Someone gets jailed - For racial comments made on twitter? What?

Already answered - also, it's rude to answer a question with a question, so please do go ahead and give me a real answer

 

To stop things getting out of hand. If you take the modern society now to what it used to be. Things have changed so much and I firmly believe their are not enough controls at the moment.

The things the Government are trying to control are the wrong things. They are so much more stricter on small offences instead of the more serious ones. I am sounding old here but you never saw police outside of schools when I was growing up, but like someone else said here we have to educate society in the right way which they are not doing.

 

Of course, I just wanted to point out that it seemed the court had to pick a piece of legislation that roughly fit the definition of the crime, rather than the crime definitively fitting a piece of legislation.

All speculation as stated but he was probably advised via council to do so -- regardless of any definitive crime it's pretty clear to everyone that this guy is a despicable little scrote.

That's a really good point and further compounds my belief that the foundation of this prosecution was shaky at best. I've stated in previous threads that I'm uncomfortable with mob justice.

That said, I do want to point out that while It may seem I'm defending this guy I'm actually more interested with the semantics of law and due process.

 

Thanks.. It's the first I've heard of this.

So, by this verdict, Jim Davidson should have been jailed years ago and John Terry is still waiting to go to trial. Can anyone explain these two examples to me?

In light of the sentencing the chap had already being kicked out of Uni, surely that was enough?!

On another note, why don't we get this level of support for our troops who get killed and maimed.

 

Nothing else is to be expected I'm affraid, spec.

 

Maybe this is what attracts so many eastern Europeans as this is what it was like back in there country a couple of decades ago lol

 

What support for the troops? Am I missing something?

 

To stop what getting out of hand? What would happen if we didn't have controls? Would society break down?

That's very sad. You'd voluntarily give a minority of people the right to control what you can and can not do in your life. You're born free and you want to give more of that away than they've already taken, for what? A little bit of comfort or security?

Maybe the problem comes from the fact that the government is trying to control everything? Perhaps in a country where no-one has any rights, no-one takes any responsibility.

Of course not. Americans, annoying as they may be with their rabid pride in their constitution, at least indoctrinate the uneducated to protect against this sort of trampling upon rights. Here in the UK we seem to welcome it with open arms. Better that someone not express some nasty comments than an entire nation have the right to expression. It just saddens me - this country is pretty awesome overall, but the attitudes people have toward their own diminishing freedom are worse than apathetic.

You joke about being arrested for saying the wrong thing, but it's getting that way.

 

That's the point, we don't get much support for the troops compared to this incident!

 

You're comparing "support" for troops with the jailing of a racist idiot? How are they related?

 

I thinly you mean publicity, this thread is about whether the sentence handed down is right.

 

No you miss-read what I said!

What I said

The I have already said my piece!

 

Which side do you think is receiving the support that you believe should be directed towards the troops?

 

I'm all for freedom of speech just as the mis-attributed quote in my sig says, however I draw the line at anonymous freedom of speech. you want to shout out racist/ extremest/ bullying views, go right ahead just so long as your willing to stick your name and address right alongside them. Too many people these days want to claim freedom of speech whilst sitting in dark shadows, its not freedom of speech their after but anonymity and freedom from repercussions.

 

If you want to put those terms on public statements then you aren't for freedom of speech.

 

Then you're not for freedom of speech.

I don't get this. Why do people find it so difficult. I don't say "I'm dead against domestic violence, except in cases where she totaly deserves it". Morality doesn't work that way. You're for freedom of speech, and that means you are for freedom of speech. If you're "for freedom of speech except when it goes too far or is done in x, y, or z circumstances", then you are against freedom of speech.

This is a binary thing. 1 or 0. Yes or no. You can't add caveats to a universalisable freedom.

 

Regarding the judges comment form earlier in this thread since when does level of public outrage have a bearing on sentence? If that were true the news of the world editorial team would be looking at decades.

 

Hold on a mo. I thought you advocated freedom of speech but here you're claiming that one form - answering a question with a question - isn't acceptable. You can't have it both ways.

 

He didn't say he couldn't do it, merely that it was rude to do so.

 

Sorry Mr Spanky, but you haven't quite felled my entire argument with that observation.

You see, I was making a social observation. Other such observations might include that it's rude to fart in a lift, or that it's impolite to stare at a woman's (or man's) breasts. These are not things one absolutely can not do, just things that are generally considered in polite society to not be very nice. Answering a question with a question, is, in general in debating considered to be of poor form. This does not mean I am advocating for Kovoet's jailing, nor his stoning, nor 40 lashes, nor execution by mexican whooping cough. It just means I was pointing out that his answer was not satisfactory to me and that his format for answering is generally considered somewhat poor.

So, in short, I am not attempting to have it both ways, you are conflating the right to stare at a man's breasts, with how nice a thing it is to do.