5 ms·

I disagree, he was simply posting comments about a professional athlete on his own twitter account, it's not like he was yelling it on the street or putting up

I disagree, he was simply posting comments about a professional athlete on his own twitter account, it's not like he was yelling it on the street or putting up billboards. Anyone can unfollow or even block his twitter, if you were even able to see it in the first place. It is a freedom of speech issue because we should be allowed to write what we want on our personal social networks. I think it is absurd that mommy government can read your tweets (whats next? blogs, emails?) and give you jail time for the 'naughty' things you say. I think what bothers me most is that the person he made fun of is a pro-athlete, part of the job is to take abuse from haters and rival fans. European soccer is notoriously rowdy, fans shout any and everything they can from the stands. It's part of the game.

ugh 15y ago
Uhm, everyone can read tweets and blogs. They are public†. I’m not sure how I think about this particular verdict (or whether making such comments in pubic should be illegal or not), but I do get very angry when people tell me that racism (or homophobia) is part of the game. No. No it's not. Being racist or homophobe is not being “rowdy”. It’s disgusting and no one should do it. Tradition or any other such nonsense is no valid defense. Insulting fans and players of other clubs: Ok and expected. Being racist while doing it: Not ok. It’s quite simple. — † In most cases and in this case.
- Locke1689 15y ago
  The important thing isn't that everyone can read it, it's that everyone can not read it. I think that limiting the freedom of speech based purely on speech which one can easily opt out of is pretty reprehensible.
  - ugh 15y ago
    It’s still public speech, though, and not in any way personal. I was responding to a comment that the government reading twitter and blogs is akin to reading emails which is total bullshit.
    - Locke1689 15y ago
      True -- but what about mailing lists which can be publicly accessed? There's no "broadcast", but there's no protection either.
aes256 15y ago
I think what bothers me most is that the person he made fun of is a pro-athlete, part of the job is to take abuse from haters and rival fans. European soccer is notoriously rowdy, fans shout any and everything they can from the stands. It's part of the game. I don't know if you're aware, but the user posted the comments shortly after Muamba suffered a cardiac arrest on the pitch during a game. He was in critical condition in hospital for days, and remains in serious condition now. The scenes were broadcast live on television, and the incident has received extensive media coverage, leading to an outpouring of support from all members of society, including players and supporters of rival teams. Personally, I don't think these facts should have any bearing on the legality of making such statements. As far as I'm concerned the relevant legislation is absurd — I don't believe offensive speech should be prohibited — and this was a knee-jerk sentencing, the severity of which seems almost entirely divorced from that of the crime, but you have to admit the comments were in pretty bad taste...
tombell 15y ago
> I disagree, he was simply posting comments about a professional athlete on his own twitter account, it's not like he was yelling it on the street or putting up billboards. I think you'll find, posting it on Twitter is the same as getting a tshirt with it written on and walking on the streets.
- kls 15y ago
  is the same as getting a tshirt with it written on and walking on the streets. In the US that would be legal, there was actually a media uproar about the very issue this week (note: the article has offensive language in it): http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/trayvon-martin/cracker-tshirt-759832 http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/trayvon-martin/cracker-t...
kls 15y ago
I think what bothers me most is that the person he made fun of is a pro-athlete I think what bothers me most is that other citizens reported him to the authorities for such, which means a percentage of the population agrees with speech being restricted so long as it restricts speech that is contrary to their dogma. Racism is a slippers slope too, I once witnesses a person being lambasted as a racist for calling an obvious blood gang member a thug. What people feel is the definition of racist varies widely and is very much perception based. I could easily see a law like that being used for witch hunts.
- icebraining 15y ago
  That's why we have judges. Just reporting someone doesn't automatically put them in jail.
  - kls 15y ago
    Judge or not a segment of the population is comfortable with the idea of the thought police and see them as the good guys, which should be a scary realization anytime it is witnessed. I would not want my life held in the balance by a judge who is going to make a subjective decision as to whether my speech was racist or not, in a society that accepts the policing of opinion, the judge already accepts as law that you are not entitled to your opinion, as such the deck is immediately stacked against you. Chances are in such a system judges will be affected by the same confirmation bias and group think as the rest of the population that thinks policing opinions, even when expressed in public is acceptable.
- ugh 15y ago
  Making judgement calls is a normal part of the justice system. The powers it has will let you imagine numerous slippery slopes, so that isn’t an especially convincing argument.
  - kls 15y ago
    Judgment call or not there have been witch hunts before and many where sanctioned by authority such as judges, we are talking about policing opinions, it is a slipper slope because the entire idea is rooted in control as such more and more control will be exerted. As I mentioned below even the judges will be influenced by the idea that criminalizing opinions is OK, which will make the ever slighter infraction more and more offensive.

ugh 15y ago

Uhm, everyone can read tweets and blogs. They are public†. I’m not sure how I think about this particular verdict (or whether making such comments in pubic should be illegal or not), but I do get very angry when people tell me that racism (or homophobia) is part of the game. No. No it's not. Being racist or homophobe is not being “rowdy”. It’s disgusting and no one should do it. Tradition or any other such nonsense is no valid defense. Insulting fans and players of other clubs: Ok and expected. Being racist while doing it: Not ok. It’s quite simple. — † In most cases and in this case.

Locke1689 15y ago
The important thing isn't that everyone can read it, it's that everyone can not read it. I think that limiting the freedom of speech based purely on speech which one can easily opt out of is pretty reprehensible.
- ugh 15y ago
  It’s still public speech, though, and not in any way personal. I was responding to a comment that the government reading twitter and blogs is akin to reading emails which is total bullshit.
  - Locke1689 15y ago
    True -- but what about mailing lists which can be publicly accessed? There's no "broadcast", but there's no protection either.

aes256 15y ago

I think what bothers me most is that the person he made fun of is a pro-athlete, part of the job is to take abuse from haters and rival fans. European soccer is notoriously rowdy, fans shout any and everything they can from the stands. It's part of the game. I don't know if you're aware, but the user posted the comments shortly after Muamba suffered a cardiac arrest on the pitch during a game. He was in critical condition in hospital for days, and remains in serious condition now. The scenes were broadcast live on television, and the incident has received extensive media coverage, leading to an outpouring of support from all members of society, including players and supporters of rival teams. Personally, I don't think these facts should have any bearing on the legality of making such statements. As far as I'm concerned the relevant legislation is absurd — I don't believe offensive speech should be prohibited — and this was a knee-jerk sentencing, the severity of which seems almost entirely divorced from that of the crime, but you have to admit the comments were in pretty bad taste...

tombell 15y ago

> I disagree, he was simply posting comments about a professional athlete on his own twitter account, it's not like he was yelling it on the street or putting up billboards. I think you'll find, posting it on Twitter is the same as getting a tshirt with it written on and walking on the streets.

kls 15y ago
is the same as getting a tshirt with it written on and walking on the streets. In the US that would be legal, there was actually a media uproar about the very issue this week (note: the article has offensive language in it): http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/trayvon-martin/cracker-tshirt-759832 http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/trayvon-martin/cracker-t...

kls 15y ago

I think what bothers me most is that the person he made fun of is a pro-athlete I think what bothers me most is that other citizens reported him to the authorities for such, which means a percentage of the population agrees with speech being restricted so long as it restricts speech that is contrary to their dogma. Racism is a slippers slope too, I once witnesses a person being lambasted as a racist for calling an obvious blood gang member a thug. What people feel is the definition of racist varies widely and is very much perception based. I could easily see a law like that being used for witch hunts.

icebraining 15y ago
That's why we have judges. Just reporting someone doesn't automatically put them in jail.
- kls 15y ago
  Judge or not a segment of the population is comfortable with the idea of the thought police and see them as the good guys, which should be a scary realization anytime it is witnessed. I would not want my life held in the balance by a judge who is going to make a subjective decision as to whether my speech was racist or not, in a society that accepts the policing of opinion, the judge already accepts as law that you are not entitled to your opinion, as such the deck is immediately stacked against you. Chances are in such a system judges will be affected by the same confirmation bias and group think as the rest of the population that thinks policing opinions, even when expressed in public is acceptable.
ugh 15y ago
Making judgement calls is a normal part of the justice system. The powers it has will let you imagine numerous slippery slopes, so that isn’t an especially convincing argument.
- kls 15y ago
  Judgment call or not there have been witch hunts before and many where sanctioned by authority such as judges, we are talking about policing opinions, it is a slipper slope because the entire idea is rooted in control as such more and more control will be exerted. As I mentioned below even the judges will be influenced by the idea that criminalizing opinions is OK, which will make the ever slighter infraction more and more offensive.