Guy got arrested for making racist comments on twitter about Muamba

Undeterred · 27 Mar 2012 at 16:47

Marky said:
What is a lower level of racism than posting it on a Twitter account? You think he should get prison - What other racist "case" is lower than that that in your eyes doesn't deserve prison?

By possessing it and not posting it on a twitter account

Marky · 27 Mar 2012 at 16:48

Undeterred said:
By possessing it and not posting it on a twitter account

Sorry not sure what you mean by possessing it?

Burnsy2023 · 27 Mar 2012 at 16:50

Marky said:
What is a lower level of racism than posting it on a Twitter account? You think he should get prison - What other racist "case" is lower than that that in your eyes doesn't deserve prison?

Where it is posted is a factor to how many people read it, another factor is what is actually said. These change the sentence that should be given.

Undeterred · 27 Mar 2012 at 16:50

18 Use of words or behaviour or display of written material.

(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 [F1included in a programme service].

K-2 · 27 Mar 2012 at 16:50

Burnsy2023 said:
But by not taking it seriously, aren't we just condoning it?

They don't have to do it to all of them. People just need to know it's taken seriously enough to be an option during sentencing.

There is little doubt in my mind that this guy has been made an example of, mainly due to the already high level of public interest in the case. If similar comments had been posted about somone outwith the public eye, there wouldn't have been a case.

Now, many people will say '...but he's a racist, he deserves it.' He may be a racist, but this ruling has much wider implications in terms of censorship and state interference. Like I said before, better the devil you know.

olivier renault · 27 Mar 2012 at 16:54

He should have used the Chewbacca defense.

It's really painful to have to defend the right of cretins like him, but I strongly believe this is completely out of line.

LeJosh · 27 Mar 2012 at 16:59

Undeterred said:
(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.

Doesn't this piece of legislation exempt him?

Unless he went crazy on a bus and started shouting at his phone about Muamba then tweeting furiously.

ninjabib · 27 Mar 2012 at 17:01

If people can get prosecuted for offensive words how come Diane Abbott constantly avoids charges?? Woman is a liability.

Burnsy2023 · 27 Mar 2012 at 17:03

K-2 said:
He may be a racist, but this ruling has much wider implications in terms of censorship and state intereference.

People shouldn't hide behind the freedom of speech to avoid their responsibility not to be douches.

LeJosh · 27 Mar 2012 at 17:04

Burnsy2023 said:
People shouldn't hide behind the freedom of speech to avoid their responsibility not to be douches.

56 days of prison for being a douche. Nice.

Longbow · 27 Mar 2012 at 17:05

LeJosh said:
Doesn't this piece of legislation exempt him?

Unless he went crazy on a bus and started shouting at his phone about Muamba then tweeting furiously.

He didn't mutter it under his breath in his bedroom, he put the messages up on twitter for the whole World to see, so no, it does not exempt him.

Burnsy2023 · 27 Mar 2012 at 17:05

LeJosh said:
Doesn't this piece of legislation exempt him?

Unless he went crazy on a bus and started shouting at his phone about Muamba then tweeting furiously.

Have you read what you quoted? Obviously it's not applicable.

Burnsy2023 · 27 Mar 2012 at 17:06

LeJosh said:
56 days of prison for being a douche. Nice.

I really don't see what your point is.

LeJosh · 27 Mar 2012 at 17:10

Burnsy2023 said:
I really don't see what your point is.

Then your comprehension skills are stellar!

Burnsy2023 · 27 Mar 2012 at 17:11

LeJosh said:
Then your comprehension skills are stellar!

Or perhaps your not as clear as you think you are?

LeJosh · 27 Mar 2012 at 17:14

Burnsy2023 said:
Or perhaps your not as clear as you think you are?

It's pretty clear, from the posts I've made: where my position is on the matter.

--

Completely misread that piece of legislation, whoops.

K-2 · 27 Mar 2012 at 17:14

Burnsy2023 said:
People shouldn't hide behind the freedom of speech to avoid their responsibility not to be douches.

Ha, but that's the point! If freedom of speech is exercised correctly, there are no hiding places. Would you really rather a society in which people are outwardly fair and level headed but are secretly harbouring deep prejudices and hatred against their fellow man?

State censorship in these matters does nothing to quell racism. In fact, I'd suggest that for many it strengthens their prejudices, albeit forcing them to be more covert when exercising them.

Ahleckz · 27 Mar 2012 at 17:14

A total joke and over reaction. He only got the sentence he did because of the media attention on the footballer. This isn't how to run a justice system. The punishments should be proportional, appropriate and effective.

Andy · 27 Mar 2012 at 17:14

Stupid people have no intentions as they do not think about the consiquences, hence, he is not guilty.

(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.

Andy · 27 Mar 2012 at 17:16

Ahleckz said:
A total joke and over reaction. He only got the sentence he did because of the media attention on the footballer. This isn't how to run a justice system. The punishments should be proportional, appropriate and effective.

Just like for the guilty rioters.