Student diversity officer in racism row could lose her job after allegedly tweeting 'kill all white

The fact the US has free speech zones suggests that free speech is in fact not free throughout the country.

However, if we look at the laws laid out in both countries, they are practically the same. The US first amendment allows freedom of expression, caveated with exceptions for inciting hate and defamation, the caveat being that any state can hold such action as unlawful and charge someone in a court of law. Looking at UK law, which incorporates the European law on human rights, we also have the freedom of expression with the exception of threatening and insulting words.

Personally, if you are a public figure and make such statements as this woman did, I think you should at least run the risk of lawful punishment, it's barely going to amount to much if anything but it might make her think twice in future.
 
RoboCod said:
The fact the US has free speech zones suggests that free speech is in fact not free throughout the country.
Click to expand...

you're talking about locations to hold protestes etc.. you realise that protests are similarly restricted in the UK?

However, if we look at the laws laid out in both countries, they are practically the same. The US first amendment allows freedom of expression, caveated with exceptions for inciting hate and defamation, the caveat being that any state can hold such action as unlawful and charge someone in a court of law. Looking at UK law, which incorporates the European law on human rights, we also have the freedom of expression with the exception of threatening and insulting words.

Personally, if you are a public figure and make such statements as this woman did, I think you should at least run the risk of lawful punishment, it's barely going to amount to much if anything but it might make her think twice in future.
Click to expand...

There are some fundamental differences as I've already highlighted and it is those differences I'm talking about when I say we should be more in line with the US on this. In particular our restrictive libel laws and people being arrested or charged or fined for tweets they've sent.
 
RoboCod said:
However, if we look at the laws laid out in both countries, they are practically the same. The US first amendment allows freedom of expression, caveated with exceptions for inciting hate and defamation, the caveat being that any state can hold such action as unlawful and charge someone in a court of law. Looking at UK law, which incorporates the European law on human rights, we also have the freedom of expression with the exception of threatening and insulting words.
Click to expand...

They're not enforced the same though. Take the Westboro Bapist Church, whilst Americans hate them and what they stand for they are also cited as an example of their free speech in action ('I won't defend what they say but I'll defend their right to say it' and all that....)

I dare say if an organised group were to regularly picket funerals here with homophobic slurs on their placards they'd be arrested for hate speech pretty quickly (unless they were Islamists protesting British Soldier funerals of course ;)).
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
There are some fundamental differences as I've already highlighted and it is those differences I'm talking about when I say we should be more in line with the US on this. In particular our restrictive libel laws and people being arrested or charged or fined for tweets they've sent.
Click to expand...

Have to disagree, Americans sue each other for defamation like we drink tea. Sean Penn is currently suing one of the creators of "Empire" for $10m because he merely alluded to a previous criminal case he was involved in when talking about someone else.

http://variety.com/2015/biz/news/sean-penn-lee-daniels-defamation-1201599776/
 
estebanrey said:
Have to disagree, Americans sue each other for defamation like we drink tea. Sean Penn is currently suing one of the creators of "Empire" for $10m because he merely alluded to a previous criminal case he was involved in when talking about someone else.

http://variety.com/2015/biz/news/sean-penn-lee-daniels-defamation-1201599776/
Click to expand...

Indeed, but because it's not the government and an individual instead it's fine, because that's fighting the power (we all know how important it is to America to fight the power, with guns and stuff). I think "too much freedom" is actually a thing whereby common sense can be lost. It does not make sense to allow people to spout comments that incite hate and crime. That isn't oppression but protection.
 
estebanrey said:
Have to disagree, Americans sue each other for defamation like we drink tea. Sean Penn is currently suing one of the creators of "Empire" for $10m because he merely alluded to a previous criminal case he was involved in when talking about someone else.

http://variety.com/2015/biz/news/sean-penn-lee-daniels-defamation-1201599776/
Click to expand...

Yes the US has defamation laws, I never claimed they didn't - the claim was that we have more restrictive ones to the point where it even encourages libel tourism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism

we had to pass a law to curb it and the US passed laws to stop US courts from enforcing UK libel rulings
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
Yes the US has defamation laws, I never claimed they didn't - the claim was that we have more restrictive ones to the point where it even encourages libel tourism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism

we had to pass a law to curb it and the US passed laws to stop US courts from enforcing UK libel rulings
Click to expand...

Well I'd be surprised if litigation here was more lucrative/prevalent than in it in the US in terms of slander/libel/defamation.


....waits for 'prepared to be surprised' reply :p
 
estebanrey said:
Well I'd be surprised if litigation here was more lucrative/prevalent than in it in the US in terms of slander/libel/defamation.


....waits for 'prepared to be surprised' reply :p
Click to expand...

that isn't really relevant to comments about differences in legislation re: free speech
 
[FnG]magnolia;28075928 said:
Uh, presentation tip : show, don't tell.

Also, don't tell if that's all you've got.
Click to expand...

Do you think anyone is impressed with your silly put-downs, Mag? Because that's all I see you posting in GD these days.

You contribute literally nothing.
 
Muzza1875 said:
You're just as cuckoo as her.
I'd have no sympathy if you were stabbed in your own home and the police decided not to attend because you're a horrible human.
You probably won't ever need the police though your keyboard probably doubles up as a machine gun.
Click to expand...
How often do the police actually stop such violent crimes?

Isn't the saying - when seconds count, the police are just minutes away?
 
“I, as an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender,” she said. “Since the media storm, I have received death and rape threats, racial and gendered abuse, and had journalists from rightwing publications come to my home where my family live.”
Click to expand...

So she's an idiot, then, who doesn't even understand the words she's speaking. Lol @ minorities "can't be racist".
 
escape sanity said:
Or posting the good old "punch her in the ovaries" meme on OcUK then claiming you weren't actually advocating violence against women.

Seriously, there is enough reason to believe she is an idiot without taking a Twitter hashtag at face value and assuming that she actually supports genocide against white men.
Click to expand...

Given that she is extremely deeply committed to extremist antimale sexism and anti-"white" racism, so much so that she has chosen to define herself by those things, practices them herself and forces them on other people to the limit of her power, and that her stated position is logically best served by killing all men and all "white" people, it's plausible that she does actually support genocide against "white" men.

To some people, there's a difference between one person and everyone with a particular biological characteristic. That makes that meme distinctly different to advocating killing everyone with the "wrong" biological characteristics, but the ideological position of the people saying it is probably an even bigger difference. To be comparable, you would need to find someone who really does hate women, has devoted their life to campaigning against women and to destroying the very idea of sexual equality and who has said that all women should be killed. Which you won't find here.
 
FoxEye said:
So she's an idiot, then, who doesn't even understand the words she's speaking. Lol @ minorities "can't be racist".
Click to expand...

Like every other bigot, she views irrational prejudices against groups she targets as being fundamentally different to the same irrational prejudices against groups she supports.

Since she's a feminist, her main immediate goal is to destroy the very idea of sexual equality because sexual equality is the biggest obstacle to feminism. Her racism dovetails neatly with her feminism - two birds with one stone.

So it makes a lot of sense for her to promote the redefinition of words such as "sexist", "racist" and "equality" to mean "male", "white" and "prejudice and discrimination against men, "whites" and most especially against "white" men". Which is what the words were always intended to mean anyway, since they've been owned from the beginning by innately sexist and racist ideologies.

I think she understands the use of words very well, which is why she's a politician.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom