Extreme racist comments posted on the discussion website Reddit in the wake of the Charleston church shooting have once again raised questions about freedom of speech and the internet. How far should social networks go in censoring hate speech? Reddit is arguably the mainstream social network most devoted to freedom of speech. It has continued to uphold that idea even in the face of criticism - for instance a controversy over a user who posted extreme content including a thread devoted to pictures of underage girls. The site didn't ban the user Violentacrez, but he did lose his job after his real identity was exposed by the website Gawker. But the site's anti-censorship stance (or rather, its mostly anti-censorship stance - and more about that later) came under fire this week after reports surfaced of posts expressing support for the man charged with murdering nine worshipers in a black church in Charleston. The posts were made under a thread or "subreddit" called Coontown - which, as the offensive name suggests, is a corner of Reddit made up mostly of virulently racist and white supremacist posts. One commenter called the shooter "one of us". In another popular post, a moderator said "we don't advocate violence here", but went on say the life of a black person "has no more value than the life of a flea or a tick" (most of the rest of the post, which contains at least 15 racial slurs, is unpublishable on this website).
hate speech speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
I'm not Irish These songs weren't illegal until this act and there is a campaign to have it binned If you think this is just about wee neds and I can't convince you otherwise then think thanks for the input
Singing "The Billy Boys" in Argyll St was always an arrestable offence, it still would be even if the OBAF was binned.
I agree, up to a point. The Judge seems to be saying a jail term was in order to "send a message" that offensive songs are not to be tolerated. That is against free speech. Sure, jail the guy for being drunk and disorderly. That's fine because it's against the law. But for the judge to say the sentence was for what he was singing/saying is a farce. Slagging off Allah and making cartoons of him it is fine apparently. That's free speech, apparently. Singing a song offensive to Catholics is not, apparently. It's a farce.
Free speech. It will offend people but you should not inhibit free speech just because you don't like what is being said.
So you are contradicting yourself? You think people should be allowed to say anything they like, no matter if its racist, homophobic or sectarian, but as the same time you claim that its not acceptable?
Saying "all Darkies should hang" is not Free Speech though, that's "Hate Speech" which is a different thing entirely.
