I don't see that this is any different from the US First Amendment. It has exceptions too (eg. shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre). "Inciting racial hatred" is an equivalent restriction. You may disagree on this law specifically, but I don't see how this affects anything fundamental like freedom of speech or anything like that.
It is a freedom of speech issue because we should be allowed to write what we want on our personal social networks. I think it is absurd that mommy government can read your tweets (whats next? blogs, emails?) and give you jail time for the 'naughty' things you say.
I think what bothers me most is that the person he made fun of is a pro-athlete, part of the job is to take abuse from haters and rival fans. European soccer is notoriously rowdy, fans shout any and everything they can from the stands. It's part of the game.
I think what bothers me most is that other citizens reported him to the authorities for such, which means a percentage of the population agrees with speech being restricted so long as it restricts speech that is contrary to their dogma. Racism is a slippers slope too, I once witnesses a person being lambasted as a racist for calling an obvious blood gang member a thug. What people feel is the definition of racist varies widely and is very much perception based. I could easily see a law like that being used for witch hunts.
In the US you can never be jailed just for speech, you must be jailed for speech in conjunction with physical harm or targeted harassment.
I’m not sure how I think about this particular verdict (or whether making such comments in pubic should be illegal or not), but I do get very angry when people tell me that racism (or homophobia) is part of the game. No. No it's not. Being racist or homophobe is not being “rowdy”. It’s disgusting and no one should do it. Tradition or any other such nonsense is no valid defense.
Insulting fans and players of other clubs: Ok and expected.
Being racist while doing it: Not ok.
It’s quite simple.
—
† In most cases and in this case.
I don't know if you're aware, but the user posted the comments shortly after Muamba suffered a cardiac arrest on the pitch during a game. He was in critical condition in hospital for days, and remains in serious condition now.
The scenes were broadcast live on television, and the incident has received extensive media coverage, leading to an outpouring of support from all members of society, including players and supporters of rival teams.
Personally, I don't think these facts should have any bearing on the legality of making such statements. As far as I'm concerned the relevant legislation is absurd — I don't believe offensive speech should be prohibited — and this was a knee-jerk sentencing, the severity of which seems almost entirely divorced from that of the crime, but you have to admit the comments were in pretty bad taste...
I think you'll find, posting it on Twitter is the same as getting a tshirt with it written on and walking on the streets.
In the US that would be legal, there was actually a media uproar about the very issue this week (note: the article has offensive language in it): http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/trayvon-martin/cracker-t...
If the words themselves do not cause an imminent and immediate threat of violence they are protected.
Some people shrug and say, “Inciting a crime indirectly shouldn’t be a crime.” Others say, “Inciting a crime indirectly might be a crime, it depends on how indirectly, we need to talk about where to draw the line.” Others might say, “Inciting a crime ought to be a crime, but because there’s no unambiguous way to draw the line, we can’t make a law against it” and so on.
So there’s plenty to debate. But I don’t think anyone is saying that “hate speech” is just the expression of ideas. It’s the expression of ideas that is held to incite criminal and/or illegal behaviour.
Eh, by that logic we should jail all Marxists due to their belief that a worldwide Communist revolution will require violence. Or anarchist newsletters for even discussing the violant takeover of the United States. Or any of many legitimate political viewpoints which incorporate violence as a possible solution to ideological problems. Even Malcom X would fall under this purview.
I don't think this is a very strong argument at all.
This is why the US law generally allows even inciting speech as long as it does not cause an immediate threat of violence.
Not always. Hate speech is just that - if you're dumb enough to go and do something stupid based on what someone else says, that's your fault, not his.
Neither. It's an opinion, which should not only be allowed, but there should not even be a debate. Also, people seem to forget that, up until recently, it was okay to say that you wanted the death of an entire group of people. What wasn't okay was to single out a specific, identifiable person. Now, the former is becoming the norm, and you can see this actually covered in many online Terms of Service, which is, on its face, ridiculous in the extreme.
"But I don't think anyone is saying that 'hate speech' is just the expression of ideas. It's the expression of ideas that is held to incite criminal and/or illegal behaviour."
I AM SAYING THAT. I am not liable for the thoughts which you have when you see the swastika on my arm, yet that same swastika can get me arrested in some places. Likewise, I am not liable for the thoughts which you have when you hear certain words that I might say. I don't control what goes on inside of your brain when certain auditory or visual impulses hit it.
I AM SERIOUSLY UPSET THAT THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE LIKE YOU IN THIS WORLD. You actually believe that the mere conveyance of opinion should be banned because it might cause someone to do something. Think about what kind of world your children and their children will have if this kind of thinking becomes even more pervasive.
The true meaning of life is to continuously evolve towards some end, of which we are presently unaware. Said evolution requires unfettered communication to proceed apace, especially given that "evolution" is now becoming less rampantly biological and more self-directed, such as through technology, particularly nanotechnology. When said communication is censored, in any fashion, evolutionary progress is hampered. Thus, any act of censorship stands against life itself, and is therefore "evil" in the truest sense of the word. That is my belief. It's extreme, it's in the minority, it's completely at odds with yours, and I will firmly hold onto this belief until the day I die.
They clearly aren't the same though, which is why I said that you can disagree on the specifics.
> One is an expression of ideas, the other is an incitement of panic.
This is pure sophistry. I could just as well argue that I wanted to express the idea that there might be a fire. That it incites panic is secondary, just as inciting racial hatred might incite violence. You are still welcome to disagree, but you've failed to make an argument.