4 ms·

I don't know how the laws are in the UK but damn, jail-time for racists comments? I'm 100% against prejudice but being sent to jail for saying something controv

by p4lto 15y ago

I don't know how the laws are in the UK but damn, jail-time for racists comments? I'm 100% against prejudice but being sent to jail for saying something controversial seems like a bit much. I don't know much about the government there or what people have rights to, any clarity would be much appreciated.

Argorak 15y ago
How is racism controversial? That would imply that its a heavily debatable topic. The point is that he insulted a severely ill person personally in one of the worst ways possible and doing so through a mass medium doesn't help. I don't see a lot of space for a debate here. I am a bit surprised that this can be enforced without the person in question actually taking action. (hes still in the hospital in critical condition, so I suspect he didn't) What I am missing in the article is what he actually said. All in all, the height of the sentence surprises me as well.
- rlpb 15y ago
  > I am a bit surprised that this can be enforced without the person in question actually taking action. This is a fundamental tenet of criminal law. Crimes are taken to be against society, not just against the victim, because it is in the interests of everyone to stop criminality, not just the victim. The state prosecutes, not the person in question. > All in all, the height of the sentence surprises me as well. Race-related crimes are taken more seriously here (as opposed to the equivalent crimes without a race-hate component).
  - Argorak 15y ago
    > This is a fundamental tenet of criminal law. Crimes are taken to be against society, not just against the victim, because it is in the interests of everyone to stop criminality, not just the victim. The state prosecutes, not the person in question. Yes, I am aware of this distinction. But still, saying "*hole" to someone wouldn't most likely be a crime (whats the proper English term for this), so I was just surprised about where the line is drawn. > Race-related crimes are taken more seriously here (as opposed to the equivalent crimes without a race-hate component). Yes, but 56 days of jail is a lot. Different countries, different handling. In Germany, this would most likely lead to a hefty fine and social work hours, which would still be a pain for a first offender.
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    Race-related crimes are also taken more seriously in the US. I didn't see anything in the reported tweets that would be considered criminal in the US, though. We'd certainly jail someone for making real threats or inciting a crime, but not for mere racism.
    - AkThhhpppt 15y ago
      Different strokes, different folks. Search "Brixton riots" for a pointer to why the UK is sensitive to racism.
      - gregbair 15y ago
        That makes no sense, I'm sure in the US we've had many more race riots and such (The Rodney King riots and the riots when MLK was assassinated come to mind), but we still offer freedom of speech to idiots. Besides, from my cursory reading of the Brixton riots, the protestors were mad at police inaction, not hate speech.
        AkThhhpppt 15y ago
        Half of the Brixton riots were triggered by someone dying in police custody. The other half were triggered by the Met shooting someone. The Met is regularly accused of institutional racism, so you can see where I'm going there. The fact there was no right to free speech in English law until 1998 may also be related. (",)
  - kristianc 15y ago
    I would agree with this. Since the Stephen Lawrence case in the UK, there's a high degree of sensitivity in the UK towards police handling of race-hate, and hate crimes in general. It is also maybe difficult to get across to someone viewing in the US what a major news story Muamba's illness has been in the UK, the universal condemnation of the remarks, and more generally the efforts that have gone into eradicating racism from football in the UK. It is very difficult to divorce this from its societal context.
  - jlarocco 15y ago
    I guess I'm just not seeing the crime. I understand it was a racial comment, but I don't get the impression he made any kind of threat or anything. If he was threatening people and/or saying he was going to commit some crimes, I would understand. It sounds like he was being stupid, but relatively harmless. Is it illegal to be ignorant in the UK?
    - AkThhhpppt 15y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Ac...
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- p4lto 15y ago
  I say controversial because racism is still openly expressed in certain circumstances, for example Westboro Baptist Church, though that's the U.S. Most racism, in my opinion, comes from fundamentalists or those associated but of course they aren't the only ones. I'm probably using out of context example here but WBC protests at dead soldiers funerals regularly, everyone knows that, and they're not touched. Though I suppose protest and direct prejudicial comments aren't in the same ballpark entirely. It's all circumstantial I guess.
  - baltcode 15y ago
    I am going to get downvoted here, and WBC would say pretty nasty things about people like me. However, I have never heard anything to suggest that the Westboro Baptist Church are racist. In fact, the founder used to be civil rights lawyer, taking cases that other white attorneys won't touch.
- batista 15y ago
  How is racism controversial? That would imply that its a heavily debatable topic. Well, it's not clear cut. What can constitute "racism" or not is quite open to interpretation. Even statements of fact or plain arguments can be interpreted as racist. For example, if you are against illegal immigration in my country (and many others) you are labeled as "racist", even if the reasons you are against it have nothing to do with race, but say, with border control, lack of supporting infrastructure for too many immigrants, possible use of minorities as a political weapon from surrounding countries, etc.
  - AkThhhpppt 15y ago
    Yes, but that's not racism being controversial; that's whether someone's statement is racist being controversial. There is NO doubt the statements were racist in this case.
rlpb 15y ago
"Inciting racial hatred" is illegal here. I think that's quite a bit more specific than "saying something controversial". I don't see that this is any different from the US First Amendment. It has exceptions too (eg. shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre). "Inciting racial hatred" is an equivalent restriction. You may disagree on this law specifically, but I don't see how this affects anything fundamental like freedom of speech or anything like that.
- Argorak 15y ago
  As far as I see the article, the attacks were also personal, which is illegal in most countries around the globe.
- SamReidHughes 15y ago
  They aren't equivalent restrictions at all. One is an expression of ideas, the other is an incitement of panic.
  - rlpb 15y ago
    They are equivalent in that "freedom of speech" is not absolute but has restrictions in specific cases. They clearly aren't the same though, which is why I said that you can disagree on the specifics. > One is an expression of ideas, the other is an incitement of panic. This is pure sophistry. I could just as well argue that I wanted to express the idea that there might be a fire. That it incites panic is secondary, just as inciting racial hatred might incite violence. You are still welcome to disagree, but you've failed to make an argument.
    - defen 15y ago
      The difference is that the rational response to "Fire!" is to get the hell out of there as fast as possible, which could lead to injuries etc. (Let's not derail into a prisoner's dilemma discussion about how the "real" rational response is for everyone to make an orderly exit). Anyone who partook in a panicked escape from a purported fire would not be held responsible for incidentally trampling other people who were also trying to escape. On the other hand, the rational response to hearing someone "incite racial hatred" is not to go out and start committing crimes against people belonging to that group.

by p4lto 15y ago

Argorak 15y ago

How is racism controversial? That would imply that its a heavily debatable topic. The point is that he insulted a severely ill person personally in one of the worst ways possible and doing so through a mass medium doesn't help. I don't see a lot of space for a debate here. I am a bit surprised that this can be enforced without the person in question actually taking action. (hes still in the hospital in critical condition, so I suspect he didn't) What I am missing in the article is what he actually said. All in all, the height of the sentence surprises me as well.

rlpb 15y ago
> I am a bit surprised that this can be enforced without the person in question actually taking action. This is a fundamental tenet of criminal law. Crimes are taken to be against society, not just against the victim, because it is in the interests of everyone to stop criminality, not just the victim. The state prosecutes, not the person in question. > All in all, the height of the sentence surprises me as well. Race-related crimes are taken more seriously here (as opposed to the equivalent crimes without a race-hate component).
- Argorak 15y ago
  > This is a fundamental tenet of criminal law. Crimes are taken to be against society, not just against the victim, because it is in the interests of everyone to stop criminality, not just the victim. The state prosecutes, not the person in question. Yes, I am aware of this distinction. But still, saying "*hole" to someone wouldn't most likely be a crime (whats the proper English term for this), so I was just surprised about where the line is drawn. > Race-related crimes are taken more seriously here (as opposed to the equivalent crimes without a race-hate component). Yes, but 56 days of jail is a lot. Different countries, different handling. In Germany, this would most likely lead to a hefty fine and social work hours, which would still be a pain for a first offender.
- lotharbot 15y ago
  Race-related crimes are also taken more seriously in the US. I didn't see anything in the reported tweets that would be considered criminal in the US, though. We'd certainly jail someone for making real threats or inciting a crime, but not for mere racism.
  - AkThhhpppt 15y ago
    Different strokes, different folks. Search "Brixton riots" for a pointer to why the UK is sensitive to racism.
    - gregbair 15y ago
      That makes no sense, I'm sure in the US we've had many more race riots and such (The Rodney King riots and the riots when MLK was assassinated come to mind), but we still offer freedom of speech to idiots. Besides, from my cursory reading of the Brixton riots, the protestors were mad at police inaction, not hate speech.
      - AkThhhpppt 15y ago
        Half of the Brixton riots were triggered by someone dying in police custody. The other half were triggered by the Met shooting someone. The Met is regularly accused of institutional racism, so you can see where I'm going there. The fact there was no right to free speech in English law until 1998 may also be related. (",)
- kristianc 15y ago
  I would agree with this. Since the Stephen Lawrence case in the UK, there's a high degree of sensitivity in the UK towards police handling of race-hate, and hate crimes in general. It is also maybe difficult to get across to someone viewing in the US what a major news story Muamba's illness has been in the UK, the universal condemnation of the remarks, and more generally the efforts that have gone into eradicating racism from football in the UK. It is very difficult to divorce this from its societal context.
- jlarocco 15y ago
  I guess I'm just not seeing the crime. I understand it was a racial comment, but I don't get the impression he made any kind of threat or anything. If he was threatening people and/or saying he was going to commit some crimes, I would understand. It sounds like he was being stupid, but relatively harmless. Is it illegal to be ignorant in the UK?
  - AkThhhpppt 15y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Ac...
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
p4lto 15y ago
I say controversial because racism is still openly expressed in certain circumstances, for example Westboro Baptist Church, though that's the U.S. Most racism, in my opinion, comes from fundamentalists or those associated but of course they aren't the only ones. I'm probably using out of context example here but WBC protests at dead soldiers funerals regularly, everyone knows that, and they're not touched. Though I suppose protest and direct prejudicial comments aren't in the same ballpark entirely. It's all circumstantial I guess.
- baltcode 15y ago
  I am going to get downvoted here, and WBC would say pretty nasty things about people like me. However, I have never heard anything to suggest that the Westboro Baptist Church are racist. In fact, the founder used to be civil rights lawyer, taking cases that other white attorneys won't touch.
batista 15y ago
How is racism controversial? That would imply that its a heavily debatable topic. Well, it's not clear cut. What can constitute "racism" or not is quite open to interpretation. Even statements of fact or plain arguments can be interpreted as racist. For example, if you are against illegal immigration in my country (and many others) you are labeled as "racist", even if the reasons you are against it have nothing to do with race, but say, with border control, lack of supporting infrastructure for too many immigrants, possible use of minorities as a political weapon from surrounding countries, etc.
- AkThhhpppt 15y ago
  Yes, but that's not racism being controversial; that's whether someone's statement is racist being controversial. There is NO doubt the statements were racist in this case.

rlpb 15y ago

"Inciting racial hatred" is illegal here. I think that's quite a bit more specific than "saying something controversial". I don't see that this is any different from the US First Amendment. It has exceptions too (eg. shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre). "Inciting racial hatred" is an equivalent restriction. You may disagree on this law specifically, but I don't see how this affects anything fundamental like freedom of speech or anything like that.

Argorak 15y ago
As far as I see the article, the attacks were also personal, which is illegal in most countries around the globe.
SamReidHughes 15y ago
They aren't equivalent restrictions at all. One is an expression of ideas, the other is an incitement of panic.
- rlpb 15y ago
  They are equivalent in that "freedom of speech" is not absolute but has restrictions in specific cases. They clearly aren't the same though, which is why I said that you can disagree on the specifics. > One is an expression of ideas, the other is an incitement of panic. This is pure sophistry. I could just as well argue that I wanted to express the idea that there might be a fire. That it incites panic is secondary, just as inciting racial hatred might incite violence. You are still welcome to disagree, but you've failed to make an argument.
  - defen 15y ago
    The difference is that the rational response to "Fire!" is to get the hell out of there as fast as possible, which could lead to injuries etc. (Let's not derail into a prisoner's dilemma discussion about how the "real" rational response is for everyone to make an orderly exit). Anyone who partook in a panicked escape from a purported fire would not be held responsible for incidentally trampling other people who were also trying to escape. On the other hand, the rational response to hearing someone "incite racial hatred" is not to go out and start committing crimes against people belonging to that group.