Should we send people to prison for racist footy chanting?

Post Reply New Topic

british soccer hooligans are always a problem but i dont know about prison.then again a whole bunch of cars were overturned in new hamshire the night the red sox won the world series.american sports hooligans are a problem too.

how about about this,sports fans who turn into hooligans have to spend 24 hours in a jail cell with a tv they cant turn off or turn down that plays match after match of there favorite teams loosing.

Ann, I have never known you to be insulting, and I fancy myself a Southern gentleman of sorts. But being aspie, and being human, we have both undoubtedly "insulted" or "caused distress" in somebody at some time and place. Locking people up for such silly things is more likely to lead to societies where we all have to walk around on eggshells and avoid each other rather than a polite society though; it is "divisive", if I may be permitted the use of a liberal buzzword.

I'm not sure that what they were doing can be described as offering insults. Unless it is an insult to celebrate someone's death. I think it is more than that, especially in a public place. Showing public support for a crime is different than insulting someone.

Ann, again, this story was very short on exactly what these hooligans did to run afoul of these PC laws. But it bears iteration and reiteration: Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me. I've had more than one person wish me dead to my face--in all seriousness, rather than in jest--and I assure you I'm alive and doing well.

You are assuming that because language does not act physically that it has no power. I disagree. Language has the power to insight others. The old example of shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Should the person who falsely yelled fire be held accountable for any injuries caused by the fleeing crowd. Not exactly the same situation, but it illustrates that words can lead to actions. If the speaker is using language to deliberately cause action in others, then s/he is culpable.

Ann, I agree that words have meaning--and that meaning has meaning for that matter. This is why I want to know exactly what was said. Because we don't know what was said, we don't know what we are dealing with.

For example--a very hypothetical example--if I say I hope Ann dies a terrible death, it isn't the same thing as soliciting somebody to kill you. The former is protected speech; the latter is not.

Freedom demands that we behave in a mature fashion, which means REAL tolerance toward others, and realizing that we aren't always going to be loved or have our own way.

Yes, but if you were to say (in the company of others,) "Ann should die," you would be arguing for the correctness of this action and deliberately influencing others to the rightness of a crime.

I disagree. Saying Ann should die is merely expressing an opinion, though a particularly reprehensible one. Asking somebody to kill you is a different matter; it is soliciting murder.

Okay, another example:

If Joe Kitchen stands on the street corner and shouts support for the murder of a local schoolgirl, is this acceptable? I think he would be guilty of public mischief and should at least spend the night in jail.

What you describe may very well be disorderly conduct. But this fellow saying he is glad somebody is dead is hardly a criminal offense in an of itself, meaning if he did so quietly, or in an appropriate place, his speech should be protected. Creating a public disturbance is another matter altogether. It is controversial speech that is most in need of protection.

What PC "hate" laws do is to attempt to criminalize thoughts and opinions whereas English common law only recognizes actions as crimes. This is why I hate PC; it is anathema to everything good in English law, and the law of the Anglosphere.

You are letting your hatred of "PC" (that old cliché of the right) blind you to the inescapable fact that these men committed public order offences. This is not a 'free speech' issue.

if there going to throw all the football hooligans in jail then that would incarserate pretty much the entire populations of manchester,birmingham and durham.

so maybe they should just turn those three cities into penal colonies

Free speech is a thing of give and take. If you glorify the murder of a person, which means you glorify that this person has been violently taken the right for free speech, then you are threatening other peoples right of freedom, including the right of free speech, free choice of religion, free choice of political party. Glorifying the death of someone you didnt like, means to glorify taking violently others people freedom, by threatening them to be killed if they think otherwise then you.

From my oppinion, I think its totally normal, that the surrounding people in general felt threatened by other people singing and yelling proudly, about how much they adore if someone is killed, that think otherwise then them. Because its pretty likely, that there will have been lots of people around them, thinking otherwise then them. You can curse as much as you want and kill people, bastards, a**holes, idiots or whatever for their oppinion.

But going into public and glorifying the killing of people, daring to think otherwise then them is an criminal act by threating other people and additional an criminal act by taking their freedom, by threatening them with death. FREE choice of opinion involves NOT being threatened for it, by bastards glorifying murdering of peoples and citizens, out of the cause then having another opinions then them. If they think forcing their oppinion upon others, by threatening and intimidating the majority of people, by public telling them, that they glorify your death and murdering should be legit, then there is a famous list of countries, where doing so is allowed, as example north corea.

Especially when, should my Asperger ever have forced me to publicly glorify the death of people that dare to have another oppinion then me? O_o Or to even think such a s**t?

"Cliche" or not, the Deformed Church of Political Correctness is very real; just ask those jailed or who lose their livelihood for running afoul of its imperatives and taboos. Since liberalism is essentially irrational, and cannot be defended thus, PC sacralizes liberalism by turning it into a secular religion--what John Stuart Mill called the Religion of Humanity. Liberalism does this so that their beliefs can be turned from indefensible rational positions into moral positions that need no rational defense; they become articles of faith. And just as there were heretics at the time of the Inquisition, I am a proud heretic from modern PC.

I'm not saying that public order offenses weren't committed. I am saying that since there was no description provided of exactly what these hooligans did, I will accord them the benefit of the doubt. I don't see where prejudice is right even if in this case it is Politically Correct. To do otherwise is to engage in lynch mob mentality--something I am adamantly opposed to. Everybody deserves the benefit of the doubt, free from prejudice.

Its accord, that you want to give them the benefit of doubt, because of the press not willing to spread such songtexts.

Luckily people that were on that train with them, were able to supply the court with digital information about it, so that the judges were able to do their work in full knowledge of the details, what happened.

According to you, everyone on earth, whose full process-documentary was not read by you, and whose judge-process you couldnt visit, must be given the benefit of doubt by you. So Ariel Castro should be given the benefit of doubt, because of you not having seen his house personally and checking it, but only some lame police officers, and law-office workers. Luckily, most countries decided to have more judges then just one person in the whole world.

Its not a moral position, but a fact, that general freedom can only exist, as the majority of people is willing to fight these, that are against general freedom.