Most people posting are idiotic enough to have done so under their own names.
Evra accuses Suarez of racist remarks | Suarez guilty of racial abuse
- Thread starter Feeky Magee
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Most people posting are idiotic enough to have done so under their own names.
Yet not all racists are idiots in the clinical sense
I'm guessing you're not black.
How can you tell?
The point I was making is that you may say 'I think people should be free to be massive racists if they want.'
The reality is that some of them are breaking the law.
And in the process gained far more exposure in the press and come away with what they perceive as "victory" that they and their members can celebrate as one over on the "PC brigade" (hate that phrase) and a sense of vindication. It's a very tricky situation to deal with.
Which is precisely why I think legal action against people expressing deplorable views is the wrong avenue
You are guessing right, but you only highlighted half of the sentence - the rest of it is vital. It also extends to any person of any race - if someone wants to publicly come out as a racist and a biggot then fair enough, at least the rest of us know what kind of person we are dealing with and we'll see how their attitudes help - or more likely hinder - themselves in life.
Me too. In many cases it only helps to further their cause and gather more support.
From an American perspective it's kind of insane that it is illegal to say whatever you want.
Living with the consequences are different. A racist would not be welcome on a team in the US. He'd have a very hard time playing anywhere. Many people have lost their jobs, etc., due to racism. But making it a crime is just odd.
18 Use of words or behaviour or display of written material.E+W+S.(1)A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if— .
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or .
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby. .(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling. .
(3)A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section. .
(4)In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to prove that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the written material displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling. .
(5)A person who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred is not guilty of an offence under this section if he did not intend his words or behaviour, or the written material, to be, and was not aware that it might be, threatening, abusive or insulting. .
(6)This section does not apply to words or behaviour used, or written material displayed, solely for the purpose of being included in a programme [F10included in a programme service].
from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64
Think this is where it becomes nortoriously hard to prove
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or .
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby. .(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling. .
(3)A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section. .
(4)In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to prove that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the written material displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling. .
(5)A person who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred is not guilty of an offence under this section if he did not intend his words or behaviour, or the written material, to be, and was not aware that it might be, threatening, abusive or insulting. .
(6)This section does not apply to words or behaviour used, or written material displayed, solely for the purpose of being included in a programme [F10included in a programme service].
from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64
Think this is where it becomes nortoriously hard to prove
Not sure you can make an ideology a crime anyway
What if they are hiding behind a pseudonym, Dave Bloggs for example?
Racist-Arseholes
Some of them are shown here with their facebook pages (assuming they're not fake too, but that would be going a bit too far; creating a whole internet persona just so you could be racist).
You have a valid point. Perhaps we will see internet accounts become like bank accounts, where you have to register details with your service provider and have some kind of electronic internet passport where each user is identifiable. Obviously that is another can of worms. Most accounts can be traced. Perhaps if someone is hiding behind a pseudonym, a case could be made for simply tracing the individual behind it and attributing the comment to them publicly.
That wasn't my point really.
Many Twitter accounts have names that are clearly nicknames etc.
The individuals should be able to be traced by IP.
My point was really that many of the people who are abusing Collymore et al won't be found out by future employers as you suggested.
Maybe it wasn't, but it's obvious that a fair number of the people haven't posted under pseudonyms which is proven by the fact that they've been able to be tracked on facebook based on their twitter names. That was the point you objected to when decorativeed made it.
https://www.redcafe.net/10921488-post4844.html
What f*cking chance has anyone got of reasoning with 'supporters' like this?? (see second quote):
(RAWK)
The sad thing is whatever comes out of the appeal, this has long gone past Suarez and Evra. It's Liverpool fc who have sparked this enormous backlash of hatred and racist abuse, and it's particularily that dinosaur of a manager. They have acted like stoneage morons and now have the brainwashed self absorbed whiny twats who support them believing it's ok to act like the KKK all in the name of tribalism.
Well they are pathetic lowlife scum and it's genuinely sad for those decent supporters of Liverpool and the great history of the club, because they've now become a pathetic joke of a club and this won't be forgotten by people for a long time.
Well they are pathetic lowlife scum and it's genuinely sad for those decent supporters of Liverpool and the great history of the club, because they've now become a pathetic joke of a club and this won't be forgotten by people for a long time.
huh???
yet another example of people thinking "its only the internet"
when will people realize that you can and will get done for stuff written online???
Hence why most major Police departments now have online sections for dealing with this kind of stuff
There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" if you are making derogatory or racist comments!
sorry lads, but what you are saying is basically "its alright to abuse people if its kept on the internet"
WRONG!
WRONG!
Originally Posted by kouroux
Some of them were stupid enough to post on twitter with (I'd guess) their real names. It's like a "come and get me " plea. I really hope the police get somehow involved.
Originally Posted by decorativeed
I actually do not. These people have made comments and they have been made available for all to see, they have been logged on the internet and they will be almost impossible to remove all trace of. That is good enough for me. Any future potential employer will find this stuff on a google search and the world and his dog can see what mindset these people have now, they have exposed their ugliness to all.
I think people should be free to be massive racists if they want to be so long as it remains in the virtual world. If it spills over into the streets then the police can become involved. If they go round arresting people and putting people in court for comments they make on Twitter it will only worsen the situation.
Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya
Think they can only get involved if they see it as an incitement to racial hatredin which case it becomes difficult to prove. Members of the BNP have had charges dropped on the same basis
You tell kouroux that the comments are there for all to see and the publicity the racists get is bad for them. Then you argue that getting more exposure is a victory. You cant have it both ways.
Some of them were stupid enough to post on twitter with (I'd guess) their real names. It's like a "come and get me " plea. I really hope the police get somehow involved.
Originally Posted by decorativeed
I actually do not. These people have made comments and they have been made available for all to see, they have been logged on the internet and they will be almost impossible to remove all trace of. That is good enough for me. Any future potential employer will find this stuff on a google search and the world and his dog can see what mindset these people have now, they have exposed their ugliness to all.
I think people should be free to be massive racists if they want to be so long as it remains in the virtual world. If it spills over into the streets then the police can become involved. If they go round arresting people and putting people in court for comments they make on Twitter it will only worsen the situation.
Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya
Think they can only get involved if they see it as an incitement to racial hatredin which case it becomes difficult to prove. Members of the BNP have had charges dropped on the same basis
You tell kouroux that the comments are there for all to see and the publicity the racists get is bad for them. Then you argue that getting more exposure is a victory. You cant have it both ways.
If people are thick enough to publicly admit to being bigots then that is as good as convicting themselves. What punishment would they realistically face for such comments if the police prosecuted people for these comments?
I have already said there is a definate line that can be crossed when someone makes threats or incites violence against someone, but as repulsive and abhorant as I find these people's views I firmly believe they are entitled to them - just as you or I are entitled to tell them that they are wrong. Of course, the likes of Twitter etc have terms and conditions of use which forbid hate speech anyway and it should be up to them to moderate their website properly rather than pass the buck onto the police. A private organisation can decide what language they find acceptable or not, I do not believe it is the duty of the police to do the same with regards to the internet, within people's homes or in publications with the exception of what I have already mentioned above.
I have been on anti-racism, anti-fascist marches. I have had my photograph plastered on redwatch, yet I still believe someone should be able to hold and express views that I find irrational biggoted and abhorrent, however so long as it does not endanger a person or encourage others to endanger another.
I have opened that debate up in the general forum
especially when you see what's said to Stan Collymore. Also take into account the people that have taken their own lives due to online abuse. It's not something people should have to deal with. Absolute freedom is no freedom at all
Morally, abusing people in any manner and in any medium is not alright. Legally, it is a very sensitive area that impacts on basic personal freedoms and if not handled delicately, plays into the hands of the same far-right organisations we all despise.
I'm talking about an organisation such as the BNP who have successfully (to a degree) fooled many thousands of people into believing they are a political organisation that is simply standing up for the "normal" people of the country against a tide of "PC gone mad left-wing loonies" after obfuscating their National Front origins versus individuals such as those who have posted vile messages on Twitter in recent days.
When the BNP are taken to court but not convicted of offences there are people who have been disenfranchised by the current government and who have been suckered by "PC gone mad, you have to call a blackboard a chalkboard nowadays" guff in the right-wing press who see it as a victory of common sense prevailing and they garner more support. These people may very well not agree at all with the comments on Twitter.
I doubt if the right wing press would take up the cause of some football fan and the right to tweet "Evra is a f****** n***** c*** and I hope he dies of aids".
These tweets are not from members of a political organisation claiming freedom of speech. Those prosecuted are unlikely to ask the BNP to represent them in court and stand beside them at the press conference after. Doing that would surely have a negative effect on their employment prospects.
What on earth are you talking about? There are plenty of things that are illegal to say. You wouldn't get in trouble for racist or sexist language if it wasn't illegal. Hell, didn't we pass some anti-bullying law somewhere for school kids? Being mean is illegal!
Though I have to admit I can't recall anyone being prosecuted in court for being racist.
I find it funny he says American perspective as if he represents all Americans......
That first sentence is the kind of stuff you pull in high school
Well, he's from LA, that's another world entirely, it's enough to make you a bit nutty, you surely can't speak for the bible belt from there. But at least he's not from the bible belt.
Okay, I got one, Isiah Thomas was sued when he was the Knicks president for sexual harassment.
Okay, I got one, Isiah Thomas was sued when he was the Knicks president for sexual harassment.
I'm not totally sure if you are misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make, but reading your posts that seems to be the case.
The right-wing press takes minor stories such as the Alan Hansen one and spins it as "you can't even say 'coloured' anymore without the PC brigade coming down on you like a ton of bricks". They sit among a slew of other stories (largely exagerated, often fabricated) over the years such as "you can't even sing Ba Ba Blacksheep in schools anymore" and "They make you call Christmas 'Winterval' now, you know" and develop into a wider worldview among their readership where 'left wing loonies' tell you what you can and cannot say and the country is all going to pot because of "do-gooders".
On the other hand you have far-right organisations who set out to win votes from centre-right leaning people who have bought into the hell-in-a-handcart image that the likes of the Daily Mail have been pedaling. They do so by covering up their roots as organisations born out of the British Union of Fascists and the National Front and cultivate an image as a common sense party standing up for regular Britons on issues that the other parties are too "PC" to deal with. When they win a court case about the use of language, they spin that into how they were persecuted by the "PC bridage" but struck a blow for the common man. People buy into it, they think the BNP are standing against the same thing they stand against and they consider giving them the vote. People may attempt to tell these people that the BNP are not what they appear to be and mention their origins or maybe even show them a photo of their founder Mr Tyndall in full Nazi regalia, but be met with blanket denail and accusations of being a socialist ("Get back to Russia"). However, what I am saying is these same people may also find the things the individuals have said on Twitter recently to be extreme.
So while the Daily Mail will never take up the cause of the racists on Twitter and while they may also condem the likes of the BNP, by legislating against what is considered outside the realms of freedom of speech and expression we are in danger of playing right into their hands.
*sigh* the sooner we get this case over with the better. it's not been good for my health
I agree with what you have written (except the first sentence). Our views on racism are pretty similar.
My point was that you initially argued against prosecution because having these views printed in the public domain is sufficient punishment. Few employers would want to employ such people.
You then argue that prosecution would be counter-productive because the BNP would use the incident for their own agenda.
My view is that few objectionable tweeters are 'BNP-type' racists. They are more likely to be passionate Liverpool fans who have allowed their love for their club to unleash their latent racism. Few would want their actions publicized. They are unlikely to welcome the BNP standing beside them outside the court. Also, being named and shamed in the press is much more likely to affect their job prospects.
Don't know about that... the BNP got over half a million votes in the last general election (and about 3-4,000 in central Liverpool), why do you not think that the vile tweeters might not be in that number?
If anything, I would suspect that there are a large minority of those voters, however ignorant and misguided they are, who would not want to be associated with those tweets.
Well, I make two points as to why I believe prosecution is not the way to go with regards to the issue. Neither cancels the other out though, so it's not like I'm making a confusing argument against myself.
I think that the press is increasingly less powerful among younger people and makes any potential "naming and shaming" in the press less useful. The names have shamed themselves in the public domain already.