Liam Stacey jailing

Horseshoes

lisapreston.com
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
827
Reaction score
104
Location
Pacific Northwet
Website
www.lisapreston.com
I can't be the only one both offended by Stacey's racist tweeting on Muamba, yet stunned by Stacey's immediate 56 day jail term. What do you think?

There is no absolute freedom of speech. But imagine jailing for nearly two months everyone in the UK who releases a bigoted comment on any social media.
 
Last edited:

maxmordon

Penúltimo
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
11,536
Reaction score
2,479
Location
Venezuela
Website
twitter.com
Though as anyone else here I find his comments childish and insensitive we mustn't forget a basic element of freedom of speech is the right to make an ass of yourself in front of an audience, real or virtual. I mean, they will end up locking up all the cabbies of London, a couple of pundits, the news staff of the Daily Mail and that fashion designer who thought Hitler was right. All of them are crass and nasty, nonetheless they have right as anyone else to say what they think and everyone has a right to counterargument them, either by a long well-thought argument, mocking them, insult them, etc. as long it doesn't call an assassination or something.
 

Vince524

Are you gonna finish that bacon?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
15,903
Reaction score
4,652
Location
In a house
Website
vincentmorrone.com
If we locked up everyone in the world who said stupid things, my morning commute would be so much easier.
 

Chasing the Horizon

Blowing in the Wind
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
4,288
Reaction score
561
Location
Pennsylvania
I certainly think this is wrong (I believe freedom of speech is sacred, even when it's being used in hateful and idiotic ways--part of the price we pay for freedom and all that). But my understanding is that freedom of speech isn't enshrined into UK law the same way it is here in the US. So I guess it depends on whether people in the UK are offended enough by this dude going to jail to push their government to change the law under which he was convicted.
 

backslashbaby

~~~~*~~~~
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
12,635
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NC
Hey, I really liked a few London cabbies, and I'm serious about that. I'd be surprised to hear that they are all any kind of anything, except cabbies.

This case is very interesting! I hadn't heard about it. It was a foreseeable problem with the law, imho. One very big issue with laws that try to quell hate speech is how and when they are implemented, imho.

Apparently it's all above board, though. That was inciting racial hatred, and it gets that penalty (I guess). I don't know nearly enough about the law to know how penalties are figured!

eta: I didn't really give my opinion of the situation. I think it's a dangerous precedent to jail someone for that amount of time over a tweet. I'm a big. big supporter of what we in the US have as protected speech. I do wish we could have a few more exceptions to our laws, but not for any tweets, no. For the idiot pastor burning Korans? That would have been a great time to have a well-thought-out law about inciting racial/religious hatred!
 

crunchyblanket

the Juggernaut of Imperfection
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
4,870
Reaction score
766
Location
London's grey and pleasant land
I'm not sure that tweets such as 'I'm not your friend you wog cunt, go pick some cotton', 'go suck a n*gger dick you aids ridden twat', 'go suck muamba's dead black dick you aids ridden twat' and 'your mother's a wog and your dad is a rapist' are exactly defensible as 'freedom of speech'. It's racist abuse, clear and simple, and we have laws against that for good reason.

No sympathy for this moron whatsoever. Maybe he'll actually engage his brain next time.
 

RobJ

Banned
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
2,678
Reaction score
306
I can't be the only one both offended by Stacey's racist tweeting on Muamba, yet stunned by Stacey's immediate 56 day jail term. What do you think?
I'm not stunned by the sentence. I think it serves him right.
 

backslashbaby

~~~~*~~~~
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
12,635
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NC
I'm not sure that tweets such as 'I'm not your friend you wog cunt, go pick some cotton', 'go suck a n*gger dick you aids ridden twat', 'go suck muamba's dead black dick you aids ridden twat' and 'your mother's a wog and your dad is a rapist' are exactly defensible as 'freedom of speech'. It's racist abuse, clear and simple, and we have laws against that for good reason.

No sympathy for this moron whatsoever. Maybe he'll actually engage his brain next time.

They are completely indefensible morally, that's for sure. That they are protected speech here pains me, but there is an underlying reasoning that I solidly agree with. The Voltaire quote gives the short version. It's rough, though. I would love to criminalize speech like that if it weren't for the problems that come along with that :(
 

crunchyblanket

the Juggernaut of Imperfection
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
4,870
Reaction score
766
Location
London's grey and pleasant land
They are completely indefensible morally, that's for sure. That they are protected speech here pains me, but there is an underlying reasoning that I solidly agree with. The Voltaire quote gives the short version. It's rough, though. I would love to criminalize speech like that if it weren't for the problems that come along with that :(

I'm not entirely convinced that, when he said that, Voltaire was thinking of a tanked-up racist using a young footballer's horrible misfortune to spout meaningless, offensive, aggressive racial epithets for no reason whatsoever.

I support freedom of speech. I don't support the abuse of that right to be an absolute knob.
For the idiot pastor burning Korans? That would have been a great time to have a well-thought-out law about inciting racial/religious hatred!

But what's the real difference? The intention is the same, and it comes from the same place. It's just the method that's different.
 

backslashbaby

~~~~*~~~~
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
12,635
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NC
I'm not entirely convinced that, when he said that, Voltaire was thinking of a tanked-up racist using a young footballer's horrible misfortune to spout meaningless, offensive, aggressive racial epithets for no reason whatsoever.

I support freedom of speech. I don't support the abuse of that right to be an absolute knob.


But what's the real difference? The intention is the same, and it comes from the same place. It's just the method that's different.

Imho, the difference is that the Koran burning had turned into an international incident. Folks were predicted to die -- die!-- from it, and die they did :( If it's that obvious that great physical harm will come from an incident of speech, it should no longer be protected, imho.

Otherwise, if it's really just speech (or expression), then everyone has the right to voice anything they like, in my view, of course. I completely understand that different gov'ts and populations will see this differently.
 

Mharvey

Liker Of Happy Things
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,861
Reaction score
234
Location
The Nexus
Stories like this are a reminder that Freedom of Speech is something us Americans often take for granted. Even citizens of a country as great and as cool as the UK don't enjoy the same level of freedom [of speech] that we do. If he were an American, he wouldn't be taking up space in our jails for this crap.

Yes, the kid is an idiot, but he doesn't deserve to be put in jail for two months for posting racist comments on the Internet. I almost want to say jailing him is a form of validating his opinion. It's an acknowledgement that his words have such a dire impact on society, that they're worth everyone hearing in a public trial. Seriously, don't give the toilet bug this much credit.

Besides, whatever happened to just ignoring stupid people and not reading what they have to say?
 
Last edited:

crunchyblanket

the Juggernaut of Imperfection
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
4,870
Reaction score
766
Location
London's grey and pleasant land
Stories like this are a reminder that Freedom of Speech is something us Americans often take for granted. Even a country as great and as cool as the UK don't enjoy the level of freedom that we do. If he were an American, he wouldn't be taking up space in our jails.
Tread softly, please. I could say much about the 'freedom' you enjoy in the US based on so many of the recent threads I've seen here and about, but I won't. We do things differently, which is not the same as 'worse'.

FWIW, I don't actually think jailing him is the right thing to do, but I'm not losing any sleep over it, nor do I feel sorry for him in any way. You can talk all you want about freedom of speech but I can't see one reason why this idiot's commentary is worth defending under that banner. There are far worthier examples of statements that have been censored without good reason.

The irony is, he racially abused people precisely because they disagreed with his original statement. Is dismissing someone as a 'wog' because they disagree with you not a crass attempt at denying them freedom of speech?
 
Last edited:

Mharvey

Liker Of Happy Things
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,861
Reaction score
234
Location
The Nexus
Tread softly, please. I could say much about the 'freedom' you enjoy in the US based on so many of the recent threads I've seen here and about, but I won't. We do things differently, which is not the same as 'worse'.

"Freedom of Speech", not freedom in general. Please don't misunderstand me on that point. I was merely pointing out the rules in what you can say in the UK are a bit more stringent than what you can say in the US.

FWIW, I don't actually think jailing him is the right thing to do, but I'm not losing any sleep over it, nor do I feel sorry for him in any way. You can talk all you want about freedom of speech but I can't see one reason why this idiot's commentary is worth defending under that banner. There are far worthier examples of statements that have been censored without good reason.

The irony is, he racially abused people precisely because they disagreed with his original statement. Is dismissing someone as a 'wog' because they disagree with you not a crass attempt at denying them freedom of speech?

He's not worth defending at all, but I think defending his right to be on the street is defending free speech more than it is defending him. To your last point, free speech doesn't mean you agree with whatever people say. In fact, it's your right to say it's completely idiotic. To me, that doesn't deny freedom of speech - it embodies it. Heck, the President gets to say whatever he wants in the State of the Union... and I can publicly agree or disagree with his points with as much or as little vitriol as I choose and not have to worry about reprisals. If I did have to worry about reprisals, then I wouldn't be free to vocalize my opinion... and, well, it wouldn't really be free speech.

Obviously there's limits (like you can't threaten the president), but I think Freedom of Speech is a beautiful thing and I'm willing to /ignore some idiots like Liam rather than risk it going away.
 
Last edited:

thebloodfiend

Cory
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
3,771
Reaction score
630
Age
30
Location
New York
Website
www.thebooklantern.com
I don't agree with jail time, but I'm glad attention was brought to this.

I suppose it's because of the "sticks and stones may break my bones but words may never hurt me" shtick I heard over and over again in elementary school. Fact is, that's not true.

Now, I don't think anyone should be jailed for using hate speech, but to say that it's easy to ignore and move on isn't true. That they're only hurting themselves isn't true. For some to hear those kind of words used over and over again, it's as bad as physical bullying. Seeing this only reminds me of those tweets those assholes made about that little girl who played Rue in The Hunger Games movie.

It does bother me that his speech is protected in the US, though. I'd rather just see twitter revoke his right to spam their server. I'd rather see them amend their ToS. Censorship or not, he has every right to blast off on his own website, if he so chooses to make one. I wish twitter was a bit more vocal about being against the use of their website for bullshit like this.
 

crunchyblanket

the Juggernaut of Imperfection
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
4,870
Reaction score
766
Location
London's grey and pleasant land
Heck, the President gets to say whatever he wants in the State of the Union... and I can publicly agree or disagree with his points with as much or as little vitriol as I choose and not have to worry about reprisals. If I did have to worry about reprisals, then I wouldn't be free to vocalize my opinion... and, well, it wouldn't really be free speech.

Sure, but neither you nor he are telling people to suck dead n*gger dick just because they disagreed with you.

Obviously there's limits (like you can't threaten the president), but I think Freedom of Speech is a beautiful thing and I'm willing to /ignore some idiots like Liam rather than risk it going away.

I think it's a beautiful thing too, but not only do I think defending racist abuse as free speech cheapens the concept, but I see no reason why you cannot maintain freedom of speech and still punish those who abuse the concept to be needlessly cruel to others. Now, I don't think imprisonment is necessarily the right or proper way to go about this, but neither should it be treated with a shrug of the shoulders.

"Freedom of Speech", not freedom in general. Please don't misunderstand me on that point. I was merely pointing out the rules in what you can say in the UK are a bit more stringent than what you can say in the US.

That's fine, I misunderstood :)
 

Mharvey

Liker Of Happy Things
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,861
Reaction score
234
Location
The Nexus
Sure, but neither you nor he are telling people to suck dead n*gger dick just because they disagreed with you.

I think it's a beautiful thing too, but not only do I think defending racist abuse as free speech cheapens the concept, but I see no reason why you cannot maintain freedom of speech and still punish those who abuse the concept to be needlessly cruel to others. Now, I don't think imprisonment is necessarily the right or proper way to go about this, but neither should it be treated with a shrug of the shoulders.

That's fine, I misunderstood :)

His words were the words of a sad, twisted little cockroach, but defending his right to say those words doesn't cheapen free speech in my opinion. I think, for free speech to maintain its strength, it can't be Free Speech Lite, where the rules become you're free to say something as long as other people aren't offended by it. That is a dangerous path to start down, IMHO. Can it be done? I think so - UK is a perfect example of a country who doesn't embrace the same rules when it comes to speech, but I'd say it's a pretty damn great place...

... I'd just rather not take the chance, because there's other countries that don't have a free speech that AREN'T pretty damn great places.

BTW: I do think Twitter revoking his rights is a fine way to go - he's free to say whatever he wants, but Twitter and other social media sites aren't obligated to give him a bullhorn for it. Just as long as the government itself doesn't force censorship of the Internet, as that's another dark road I don't wanna start down (though some may say we already have).
 

crunchyblanket

the Juggernaut of Imperfection
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
4,870
Reaction score
766
Location
London's grey and pleasant land
I think, for free speech to maintain its strength, it can't be Free Speech Lite, where the rules become you're free to say something as long as other people aren't offended by it.

I see your point. For me, I'd alter that caveat - you're free to say something as long as it isn't mindlessly abusing others for no good reason. And even then, you're still free to say it. It's just that there are consequences.
 

kaitie

With great power comes
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
10,995
Reaction score
2,526
eta: I didn't really give my opinion of the situation. I think it's a dangerous precedent to jail someone for that amount of time over a tweet. I'm a big. big supporter of what we in the US have as protected speech. I do wish we could have a few more exceptions to our laws, but not for any tweets, no. For the idiot pastor burning Korans? That would have been a great time to have a well-thought-out law about inciting racial/religious hatred!

Not to derail, but there are definitely certain instances I think it should be possible to punish a person for tweets.

I heard a few cases over the summer of people tweeting false information that led to mass panics. The equivalent of screaming "fire" in a crowded theater. An example would be someone who in Mexico who tweeted that a gunman had gone to an elementary school and opened fire. Parents panicked and rushed to the school, trying to make sure their students were okay. There were accidents as a result. The problem? There was no shooter. Someone had falsely sent out tweets about it and then it spread so quickly that it created a mass panic.

I can't recall every scenario, but there were three or four, and each of them made me think that there should be consequences for certain things. Knowingly "joking" about something that can cause a panic or a riot is wrong. Knowingly doing it in all seriousness is even worse.

Weren't the riots in London not too long ago caused by someone tweeting false information about a shooting? Saying that the police had killed an unarmed minority kid? When the actual situation, if I'm recalling correctly, was that the kid had pulled a weapon and then been shot?

That started riots. People were hurt, buildings destroyed, and so on. All because someone falsely tweeted information. Twitter is dangerous because it moves so fast. Yes, the people who act as a result are also partly at fault, but in the case of the Mexico situation, if you had a message saying your kid's school was being attacked by gunmen, what would you have done?
 

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
There are illegal acts called libel and slander that trump free speech in America. If an utterance is shown be false and to cause harm to an individual, it is illegal and therefore punishable.

The question is whether the victim in this case was harmed. Not whether he, or anyone who heard the racist comments, was offended, but rather whether they were harmed in a tangible way. I suppose measures of harm would be monetary or from the standpoint of livelihood, reputation, and the like. But I also suppose the definition of harm is open to debate.
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
In Canada, there is freedom of speech. However that freedom does not have primacy over other freedoms such as physical harm. You cannot utter threats or slander, nor can you promote violence against others with speech.

This specific case, I can't imagine it falling afoul of Canada's human rights laws.
 

Fins Left

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
439
Reaction score
32
There are illegal acts called libel and slander that trump free speech in America. If an utterance is shown be false and to cause harm to an individual, it is illegal and therefore punishable.

Actually, his tweets would fall better under cyberbully laws. Many states have enacted them making it a criminal offense (a minor offense, but still it creates a criminal record).

When I lived in Germany, I was warned about their laws. One I remember is that if you flip off a police officer, they can and will ticket you. (I don't think they could arrest you, just ticket you with a fine).

When NYC was trying to clean up their situation, they started enforcing civility type laws (like no spitting in public, no jay walking, etc) among other things and credited it with helping to lower crime rates.