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

That's a fallacy. You cannot talk people into committing a crime; they decide to do it. The responsibility for the crime lies with them, not with the guy who proposed the idea.

 

Him being kicked out of University bothers me as well particularly for the "crime" he's committed. Unless they can definitively show that his actions have a negative impact on the school or its students I see no reason to kick him out. Are there past events of him making abusive comments to other students or while representing the school? If so, why wasn't he kicked out earlier? If not, what does it matter what he says in his free time?

I ask those questions, but I know the answer: negative publicity. Better to ruin someone's educational to career to maintain a pretty public image. It's behaviour not fitting an educational facility whose main priority should be the quest for higher knowledge.

 

This is one of the flaws in our blessed 'society'. When someone errs, rather than supporting them to see the error of their ways our institutions shun them to protect their own corporate self-interests.

 

I take it we're talking about the side issue, not the primary thread topic here?

The person who commits the crime is obviously responsible, and yes they decide to do it, just like the defendant in this case did. However, that doesn't mean in all instances they're applying what "normal people" would call rational, clear thinking to that decision and that they cannot therefore be persuaded into or incited to such actions i.e. the baying lynch mob of old, the fanatical terrorist of now, even the German people of the 1930s ...

 

I criticize the university in my post, but in fact their actions are derivative of the larger problem. There wouldn't be any negative publicity to avoid if the public was able to rationalize situations and realize that there is (as far as evidence shows) no link between Liam's statements and the university which he attended. Instead it's far simpler to assume that all aspects which can be associated with the criminal are potentially to blame and condemn them all.

 

Now this I can agree with.

Its mental.

 

What exactly do you mean by link between Liam's statements and the university which he attended? Are you talking about people thinking that the university is somehow to blame for the statements he made?

 

I am on side with the crowd against this kind of legislation, it is a scary thing when you can get arrested because someone else is offended. Where are the lines? I could offend the christian society if I made a cartoon of Jesus in certain situations, or even the example with the Muhammed drawings. All types of expressions that offend people, however something we must have in our society if we are to advance as a species.

Even though locking up most of the gossip press does sound quite enticing.

So it is all right for the state to decide what ideas are right or wrong? The same argument has been used hundreds of times when the government or certain interest groups have wanted more power, and can be used to justify just about anything.

I am sure that China is also just trying to control the "wrong things" when they arrest people and send them to slave camps. (fun info, these places are where most christmas lights are made)

 

Good, you should

The very best example we can take from military and sporting groups is the 'Leave no (wo)man behind' mantra. But instead, the individuals leading so many of our 'society's' institutions are too busy making a desperate break for the bounty to keep for themselves. That is why we have the fractured, 'broken Britain' society that we do. You can't look at the people who are struggling to maintain the standards we demand and kick them aside as nothing but a burden - if you want a true society then everyone must count.

PS. I'm aware that this is an ideal that will never be attained.

 

Yes, the people whose opinions the university had in mind when kicking Liam out. They wouldn't want to get rid of him so badly if they didn't believe that the public would somehow think less of the school.

Whether people think the school is to blame or not is a little bit more of a vague issue. I'd say they aren't thinking at all, which is the problem. What loving parents want to send their son or daughter to the same school as that nasty student they heard about on TV? There doesn't need to be a proven link between his actions and the school, all people need to know is that he's a student there and their opinions of him and his actions start being related to the school by association. There's the root of the problem. The school then continues the problem by cutting their association with him, disregarding his education.

 

You said:

I'm saying that you cannot 'invoke' a threat. You cannot talk people into threatening someone. You can suggest, advocate or propose it, but it is the others who decide to do (or not do) it, and thus they are responsible for their own actions. It does not matter how nuts or irrational they may be; that may diminish their responsibility in a court of law, but it doesn't transfer it to the person who proposed the act.

 

Indeed you are correct, but what about when the verbal word is used to instigate physical hurt. I like spec of dust believe in freedom of speech, but there are grey areas. For example peodophiles, they groom young impressionable children online to enable them to ultimately perform physical trauma.
Up until the point of the physical attack, has a person who has not engaged in physical harm done wrong. Of course by then its too late unless some 3rd party intervenes and saves the young child.
My question is freedom of speech is unrealistic in this world. People can be and are influenced by the power of words. How do we protect the vulnerable from the charismatic demons of the verbal form of communication?

 

The paedophile cannot be convicted just for talking nicely to a child. Either inappropriate behaviour (e.g. talking about inappropriate sexual matters) or intent to commit abuse (which is what makes it grooming) has to be proved. Otherwise you and I can get busted just for having a pleasant forum conversation with Kidmod-Southpaw, who at age 14 is still classed as an underage person (Oh, and just to check: how many of you have joked with him about boobies or discussed pictures with such content with him on the Demot thread? Get ready to call your lawyers... ).

How we can protect our children (and presumed grown-ups) is by teaching them to think for themselves. We are surrounded by all sorts of messages all day --most if which are nonsense or outright lies. Commercials and advertising, overblown media hype called "news", polititicians' dissembling, the opinions of celebrities or 'social commentators' who havent got two brain cells to rub together, extremists and activists with a chip on their shoulders but no head. Children have to be taught to critically evaluate messages and their source, and to form their own rational informed opinions to guide their actions. Above all, they need to learn that they are responsible for their own actions.

 

So, much truth. And yet no one will ever actually listen. Shame though. But then again this reminds me: if there's standardized education, how can we really be thought to be taught to think for ourselves?

 

Standardised education means the the same standard of education should be accessible to everybody. It does not mean that they cannot be taught to think.

 

Woah woah woah, let's teach them all to read and write first, yeah?

 

That would be a blessing!

 

Why wasn't an apology sufficient ? The guy may have acted like a dick , while drunk?

 

I really wouldn't go relying on the education system to teach your kids anything if I were you, particularly nothing like self-preservation. If you're gonna bother having kids then I would suggest you shoulder that job yourself.

 

I'd like to argue with this, words do hurt but we can always excercise the right to ignore them, walk away or respectfully disagree. However I will also say that people can use words to threaten and intimidate where, while the words themselves may be harmless, the outcome is not. In these cases, it's not the words that are said, but the way they are delivered.

Can I just ask, why hasn't everyone who made similar comments about Jade Goody, or Michael Jackson, or Amy Winehouse, etc, been arrested yet?