Freedom of speech ng | Vital Football

Freedom of speech ng

nibbles

nibbles

Vital Football Hero
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43864133

Interesting case - hard to judge fully without seeing the offending video.

What I can’t fathom is why anyone in this predicament would openly accept the public support of someone like Tommy Robinson. If you’re trying to distance yourself from being racist and offensive that’s a comical own goal. Robinson on the other hand will make some political gain out of it.

The defendant’s apparent attitude outside the courts suggest the judge made the right call.
 
Law is all about precedent, and I'm worried that the precedent this sets is that you can be convicted for something said in jest.
 
Someone shouting 'Gas the Jews!' and 'Zeig Heil' continuously on film and then posting it online is fully deserving of the criminal charge brought upon him by the judge. I just feel sorry for the Pug who clearly isn't a racist but has been made to look so by his anti-semitic and far more ignorant owner.
 
Vambogills said:
Someone shouting 'Gas the Jews!' and 'Zeig Heil' continuously on film and then posting it online is fully deserving of the criminal charge brought upon him by the judge. I just feel sorry for the Pug who clearly isn't a racist but has been made to look so by his anti-semitic and far more ignorant owner.
Click to expand...

At a stretch I can possibly believe that saying "Zeig Heil" whilst a dog puts his paw up and down "could" be funny, but saying gas the jews crosses a pretty obvious line
 
That is why we all have to be so careful these days - anything we say or do even in jest could offend someone - then we are labelled as racist, sexist, homphobic etc. In this case I think what started as a joke went OTT with reference to gassing, not pleasant or necessary so why post it on YouTube - surely he must have realised that someone would take offence or even a gate.
 
MedwayModernist said:
Law is all about precedent, and I'm worried that the precedent this sets is that you can be convicted for something said in jest.
Click to expand...
Only common law takes account of precedent; those laws which are on the statute books rely rely on whether actions are deemed an infraction of the law.
 
This is not new news as the rightous right have been all over this for weeks saying it proves the bias of the left wing media. Ricky Gervais has defended the guy on the basis of free speech and we should all be aware that this could set a precedent for the future.

However when I looked at this the first thing I thought was that this is not funny. The guy said he only did it to wind up his girlfriend, in that case maybe stupid not malicious - but - he then put it on youtube which to me was the act of somebody just wanting to get ratings. The internet is full of this shite.
 
GRSGimmer said:
That is why we all have to be so careful these days - anything we say or do even in jest could offend someone - then we are labelled as racist, sexist, homphobic etc. In this case I think what started as a joke went OTT with reference to gassing, not pleasant or necessary so why post it on YouTube - surely he must have realised that someone would take offence or even a gate.
Click to expand...
It's against the law isn't it?
 
FFS. Apart from the obvious comment that Ricky Gervais is an unfunny cock anyone who thinks saying "gas the jews" is funny or acceptable is an idiot who deserves everything they get. Interesting that some defending him are the same ones deriding the Labour Party for anti-semitism
 
valenciagill said:
3 right wing activists being banned from entering UK to address meetings.
Click to expand...
Two are barred because their “presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good” and the other because her speech was likely to cause “tensions between local communities”. Of course, if you are a member of Generation Identity, National action or some other pro-Nazi group, which is strange as you visit war graves, then you would see such action as a restriction to freedom of speech. It seems that the government had recently stepped up efforts to keep out ultra-right-wing foreign activists and, for me, that should be all extremists.
 
Wayne.Kerr said:
Two are barred because their “presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good” and the other because her speech was likely to cause “tensions between local communities”. Of course, if you are a member of Generation Identity, National action or some other pro-Nazi group, which is strange as you visit war graves, then you would see such action as a restriction to freedom of speech. .
Click to expand...

But you wouldn't see it as a restriction to freedom of speech? Stopping people speaking, because it isn't conducive to the public good?
 
The phrase "conducive to the public good" is far, far too vague for my liking. It could, in theory, be used to deny entry to this country of anyone from abroad who happens to disagree with current government policy (not saying that this is currently happening, just that it theoretically COULD be) and is open to misuse. The right to free speech should be absolute EXCEPT in cases where it is an incitement to violence or is intended to cause disorder (the usual example being shouting "fire!" in a crowded public space). Teaching a dog to do a Nazi salute is neither of those things, it is tasteless and unfunny sure, but is not going to lead to anyone going out and actually doing something (in this case against the Jewish community) that they wouldn't already have done. While I'm on the subject neither is posting the lyrics of a (freely available) rap song on Facebook in tribute to a deceased friend!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.