West Ham Supporters Arrested For Free Speech

[Ocelot]

It's not special pleading, it's an important distinction in the law and in effect.

"All black people must leave the store now" - illegal.

"I think black people shouldn't be allowed in the store" - not illegal.

The latter doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, the former clearly does because it demands they perform an act - leave the store.

No that's not why he was arrested. He wasn't arrested for abusing his authority, he had no authority. He was arrested for being nasty and offensive. He was charged with harrassing and intimidating Wal Marts black customers.

Strangely enough exactly what the West Ham fans were trying to do to the predominantly Jewish Tottenham Fans except with the added history of previous violence.

Try again.

 

[Damien Evans]

If you are in Yankee Stadium, The Ballpark at Arlington, Mile High, The house the Jones Built, or any of the other 30 Footbasll and umpteen Baseball and basketball facilities, you can indeed get arrested for foul/inciteful language--and it happens all the time.
You see, when you buy a ticket or get invited, you sign up for all the rules of the place/event, which is treated as private property for the event, as the club/team/University owns or leases it. Generally they just escort you out, but if public drunkenness, lewd behavior, or other such incidents occurr, indeed, you may go to jail to cool off.
They can set rules, and you can be evicted, arrested, or even banned from them.
PRIVATE Property, not government. I assume similar circumstances over there?

The same applies in Australia, so I imagine it would in England, our laws tend to be very similar.

 

[lobosrul]

No that's not why he was arrested. He wasn't arrested for abusing his authority, he had no authority. He was arrested for being nasty and offensive. He was charged with harrassing and intimidating Wal Marts black customers.

Strangely enough exactly what the West Ham fans were trying to do to the predominantly Jewish Tottenham Fans except with the added history of previous violence.

Try again.

If he hadn't made unauthorized use of the PA system and instead just said what he did, would he still have been arrested? I very much doubt it. By using the PA system he made it seem as though he was someone in a position of authority at the store telling "black people to leave". Its a bit of a stretch, but that falls under "incitement" and "false statement of fact", which the US Supreme Court has ruled are exceptions to free speech.

If being "nasty and offensive" were punishable offenses in the US, would these people be allowed to do what they do, in front of funerals no less:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

 

[WildCat]

No that's not why he was arrested.

Yes, that is why he was arrested. There's no crime if he hadn't ordered black people out of the store.

It matters not what his authority was, be it an official position or just an implied threat.

 

[3point14]

A law doesn't have to completely eliminate a societal problem to have a positive effect, and not all societies face the exact same problems. Your critical thinking skills are usually sharper than this, Wildcat.

I think his(?) critical thinking skills are being clouded by 'USA USA USA'

This 'My country's better than your country' (even when confined to specific points of law) really does end up soundling like 'My dad can beat up your dad' a lot of the time.

NB - I can almost guarantee you that those gesturing at the Spuds fans were also telling them to leave.

 

[stokes234]

Here's a link to an argument (and counterargument) discussing the British/European system, layed out in the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/b...-speech-by-jeremy-waldron.html?pagewanted=all

Waldron begins with the premise that in a “well-ordered society” not only must all people be protected by the law; they are entitled to live in confidence of this protection. “Each person . . . should be able to go about his or her business, with the assurance that there will be no need to face hostility, violence, discrimination or exclusion by others.” Hate speech undermines this essential public good. “When a society is defaced with anti-Semitic signage, burning crosses and defamatory racial leaflets,” Waldron says, this assurance of security “evaporates. A vigilant police force and a Justice Department may still keep people from being attacked or excluded,” but the objects of hate speech are deprived of the assurance that the society regards them as people of equal dignity.

Plenty of people have joined this thread to say the restriction of racist speech is bad, but i'm not sure anyone has yet attempted to argue why it is bad. Anyone feel like giving it a shot?

 

[s_pepys]

interestingly enough. the same guy, from the black lawyers association that is leading the march to get all offensive chanting removed from games, was berating the spurs (tottenham) fans.

they refer to themselves as "yids" in their terrace chanting and he finds this unnacceptable too. spurs fans told him theyll sing what they like, and good on em.

i personally think they (spurs) should be allowed to be as "offensive" as they want toward themselves.

cant rememeber his name but seems hes making a career on being offended on other peoples behalf.

any thoughts?

lxxx

 

[s_pepys]

link to above

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP__wMJOv6s

lxxx

 

[Agatha]

they refer to themselves as "yids" in their terrace chanting and he finds this unnacceptable too. spurs fans told him theyll sing what they like, and good on em.

i personally think they (spurs) should be allowed to be as "offensive" as they want toward themselves.

Surely referring to themselves as "Spurs fans" is offensive enough...

One problem with encouraging groups of people to use offensive words when referring to themselves is that not all the members of the group may be happy with that. It normalises the words, which can then get used as pejorative terms towards people who find it offensive. As an example, as a wheelchair user I happily refer to myself as a cripple or a gimp or a raspberry, and call disabled spaces cripple spaces when I'm with family or friends who don't mind the language. I know other wheelchair users who hate those words and don't ever use them, so I'd never use them around them or about them. I don't mind if someone calls me a raspberry in a reasonably affectionate manner, but I'd be offended if someone said "you cripples shouldn't be allowed in a sports venue" (and by the way, this has happened to me). I would have been less offended if they'd said "wheelchair user" rather than "cripple" in that scenario. Surprised, but less offended.

Kicking racism out of football means that we should be kicking racist language out, not normalising it.

 

[Shankly]

interestingly enough. the same guy, from the black lawyers association that is leading the march to get all offensive chanting removed from games, was berating the spurs (tottenham) fans.

they refer to themselves as "yids" in their terrace chanting and he finds this unnacceptable too. spurs fans told him theyll sing what they like, and good on em.

i personally think they (spurs) should be allowed to be as "offensive" as they want toward themselves.

cant rememeber his name but seems hes making a career on being offended on other peoples behalf.

any thoughts?

lxxx

there's a lengthy discussion on one of the Spurs forums

http://www.glory-glory.co.uk/showthread.php?3069-The-Society-of-Black-Lawyers

this is the guy

http://www.peterherbert.net/

 

[s_pepys]

thanks shankly. particularly enjoyed the jist of the spurs forum. herbert did come across as a self serving careerist to me. seems others spotted it too.

hope spurs stick to their guns.

lxxx

 

[Nessie]

The law regards this incident

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998

31[F1Racially or religiously aggravated] public order offences.(1)A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commits—
(a)an offence under section 4 of the M1Public Order Act 1986 (fear or provocation of violence);
(b)an offence under section 4A of that Act (intentional harassment, alarm or distress); or
(c)an offence under section 5 of that Act (harassment, alarm or distress),
which is [F2racially or religiously aggravated] for the purposes of this section.
(2)A constable may arrest without warrant anyone whom he reasonably suspects to be committing an offence falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b) above.
(3)A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—
(a)he engages in conduct which a constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence falling within subsection (1)(c) above;
(b)he is warned by that constable to stop; and
(c)he engages in further such conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.
The conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) above and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.


So racial abuse designed to cause fear, alarm, distress or to provoke violence is illegal in the UK (Scotland has a different version of the above) and you can be arrested for it.

Does the USA not have any equivalent at all? Can you really go to a sporting match and chant abuse and do Nazi salutes and nothing can be done about it at all?

 

[WildCat]

Plenty of people have joined this thread to say the restriction of racist speech is bad, but i'm not sure anyone has yet attempted to argue why it is bad. Anyone feel like giving it a shot?

Because speech doesn't harm anyone, because an idea that may be offensive today may be the norm tomorrow. Ideas like civil rights for blacks and gay marriage certainly offended many people raised to believe those things were wrong. And banning speech just drives it underground, and adds legitimacy to it. It doesn't change anyone's mind or heart.

Do you have any evidence at all that these laws have made the UK any less racist? No? Didn't think so.

And again, it is unpopular speech that needs protection. Once you decide free speech only applies to popular speech you have no free speech at all.

But hey, if Putin's Russia and Iran and Cuba are the examples you wish to emulate so be it. It really works out well in those places! Maybe you should build a gulag on some cold windswept mountain top in Scotland to re-educate those accused of thought crimes.

 

[WildCat]

Does the USA not have any equivalent at all?

No. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech".

Can you really go to a sporting match and chant abuse and do Nazi salutes and nothing can be done about it at all?

Nothing will be done by the police or any other government officials. You'll probably get kicked out by the organizers of the event, but that's not a free speech issue.

And once again, have these laws made British society any less racist? Let them say whatever they want, it exposes them for what they are and society will marginalize them. Or are you afraid the racists have such a compelling argument that support for racism will grow? By banning it you allow them to claim oppression, that their ideas are so powerful the government is afraid of them, banning actually adds legitimacy to their beliefs.

 

[Nessie]

Because speech doesn't harm anyone, because an idea that may be offensive today may be the norm tomorrow. Ideas like civil rights for blacks and gay marriage certainly offended many people raised to believe those things were wrong. And banning speech just drives it underground, and adds legitimacy to it. It doesn't change anyone's mind or heart.

Do you have any evidence at all that these laws have made the UK any less racist? No? Didn't think so.

And again, it is unpopular speech that needs protection. Once you decide free speech only applies to popular speech you have no free speech at all.

But hey, if Putin's Russia and Iran and Cuba are the examples you wish to emulate so be it. It really works out well in those places! Maybe you should build a gulag on some cold windswept mountain top in Scotland to re-educate those accused of thought crimes.

Wild Cat is facist scum do da do da! A nazi salut at the facist scum do da do da! Wild Cat supports racism do da do da! Hiding behind his idea of freedom do da do da, dayyyyy!

(To be chanted whilst doing a Nazi salute, preferably with loads of mates outside Wild Cats house)

I can't wait to visit the USA and shout racist chants and shoot anyone who comes near me claiming self defence and freedom of speech

 

[WildCat]

Wild Cat is facist scum do da do da! A nazi salut at the facist scum do da do da! Wild Cat supports racism do da do da! Hiding behind his idea of freedom do da do da, dayyyyy!

(To be chanted whilst doing a Nazi salute, preferably with loads of mates outside Wild Cats house)

I can't wait to visit the USA and shout racist chants and shoot anyone who comes near me claiming self defence and freedom of speech

So why aren't sports fans in the USA shouting racist chants at games even though there's no law against it? Is the UK just far more of a racist country than the USA is?

If racism will grow in the absence of such laws how did the USA ever get from Jim Crow to where we are today? Surely it should have gotten much worse since then, what with racists being allowed to spew hatred with impunity here?

Are you really so afraid that the arguments of the racists are so compelling they will win out over anti-racist arguments?

 

[Nessie]

So why aren't sports fans in the USA shouting racist chants at games even though there's no law against it? Is the UK just far more of a racist country than the USA is?

If racism will grow in the absence of such laws how did the USA ever get from Jim Crow to where we are today? Surely it should have gotten much worse since then, what with racists being allowed to spew hatred with impunity here?

Are you really so afraid that the arguments of the racists are so compelling they will win out over anti-racist arguments?

Presumably because they will get thrown out of the sporting grounds, which the clubs here have been bad at doing, so the law stepped in.

I am not afraid of the racists arguments. I do not see football fans chanting racist abuse whilst doing Nazi salutes as putting forward an argument for debate.

I still find it hard to believe me and my mates can stand out side your house chanting my new song and not be arrested.

 

[chillzero]

Presumably because they will get thrown out of the sporting grounds, which the clubs here have been bad at doing, so the law stepped in.

I am not afraid of the racists arguments. I do not see football fans chanting racist abuse whilst doing Nazi salutes as putting forward an argument for debate.

I still find it hard to believe me and my mates can stand out side your house chanting my new song and not be arrested.

You might get arrested for public order offence, or harrassment, but not any freedom of speech issue.

 

[MikeG]

........... have these laws made British society any less racist? ...........

Yes they have, absolutely. And they have helped make football grounds places safe and suitable for children, which is an incredible turn-around from the 80's and 90's.

Mike

 

[Nessie]

You might get arrested for public order offence, or harrassment, but not any freedom of speech issue.

Which is what happened to the West Ham fans. They were arrested for public order offences, not freedom of speech. So the USA is the same as the UK in that respect.