Valley- JH(John Hughs) is a Cardiff WUM that visits from time to time, or at least used to visit!! He is a similar kind of Troll to this twatter guy, he is also a Cardiff fan that studies in Swansea(apparently) seems like either there are alot of valley commando's that like to WUM or its the same guy Chances are its somebody completly different but we can all dream
Valley you don't want to know who JH is. He's a knob!!! Pop over to the Cardiff site and look at a thread there about irritating rash, then you know what we mean. He's a student in Swansea or so he say's & Cardiff supporter, and his grammar & spelling is atrocious.
JH cant possibly be Stacey..1 i dont think JH is based in Swansea his geography as crap.2.JH is more cyber insults and they are thinly diguised with him,not as blatant as Stacey.3.JH has been on this forum since the start and for a hell of a long time on the original 606 in different guises and he talks about stuff that happened long ago enough to suggest he's a lot older than he makes out and not a 21 year old like Stacey
Leeeon: If you read my post just above yours I acknowledge I misread the original report. The incitement wasn't for violence it was for racial hatred. I say again, read his comments and they qualify on anybody's reading. Free speech is one thing, but come on! The words used are derogatory to an individual based on his race / colour and people quite understandably found them upsetting. It's all very well saying 'don't read them' but as someone else pointed out if you did a search on t'internet, this guy's posts came up on results. I'm all for free speech and even for insults (as most of you know!) but society has to draw a line. This guy crossed it by a mile morally and legally. Whether you agree with it or not his comments break the current criminal law of the land. End of. Using analogies with Egypt and other countries is facile. In this country you are free to say more or less whatever you like - even insult the Royal Family (Thailand take note) but if you think that as a society we should leave such vile posts that have had an effect on a large number of people go unpunished then good for you. If he thought nobody was reading the posts he wouldn't have put them up. Like I say we can debate it all day but until the law is changed what he did was legally wrong. Only you can decide on his morals.
(Not picking on you KJ, but the phrase was a nice lead in) But Society isn't the same thing as the State, which is the point about Freedom of Speech. When the State arbitrates the acceptability of speech then there is no freedom. First there's censorship, then there's suppression, then there's arrest for a crime. It's a slippery slope. It looks to me like we've jumped a few steps and gone straight to criminilising. Freedom of speech is not about the content of the speech it is about preserving the right to speak freely without the risk of arrest or suppression or internment or inquisition etc - the content is irrelevant. Some content the majority will agree is good, some the majority will agree is bad; but what is good and what is bad is subjective and irrelevant to the principle of Freedom of Speech. Freedom is not a sometime thing, it is an all time thing. It is not just when you feel like it; it must be there when you least feel like it. You either have it - freedom that is - or you don't; and we, in the UK, it seems do not. Society enacts controls on speech in a variety of soft and hard ways that ebb and flow as does the sense of decorum. In the absolute sense, control is exercised in a civil way through civil courts where complaints are brought seeking redress and relief from damages resulting from speech; the issue then being not the speech or its content per se, but the results of the speech and the damages caused. It is not the freedom to speak that is curtailed but people are held accountable for the results of their speech. This is or should be a civil issue, not a criminal one. This would be Society acting not the State. When we say that the prosecution was for "racial hatred", we have now gone one step beyond speech to criminilize thought itself. Where does it end. What defines good thought versus bad thought. Next thing you know we will all have the latest USB connector or cellular modem planted into our skulls at birth and through the magic of "artificial intelligence" our thoughts will be parsed micro second by micro second, perhaps even before we've consciously realized we've thought them, and we'll be zapped or fined or told to report to the nearest thought recalibration facility. We will be Borg ..... and we'll all have to like the Bluebirds and will no longer be able to chase them into the sea .... or even think of it.
Hmmm....agree with some of that YJ but following that through would mean the likes of Abu Qatada would be free to spout his nonsense - and very dangerous nonsense it is too. Whether we like it or not the law of the land is as I've stated. It's there for a reason and was aimed at public order incidents, though it catches others. If I was a black person or a homosexual I'd be grateful that those laws protected me and recognised that as a minority I should have that protection. We can debate such things all day but the law isn't going to be changed any time soon. How far do you allow these freedoms? Seem to recall a recent case in the U.S that meant a redneck who was openly urging his fellow Americans on the Internet to assassinate Obama couldn't be prosecuted because of the freedom of speech element enshrined in the hopelessly outmoded Constitution. Utterly preposterous imo.
With freedom [of speech in this case], comes responsibility. This guy deserves to have the full weight of the law thrown at him, as much as I'd like to see him do time in a Bristol prison where many inmates could advise him of the error of his racist ways I expect that he will have a fine and community service. If he was a working class lad instead of a student however he probably would get time.
Very good post Yankee! Still feel uneasy regarding this, was reading the arrest of this lad on the front page of the EP, last night down the pub, and Jacks were split on the issue, to be honest I do not know where I am with this one, though I've given it some considerable thought, and I suppose that if I had said theses things in a bar or club in Swansea, to a coloured lad, witnesses would rightly conclude that I was racist, and breaching the peace, or inciting Violence or hatred, and I would expect to be thrown out of the establishment, at the very least, or even arrested for such behaviour. By extension would an online forum be any different? or am I off track!...................... please log in to view this image
Freedom by definition has no constraint and I recognize no power to impose such constraint. Freedoms have been earned and enjoyed today through the lives of others, their toil, their tragedy, their blood, their death. It is for us to fight to preserve them not to idly stand by and let them be diluted, eroded for this "good reason" or that, or one day there will be none left. Such freedoms are, as it has been so simply and elegantly stated are unalienable rights. They exist by the fact that we exist. See (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/) the precursor to the "outmoded" Constitution ... at least there is one. And also see (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) paragraph 2 - the whole world seems to get it. The red neck you cite had broken no law and committed no crime just because he urged others to do so - it's not a crime to be a coward. Each of us is responsible and punishable for their own actions - equating speech or thought with actions is a dangerous precedent. If a crime had been committed by others and in some way other than speech he had been an accomplice he would have been prosecuted. You cannot prosecute on the basis of thought. There is however a pragmatic approach to freedom. What is freedom after all. In reallity, freedoms are great until you have to defend them, and then it's a real bugger if you don't have the resources to do so. Defending freedoms is not a cheap trip in court and it can be argued that if you don't have the resources to defend your freedoms then practically speaking you have none. Freedoms emminate or become tangible from the good faith and good will of others - if this is lacking in any way your freedoms are going to be diluted, abridged and ultimately violated. As has been said, with freedom does come responsibility. That is not what's at issue. In our situation here, the person appears to have been prosecuted on the basis of the content of his speech not on the basis of what he actually did - "talking" on the internet isn't a crime (is it?). I don't like what he said, but we should all defend his right to say it. If he was prosecuted on the basis of a "breach of the peace" - not sure if that would represent a new precedent for the internet or not, then fine, but purely on what he said, I disagree. If the exchanges had taken place in the real world, say outside Marks on Oxford Street, then I am sure he and any others involved in the exchanges would have been arrested for breach of the peace - and offense of conduct not of speech.
He admitted a racially-aggravated public order offence!! So I assume his solicitor advised him on such a plea, which means that that 'Cyber space' can be considered the same as real space!................
Thing is if this was said say in the USA by a British person on holiday on his twitter account , what then ? I think that something being said on the net in this regard is taking the law beyond statute, and on to restriction of speech because somebody didn't like it! Now if the same was said about Osama Bin Laden or Gaddafi on twitter or facebook, would there be the outcry if people started racist comments about them ? Would there be an arrest ? Would there be a court case ? I seriously doubt it, they are both sick comments, they are both against the law using this as a yardstick, but nothing would ever come of it! So why is one considered worthy of police involvement and the other is not ? Could it be that some forms of racism is acceptable while others are political correctness gone mad ? And by the way I am not trying to justify the actions of this twat!
Yes agree Valley, and that's why I feel uneasy with this whole thing, and was surprised by the involvement of the authorities!.................. please log in to view this image
So here's an extraction from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_or_provocation_of_violence) - not sure how complete or incomplete this is. Para (a) seems to be the key one here (bold and underlined above) .... personally, I'd like to see the official list of words. Just in case at some point in time, when I am over watching the Swans and somebody, perhaps inadvertently, perhaps the referee, does something that just causes me to unleash a string of expletives -- it'd be really good to know which words I can't use. What if I was to say them in say ... French. Would that count. What if I was to say them in French, facing away from the person. What if the person was deaf. I can just imagine Monty Python having a field day with this.
Thing is he wasn't charged under S.4 I believe it was S.17 ... ...and he was guilty thereunder. No doubt. If you don't like it start a petition and get the law revoked. Simple. I actually agree with it. The redneck case in the U.S was preposterous imo. Protected by a Constitution written 200 years ago when values and situations were entirely different. These were the guys that allowed everyone to have a gun, remember. Something that can now never be overturned even if Americans wanted it. The country is awash with the damn things. And before anyone comments - yes I have lived in the U.S. Urging others to kill the head of state (or anyone else, presumably), even if not acted upon is not capable of being prosecuted? Madness! In the same week in the States a man was prosecuted for putting up posters of his daughter's violent, abusive boyfriend. Presumably on the basis of some right or other protected by the Constitution. See? The UK isn't alone in getting it wrong. In fact, we get it right most of the time.
We get it right most of the time?? not sure about that Knackered, I could give you one hell of a long list of where we haven't! And the death penalty would be a good place to start! A democracy that will not allow the will of the people, to bring it back, is no democracy, so don't get me started! We live in a so called democracy, or more truthfully a democratic dictatorship, it's clear Parliament no longer represent the people, and hasn't done for some considerable time, big business, politics and religion is the scam of the day, and the only Trinity that really exists!............... please log in to view this image
Freedom of speech has always had limitations, wiki answers best sums it up 'Freedom of speech is the right to say what you want when you want. Some countries don't have this right. In the United states, there are limitations, such as Libel, Slander, Obscenity, Sedition (speaking against the government),Criminal conduct such as bribery, perjury, or incitement to riot. Freedom of speech includes Art, Music, Clothing, Internet Communication, and Unspoken Speech, Etc.'
