbh...people think jail is easy when it frigging well aint!! Hopes he has the mental strenth to come through his jail term in one peice. If anything he should have been made to do his time helping the community in some way like picking up dog shite. All we see these days are stories of racial abuse etc and have you noticed it seems to be all one sided, im not saying its right to abuse someone but its only words not physical abuse, rape or murder all that money wasted when it could have been used to save a woman/childs life."

Amen to that. Yeah and to be honest I think more should deffo be done to pick up dog shite as well as I no from a recent doggin experience what a right pain it can be to stand in and trail all back over the feckin car floor mats haha

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

slightly off on a tangent here, but what if someone is found to be racist/homophobic/sexist etc and tries to claim its part of their religion?

please note I am not picking on any particular faith as all the 3 most popular have their fair share of bigotry

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

laws are laws and when they are broken they need to be investigated and proscecuted.

People saw the comments he made and went to the police about them, the police didnt go out to find him, people brought him to them.

just as if cases of physical abuse, rape and mrder will be investigated when the police have been made aware.

this case has nly made the press because his comments were made at a time when people were worried about Muamb's condition after collapsig on the pitch. if you check stats you will probably find a load of rapists and murderers were caught that week to

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

With Ken Clarke on a mission to forgive everyone for anything, this particular lad should be out in two weeks with a nice little holiday in Jamaica thrown into the bargain to teach him some humility .

Personally, he is in exactly the place he deserves to be and if he finds himself becoming some bully boy's shower bitch he's only got himself to blame for it. I won't lose any sleep over it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If you post something publically on a site like twitter it's hardly big brother spying on you if you then find yourself accountable.

punishments should be more proportionate, and should apply with the same force regardless of what race has attacked another...but i still agree with a prison sentence for the horrid comments he made...not just towards muamba, but also towards other twitter users. he may have been made an example of, but a precedent has now been set so twitter is no longer a safe place for bigots to voice their hatred, which to me is a good thing

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atalie..Woman
over a year ago

Bolton

laws are laws and when they are broken they need to be investigated and proscecuted.

People saw the comments he made and went to the police about them, the police didnt go out to find him, people brought him to them.

just as if cases of physical abuse, rape and mrder will be investigated when the police have been made aware.

Yes i do belive you maybe right but more could have been done with the money spend on trial etc...i may seem thick or what ever i dont care but i just dont get what the fuss is over this footballer...people collapse and most die every min of every day wheres all the out pouring of grief for them..wheres the tv reports for them..sad if you ask me. The guy on twitter had a moment of madness and his life is ruined..who on here hasnt had a moment of madness worse than what the twitter guy did..i know i have

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The guy on twitter had a moment of madness and his life is ruined..who on here hasnt had a moment of madness worse than what the twitter guy did..i know i have

moment of madness or not, he broke the law and put it on a public forum for all to see! people who physically attack/assault others often do it in a moment of madness too...doesn't excuse his actions in the slightest to me x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It does seem that some people still regard the internet as a place unfettered by draconian laws and that anyone can say whatever they like about anyone to anyone. This case proves those days are over, and the internet as subject to the same laws as any other sphere of life. If this lad had porinted 500 leaflets and dropped them in 500 houses there would be outrage and rightly so. What he did reached a lot more than 500 people and his punishment does fit his crime.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It does seem that some people still regard the internet as a place unfettered by draconian laws and that anyone can say whatever they like about anyone to anyone. This case proves those days are over, and the internet as subject to the same laws as any other sphere of life. If this lad had porinted 500 leaflets and dropped them in 500 houses there would be outrage and rightly so. What he did reached a lot more than 500 people and his punishment does fit his crime."

people do seem to think hiding behind a screen makes their actions 'unreal'...it's only the same as calling someone names over the telephone, you may not be face to face but the action is still real

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atalie..Woman
over a year ago

Bolton

Last post on this topic it seems all on here are

and have never done no wrong lets hope no-one feels prick of guilt if you or a family member/friend ever end up in twitter guys shoes

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In this land of free speech we have libel, slander and incitement laws.

We're all entitled to an opinion, but if we choose to express it, we must do it within the confines of these laws.

The guy got what was coming to him. Being intoxicated or ignorant of the law is no excuse.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

"Last post on this topic it seems all on here are

and have never done no wrong lets hope no-one feels prick of guilt if you or a family member/friend ever end up in twitter guys shoes

never ever said i was perfect, but i do nderstand and respect the laws of the country i live in and, should anyone i know or even me cross those laws i would expect to have punishment served upon me

why do people think 'i'm sorry' gets them off everything???

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Last post on this topic it seems all on here are

and have never done no wrong lets hope no-one feels prick of guilt if you or a family member/friend ever end up in twitter guys shoes

AGreed yeah. I didnt expect this thread to get such a response when I posted it. Glad I put it up tho as its interesting to read all the responses.

My last post on here is this will leave you all to it. Play nice kids have fun xx

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 27/03/12 20:28:26]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I would rather his jail time go to people convicted of physical abuse. I know you need to set an example but when the jails are overcrowded and they are letting people convicted of really nasty crimes early it seems inappropriate.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Last post on this topic it seems all on here are

and have never done no wrong lets hope no-one feels prick of guilt if you or a family member/friend ever end up in twitter guys shoes

I don;lt knowany racists, well non I consider friends so unlikely any of them will everr be jailled for being one.

I'm no

but I'm not a racist either. I'm not sure why people condemning a racist would lead them to being criticised for being saintly?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Last post on this topic it seems all on here are

and have never done no wrong lets hope no-one feels prick of guilt if you or a family member/friend ever end up in twitter guys shoes

never claimed to be an angel, but someone got time in prison for racism...if a family member of mine made such comments i'd disown them anyway as i wouldn't want to be associated with anyone who could make those kind of comments, whether d*unk or sober. just because he didn't physically hurt someone that doesn't make him innocent...sounds like you're fortunate enough to have never been a victim of bullying or name calling otherwise you'd understand that abuse doesn't have to be physical

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I would rather his jail time go to people convicted of physical abuse. I know you need to set an example but when the jails are overcrowded and they are letting people convicted of really nasty crimes early it seems inappropriate."

^^^ I think, that I think this.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"In this land of free speech we have libel, slander and incitement laws.

We're all entitled to an opinion, but if we choose to express it, we must do it within the confines of these laws.

The guy got what was coming to him. Being intoxicated or ignorant of the law is no excuse."

Absolutely how I feel about the matter...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"Last post on this topic it seems all on here are

and have never done no wrong lets hope no-one feels prick of guilt if you or a family member/friend ever end up in twitter guys shoes

no offence but do you really feel that way....

I will absolutely make a confession right now..... I was one of the people who made a complaint to the police....

would I do it again... absolutely!!!

It wasn't just the original tweet that was grossly offensive... it was the follow ups which were equally as offensive...

I am not using drink as an excuse for what he was calling people... common sense would dictate that!! I would hope telling right from wrong doesn't need someone to be sober.....

if you really feel sorry for him, then sorry.. you have gone down in my estimations...

that kind of language is never excusable regardless of who is using it.......

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Last post on this topic it seems all on here are

and have never done no wrong lets hope no-one feels prick of guilt if you or a family member/friend ever end up in twitter guys shoes

no offence but do you really feel that way....

I will absolutely make a confession right now..... I was one of the people who made a complaint to the police....

would I do it again... absolutely!!!

It wasn't just the original tweet that was grossly offensive... it was the follow ups which were equally as offensive...

I am not using drink as an excuse for what he was calling people... common sense would dictate that!! I would hope telling right from wrong doesn't need someone to be sober.....

if you really feel sorry for him, then sorry.. you have gone down in my estimations...

that kind of language is never excusable regardless of who is using it.......

I would have done the same had I seen it...good on you! You ever need backing on there because of another arsehole let me know!! x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

thanks... thats why certain people in this thread have gone down in my estimation... and if they think that the language use is in anyway excuseable.... i dare them to say it into the face of someone... and then see what the reaction would be...

because i am guessing the reaction i would have would be the same as a lot of people....

being d*unk doesn't excuse someone...

being faceless behind a computer screen doesn't excuse someone.....

I feel like putting up every single tweet he put up... and then saying to people if they still have sympathy for him..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm effectively going to repeat what many others have said but I thought i'd give my tuppence worth.

Using the defence of 'Freedom of Speech' is the defence of many a bigot or racist who believes that when their narrow minded views are shared, but not reciprocated, they need to spout that their rights are being abused! Complete rubbish!

Freedom of Speech does not allow a person to disregard the legislation put in place to protect people.

I have managed throughout my life to stay on the right side of the law by doing 1 simple thing. Not breaking the law!!! If you decide to break the law then you have to accept the consequences.

"I'm sorry, I was d*unk" is not a defence and should not be accepted in mitigation. If it ever where, then you could murder or rape and then try to hide behind your lack of self control! What a wonderful world we'd live in then!

I need say no more as i'll just being repeating what everyone else said!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I feel like putting up every single tweet he put up... and then saying to people if they still have sympathy for him.."

Are we allowed to post You Tube links? There is a video of his twitter feed available and it is truly abhorrent.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Yes you tube is allowed

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA5v2eZ5ZZE

Anyone who doubts the seriousness of the case against this racist should take a little look at the you tube link to his tweets....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I feel like putting up every single tweet he put up... and then saying to people if they still have sympathy for him..

Are we allowed to post You Tube links? There is a video of his twitter feed available and it is truly abhorrent."

i'm not sure i'd want to see...the few posts i have seen on other sites have made me angry enough! a young man...regardless of colour and fame...was fighting for his life and someone cheered the fact he may be dead. don't know how anyone can defend that. plus all the other comments both about muamba and towards those who disagreed with him are a disgrace...drink is no excuse. the thoughts must be there in the first place for them to be brought forward when he's been drinking

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"i'm not disputing what he did being wrong but i do think a heafty fine would of surficed rather than having him cost us money being kept in prison"

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Keeping this racist in prison is money well spent....hell, I'd even sign a cheque towards the cost of his stay....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

I feel like putting up every single tweet he put up... and then saying to people if they still have sympathy for him.."

IF, you did that and i suspect you won't , does that make you as equally as guilty as he was?

Wouldn't "your" text be as equally offensive to those offended?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 27/03/12 22:58:12]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I feel like putting up every single tweet he put up... and then saying to people if they still have sympathy for him..

IF, you did that and i suspect you won't , does that make you as equally as guilty as he was?

Wouldn't "your" text be as equally offensive to those offended?"

No.

If you quoted marx would it make you a marxist?

The suggestion that quoting a racist in a discussion about their conviction could be taken out of context is barely worth discussing.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Its crazy that in England a man get jailed for 59 days for inciting racial hatred but yet in Scotland a football manager gets physically attacked on the pitch while the tv cameras are all over the place but there isn't enough evidence to prosecute and the attacker gets a slap on the wrists for disturbing the peace.

(not condoning any racial abuse at all)

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Justice has been done. The bloke needs to learn to control his hatred, d*unk or not. His actions can't be condoned.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yep its like those two idiotic people on the tube screaming racist abuse at people, that they were d*unk is no excuse.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Certainly makes me ashamed to be welsh! He definately deserves to be behind bars- inciting hatred of any kind, race, colour, religion, gender or sexual orientaion is never accepatble - simple!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The guy got what he deserved. I do think all the other haters racists, homophobes and anti-semitic ranting got the same treatment. Sadly some groups see to get away with it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

"Freedom of speech means the right to make d*unken vile offensive comments or any other sort of comment.

This country once prided its self on the right to freedom of speech. Right or wrong people were able to have there say on things as the right to speak freely.

Do I think this young lad is a racist? na probarbly not at all I think he was just a d*unken young idiot who put something on there thinking he was being big and clever.

Timbers Good is right in principle and in practce.

Comments such as were made on Twitter are awful - but it really is not a matter for the law.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Freedom of speech means the right to make d*unken vile offensive comments or any other sort of comment.

This country once prided its self on the right to freedom of speech. Right or wrong people were able to have there say on things as the right to speak freely.

Do I think this young lad is a racist? na probarbly not at all I think he was just a d*unken young idiot who put something on there thinking he was being big and clever.

Timbers Good is right in principle and in practce.

Comments such as were made on Twitter are awful - but it really is not a matter for the law.

If the law doesn't get involved then people will think its ok to make those remarks without consequence which is totally unacceptable.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *els_BellsWoman
over a year ago

with the moon n stars somewhere in gtr manc

Its funny how at first his account had been hacked and then changed to he'd been out drinking.

Even though there is over crowding etc in prisons I think it was right to make an example of him for his vile tweets.

Same as I believe it was right to imprison those who set up fb pages to try and entice the riots to where they lived.

Too many keyboard warriors about in this day and age who think they are covered by freedom of speech.

If you are enticing hatred, be it religion, ethnicity or even where you live then it is not freedom of speech and things should be done.

It knocks me sick the fact someone can sit behind a computer screen and spout so much hatred to another human being. It is basically bullying and if the person its about is unaware of what is said, I am sure their family or friends may stumble across it.

Whether it be a footballer, a bullied teenager, a man or woman who was verbally 'assaulted' then something needs to be done.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I believe social networks have a duty of responsibility to ensure that their networks remain as the name implies - social. Has Twitter released any sort of statement denouncing this guy and banning him from using their services?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Its funny how at first his account had been hacked and then changed to he'd been out drinking.

Even though there is over crowding etc in prisons I think it was right to make an example of him for his vile tweets.

Same as I believe it was right to imprison those who set up fb pages to try and entice the riots to where they lived.

Too many keyboard warriors about in this day and age who think they are covered by freedom of speech.

If you are enticing hatred, be it religion, ethnicity or even where you live then it is not freedom of speech and things should be done.

Whether it be a footballer, a bullied teenager, a man or woman who was verbally 'assaulted' then something needs to be done."

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA5v2eZ5ZZE

Anyone who doubts the seriousness of the case against this racist should take a little look at the you tube link to his tweets...."

bloody hell

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Timbers Good is right in principle and in practce.

Comments such as were made on Twitter are awful - but it really is not a matter for the law.

You are wrong.....it is a matter for the law simply because he broke a law of the land....we all live under and in accordance with these laws and we all have to live with the consequences of breaking the laws of the land.....without exception.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

Excession - you refer to inciting hatred and then say it is 'not freedom of speech'.

Why is it not freedom of speech?

What one person would say is 'hatred' or 'disrespect' is what another person would class as argument and debate.

No-one's ideas have the right to be beyond debate. Who decides whose ideas should be beyond debate?

That is surely a route to tyranny.

The Twitter guy is offensive. Why don't we all tell people like that that they are stupid? Why don't we simply ignore them?

Why do we call for the law to be involved whenever someone says something we don't like?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA5v2eZ5ZZE

Anyone who doubts the seriousness of the case against this racist should take a little look at the you tube link to his tweets....

bloody hell

I know.....shameful isn't it?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Disgusting...what a vile mouth.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

Jane - what if you lived in the Soviet Union or Iran? Would you still feel that the law is right just because a law exists?

The correct moral response to a foolish law is to campaign to change it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"Excession - you refer to inciting hatred and then say it is 'not freedom of speech'.

Why is it not freedom of speech?

What one person would say is 'hatred' or 'disrespect' is what another person would class as argument and debate.

No-one's ideas have the right to be beyond debate. Who decides whose ideas should be beyond debate?

That is surely a route to tyranny.

The Twitter guy is offensive. Why don't we all tell people like that that they are stupid? Why don't we simply ignore them?

Why do we call for the law to be involved whenever someone says something we don't like?"

Have you read the twitter posts?

How could you possibly question if there is racial hatred in his tweets?

I don't call his tweets 'debate'....and I doubt if many would.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The Twitter guy is offensive. Why don't we all tell people like that that they are stupid? Why don't we simply ignore them?"

His words left no room for debate. What he said was rhetorical, and offensive. Go and read the full transcript of his tweets and you'll see that he cursed and abused anyone who disagreed with him, for merely disagreeing with him, and he did it over a period of time - not one d*unken night.

The saying that a d*unk speaks a sober man's thoughts is very apt and this guy is a racist. I'm not saying that racism will ever be eradicated because it won't, but there are some things in life that even if you think them, you should never say them out loud. He didn't understand that and now he has 56 days to think about it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Excession - you refer to inciting hatred and then say it is 'not freedom of speech'.

Why is it not freedom of speech?

What one person would say is 'hatred' or 'disrespect' is what another person would class as argument and debate.

No-one's ideas have the right to be beyond debate. Who decides whose ideas should be beyond debate?

That is surely a route to tyranny.

The Twitter guy is offensive. Why don't we all tell people like that that they are stupid? Why don't we simply ignore them?

Why do we call for the law to be involved whenever someone says something we don't like?"

He is allowed to say he doesn't like something, he is even allowed to debate that something is wrong. What he cannot do is use race, creed, religion, gender etc to insult someone or to incite violence or hurt towards others. Thats the line in the sand that he crossed from being merely unpleasant to breaking the law

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

"Excession - you refer to inciting hatred and then say it is 'not freedom of speech'.

Why is it not freedom of speech?

What one person would say is 'hatred' or 'disrespect' is what another person would class as argument and debate.

No-one's ideas have the right to be beyond debate. Who decides whose ideas should be beyond debate?

That is surely a route to tyranny.

The Twitter guy is offensive. Why don't we all tell people like that that they are stupid? Why don't we simply ignore them?

Why do we call for the law to be involved whenever someone says something we don't like?"

From what I have just saw on the twitter feeds, the law would become involved when it is against the law, and his disgusting vile rants were against the law.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

There probably is racial hatred in his Tweets.

The correct response is to dislike that and then ignore him.

Should the law be sed to silence any views we dislike?

Who decides which views should be classed as vile?

Is it me? Is it you?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"Jane - what if you lived in the Soviet Union or Iran? Would you still feel that the law is right just because a law exists?

The correct moral response to a foolish law is to campaign to change it."

I don't live in Iran.....and the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore does it?

I live in the United Kingdom, and as such I live by the laws of the land....and do you really believe our Racial Hatred laws are foolish?

Really?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *els_BellsWoman
over a year ago

with the moon n stars somewhere in gtr manc

"Excession - you refer to inciting hatred and then say it is 'not freedom of speech'.

Why is it not freedom of speech?

What one person would say is 'hatred' or 'disrespect' is what another person would class as argument and debate.

No-one's ideas have the right to be beyond debate. Who decides whose ideas should be beyond debate?

That is surely a route to tyranny.

The Twitter guy is offensive. Why don't we all tell people like that that they are stupid? Why don't we simply ignore them?

Why do we call for the law to be involved whenever someone says something we don't like?"

Freedom of speech for wanting someone to die because of their skin colour?

Do you honestly believe this effort was after a debate? Yes he was extremely offensive and totally disgusting. How would you feel if you set up a RIP page for your loved one for it to be over taken by some sick individuals? Would you class that as being relevant as to if some people took offence? I think its about time the law should do something about this!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

"There probably is racial hatred in his Tweets.

The correct response is to dislike that and then ignore him.

The correct response was made by the looks of it, he broke the law with his comments, wether you think they are vile or not.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

Why can't anyone use race, religion or creed to insult someone?

What you call insulting is mere argument to others.

Why should religion not be insulted?

I happily insult it. Why should Muslims or Christians say their beliefs should not be questioned.

People have lost their lives for free speech. I won't sell it cheap and neither should you.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"There probably is racial hatred in his Tweets.

The correct response is to dislike that and then ignore him.

Should the law be sed to silence any views we dislike?

Who decides which views should be classed as vile?

Is it me? Is it you?"

Your really not getting this are you...

He can say he dislikes something, he can express his any view so long as it does not incite hatred towards people.

He could publicly state he doesn't like anyone that isn't white or welsh or whatever he wants to pick on and the law could do nothing so long as he does not incite violence (ie "i think all people who are *insert characteristic here* should die*) or use it to abuse someone (ie "Fuck you, you *insert characteristic here* c***)

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Why can't anyone use race, religion or creed to insult someone?"

Because it is intensely personal and history has taught us that when a person's race, creed, religion or sexuality is attacked it often met with violence.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Why can't anyone use race, religion or creed to insult someone?

What you call insulting is mere argument to others.

Why should religion not be insulted?

I happily insult it. Why should Muslims or Christians say their beliefs should not be questioned.

People have lost their lives for free speech. I won't sell it cheap and neither should you."

Its a cheap shot done by low life. Some drop low and will insult afro Americans, Asians, Chinese, Jews and even Gipsies with derogatory names.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *els_BellsWoman
over a year ago

with the moon n stars somewhere in gtr manc

"Why can't anyone use race, religion or creed to insult someone?

What you call insulting is mere argument to others.

Why should religion not be insulted?

I happily insult it. Why should Muslims or Christians say their beliefs should not be questioned.

People have lost their lives for free speech. I won't sell it cheap and neither should you."

Can I just ask, are you saying you believe it is ok to insult someone or wish them a painful death JUST because they have a different skin pigmantation or beliefs to you?

There is a massive difference between a freedom of speech and racially abusing someone!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

"Why can't anyone use race, religion or creed to insult someone?

Because it is intensely personal and history has taught us that when a person's race, creed, religion or sexuality is attacked it often met with violence. "

Wishy - history has indeed taught us that people who dislike open debate will meet that with violence.

You imply, therefore, that the correct democratic response is for the state to prevent people enjoying free speech - in case someone threatens murder!

Any society that did that would be cowardly, immoral and tyrannous

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

about time the police started acting on this kind of abuse.

It seems most social sites suffer from this and fighting it seems impossible with access to the net becoming ever more easy.

if everybody reported all the racist comments on youtube, the world would need to designate a samll country as the new prison to hold all the offenders.

do i think a sentance is a little heavy... no

but what if all the comments from all the sites are tracked back and dealt with the same way, i cant see how a sentance like that, could be used with every offender.

so a massive fine with 100s of hours community service could have maybe been a better resolution, but thats if they are going to start chasing up all cases reported and not making a skate goat of a high profile case.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Why can't anyone use race, religion or creed to insult someone?

Because it is intensely personal and history has taught us that when a person's race, creed, religion or sexuality is attacked it often met with violence.

Wishy - history has indeed taught us that people who dislike open debate will meet that with violence.

You imply, therefore, that the correct democratic response is for the state to prevent people enjoying free speech - in case someone threatens murder!

Any society that did that would be cowardly, immoral and tyrannous"

*Facepalm*

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I have just read what he tweeted, total scum. Maybe should have got 365 days in prison sharing a cell with a big black guy to re educate him. Shocking !

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Why can't anyone use race, religion or creed to insult someone?

Because it is intensely personal and history has taught us that when a person's race, creed, religion or sexuality is attacked it often met with violence.

Wishy - history has indeed taught us that people who dislike open debate will meet that with violence.

You imply, therefore, that the correct democratic response is for the state to prevent people enjoying free speech - in case someone threatens murder!

Any society that did that would be cowardly, immoral and tyrannous"

No, you read my words and took them to mean I implied something that is, in fact, not there. Only your perception of it is.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

Where does it stop if the 'police start acting on this type of abuse'?

Should communists be banned? No!

Should Conservatives be banned? No!

Should Lib Dems be banned? No!

Who decides what to ban? What vested interest would they represent?

I think the Twitter guy is a fool. But he has a right to be a fool.

It is an outrage that people are locked up for their views.

Incitement is a different matter. Was the Twitter guy inciting people to go round and attack Muamba? I think not.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

okay... adrian... as i said in the thread.. I was one of the hundreds of people who made a complaint to the police with regards to the comments...

what do you think of what I did.... honestly? just curious

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

"I have just read what he tweeted, total scum. Maybe should have got 365 days in prison sharing a cell with a big black guy to re educate him. Shocking !"

Lol, why did you include the word black? I hope you're not inciting racial abuse or violence? Even if he is a twat.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I have just read what he tweeted, total scum. Maybe should have got 365 days in prison sharing a cell with a big black guy to re educate him. Shocking !

Lol, why did you include the word black? I hope you're not inciting racial abuse or violence? Even if he is a twat.

Good point 2 wrongs dont make it right. Solitary for the bugger with no internet or contact would be appropriate.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

Fabio, what do you think of a poster a few above ours, will you be reporting him?

Honestly, just curious.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Where does it stop if the 'police start acting on this type of abuse'?

Should communists be banned? No!

Should Conservatives be banned? No!

Should Lib Dems be banned? No!

Who decides what to ban? What vested interest would they represent?

I think the Twitter guy is a fool. But he has a right to be a fool.

It is an outrage that people are locked up for their views.

Incitement is a different matter. Was the Twitter guy inciting people to go round and attack Muamba? I think not."

He was insulting to people because of the colour of there skin, not a political view, not a lifestyle choice, not what they decided to wear that morning but because of the colour of there skin. Something people cannot change.

Yes he has the right to be a tool. He could have posted how he was going to get really pissed and pull anything that would have him or tell the world how he was so d*unk he projectile vomited over someone but he didn't he revelled in someone else's pain and then insulted people based on there skin colour.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

This COULD get interesting, tit on tat is bad and vile but tat on tit is fine.

Or is it?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

Fabio, what do you think of a poster a few above ours, will you be reporting him?

Honestly, just curious. "

any excuse for a pop...jeez....

i am asking in the context of the thread.... leave it at that...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *els_BellsWoman
over a year ago

with the moon n stars somewhere in gtr manc

"okay... adrian... as i said in the thread.. I was one of the hundreds of people who made a complaint to the police with regards to the comments...

what do you think of what I did.... honestly? just curious"

My name's not Adrian but I applaude you for doing it. I would have reported it to twitter but wouldnt have felt brave enough to go to the police about it.

If it had verbally happened in front of me, then yes I'd report it to the police. Wrong that I wouldnt report it on a networking site, which is why I think time should move on and networking sites are policed and it realised that things like this should not be tolerated.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

"Where does it stop if the 'police start acting on this type of abuse'?

Should communists be banned? No!

Should Conservatives be banned? No!

Should Lib Dems be banned? No!

Who decides what to ban? What vested interest would they represent?

I think the Twitter guy is a fool. But he has a right to be a fool.

It is an outrage that people are locked up for their views.

Incitement is a different matter. Was the Twitter guy inciting people to go round and attack Muamba? I think not.

In the interest of debate Excession, is race now defined by the colour of one's skin, and if so what do you make of a posting above suggestion a form of abuse and/or violence against the tweeter chappie?

Is that acceptable?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

Fabio, what do you think of a poster a few above ours, will you be reporting him?

Honestly, just curious.

any excuse for a pop...jeez....

i am asking in the context of the thread.... leave it at that..."

A pop? jeez, amy winehouse ring any bells to you, it should do.

Hypocrite. LOL

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Saying black isnt racist.. i aint racist i think white boy, yes white boy saying those disgusting words, please go read if you havent already, should be punished. We live in a multi cultural sociaty,The guy from Wales, also not racist cos i said Wales, was a total idiot and needs to be punished. Remember the outcry of the young man who pissed up a war memorial? was that ok too? Was he just expressing an opinion on our war dead? Hey you think about it!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

Fabio, what do you think of a poster a few above ours, will you be reporting him?

Honestly, just curious.

any excuse for a pop...jeez....

i am asking in the context of the thread.... leave it at that..."

Why leave it at that, are you uncomfortable with the matter when it's implied black on white abuse.

Wholly in context surely?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

Fabio, what you did was wrong.

Thomas Jefferson - I think - said: "I may detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Some people dislike displays of nudity. Should such displays be banned to stop them being offended?

The Twitter guy was a wretch - but we all have a right to be a wretch.

Who are you to say otherwise?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Saying black isnt racist.. i aint racist i think white boy, yes white boy saying those disgusting words, please go read if you havent already, should be punished. We live in a multi cultural sociaty,The guy from Wales, also not racist cos i said Wales, was a total idiot and needs to be punished. Remember the outcry of the young man who pissed up a war memorial? was that ok too? Was he just expressing an opinion on our war dead? Hey you think about it!"

I can see some of what you said but it didn't look good from most angles and i wasn't impressed dude if i am honest.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So is black or white racist now?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Where does it stop if the 'police start acting on this type of abuse'?

Should communists be banned? No!

Should Conservatives be banned? No!

Should Lib Dems be banned? No!

Who decides what to ban? What vested interest would they represent?

I think the Twitter guy is a fool. But he has a right to be a fool.

It is an outrage that people are locked up for their views.

Incitement is a different matter. Was the Twitter guy inciting people to go round and attack Muamba? I think not.

Is that acceptable? "

That depends if you think humanity has "races" no race isnt defined by skin colour but there is usually a correlation.

He wasnt suggesting violence or abuse, he suggested making the guy share a cell with someone, maybe so he could learn the error of his ways through discussion? Although you could say he was implying it by saying *big* but that's stretching it a bit!

If he'd said he should share a cell with "a big black guy to beat some sense into him" then yes it would be wrong.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

fine... i'll just ignore....

the point i was trying to get at is that freedom of speech comes with a consequence... the consequence for his freedom of speech is that hundreds of people took it to the police... and the CPS found there was enough evidence for a prosecution...

remember that the person who write the original tweets actually pleaded guilty to the charges.... so there must have been some brain matter to be working for him to work out it was wrong.....

he tried to use alcohol as an excuse.... then he said it was all a joke... then he claimed his twitter was hacked.....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *els_BellsWoman
over a year ago

with the moon n stars somewhere in gtr manc

Can I just ask, are you saying you believe it is ok to insult someone or wish them a painful death JUST because they have a different skin pigmantation or beliefs to you?

Just wanted to ask again in case my question was missed

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So is black or white racist now?

No not at all just better admitting you were a bit rash in what you put dude then it clears it up to all. We all put things that with hindsight wasn't the best move.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Fabio, what you did was wrong.

Thomas Jefferson - I think - said: "I may detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Some people dislike displays of nudity. Should such displays be banned to stop them being offended?

The Twitter guy was a wretch - but we all have a right to be a wretch.

Who are you to say otherwise?"

Jefferson said it about someone speaking a political opinion on social and governance issues, not about a guy shouting racist abuse. Big difference.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

And we have moved on somewhat since the days of Jefferson....or I would like to think we have.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Oh and it wasnt Jefferson thinking about it i believe it was a french philosopher, Voltaire i believe.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"fine... i'll just ignore....

remember that the person who write the original tweets actually pleaded guilty to the charges.... so there must have been some brain matter to be working for him to work out it was wrong.....

he tried to use alcohol as an excuse.... then he said it was all a joke... then he claimed his twitter was hacked....."

He was wrong, but avoiding the question mushroom asked to me looks like you think the 356 day thing was right.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

Can I just ask, are you saying you believe it is ok to insult someone or wish them a painful death JUST because they have a different skin pigmantation or beliefs to you?

Just wanted to ask again in case my question was missed"

Lulu - it is completely distasteful to wish someone ill because of the colour of their skin.

The person, however foolish, does have the right to think and say what they think.

It is tyrannous to say that something should be banned because we detest it.

If the person attacks someone on the basis of the colour of their skin then it is right that laws exist to punish that.

Merely to think or say something though - however wicked - is not reason to prevent free speech.

Who decides what speech should be banned? Some people would ban swingers because they find it offensive.

Far better to be liberal about it and simply shun people who are racist.

Some people on here are confusing thoughts with actual incitement...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I was just disguted with this "mans" rant... why cant we all just get along without all this shit?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

"Where does it stop if the 'police start acting on this type of abuse'?

Should communists be banned? No!

Should Conservatives be banned? No!

Should Lib Dems be banned? No!

Who decides what to ban? What vested interest would they represent?

I think the Twitter guy is a fool. But he has a right to be a fool.

It is an outrage that people are locked up for their views.

Incitement is a different matter. Was the Twitter guy inciting people to go round and attack Muamba? I think not.

Is that acceptable?

That depends if you think humanity has "races" no race isnt defined by skin colour but there is usually a correlation.

If he'd said he should share a cell with "a big black guy to beat some sense into him" then yes it would be wrong."

My error Excession, i must've missed the part of the post that mentionned "discussion".

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

Fabio, what do you think of a poster a few above ours, will you be reporting him?

Honestly, just curious.

any excuse for a pop...jeez....

i am asking in the context of the thread.... leave it at that...

Why leave it at that, are you uncomfortable with the matter when it's implied black on white abuse.

Wholly in context surely?"

no... i don't think any abuse is right... for example people know I don't like people whether there are black or white using the "n" word and especially in front of me.... and they get very short shrift if they do......

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Can I just ask, are you saying you believe it is ok to insult someone or wish them a painful death JUST because they have a different skin pigmantation or beliefs to you?

Just wanted to ask again in case my question was missed

Lulu - it is completely distasteful to wish someone ill because of the colour of their skin.

The person, however foolish, does have the right to think and say what they think.

It is tyrannous to say that something should be banned because we detest it.

If the person attacks someone on the basis of the colour of their skin then it is right that laws exist to punish that.

Merely to think or say something though - however wicked - is not reason to prevent free speech.

Who decides what speech should be banned? Some people would ban swingers because they find it offensive.

Far better to be liberal about it and simply shun people who are racist.

Some people on here are confusing thoughts with actual incitement..."

Another point... He didn't mealy say it, he broadcast it. He can think what he likes, he can talk to friends about what ever he (and they) wants to in private but he stuck it on a publicly assessable form of media as well as sending it to people.

Its the 21st century equivalent of sticking discriminatory notices to peoples houses

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I was just disguted with this "mans" rant... why cant we all just get along without all this shit? "

I get that we all are but you seem to not think yours was a bit ott?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

Fabio - that is the correct response!!!!

If yuu don't like something, tell the person. Don't go calling the police as you confess to having done.

"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

John Stuart Mill

1806-1873

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Fabio and no doubt the W word he used also and too bloody right!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Where does it stop if the 'police start acting on this type of abuse'?

Should communists be banned? No!

Should Conservatives be banned? No!

Should Lib Dems be banned? No!

Who decides what to ban? What vested interest would they represent?

I think the Twitter guy is a fool. But he has a right to be a fool.

It is an outrage that people are locked up for their views.

Incitement is a different matter. Was the Twitter guy inciting people to go round and attack Muamba? I think not.

Is that acceptable?

That depends if you think humanity has "races" no race isnt defined by skin colour but there is usually a correlation.

If he'd said he should share a cell with "a big black guy to beat some sense into him" then yes it would be wrong.

My error Excession, i must've missed the part of the post that mentionned "discussion".

You didn't miss it, its not there. But neither is any word implying violence or abuse.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Fabio - that is the correct response!!!!

If yuu don't like something, tell the person. Don't go calling the police as you confess to having done.

John Stuart Mill

1806-1873"

People did tell him, he abused them more.

He wasn't expressing an opinion though was he? He was verbally abusing people.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Im not condoning what he said ive seen it on twitter.... but you get a load of rappers who racial abuse other rappers or human beings in there songs.. is that right (no) do people report them (no) you buy there records tho and they go out in the charts.. i think this world and justice system is fucked up...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

adrian... I still believe I did the right thing... and if you asked me if I would do it again, I wouldn't even hesitate...

the abuse was so beyond the pale that I do believe it was an abuse of the "freedom of speech" line.... it doesn't come without repercussion, and if anything that is what he has now learnt

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

Excession - surely verbally abusing people is 'expressing an opinion'

The fact that people told him to stop and that he then ignored them is totally irrelevant.

Should I be able to tell you to stop - and then seek police involvement because you don't do so?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

"adrian... I still believe I did the right thing... and if you asked me if I would do it again, I wouldn't even hesitate...

the abuse was so beyond the pale that I do believe it was an abuse of the "freedom of speech" line.... it doesn't come without repercussion, and if anything that is what he has now learnt"

Fabio - you may have views that other people find offensive. Should you be jailed?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Excession - surely verbally abusing people is 'expressing an opinion'

The fact that people told him to stop and that he then ignored them is totally irrelevant.

Should I be able to tell you to stop - and then seek police involvement because you don't do so?"

Telling someone you think they are wrong is an opinion. Calling them a black cunt is abuse. The line in the sand is how you express yourself, he went way way beyond that.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atalie..Woman
over a year ago

Bolton

[Removed by poster at 28/03/12 00:37:47]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

Excession - you seem to be saying now that the issue here was the use of four-letter words.

Are users of foul language now to be criminalised?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

Fabio - you may have views that other people find offensive. Should you be jailed?"

I know I have views that some will not like at all.....everyone is different, but the difference is that I and others on here who i don't always agree with have not said anything that would be considered to have broken the law of the land.....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I for one cant agree with you Adrian, you are saying that we can all say whatever we like no matter how abusive or upsetting it is to people. You are allowing racist or even terorist comments to be "free speech" i dont think in our sociaty that its acceptable to to mention on twitter that the w.g is dead or even more filth. i know we all have our opinions and i do respect your view that we should be able to say anything we want no matter how racist or scum it is but i for one just dont agree

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

Fabio - you may have views that other people find offensive. Should you be jailed?

Yes, but Fabio you don't extend the same courtesy to others.

Should I now campaign for parliament to enact a law to outlaw your opinions? I wouldn't do so, because you are entitled to your views.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Excession - you seem to be saying now that the issue here was the use of four-letter words.

Are users of foul language now to be criminalised?"

No im really not, although you can get in trouble for using abusive language.

Hmmm let me put this a different way.... Most neo-nazi's dont like black people, we can agree on that yes? If they came out with press statement saying that the borders should be closed to keep the purity of the white population or some such equally offensive rubbish that would be an opinion

if they (as they often do) say *Black people are sub-human, any who refuse to leave should be killed, it is the duty of all white people to do this" that is an opinion promoting violence that would end up in court.

If they put out a broadcast saying "person x is a black so and so, they should go away" that is discrimination based on skin colour again it would end up in court. same as if they told someone they should go away because of the colour of there skin.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

Fabio - you may have views that other people find offensive. Should you be jailed?

Yes, but Fabio you don't extend the same courtesy to others.

Should I now campaign for parliament to enact a law to outlaw your opinions? I wouldn't do so, because you are entitled to your views."

but you are forgetting something..

the judge and the courts were not the ones who found him guilty... he pleaded guilty to the charges himself! So he knew he had broken the laws the way they stand at this present time.....

lets take this back to the 60's... would he comments have been looked at in the same manner... no.... but I like to think that as a society we have all moved forward now....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Fabio - you may have views that other people find offensive. Should you be jailed?

Yes, but Fabio you don't extend the same courtesy to others.

Should I now campaign for parliament to enact a law to outlaw your opinions? I wouldn't do so, because you are entitled to your views."

How is calling someone a w*g and telling them to fuck off an opinion?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

We have moved forward in that views are less racist etc.

We have moved backwards in erms of free speech. 'Hate speech' laws are merely attempts to stop people saying what they think - and challenging other people's views.

ALL views must be open to challenge in a democracy because the people are sovereign and we only advance by free argument and debate. We should fight any attempt to close down debate, because the people who want to silence us want to keep power to themselves.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 28/03/12 00:56:09]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Excession - you seem to be saying now that the issue here was the use of four-letter words.

Are users of foul language now to be criminalised?

No im really not, although you can get in trouble for using abusive language.

I dont listen to rappers no... maybe when i said go away i should have been a bit clearer... go away as in die, get out of my country/city etc

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"We have moved forward in that views are less racist etc.

We have moved backwards in erms of free speech. 'Hate speech' laws are merely attempts to stop people saying what they think - and challenging other people's views.

Again insulting someone with racial tones isnt a debate. You could also say the argument was had and won by the passing of anti-discrimination laws

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Excession - you seem to be saying now that the issue here was the use of four-letter words.

Are users of foul language now to be criminalised?

No im really not, although you can get in trouble for using abusive language.

so expect alot of rappers in court then cos if you listen to a lot of there lyrics there is a lot ov racial hatered.... ban all the radio stations and maybe the youth of today mite show some respect

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

"Excession - you seem to be saying now that the issue here was the use of four-letter words.

Are users of foul language now to be criminalised?

No im really not, although you can get in trouble for using abusive language.

so expect alot of rappers in court then cos if you listen to a lot of there lyrics there is a lot ov racial hatered.... ban all the radio stations and maybe the youth of today mite show some respect

Any chance of keeping Radio 2 between 10.15 and 10.45 on weekdays?

I got 6 points the other day.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Adrian, are you really saying that what that guy said is acceptable? Please answer with a yes or no.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

"Adrian, are you really saying that what that guy said is acceptable? Please answer with a yes or no."

It depends on what you mean by acceptable.

Were his views good? No.

Are they shared by good people. I would hope not.

Is it acceptable to hold views that are foolish and vile ans shared only by a minority. Yes.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Adrian, are you really saying that what that guy said is acceptable? Please answer with a yes or no."

I love it you want a strait answer but wouldn't do so on your comments! Take a biscuit you deserve it, no take 2 one for each face.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I aint two facied, please show me where i have been?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I aint two facied, please show me where i have been?

You are! Ok your comments and you know which one about locking him up with a blackdude to teach him some respect! Out of order yes or no?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

"I aint two facied, please show me where i have been?

You are! Ok your comments and you know which one about locking him up with a blackdude to teach him some respect! Out of order yes or no? "

I suppose gandl's comments would be 'unacceptable' to some of the anti-freee speech people on here.

But we all have a right to have a view!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Nope, he needs to intograte with other cultures and other colours rather than just Welsh white people, then he may learn some respect for human beings. You seem to be playing devils advocate but failing.... but hey keep going Dude

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Nope, he needs to intograte with other cultures and other colours rather than just Welsh white people, then he may learn some respect for human beings. You seem to be playing devils advocate but failing.... but hey keep going Dude"

welsh white people ??

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

Should swinging be banned because some people find it offensive?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I aint two facied, please show me where i have been?

You are! Ok your comments and you know which one about locking him up with a blackdude to teach him some respect! Out of order yes or no?

I suppose gandl's comments would be 'unacceptable' to some of the anti-freee speech people on here.

But we all have a right to have a view!"

What ever he is asking you a yes or no yet failing to give one to me is a little 2 faced. Im all for freedom of speech but hacking at one guy for being racist with proposed violence by one race against another brings me only to one conclusion.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yup Welsh white people, your allowed to say that as well as black American and Afro Caribean i believe.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Should swinging be banned because some people find it offensive?"

No, that's someone's opinion, banning it would be an abuse of peoples freedoms to live the life they choose. Its a completely separate argument to racially abusing people on twitter.

Are they free to articulate that view? Yes they are as long as they dont call for violent things to be done to swingers because they find them immoral.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire

ateotd he posted racist crap, and its never good.

in the street he would have had the shit kicked out of him so seeings as he is an internet trl he deserves it, probably got sent away for his own good.

he is a bellend.

if you cant drink and keep a civil tonuge in your head then maybe you shouldnt drink at all

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

Yes - but the new doctrine is one of 'offence'.

The big question - and the one you fail to answer - is: "Should causing offence be banned"?

There is a lot of bullying today of people who hold stupid views - and the Twitter guy falls into that category.

However wrong he is, he should have the right to be wrong. Taken to its furthest extent, who decides what is right and what is wrong.

I, for instance, think many things are wrong - but I have no desire to jail people who believe in things I think are wrong.

As I have said before, some people here are confused about what incitement (which should, indeed, be illegal) actually means and how incitement differes from simple belief.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Yes - but the new doctrine is one of 'offence'.

The big question - and the one you fail to answer - is: "Should causing offence be banned"?

There is a lot of bullying today of people who hold stupid views - and the Twitter guy falls into that category.

However wrong he is, he should have the right to be wrong. Taken to its furthest extent, who decides what is right and what is wrong.

I, for instance, think many things are wrong - but I have no desire to jail people who believe in things I think are wrong.

As I have said before, some people here are confused about what incitement (which should, indeed, be illegal) actually means and how incitement differes from simple belief."

Of course you can offend people as long as you don't set out to insult people with the specific intent of causing harm or distress.

There are many things i dont like and think are wrong/false/rubbish, some people might be upset i don't like those things but i dont say them to offend people i say them as a debate or a discussion. If i verbally abused someone because of it then that would be wrong.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

Excession - you finally get it!

You shouldn't cause people harm - but that is covered by laws against incitement!

In brief, incitement means exactly that - inciting others to attack a third party. If I told a third party to go and beat you up...that would be incitement and be illegal.

Don't confuse it with other people simply holding views that you don't approve of

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Excession - you finally get it!

You shouldn't cause people harm - but that is covered by laws against incitement!

In brief, incitement means exactly that - inciting others to attack a third party. If I told a third party to go and beat you up...that would be incitement and be illegal.

Don't confuse it with other people simply holding views that you don't approve of"

No ive got it all along, my point is that in his twitter posts he wasnt expressing a view he was insulting people which comes under causing harm or distress and its what youve been arguing against for 150 posts!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

Insulting people does not cause harm.

Incitement may do and is rightly illegal.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Insulting people does not cause harm.

Incitement may do and is rightly illegal."

It causes mental anguish and abusing people based on skin colour is illegal are you saying that it shouldnt be?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

Yes I am saying exactly that.

People who do dish out racist abuse are idiots. But that is only my view. They may think they are founts of wisdom. That is their view.

Incitement is another matter.

Where would we be if we all tried to make illegal any views which we did not approve of? Tyranny!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Yes I am saying exactly that.

People who do dish out racist abuse are idiots. But that is only my view. They may think they are founts of wisdom. That is their view.

Incitement is another matter.

Where would we be if we all tried to make illegal any views which we did not approve of? Tyranny!"

So you believe people should be able to insult other people with terms that suggest they are less worthy of being considered a human being?

This isnt an argument over how society should be governed, this isnt people complaining about where they live, there government, the morals of society, that they believe/disbelieve in evolution/climate change/abortion etc etc

This is someone using the colour of someones skin to forcibly insult someone. Im sorry but thats not a matter for free speech.

Free speech is a right and being a right it comes with responsibilities one of which is to not use racist language to discriminate or abuse other people in your speech.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire

however free speech is deemed to be, using to to insight any hatred, racial or otherwise, is wrong.

we must learn from the problems of the past otherwise we are destined to repeat them.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

You say you accept that free speech is a right. Yet you qualify it.

The two cannot co-exist.

It's either a right or it isn't.

What is meant by 'forcibly insult someone'?

Insults are freely offered and freely accepted.

I get insulted by things from time to time. It is everyone's right to insult me.

I do not use racist language because I am not a racist. But every citizen has a right to be - misguidedly - racist.

Neither is there a right to discriminate on racist grounds because that inhibits someone else's freedom.

But there is a right to hold opinions that you or I may find objectionable.

I am very liberal - but I accept that others aren't. I believe that I am right. I also have to believe that others believe that they are right.

I choose to argue with them, not ban them. That is the only correct position to take in a democracy.

'Hate speech' laws are very tempting - but also tyrannous for who has the right to be god?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You say you accept that free speech is a right. Yet you qualify it.

The two cannot co-exist.

It's either a right or it isn't.

What is meant by 'forcibly insult someone'?

Insults are freely offered and freely accepted.

I get insulted by things from time to time. It is everyone's right to insult me.

I do not use racist language because I am not a racist. But every citizen has a right to be - misguidedly - racist.

Neither is there a right to discriminate on racist grounds because that inhibits someone else's freedom.

But there is a right to hold opinions that you or I may find objectionable.

I am very liberal - but I accept that others aren't. I believe that I am right. I also have to believe that others believe that they are right.

I choose to argue with them, not ban them. That is the only correct position to take in a democracy.

'Hate speech' laws are very tempting - but also tyrannous for who has the right to be god?"

Of course they can, all rights come with responsibilities its one of the dilemmas of a free and democratic society.

Its going out of your way to insult someone its not expressing an opinion others find distasteful its actually launching a personal attack on them. In that guys twitter messages I challenge you to find one opinion he expresses that has got him into trouble.

Im not saying people don't have a right to hold racist views im not saying they cannot talk about them my point which you cant seem to grasp is that he used racist language to verbally attack someone. If he'd told someone they were a dick that would be one thing but he didn't he used skin colour in that insult implying that because of that difference in skin colour they were somehow worthy of the abuse.

No one is playing god in this and no it isn't tyrannous, there is a line between expressing an opinion about race and using it as a verbal stick to beat people with. Couldn't it be argued that allowing hate speech would open up people to suffering personal tyranny due to the abuse they could then receive and the effect it would have on there day to day life based on characteristics they were born with?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

What's a verbal attack? It's simply saying something that someone else doesn't like.

You say/imply that people should indeed be entitled to express racist views. But then you classify it as a verbal attack which you say should not be permitted.

So you say one thing and then another - and seem unaware that you are contradicting yourself.

Incitement is rightly illegal.

'Unpleasant views' are not, for who can set themselves up as God and say what is unpleasant and what is not?

Are you God?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"What's a verbal attack? It's simply saying something that someone else doesn't like.

You say/imply that people should indeed be entitled to express racist views. But then you classify it as a verbal attack which you say should not be permitted.

So you say one thing and then another - and seem unaware that you are contradicting yourself.

Incitement is rightly illegal.

'Unpleasant views' are not, for who can set themselves up as God and say what is unpleasant and what is not?

Are you God?"

Calling someone a "black c***" is a verbal attack.

Im well aware i *appear* to be contradicting myself but im not. It is permissible for people to think these things, we dont have thought crimes. It is acceptable to speak of them in private. In the right circumstances they can be aired in public as part of a debate (thats very dodgy ground)what is not acceptable is to use them to insult someone (and before you say people get offended by different things there is a difference in meaning between being insulted/offended by something and the act of insulting)

At no point have i said you cannot have unpleasant views what i have said you are not allowed to insult (see what i said above) people using those unpleasant views which is what the man in question did,attacking someone verbally based on skin colour isn't just holding an "unpleasant view* it is going out of your way to cause harm and it implies you think they are less than you because of skin colour.

Dont be absurd if i was god we woudnt be having this conversation.

"i dont believe in god" - Opinion (ok to have)

"f*** you, You god-fearing c***" - Personal attack based on religious preference (not ok to say to someone)

"Something bad should happen to people who believe in god" - incitement (not ok to communicate in a public space)

See what i did there?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

You have very dangerous views.

We may speak of our views - but only in private.

You add that it is dodgy ground to express them in public. Why?

You say you can accept that people can have unpleasant views - but you have already said/implied that they can only express them in private or - apparently in 'dodgy' and uncertain circumstances - in public.

It is clear that you believe that no-one can have views that you don't approve of.

What other interpretation can be put on your words?

What gives you the right to decide whose views may be expressed in private and whose views may be expressed in public and in what circumstances those views may be expressed in public.

You sound like a potential dictator to me. You should think very seriously of what you are saying.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You have very dangerous views.

We may speak of our views - but only in private.

You add that it is dodgy ground to express them in public. Why?

It is clear that you believe that no-one can have views that you don't approve of.

What other interpretation can be put on your words?

What gives you the right to decide whose views may be expressed in private and whose views may be expressed in public and in what circumstances those views may be expressed in public.

You sound like a potential dictator to me. You should think very seriously of what you are saying."

Were talking of racist views here not any views, racist views. That is what the thread is about. This is a discussion about people expressing views that they hold that suggest someone or a group is sub-human or that separates them off from the rest of humanity this isn't "was Osborne wrong to tax granny's"

What i have said is that people can hold these views, the views aren't illegal, as unappealing as they are, due to the draconian nature of outlawing thoughts nor can you stop them being expressed in private with people who hold similar views or as part of discussion amongst friends, if they don't like them they will very quickly not be your friend. I also think there is a place in open debate for these views so they can be soundly shown up to be wrong ie Nick Griffin on question time.

What i am saying you cannot do is launch a personal attack on someone using racist or discriminatory language which is what twitter guy did, as it asserts a view that they are less than you are based on skin colour/gender etc

Of course people can hold views I don't agree with, people hold all sorts of views I don't agree with im not going to stop them, i might think they are wrong but it doesnt mean they cant have them but were not on about politics or if i thought twilight was a brilliant piece of teenage fiction or complete rubbish (the latter for me) were on about someone using racist language to offend people.

I have thought about it, long and hard.

Have you? because your suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable for one human being to racially abuse another human being in public.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

OMG

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately