Simple case of Chat Shit get Banged {Up}.
Man jailed for racially abusing Marcus Rashford on twitter
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
Might add to that, one of them has a Nobel peace prize.
Well deserved and hopefully we see more idiots jailed for racism.
We've had such a law in Indonesia. It's called ITE.
The intention is noble. But in the end it becomes the punch law for anything. Political disident slip of tounge.. that's jail time.
Artists e-fight that's a jail time
Critizing public figure. That's jailtime.
It's a very hard to police law and a slippery slope of jurisprudence.
The intention is noble. But in the end it becomes the punch law for anything. Political disident slip of tounge.. that's jail time.
Artists e-fight that's a jail time
Critizing public figure. That's jailtime.
It's a very hard to police law and a slippery slope of jurisprudence.
Hopefully it's the last, but not the last, if you know what I mean... deserved nothing less the little bastard. Hopefully a few lads in the cells will teach him a valuable lesson in respect.
From what i read prison isnt exactly race friendly. At least in the US
I don't agree with this jail time but that's just me. At this rate you will have to lock up every kid on the street that yells faggot for example.
Last edited:
Too many times - I see freedom of speech being espoused while completely ignoring the importance of responsibility. One can have the freedom to speak but have to also be responsible for the consequences as defined by society, and by extension, the law. Abuse, racism, malingering can be very divisive to society.
A kid can't be sent to jail though. X hrs of Volunteer work to help the needy would be a good rehabilitative consequence IMHO.
Great to see consequences for the racial abuse, though it does leave me wondering at the inconsistency with this sort of thing. So much of it happens, and the courts don't care in the slightest, but then in this situation they decide to make an example out of someone. Really wish they would be consistent on these types of things.
This actually wasnt a charge related to hate speech. He was charged and pled guilty on sending a grossly offensive message prosecutable by section 127 of the communications act. Laws regarding hate speech actually werent applied at all.
Last edited:
Good news.
Generally the police investigate incidents that are reported to them. They aren't going to trawl through twitter looking for racist tweets originating from the UK.
Well, I suppose you either agree with the current justice system or you don't. They make laws and punish people who break them. How effective that is at preventing crime is debatable, if you ask me.
This is good. Racism should never be accepted.
But it's not an absolute right, even in the US (though admittedly broader than in most countries).
@Solius summarised my feelings about this topic otherwise.
Makes me laugh that his lawyer said he had only heard the slur in rap songs and didn't know it was bad. Guy used the N word ffs.
Even funnier the fact that he refused to use the word when talking to the police was used against him
The “free speech” argument has solidified itself as the default defence for bigotry and racism.
It's fair enough because racial abuse is a crime. I do feel like some sort of community service would be more benificial to a young guy than jail though.
I don't think jail is the solution at all.
if being afraid of the consequences would stop someone from doing something stupid then the death penalty would still be present.
I believe there are other ways to help reduce this problem such as :
- A fine where the money goes to some organisation that is fighting racism
- An obligation to follow some "training" that helps to educate those people
if being afraid of the consequences would stop someone from doing something stupid then the death penalty would still be present.
I believe there are other ways to help reduce this problem such as :
- A fine where the money goes to some organisation that is fighting racism
- An obligation to follow some "training" that helps to educate those people
The amount of Americans that take freedom of speech to be this universal say what you want loophole is ridiculous. Freedom of speech is meant to be a vessel to restrict abuse of power by politicians, right of protest, right to critique it is not meant to be a free for all to say whatever you want in a public space or to whomever you want, no matter how threatening or abusive and use FOS as a fallback. The fact it is done so is such a moronic thing.
Every nation is different but in Most of Western Europe you have FOS allowing all the things I pointed out but you don't have the right to freely abuse people which to my British mind is the more appropriate way to handle this stuff.
I think in other countries people use or create weird laws to suppress it under the guise of protecting it(like the sedition laws in a lot of countries) But in Western Europe there is no jailing of people for saying things about Government, protesting or critisizing anything really you just shouldn't willy nilly abuse people
Every nation is different but in Most of Western Europe you have FOS allowing all the things I pointed out but you don't have the right to freely abuse people which to my British mind is the more appropriate way to handle this stuff.
I think in other countries people use or create weird laws to suppress it under the guise of protecting it(like the sedition laws in a lot of countries) But in Western Europe there is no jailing of people for saying things about Government, protesting or critisizing anything really you just shouldn't willy nilly abuse people
Which is just plain silly because racism is classed as hate speech, at least it is in the UK and most of Europe anyway.
There is a clear distinction between the two terms. I can't understand how people fail to recognize that.
Agree with your post and it is not just UK who have those laws. However this (bold) is where I see the problem. Where do we start and where do we end? I asked earlier about if this should only apply to celeberties because it is not common to put people in jail for being out of line or being ignorant. Twitter and social media are full of hate speech and I'm not sure it is even possible to put all those people in jail. So were do we draw a line? Because we can't or shouldn't make any difference between any of those groups.
There is also sometimes a gray zone between what is hate and what is free although in this case with Rashford that I have read there is no gray zone.
You make a valid point, you can't jail everyone who is guilty of hate speech because there simply isn't enough room.
It gets me thinking, though. Perhaps the decision to jail this guy was an act of deterrence. A lingering threat of jail time should reduce the probability of similar offences in the future, making people think twice before acting I guess.
They tried less desperate attempts to end the hate with numerous online campaigns (literally 100's over the years) to no avail. If anything, those campaigns seemingly encouraged them more. They're making an example of this guy to scare others off.
Just an opinion, not fact.
There's absolutely no clear distinction though. What about criticism of religion? This is often classified as hate speech (or islamophobia for example). Is it? Not in my opinion.
Or what about J.K. Rowling saying a woman has a womb? A lot of people were calling that hate speech. Same with Jimmy Carr and his gypsy joke. Where's the line exactly?
The preposterous illusion that hate speech is easily defined is what makes this type of "justice" very dangerous imo. It can very easily be used as a pretext to silence any kind of dissent.
Last edited:
Deserved, hopefully the first of many, the effects of racism is damaging in the long run and stays forever with the victim.
While it's great that someone has been punished for it, i do feel it's a bit fecking harsh with jail unless it's someone with a previous history of racial abuse.
Context is everything.
Take your J.K Rowling quote for example. Saying a woman has a womb cannot be considered hate speech in any way. It only becomes hate speech if the person who said it intended to cause harm/offence. I don't know if that was his intention as I'd never heard the quote until just now. I guess it's open to interpretation until Rowling clears it up for us.
However, the following quote is hate speech in its truest form: "YOU F****** STUPID N***** MISSING A FREE PEN MY DEAD NAN COULD HAVE SCORED THAT”. If you agree with that, and I'm sure you do, then the law states he can be prosecuted. Which he absolutely was to the harshest extent.
I hope Rashford can start focusing on his football now that he has received justice.
so any incidence reported will get arrested? For every footballer or athlete?
What’s the point of players taking the knee to show the fight against racism unless racists are actually punished for their hate crimes? Fully supportive of jail time for this stupid lad, who initially denied his actions and then tried to cover it up.
Skimming through but are there posters arguing you should be free to racially abuse people without any come back because of free speech?
If you make a report and a crime has been deemed to have been committed the police will investigate as far as I'm aware. You don't have to be famous. I'm a little confused though. Are you trying to suggest Rashford got special treatment or we that we shouldn't bother because there are so many incidents?
An Irish lad was taken to court over here for racially abusing Ian Wright on twitter last year. He was given probation though.
Ok, how about just bluntly saying: "trans women are not real women". Is that hate speech? The line is very thin and it continually changes. My grandpa used the word retard as a genuine term to refer to mentally disabled people. That would no longer be tolerated. This is the biggest problem with the whole idea of "hate speech", you can mold and bend it to fit your agenda pretty easily. And you can interpret someone's intentions as you like.
Off course I think it's a despicable and hateful thing to say. But if he would have said asshole instead of the n-word, it would suddenly be ok in the eyes of the law?
There was an online newspaper which had a problem with horrible (racist) comments on its articles. They made ID verification obligatory and also prohibited the use of usernames other than your real name. The abuse immediately went down. Why not start there and force Twitter and others to do the same. Most of these keyboard warriors feels safe hiding behind some meme name and Pepe the frog picture.
I don't think anyone is arguing that. There's other possible "solutions" than jailing a teenager though.
If Rashford is unhappy with the abuse he is receiving as a Man Utd player then he should look to pastures new. I think it is clear that he cannot continue to perform at a high level whilst dealing with racism and other issues. The more he focuses on comments made by bellends on social media indicates he doesn't have the singular mind-set needed to push beyond it towards glory.
Last edited:
This has probably been pointed out but you do not have an absolute right to free speech. The example that is always used is that you cannot shout fire in a theatre. There are also laws about hate speech and incitement. I guess the question would be, why are you trying to defend the right to be racist?
You can't be a free speech absolutist because you are here on redcafe where you know any talk of certain subjects will be censored, so why then choose racism as the subject you do get all hypocritical about free speech on? Did you make the same speech when redcafe took away your right to free speech on Mason, or is it just now your principles got all important?
Last edited:
I've seen free speech mentioned quite a bit, why even mention it if that's not what you're arguing.
Note you doesn't refer to you specifically btw
I don't think anything falls into that category unless you're engaging someone directly in an abusive manner, talking about a particular person or persons in an abusive manner, or inciting something unlawful.
As far as I'm aware, it isn't illegal - per se - to hold, say, what most people would call racist views. If this same idiot had posted that he was firmly against interracial marriage (but without attacking anyone or addressing anyone directly), I doubt it would've been possible to jail him for it.