West Ham Supporters Arrested For Free Speech

[Nessie]

.....


I still don't get why you crack down on speech instead of the actual violent behavior you're worried about.

Cracking down on the violent, abusive behavior is what is really happening, no matter how you try and twist this issue.

 

[Nessie]

......

How would any of that be intimidation? Which is behavior or speech, designed to cause fear. Saying "I'm going to punch your ugly face in", that's intimidation, and not really protected speech over here. Saying, "you have an ugly face", is not intimidation.

Also, I recently watched a documentary on youtube about the Rangers/Celtic rivalry, holy crap its intense. I didn't think it was quite that way, at least not anymore, in England. I actually watch a premier league match or two most Saturday mornings, so I'm not totally ignorant on the subject.

It depends on how it is done and where it is done as to whether it is designed to intimidate, alarm, upset, provoke violence. The bigoted rivalry between some Rangers and Celtic fans means that chanting various songs at each other as they face up to each other is nothing more than designed to, upset and incite violence.

 

[stokes234]

A Jew can walk the streets of the USA without being violently attacked by mobs of rabid anti-semites. Something impossible for them in West Ham UK at least, according to Ocelot.

If you're going to deliberately misinterpret people's points in such annoying ways, I can't be bothered to debate with you. Enjoy the land of free speech, and hey, if you ever get tired of being persecuted for your lack of religious beliefs, you can always move to europe.

 

[WildCat]

Maybe you got it wrong as all the above are not true.

So you can't be arrested in the UK for speech which causes "alarm or distress"?

What are these people getting convicted of then?

 

[WildCat]

There are no thought crime laws, nor laws against airing your thoughts, only crimes against being abusive and threatening whilst expressing those thoughts.

You still don't understand the difference between speaking and hurling abuse

Orwell couldn't have written it any better. Congrats!

 

[WildCat]

Well maybe it's misreported in the U.K. and U.S. shows are exaggerating but the impression given over here is that "colours" can get you into a deal of trouble even if worn inadvertently - or if worn even if you're not a gang member.

While gangs have official colors it doesn't mean they wear those colors all the time, or that they assume anyone else wearing colors of an opposing gang is in that gang.

It's the intimidatory nature of that speech that's the problem from a U.K. perspective. By the time you're cracking down on the violence it's already too late.

And that's why China has to crack down on the Falun Gong, before they start doing actual crimes.

 

[WildCat]

Think of the 'hard core' football fans as being the same as your American Gangs.

Wear a Sunderland Shirt in Newcastle or Tottenham Shirt in West Ham or a Rangers Shirt in the Celtic part of the city and vice vera for them all. then you get City and United in Manchester, Liverpool and Everton etc.

It tends to be clubs that are adjacent to each other in the same city or very close (Like Newcastle and Sunderland) that has the biggest rivalries.

I know that you are not as dumb as you are trying to look in this thread.

it does you no credit.

You get the picture

What I'm confused about is why the soccer clubs aren't being held accountable for the behavior of their fans. If an American sports team (or any other legal entity) created such a dangerous public environment they would be sued into oblivion.

 

[Agatha]

It doesn't seem you are entitled to intolerant views anymore, examples being the drunken "twitterer" from a few months ago, and the racist BNP MP. I'll agree that the behavior of the West Ham fans is starting to enter a gray area, even in the US. But those two examples would certainly be protected by free speech rights in the US.

No. You can be as intolerant as you want, but if you express that intolerance in a way that threatens or harrasses people, then you may find yourself in trouble. Wildcat nearly understood when he conceded that being in a gang area would get another gang member shot; this is not so much about racial or religious intolerance as it is about tribalism, expressed in support for football teams. Away from the ground, most of these folk probably work with, socialise with and maintain good relationships with the people at whom they are directing threatening speech at the football ground.

How would any of that be intimidation? Which is behavior or speech, designed to cause fear. Saying "I'm going to punch your ugly face in", that's intimidation, and not really protected speech over here. Saying, "you have an ugly face", is not intimidation.

And this is the sort of thing which is being cracked down on - the intimidation and real threats to the other team's fans, which are being sung by large groups in the stadium. The fans are not chanting "you have an ugly face", they are chanting "we're going to kick your <racial epithet> faces in, we're going to stab all <racial epithet""; and history shows that many of them are prepared to do that and more outside the ground to opposing fans. Now you seem to be saying that this would be across the "fighting words" line in the USA too.

Also, I recently watched a documentary on youtube about the Rangers/Celtic rivalry, holy crap its intense. I didn't think it was quite that way, at least not anymore, in England. I actually watch a premier league match or two most Saturday mornings, so I'm not totally ignorant on the subject.

Scotland, not England. The Scots on the board will be on the warpath if you get that wrong.

 

[lobosrul]

No. You can be as intolerant as you want, but if you express that intolerance in a way that threatens or harrasses people, then you may find yourself in trouble. Wildcat nearly understood when he conceded that being in a gang area would get another gang member shot; this is not so much about racial or religious intolerance as it is about tribalism, expressed in support for football teams. Away from the ground, most of these folk probably work with, socialise with and maintain good relationships with the people at whom they are directing threatening speech at the football ground.

There was a drunken fan from a few months ago (I assume you know who I speak of, if not I'll go find it) who was sentenced to actual jail time for tweets. I don't think his tweet was threatening, just mean and racist. I completely disagree that anyone can be harassed over twitter.

And this is the sort of thing which is being cracked down on - the intimidation and real threats to the other team's fans, which are being sung by large groups in the stadium. The fans are not chanting "you have an ugly face", they are chanting "we're going to kick your <racial epithet> faces in, we're going to stab all <racial epithet""; and history shows that many of them are prepared to do that and more outside the ground to opposing fans. Now you seem to be saying that this would be across the "fighting words" line in the USA too.

But were they chanting at West Ham that they intended physical violence on Tottenham fans?

The "fighting words" exception is a pretty vague and controversial exception to the 1st Amendment over here. As I understand it no one has ever been given judicial punishment for "fighting words". It can be a partial defense for being antagonized into a fight though. EDIT: OK it seems I'm a bit wrong here. There are actually multiple supreme court rulings that seemingly contradict each other.

Scotland, not England. The Scots on the board will be on the warpath if you get that wrong.

I think you misunderstood me. I realize Rangers and Celtic play in Glasgow, Scotland. I was saying I didn't think soccer hooliganism was as bad in England as it is there. I think I actually understand the differences between UK, Britain, and England. Many many Americans don't.

 

[Nessie]

So you can't be arrested in the UK for speech which causes "alarm or distress"?

What are these people getting convicted of then?

Orwell couldn't have written it any better. Congrats!

I do not believe you do not understand what has been repeatedly explained to you about the difference between free speech and abusive behavior designed to cause alarm, distress and incite violence.

 

[Nessie]

What I'm confused about is why the soccer clubs aren't being held accountable for the behavior of their fans. If an American sports team (or any other legal entity) created such a dangerous public environment they would be sued into oblivion.

Sigh, they are

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/13218273

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16137728

 

[MikeG]

Sigh, they are

As I told him about 5 pages back. Ignoring evidence which doesn't fit with his pre-conceptions is certainly habitual in WildCat's performance in this thread.

Mike

 

[Nessie]

With 45,340 posts I think someone is bored and needs to do something else rather than troll.

 

[tsig]

So Brandenburg would not have been arrested in the UK, and if he was he'd be exonerated by the courts? I don;t think that's the case at all.

In the UK in the last few months people have been convicted for being mean on facebook, for giving their opinions on immigration, and for other such nonsense. And despite all the legal attempts to enforce a civil society a Jew can't walk the streets of West Ham without being violently attacked.
Maybe you're doing it wrong?

Still not making any sense.

Humm...

 

[tsig]

Ah, so if you claim the opinion is actually incitement () you can jail people for incitement () and not because they spoke the forbidden words.

And Pussy Riot wasn't jailed because they sang anti-Putin songs, it's because they were hooligans. And the Falun Gong in China aren't oppressed because of their religion, it's because of whatever the Chinese government says the real reason is.

The OP doesn't mention China or Russia.

 

[Darat]

So Brandenburg would not have been arrested in the UK, and if he was he'd be exonerated by the courts? I don;t think that's the case at all.

In the UK in the last few months people have been convicted for being mean on facebook, for giving their opinions on immigration, and for other such nonsense. And despite all the legal attempts to enforce a civil society a Jew can't walk the streets of West Ham without being violently attacked.

Maybe you're doing it wrong?

Don't think so

Intentional homicide rate per capita:

United States 4.2
United Kingdom 1.2

 

[IMST]

Don't think so

Intentional homicide rate per capita:

United States 4.2
United Kingdom 1.2

I'm pretty sure we don't have 4.2 murders per person over here, nor do you have 1.2 per person. Perhaps that's per 100K?

 

[Darat]

I'm pretty sure we don't have 4.2 murders per person over here, nor do you have 1.2 per person. Perhaps that's per 100K?

You've never heard of someone shot by more than one person?

The figures are on a few sites including good old Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate the figures are of course per 100,000 - sorry for any confusion.

 

[Ocelot]

I don't live in the UK, I can only go by what you said:

Apparently the UK in 2012 resembles 1930s Germany, where Jews out in public are risking their lives.

You really think free speech is to blame?

Sorry are you jewish? Either way the pertinent factor would not be your religion it would be partly the team colours you'd be displaying but mainly that you were calling them out saying that their threats weren't credible. My point was that your claim that their threats weren't credible was laughable being that even given the huge progress cracking down on hooliganism West Ham's remains one of the few teams where the once ubiquitous and frequent violence is likely to flare up. That sort of provocation would today be severely risky where 30 years ago violence would be certain and extreme.

Of course you knew that already didn't you. Your efforts at twisting people's clear meanings is getting quite hilarious. You're making such a fool of yourself I do hope you continue to do so. It puts a hilarious spin on you original xenophobic nastiness and quite removes any chance of people mistakenly taking it seriously. So thanks for that.

Pip pip old chap.

 

[WildCat]

I do not believe you do not understand what has been repeatedly explained to you about the difference between free speech and abusive behavior designed to cause alarm, distress and incite violence.

I'm pretty sure your own judicial system doesn't understand it either. I think the law is so poorly worded and so broad it can be used and abused in a wide variety of ways. My favorite part of it is how it assumes Brits are psychic and know in advance whether or not a particular string of words will cause someone to be distressed or merely pissed off, the former making you eligible for jail of course.