West Ham Supporters Arrested For Free Speech

[dudalb]

The US and UK laws seem to be the same in this case:A private business can formulate rules on what speech and behavior are allowed on their premises, and kick out anybody who does not follow them. No real free speech issue here.

Nice to see UK Football fans living up to their reputation......

 

[Agatha]

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.

And if the women feel threatened or harassed by this, that's just their bad luck?

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

Nope, they were arrested for a racially aggravated public order offence, which is a criminal offence.

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.

That may be the prevailing opinion in the USA but over here we democratically choose to do things differently. We may speak something close to the same language, but we don't have the same history or culture so we have different laws.

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.

Good for you. We have a right to freedom of speech here too, but not when it spills over into inciting racial hatred. We have a very different history here in the UK with racism - we never had segregation, we never had laws against interracial marriage, we never had the 'one-drop' rule and we don't have charts after an election showing how different races have voted (it would be a very odd thing to do here). In part because of that different history, we have decided to tackle racism (and sexual harassment) in a different way.

 

[Donal]

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.

Not trespassing if you got there legally.

But, ya, I have no problem with the stadium officials telling you to leave for disrupting the other good time of their customers.

 

[lobosrul]

Not trespassing if you got there legally.

But, ya, I have no problem with the stadium officials telling you to leave for disrupting the other good time of their customers.

Yeah I think it is. If I invite someone to my home, they're obviously there legally. If I tell them to leave, and they won't, they're then trespassing and I can call the police to have them removed.

 

[stokes234]

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


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.

I think the biggest problems we have in the UK are our libel laws rather than people being arrested for nazi salutes. And the corresponding issue in the USA I would say is the fact that all political advertising gets protected under "free speech", to the point where elections get too expensive for anyone not backed by big money to even bother standing.

 

[IMST]

Not trespassing if you got there legally.

But, ya, I have no problem with the stadium officials telling you to leave for disrupting the other good time of their customers.

You're not there legally if you've been asked to leave and haven't.

 

[Donal]

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.

And I didn't go to Mets games to be reminded that Jason Bay was the left fielder. But I had to deal with it.

But seriously, I have no problem with the club ejecting these bozos from their establishment. I have no problem if the club fired a coach or released a player who made such statements themselves.

My problem is where some people in this thread are supporting the idea of police being used to supress unpopular speech.

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.

And I fully encourage the clubs to express such a notion. Its when you throw the weight of government behind it, I get itchy.

 

[lobosrul]

Good for you. We have a right to freedom of speech here too, but not when it spills over into inciting racial hatred. We have a very different history here in the UK with racism - we never had segregation, we never had laws against interracial marriage, we never had the 'one-drop' rule and we don't have charts after an election showing how different races have voted (it would be a very odd thing to do here). In part because of that different history, we have decided to tackle racism (and sexual harassment) in a different way.

Yeah, you just had legalized slavery (just not at home where you could see it) which you introduced to your colonies in America

Getting a bit off topic.

 

[stokes234]

And I fully encourage the clubs to express such a notion. Its when you throw the weight of government behind it, I get itchy.

If it ever gets to the point where the police start abusing this power to clamp down on normal people for either frivolous or political reasons, i'll agree with you. But as far as i'm aware, this isn't the case and doesn't really seem like a risk either, and I just don't have enough sympathy for racist chanters to really consider their right to do so worth protecting.

 

[Donal]

So who determines what a "normal person" is?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Yeah, you just had legalized slavery (just not at home where you could see it) which you introduced to your colonies in America

Getting a bit off topic.

Which we abolished considerably earlier than you. We didn't even have a big war over doing so.

 

[Darat]

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?

Pretty much so - the UK has made some decisions/definitions that are different to the ones the USA has but they stem from the same idealogical starting point. (And to try and stem the "my freedom is bigger than yours" exchange I'm not saying either country is right or wrong.)

One thing that is different over here is that we tend not to view it as simply the government that needs the restraint. This was illustrated to me when I read about the law firm in the USA firing employers who had dressed in orange and the idea was that the company saw it as a protest so got rid of the staff. That kind of freedom of expression would be protected in the UK even though it was undertaken by a private company.

 

[stokes234]

So who determines what a "normal person" is?

Swap it out for "anyone", result remains the same. Arresting people for racist chanting isn't "political", it's done because their actions are offensive and have the potential to incite violence.

 

[lobosrul]

Which we abolished considerably earlier than you. We didn't even have a big war over doing so.

Not until 1843 was it abolished completely (the East India Trading co was allowed to keep some slaves even after 1833). So 18 years, big deal. And yes, we thought it was important enough to abolish that we fought a horrible war over it. I'm not sure why that is bad.

*Never thought I'd ever have an argument with Mark Corrigan. I quite liked Peep Show.

 

[Darat]

Swap it out for "anyone", result remains the same. Arresting people for racist chanting isn't "political", it's done because their actions are offensive and have the potential to incite violence.

This is where I think our current legislation (as it gets tested in the courts) is getting the balance at least slightly wrong. I think one can make a strong argument that such chanting in such a place has a very real potential to incite violence therefore it should be dealt with on those grounds, too much emphasis is being placed on the "offensive" word. We shall have to see how all the various court cases (and the inevitable appeals) end up deciding to know if we have got the balance right or wrong.

 

[Darat]

Not until 1843 was it abolished completely (the East India Trading co was allowed to keep some slaves even after 1833). So 18 years, big deal. And yes, we thought it was important enough to abolish that we fought a horrible war over it. I'm not sure why that is bad.

*Never thought I'd ever have an argument with Mark Corrigan. I quite liked Peep Show.

It is 21:48 on the 28th November 2012 in the UK as I type this...

 

[Agatha]

Yeah, you just had legalized slavery (just not at home where you could see it) which you introduced to your colonies in America

Getting a bit off topic.

Why the snark and the rolleyes? I wasn't saying that our history is 'better' than yours, simply that it is different, and partly due to our different histories, we choose to address racism (and some other issues) differently than you in the USA do.

This should not be about 'my freedom is bigger than yours', because we are not the same country, we don't share a recent history, our societies and cultures are more different than people think given our (sort-of) common language. We have different freedoms, and we also have different protections. What works for you in the USA would not work for us here on the UK, and vice versa.

 

[lobosrul]

Why the snark and the rolleyes? I wasn't saying that our history is 'better' than yours, simply that it is different, and partly due to our different histories, we choose to address racism (and some other issues) differently than you in the USA do.

That's how I took it. Apologies if you didn't mean to, but that section of your post came off as the "UK has always been way ahead of the US in racism, sexism, bigotry etc".

And to go back to your previous post, are you saying a catcall to a woman on the street is actually illegal in the UK? Don't get me wrong I'm all for sexual harassment in the workplace and sexual assault being illegal. But jailing or even fining someone for a whistle is abhorrent to me.

 

[IMST]

My problem is where some people in this thread are supporting the idea of police being used to supress unpopular speech.

And I fully encourage the clubs to express such a notion. Its when you throw the weight of government behind it, I get itchy.

The police are the proper mechanism to enforce property rights, though. Shouting racist slogans in public is a protected right. Doing so on private property when the property owner or operator isn't copacetic with it isn't. If I've got some church group chanting against my rights as a gay man on my property, the proper thing to do once I've told them to **** directly off, is to call the police to get them out.

 

[lobosrul]

It is 21:48 on the 28th November 2012 in the UK as I type this...

Abolished 18 years earlier than in the United States. Guess I need to learn to be more specific. Though technically I'm exaggerating slightly, the start of the US Civil War didn't immediately abolish slavery.