West Ham Supporters Arrested For Free Speech

[DreamingNaiad]

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

It is still harassment. From the WP article "Protection from Harassment Act 1997" :

The Act defines harassment in section 1(1) as a "course of conduct" amounting to harassment and provides by section 7(3) that a course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions. (Originally these occasions needed to involve the same person, but in 2005 the Act was amended by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act so that "pursuing a course of conduct" could mean approaching two people just once.

And :

Under this Act the definition of harassment is behavior which causes alarm or distress.

I don't know about you but I'd feel pretty alarmed and distressed to be anywhere near these "people". Even moreso were I Jewish. That's not even taking into account the chance that they could escalate to violence.

They were harassing everyone there. Why do you see this as different?

P.S. Anyone feel free to correct my interpretation of the law. IANAL.

 

[lobosrul]

It is still harassment. From the WP article "Protection fron Harassment Act 1997" :

The Act defines harassment in section 1(1) as a "course of conduct" amounting to harassment and provides by section 7(3) that a course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions. (Originally these occasions needed to involve the same person, but in 2005 the Act was amended by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act so that "pursuing a course of conduct" could mean approaching two people just once.

And :

Under this Act the definition of harassment is behavior which causes alarm or distress.

I don't know about you but I'd feel pretty alarmed and distressed to be anywhere near these "people". Even moreso were I Jewish. That's not even taking into account the chance that they could escalate to violence.

They were harassing everyone there. Why do you see this as different?

P.S. Anyone feel free to correct my interpretation of the law. IANAL.

The definition you quoted is a law in the UK. The definition of harassment in general varies pretty widely depending on locality.

Even so, it specifically says that a course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions. These arrests were made after only one occasion, as far as I know. I don't think making multiple chants at one game counts as two occasions.

To me yelling insults, or obscenities, becomes harassment (in a legal sense) when its done repeatedly to someone who can't simply leave (like any of the Tottenham supporters could have done), OR they follow someone around, repeatedly verbally abusing them. If someone calls me a ***** ***** (fill in the *'s however you like) from across the street that's not harassment. If they follow me around doing so, it becomes so.

I disagree that simply being "alarmed and distressed" is enough. Otherwise asking a woman for coffee on an elevator might become a punishable offense (I kid, I kid).

 

[MikeG]

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?

Yes, absolutely. that is pretty much exactly the case here, albeit that in some circumstances it is also a matter of breaking the law.

Mike

 

[DreamingNaiad]

The definition you quoted is a law in the UK. The definition of harassment in general varies pretty widely depending on locality.

Even so, it specifically says that a course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions. These arrests were made after only one occasion, as far as I know. I don't think making multiple chants at one game counts as two occasions.

To me yelling insults, or obscenities, becomes harassment (in a legal sense) when its done repeatedly to someone who can't simply leave (like any of the Tottenham supporters could have done), OR they follow someone around, repeatedly verbally abusing them. If someone calls me a ***** ***** (fill in the *'s however you like) from across the street that's not harassment. If they follow me around doing so, it becomes so.

I disagree that simply being "alarmed and distressed" is enough. Otherwise asking a woman for coffee on an elevator might become a punishable offense (I kid, I kid).

Re-read the quote. It was amended in 2005 to allow one occassion against multiple people to be counted as harassment.

And of course I quoted UK law. It happened in the UK. You might be quite happy seeing this kind of behaviour. We're not. In fact, most of Europe is sick of this kind of nonsense.

Why should fans who have bought tickets and followed the rules have to leave just because a minority of people don't think they should have to act like civilised adults? Why should anyone be chased away from a place they have a right to be in? How does that even make sense?

Asking a woman in a lift would not count as harassment if it was just one incident. If it is made clear that the advances make her uncomfortable and you continue doing it I suppose maybe it could be seen as harassment.

Mimicking a child's disability to make them feel bad and making nazi salutes/racist chants are pretty similar in my book.

 

[lobosrul]

Re-read the quote. It was amended in 2005 to allow one occassion against multiple people to be counted as harassment.

I'm not sure anyone was "approached" (as it says) there.

And of course I quoted UK law. It happened in the UK. You might be quite happy seeing this kind of behaviour. We're not. In fact, most of Europe is sick of this kind of nonsense.

But, we're discussing whether or not it should be law in the UK or anywhere else, which I'm giving my opinion on. No, I'm really not quite happy to see that kind of behavior. People should be polite and respectful of one another. I just don't think it should be enforced by the government.

Why should fans who have bought tickets and followed the rules have to leave just because a minority of people don't think they should have to act like civilised adults?

They shouldn't have to sit there and deal with it. The club should tell the unruly fans to shut it. If they don't THEN they're trespassing and can be arrested for THAT. That is different from arresting them for saying racist words or making nazi salutes. If West Ham wanted to allow it, then other clubs can refuse to play them, and the Premier League or FA can kick them out.

Why should anyone be chased away from a place they have a right to be in? How does that even make sense?

No one is being chased away though. If I'm sitting down at a restaurant and the people at the next table are throwing out obscenities that offend me (even if they're racist), they shouldn't be arrested. I can ask the manager or owner to tell them to shut up or leave. But if he says, no they're big spending regular customers, its now up to me to leave or deal with it.

Mimicking a child's disability to make them feel bad and making nazi salutes/racist chants are pretty similar in my book.

If the father of the boy hadn't repeatedly mocked her on the way to the bus stop, I'd agree.

 

[Ocelot]

Does any really think these fans are Nazis and want Jews exterminated?

Yes,

http://www.realhooligans.com/?p=13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Ham_United_F.C._supporters#Racism.2C_violence_and_hooliganism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_18#Links_with_football_hooliganism

This wasn't free speech it was "fighting words"

The police dealt with these situations nowadays because before they were on hand to do so, things used to get very messy.

 

[WildCat]

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

But they were arrested by the police for excercising free speech.

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 *********.

Exactly, free speech is only needed for that which big brother the government deems acceptable.

 

[WildCat]

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

Which means it's not actually a right at all.

Like you have a right to an attornery, unless you're accused of breaking the law. After all, rights come with responsibilities.

 

[WildCat]

I'm not sure how arresting people doing Nazi salutes is any different from jailing someone for making fun of a kid with cerebral palsy :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...girl-10-cerebral-palsy.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Darn this oppression of scum!

He didn't go to jail for making fun of a kid with CP. He went to jail for threatening to choke the mother with a chain.

Don't you know better than to use the Daily Fail as a source?

We have free speech here in the USA, we don't jail people for being asshats.

 

[lobosrul]

He didn't go to jail for making fun of a kid with CP. He went to jail for threatening to choke the mother with a chain.

Don't you know better than to use the Daily Fail as a source?

We have free speech here in the USA, we don't jail people for being asshats.

That article states:

He pleaded no contest Tuesday to downgraded offenses from the original fourth-degree disorderly conduct and first-degree aggravated menacing charges filed last month, according to The Repository.

I think the aggravated menacing charge was for threatening the mother. But I'm not so sure about the disorderly conduct charge. Repeatedly making fun of a little girl on the way to her bus stop is crossing the line IMO.

 

[rwguinn]

But they were arrested by the police for excercising free speech.


Exactly, free speech is only needed for that which big brother the government deems acceptable.

Read my post, Wildcat. I generally agree with you, but in this case (the OT), I believe that you are absolutely in the wrong.
You CAN get arrested for such antics in the US.

 

[WildCat]

Read my post, Wildcat. I generally agree with you, but in this case (the OT), I believe that you are absolutely in the wrong.

I wasn't responding to your post.

You CAN get arrested for such antics in the US.

You can also get arrested for smiling on a sunny day, but not legally. I'm pretty sure you can't get arrested in the US for giving nazi salutes at a ball game. Tossed out for sure, even get your season tickets revoked. But not arrested.

 

[stokes234]

You can also get arrested for smiling on a sunny day, but not legally. I'm pretty sure you can't get arrested in the US for giving nazi salutes at a ball game. Tossed out for sure, even get your season tickets revoked. But not arrested.

Ok, but it's up to you to demonstrate that a country where nazi salutes are legal at sports games is a better place to live than a country where they aren't. The implication always seems to be that if the police can stop you doing monkey chants at black people then next they'll be locking you up for daring to speak truth to power, but in reality, political speech in the UK is just as free as anywhere else if you're not being racist.

 

[Ocelot]

You can also get arrested for smiling on a sunny day, but not legally. I'm pretty sure you can't get arrested in the US for giving nazi salutes at a ball game. Tossed out for sure, even get your season tickets revoked. But not arrested.

Wall Mart on the other hand... http://gothamist.com/2010/03/21/teen_could_face_year_in_juvenile_ha.php

 

[WildCat]

Ok, but it's up to you to demonstrate that a country where nazi salutes are legal at sports games is a better place to live than a country where they aren't. The implication always seems to be that if the police can stop you doing monkey chants at black people then next they'll be locking you up for daring to speak truth to power, but in reality, political speech in the UK is just as free as anywhere else if you're not being racist.

Odd, isn't it, that of the 2 countries only the UK seems to have a problem with nazi salutes at ball games?

Perhaps your laws don't have the effect you think they do.

 

[WildCat]

Wall Mart on the other hand... http://gothamist.com/2010/03/21/teen_could_face_year_in_juvenile_ha.php

The difference there is he ordered black people to leave the store. That's quite different from stating a racist opinion.

 

[Ocelot]

Odd, isn't it, that of the 2 countries only the UK seems to have a problem with nazi salutes at ball games?

Perhaps your laws don't have the effect you think they do.

In the UK football hooliganism of yesteryear of just such a nature has regularly lead to widescale violence, rioting many thousands injured and dozens dead.

Yet in the UK no-one has been arrested for making racist comments over the PA at a supermarket.

 

[stokes234]

Odd, isn't it, that of the 2 countries only the UK seems to have a problem with nazi salutes at ball games?

Perhaps your laws don't have the effect you think they do.

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.

 

[Ocelot]

The difference there is he ordered black people to leave the store. That's quite different from stating a racist opinion.

What you're doing there. Remember it next time someone mentions "Special Pleading"

 

[WildCat]

What you're doing there. Remember it next time someone mentions "Special Pleading"

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.