Shola racially abused

Ask Shola is the "words were empty." They are there for everyone to see.

I'm sick of ****ing ignorant chavs devaluing our club with this bullshit.

 

Many words are intended to be hurtful. They should not be punished by law, just by people's contempt. To say words should be punishable by law takes you down a very dangerous path indeed and is against everyone's interests, because to stop our speech is to stop our thoughts.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire.

All words are empty, because they don't directly do physical harm to someone. I agree it's cowardly and wrong, but not everything that's cowardly and wrong should be a crime. Sometimes you have to sit back and think "hang on, is this a dangerous infringement on personal liberty and free speech?"

The answer is "yes."

 

Ask Shola is the "words were empty." They are there for everyone to see.

I'm sick of ****ing ignorant chavs devaluing our club with this bullshit.

 

Awful treatment of guy who has been a loyal servant to the club, we all love Shola really and I agree with the OP that he'll definetly still be remembered long after he's quit playing.

Racism is still a massive issue in this country, and I think we could all safely say we've heard the odd racist chant shouted at a match we've attended recently. Happened at the WBA game up in the Leazes Corner, some drunken lout screaming racist abuse, but everyone was too afraid to say anything. The FA might think they're taking steps to clear it up but it seems to be getting worse recently, if anything.

 

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire.

Times and circumstances have moved on since then and new laws have been intorduced to protect the innocent.

Are you suggesting we go back in time to darker days?

 

Are all the countries who don't have draconian laws on free speech experiencing "dark days"?

Freedom isn't a bad thing. It can be used and abused, and when it's abused, we all have a right to retaliate. But the use of government force is a cop-out (dreadful pun semi-intended) and a total infringement on the sort of liberal, Western values you refer to.

 

We have quite recently had another article about so called free speech. Without repeating everything I said on that article ( can't remember which one it was but someone else might) there is no such thing as freedom of speech. It is a fallacy and quite rightly so.

Freedom of speech only exists when exercised with responsibility and consideration for others. Put simply that doesn't mean you can or should say whatever you want whenever you want. There is also a distinction between what you say privately and what you say publicly.

I would defend a racists right to have racist views but I won't accept that that racist has the right to harm others simply under the pretext of freedom of speech.

Also words can harm people a lot more than physical actions and for a longer period and take a lot more to get over. You can break an arm and recover physically but it's a lot harder for someone to recover from the psychological harm words can cause.

 

No it isn't. It's the ability to say what you want. Nothing more than that. It's obviously something that gets tempered when you can get aggressed against for speaking your mind, no matter how ****ed-up that mind you're speaking

You're talking about the PRACTICE of free speech. I'm talking about the PRINCIPLE. A principle which should be defended robustly and not written off just because there are those who are so stupid as to abuse it. Then again, we all abuse our right to speak most days by saying something thick. In short, free speech can exist without responsibility for others, it's just that if PRACTICED in that way, it wouldn't necessarily lead to good things.

Physical harm and mental harm are very different things. A saying about sticks and stones springs to mind. To honestly say that no-one should be allowed to say anything hurtful ever is an incredible statement. We all say hurtful things at some point, and hurt is such a subjective concept that it's impossible to draw lines of any sort, not that it would be acceptable to draw them in the first place.

I agree. But is it worth sacrificing freedom for the weak-minded who abuse (and sometimes are abused by) it? I don't think it is.

 

i wish people would stop saying things like 'he may be ****', or 'he isnt the best striker in the world'.
who cares how good he is? racism is racism.
its as though people are condoning people abusing him on facebook, or trying to reason with it.
i dont care what youre opinion is of him as a footballer. noone deserves this kind of abuse.
totally unacceptable, really hope they punish the culprit(s).

 

I can understand your viewpoint but we have to live in the real world and not a theoretical world.

I also think we probably have got to the point where we agree to disagree and to respect the others views.

 

Fair play, but my final comment is this: if something hypothetical is worth fighting for, don't be defeated by the status quo, no matter how overbearing.

What a poncey sentence that was but y'know what I mean.

 

He deserved it

 

this

 

I bet the same **** has celebrated every time demba ba has scored as well. Hate it when this sort of thing happens, just makes Newcastle fans look like mugs.

 

My personal belief is that freedom of speech is a misnomer and what people actually are defending is freedom of THOUGHT. Because no, you should not have the right to invoke "freedom of speech" as a DEFENCE for shocking views.

Also this is disgraceful.
Also ignore the twat.

 

Why not? As long as someone isn't physically harming someone else, someone else's property, or encouraging others to do so, then they shouldn't suffer any legal repercussions for something they've said.
If you've got a strong opinion on something you should have the right to speak about it, regardless of whether other people might not like it.

Arresting people for things like this isn't going to help stamp out racism anyway, all it will do is anger those who have racist thoughts and potentially provoke them into worse actions.

 

Bloody turds. I for one can't wait for Shola's testimonial. Maybe everyone will have to stumble through the turnstiles and walk around the stadium as slow as they can.

 

What is it about speech that gives you the right to do whatever you want "because you can"? It has the power to hurt people.
The point I was trying to make is that "freedom of speech" is a principle, not a defence.
Also letting racists get away with their actions does not work. I have been studying the civil rights movement in America for my History coursework this year. Trust me on this one.

 

This, the harm principle is generally regarded to come into effect, i.e. ending freedom of speech and action, when your actions infringe upon someone's personal liberty. In my eyes this can be done physically or verbally.

 

It shouldn't need to be a defence, because people shouldn't be getting arrested for something they've said. It does have the power to hurt people, you're right, but it also has the power to hurt corrupt governments or corporations, and cause social revolutions for the benefit of society - And that's the reason people shouldn't be punished for things they've said.

It's not about 'letting them get away with it'. It's that despite the fact that we disagree with them they should still be allowed to hold those opinions, and not be punished for it unless they're going out attacking someone for it.

This isn't really the same thing as what you're probably reading about, as racism in the past has often stopped minorities from being able to get a job, or even eat in the same place as white people, which is a completely different situation to this one.

Okay, what if you were to call someone ugly, and they were (naturally) offended by it - Should you be locked up?
How about the press reporting about kids being sexually abused by Catholic priests? Plenty of people were offended, and 'harmed' by it. Should that have been illegal?

Obviously racism is worse than either of those two examples, but the point is that you can't punish people just because they were "harmed" by someone's words.