[Indy]

Originally Posted by Redway

To be honest, I'm not on about the murder thing and I shouldn't have said that. Of course you're allowed free speech within reason, but once it borders abuse and all that nonsense that's exactly where you draw the line. No one should have to put up with all that crap from a couple of idiots who are sad enough to waste their energy on someone they supposedly hate that much.

People can't decide when life begins or what constitutes porn, but you expect a solid, concrete line where an insult crosses over from an opinion to abuse? It's even more dangerous when you apply it to a written medium that does not convey tone, like Twitter/fb/tumblr, in small phrases or short thoughts.

It just seems so odd to me that the same mentality that is responsible for curtailing the civil rights of thousands of non-Christians in my own country in different states and counties, is the one being championed in a country that likes to pride itself on being "more open minded".

[MatthewS]

IMO its a pretty clear line, once physical harm is brought into play or a threat is made, then the line is crossed. I think the guy who made these twitter comments is a complete w*anker, and safe to say, with ignorant views like that, clearly isn't doing anything productive with his life. His punishment should be his ****ty life, surely that must be sh*te enough, but arresting him is a bit much.

[Livia]

It always makes me laugh when people equate 'Freedom of Speech' with spurting out any insulting, racist, homophobic or any other king of provocative, inflammatory thought into the public arena - which is what the Internet is. Freedom of Speech is not there to protect bigots, no matter how many words you write or which way you twist it.

[MatthewS]

Freedom of Speech is for everybody, bigots included...

[cfromhx02]

The twitter user probably deserved it although I don't what they said.Why didn 't the police arrest Conor though ? I suppose it's because the police didn't want to show up big business friends at Channel 5

[Indy]

Originally Posted by Livia

It always makes me laugh when people equate 'Freedom of Speech' with spurting out any insulting, racist, homophobic or any other king of provocative, inflammatory thought into the public arena - which is what the Internet is. Freedom of Speech is not there to protect bigots, no matter how many words you write or which way you twist it.

What you overlook is that what constitutes a bigot is entirely dynamic, based entirely on who happens to be in charge that day. I can drive around the town where I live and pull 5 random people off the street and ask them to define it, you'll get 5 different answers. At least 2 will say it's gay people who want to get married or adopt children (bigoted against Christians) and 2 will say it's Christians who won't let gay people marry or adopt (bigoted against GLBT).

Freedom of Speech is there to protect EVERYONE...even people you don't like, because tomorrow, you might be the minority that needs protection.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Indy

People can't decide when life begins or what constitutes porn, but you expect a solid, concrete line where an insult crosses over from an opinion to abuse? It's even more dangerous when you apply it to a written medium that does not convey tone, like Twitter/fb/tumblr, in small phrases or short thoughts.

It just seems so odd to me that the same mentality that is responsible for curtailing the civil rights of thousands of non-Christians in my own country in different states and counties, is the one being championed in a country that likes to pride itself on being "more open minded".

That's exactly what I'm saying. As I said, of course you're allowed an opinion, no matter how ludicrous they are...but if you think that being extremely abusive and racist to a housemate through the internet can be justified by free speech, then I cannot take you seriously.

[MatthewS]

It's not justified, but he's entitled to the opinion, and therefore the right to voice it. Is he an ignorant a*shole? Absolutely.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Indy

What you overlook is that what constitutes a bigot is entirely dynamic, based entirely on who happens to be in charge that day. I can drive around the town where I live and pull 5 random people off the street and ask them to define it, you'll get 5 different answers. At least 2 will say it's gay people who want to get married or adopt children (bigoted against Christians) and 2 will say it's Christians who won't let gay people marry or adopt (bigoted against GLBT).

Freedom of Speech is there to protect EVERYONE...even people you don't like, because tomorrow, you might be the minority that needs protection.

No, it isn't there to protect everyone. For example, if a drunken cockney chav gets on public transport and starts mouthing off about how she hates hangovers after a good night out then she'd be looked on as weird, yes, but it can be justified by free speech.

However, someone who choses to be openly racist and use extreme abuse and threats on someone simply isn't acceptable and nobody should have to be subject to that. If free speech was there to protect everyone, would people really be arrested for this sort of thing? If you don't have boundaries then you're basically saying that every abusive, vile, idiotic thought that enters someone's mind - even if it hurts someone, which it will - should be tolerated. Why defend the idiots but not the people who are being victimised?

[Jezzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

It always makes me laugh when people equate 'Freedom of Speech' with spurting out any insulting, racist, homophobic or any other king of provocative, inflammatory thought into the public arena - which is what the Internet is. Freedom of Speech is not there to protect bigots, no matter how many words you write or which way you twist it.

Freedom of Speech is not there to protect ANYONE. It's there as an accepted ideal. Sadly, it doesn't exist. Because of the way we are guided to think, feel, speak, yes, REAL Big Brother, you are guilty of thoughtcrime any time you deviate from the norm. It's tough on you if you don't conform. The older I get, the more frightened I am for the future generations.

I used to lecture in revolutionary politics, and what frightens me most is that most freethinkers are culturally automatically cowed. I've forgotten what the original topic is, sorry. But I do love and hope to make people think.

[Indy]

Originally Posted by Redway

No, it isn't there to protect everyone. For example, if a drunken cockney chav gets on public transport and starts mouthing off about how she hates hangovers after a good night out then she'd be looked on as weird, yes, but it can be justified by free speech.

However, someone who choses to be openly racist and use extreme abuse and threats on someone simply isn't acceptable and nobody should have to be subject to that. If free speech was there to protect everyone, would people really be arrested for this sort of thing? If you don't have boundaries then you're basically saying that every abusive, vile, idiotic thought that enters someone's mind - even if it hurts someone, which it will - should be tolerated. Why defend the idiots but not the people who are being victimised?

I think that's the point you're missing - people are NOT arrested for this sort of thing in most countries. It's rather freakish and scary. It happens in Iran, China, North Korea. I'm in the US - if you arrested someone for making a racist comment on Twitter here, assuming you could even get a court willing to order their ISP to give you their home address, and the ISP actually agreed, you'd lose your job and the agency which employed you would be sued for civil rights violations.

Someone mentioned in another thread the other day that there was no point in worrying about some abusive comment made on Twitter because the poster of it would be arrested. I thought they were kidding. The very idea of being arrested because someone is offended by what you've typed is the antithesis of free speech. Once again, what you consider abusive is not universal, and tomorrow, the people in charge may decide it is your opposition to that idea which is the abusive. I absolutely cannot fathom embracing that kind of slippery slope.

[Jezzy]

Just asked my 18-y-o daughter if she thinks true Freedom of Speech exists. She says no. Thank you TIBB for providing the evening's debate topic

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Jezzy

Just asked my 18-y-o daughter if she thinks true Freedom of Speech exists. She says no. Thank you TIBB for providing the evening's debate topic

I don't care what your daughter thinks. Within reason, it does exist, no matter how much you object to it or twist it.

Originally Posted by Indy

I think that's the point you're missing - people are NOT arrested for this sort of thing in most countries. It's rather freakish and scary. It happens in Iran, China, North Korea. I'm in the US - if you arrested someone for making a racist comment on Twitter here, assuming you could even get a court willing to order their ISP to give you their home address, and the ISP actually agreed, you'd lose your job and the agency which employed you would be sued for civil rights violations.

Someone mentioned in another thread the other day that there was no point in worrying about some abusive comment made on Twitter because the poster of it would be arrested. I thought they were kidding. The very idea of being arrested because someone is offended by what you've typed is the antithesis of free speech. Once again, what you consider abusive is not universal, and tomorrow, the people in charge may decide it is your opposition to that idea which is the abusive. I absolutely cannot fathom embracing that kind of slippery slope.

I'm on about this country, though. Everyone here knows what to be expected. Whilst I'm not necessarily saying that the prison sentence was necessary, that's what we have right now in this country and the rules aren't difficult to follow.