West Ham Supporters Arrested For Free Speech

[aggle-rithm]

West Ham United (English Soccer giant) supporters have been arrested, threatened with bans and targeted for expressing free speech during a recent soccer game.

Couldn't be THAT free if it gets you arrested.

 

[stokes234]

No, that's not correct. You still have the rigt of free speech even if the entire world stand against you...and use force to take it away.

Rights aren't granted, since that implies people have the right to grant other people rights, which, philosophically, is a contradiction. They exist, and people recognize them civilly, or violate them. The philosophical nature is parsimonious and tidy.

Err. So if they aren't granted by people, where did they come from? Would the right to free speech still exist if life had never evolved on earth? Do turtles have the right to free speech? I'm going to need some more detail here.

 

[stokes234]

West Ham United (English Soccer giant) supporters have been arrested, threatened with bans and targeted for expressing free speech during a recent soccer game.

Firstly, West Ham aren't a "giant" of football, they just play in the same league as the teams that are. Secondly, all three of the major political parties in our country have decided that racist chanting in public spaces is not going to be considered a protected form of free speech. That's how we as a society have voted. Deal with it.

What's next, requiring all fans to wear pink?

Worst extrapolation ever.

 

[Mikemcc]

It the usual rantings about rights to this and that with the usual forgetfulness that there are responsibilities not to abuse those rights.

 

[theprestige]

Never mind

 

[lobosrul]

Would Americans argue that builders on a construction site making catcalls to women walking down the street are free speech?

Yes, absolutely. No one should be jailed for saying words (or making noises with their mouth), unless they are directly threatening someone. Their employer is certainly free to discipline them.

Good. They were not banned for exercising free speech, they were banned because they broke the rules of the football club.

If they can't behave like civilised human beings in a public place, then they should be banned. Free speech has nothing to do with behaving like racist *********.

So, the police arrested people for breaking a clubs by-laws? That's even worse.

The fans behavior was despicable and inexcusable, and the club or league is well within their rights to ban them. But, I do not feel its part of a governments purpose to decide when words are too hurtful or insulting, and then punish people for using them. If there ever was a legitimate "slippery slope" argument, that has to be the mother of them all.

I'm glad I live in a country where we generally don't have to worry about being criminally prosecuted for saying words. In recent years that's started to change though, which worries me. We have a right to freedom of speech over here, but no such right to never have our feelings hurt.

 

[theprestige]

It the usual rantings about rights to this and that with the usual forgetfulness that there are responsibilities not to abuse those rights.

I sometimes think it might help to distinguish the lofty ideological principles of Free Speech and Responsibility, from the way those principles are implemented in law as a practical matter.

In the US, the principles are implemented practically as a strong restraint on government authority to prohibit the speech of citizens (and groups of citizens).

Not much consideration is given to "responsibility" in the law--citizens are in practice equally free to engage in "responsible" and "irresponsible" speech. However, the law does allow for the government to prohibit speech if a compelling reason can be shown, that the good of the prohibition outweighs the bad of the government prohibiting the speech of its citizens.

Is it the same way in the UK?

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Yes, absolutely. No one should be jailed for saying words (or making noises with their mouth), unless they are directly threatening someone. Their employer is certainly free to discipline them.



So, the police arrested people for breaking a clubs by-laws? That's even worse.

The fans behavior was despicable and inexcusable, and the club or league is well within their rights to ban them. But, I do not feel its part of a governments purpose to decide when words are too hurtful or insulting, and then punish people for using them. If there ever was a legitimate "slippery slope" argument, that has to be the mother of them all.

I'm glad I live in a country where we generally don't have to worry about being criminally prosecuted for saying words. In recent years that's started to change though, which worries me. We have a right to freedom of speech over here, but no such right to never have our feelings hurt.

If you're talking about the US see post #20. A 43-year-old man was arrested for making fun of his 10-year-old neighbour's cerebral palsy.

And rightly so. He is scum. As are these "fans". This isn't about 'free speech' it's about 'hate speech'. And a lot of us are sick of having to put up with it just to stop these people crying "oppression".

And they were not arrested for breaking the club's rules. They could be banned for that though.

 

[Donal]

Justify this, please.

People arrested for making anti-Semitic remarks.

Your original post misses the fact that racist chanting, songs, abuse, gestures etc are specifically banned by ALL football clubs, and that there is a large on-going campaign to kick racism out of football, where it has been a big problem in the past. The campaign is working, and is backed by the police.

I agree that the clubs and the league are well within their rights to discourage such behavior. I think the argument here is should the police be involved.

A decade or two back, every time a black player touched the ball, a section of the crowd chanted chimp noises.

A decade or two back? No, it still goes on.

Is this the sort of free speech that you are bemoaning the loss of?

Mike

Yes, unfortunately. Its easy to support popular speech. Anybody can jump on the bandwagon for striking workers, people demonstrating a wrongfully imprisoned person, wanting more social welfare benefits etc etc

It's the unpopular speech, the stuff that "most people" openly oppose that needs protecting. A free and open society requires that jerks be allowed to be jerks. In fact, these kinds of situations are good for a free society. It allows the morons to exercise their rights and reminds decent people that there is still ugliness we need to be vigilant about.

 

[IMST]

Free speech doesn't provide protection for people breaking the rules of a business on its premises. If my club put up with this kind of ****, which they certainly wouldn't, I'd have a problem with that.
And West Ham wears red and light blue. I don't see compulsory pink in the offing.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Claret and blue. It's more a red-purple.

 

[rwguinn]

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?

 

[IMST]

As far as police being involved, police typically handle the end line of security of stadia. I'll bet that the actual offence being arrested for would likely be trespass, not the actual statements.

 

[IMST]

Claret and blue. It's more a red-purple.

Would it have been better if I phrased it as "exactly the same as Aston Villa".

 

[Donal]

Can't be trespassing if you bought a ticket. Probably disorderly conduct (that's a one size fits all go to of the NYPD)

 

[Darat]

That is why I said principle, not right. The UK doesn't have the protections the US has, ...snip..

We (the UK and the USA) have different protections and definitions.

but the idea being talked about when free speech is brought up is usually the standard of free speech in the US.

That's probably because the majority of Members posting here are from the USA so use that as their yardstick. But from my viewpoint there are weaknesses in the USA's protection of freedom of expression, and don't get me wrong there are weaknesses in the UK protection of freedom of expression as well. I'm just saying I don't think either country has it quite right and it is one of those areas that change with time so there is never really a clear bright line established.

 

[lobosrul]

If you're talking about the US see post #20. A 43-year-old man was arrested for making fun of his 10-year-old neighbour's cerebral palsy.

And rightly so. He is scum. As are these "fans". This isn't about 'free speech' it's about 'hate speech'. And a lot of us are sick of having to put up with it just to stop these people crying "oppression".

And they were not arrested for breaking the club's rules. They could be banned for that though.

Repeatedly harassing a 10 year old girl is not the same as a racist chant at a football game.

 

[IMST]

Can't be trespassing if you bought a ticket. Probably disorderly conduct (that's a one size fits all go to of the NYPD)

Sure it can.

Security: You're being and asshat. It's time for you to leave.
Fan: You can't make me. I paid for this ticket and I'll Nazi salute all I want.

And then they're arrested for trespassing.

 

[lobosrul]

Can't be trespassing if you bought a ticket. Probably disorderly conduct (that's a one size fits all go to of the NYPD)

I'm sure there's some fine print at the ticket office stating we can ask you to leave at any point, and if you don't, then you are trespassing.

Disorderly conduct is abused by law enforcement here all the time.

 

[stokes234]

It's the unpopular speech, the stuff that "most people" openly oppose that needs protecting. A free and open society requires that jerks be allowed to be jerks. In fact, these kinds of situations are good for a free society. It allows the morons to exercise their rights and reminds decent people that there is still ugliness we need to be vigilant about.

People don't go to football games to be reminded about being vigilant against the remaining racists in society, they go to enjoy the football. Racist chants ruin it for everyone, and in international matches it's been known to descend into violence. If people want to enjoy their racist free speech, they can do it in the comfort of their own homes.