West Ham Supporters Arrested For Free Speech

[stokes234]

Because speech doesn't harm anyone, because an idea that may be offensive today may be the norm tomorrow.

The second point doesn't follow from or support the first, though I can't tell if it's meant to either. Speech can harm people - emotionally, or by inciting violence. I have no desire to live in a country where racist chanting becomes the norm, so i'm not worried about protecting it on that grounds.

And banning speech just drives it underground, and adds legitimacy to it. It doesn't change anyone's mind or heart.

1. Prove that racist chanting in the UK is seen with more legitimacy because it's banned.
2. The ban isn't supposed to change people's minds or hearts, it's supposed to stop people from feeling threatened or discriminated against in public places.

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

Put away the "my country is better than your country" stuff, it just drags the whole debate down. The UK is far less racist than it was 3-4 decades ago, and we have no way of knowing if these laws helped or hindered this but sometimes you have to make a common sense judgement because you have too many variables for a proper scientific one.

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.

And again with the slippery slope argument. It's only compelling when it's true, and i've seen no evidence that restriction of racist speech in the UK has resulted in political parties clamping down on people speaking out against them.

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.

Those aren't comparable at all to the UK, and I think you're aware of this, but you're getting emotional for some reason.

 

[3point14]

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

That seems like a very fine line.

 

[chillzero]

That seems like a very fine line.

How so?
Public order offenses are to stop people making a racket that disturbs others unreasonably.
Harrassment laws are there to prevent people making someone's life a misery - in this example by chanting rude and personalised songs outside their house specifically.

Freedom of speech would only be encroached if they were arrested for what they were saying (or singing) rather than how.

 

[Nessie]

How so?
Public order offenses are to stop people making a racket that disturbs others unreasonably.
Harrassment laws are there to prevent people making someone's life a misery - in this example by chanting rude and personalised songs outside their house specifically.

Freedom of speech would only be encroached if they were arrested for what they were saying (or singing) rather than how.

Thats the bit I cannot understand that some here cannot understand.

You can be arrested for proclaiming someone is beautiful and lovely and delightful and intelligent and charming, if you do with a loudhailer at 100db whilst that person is trying to sit an exam.

 

[lobosrul]

How so?
Public order offenses are to stop people making a racket that disturbs others unreasonably.
Harrassment laws are there to prevent people making someone's life a misery - in this example by chanting rude and personalised songs outside their house specifically.

Freedom of speech would only be encroached if they were arrested for what they were saying (or singing) rather than how.

I'm a bit confused, you mention being rude outside someone's house. Are we still talking about chanting at a sports game? If they left the stadium and were roving around yelling in front of peoples homes.... well then I apologize for misreading this whole thing, and they would have been arrested in the US as well.

I didn't think there's ever been any doubt that they were arrested for collectively saying racist words or phrases. It was not how they were saying them. In the context of a football game, American or Association, its always been perfectly acceptable for the crowd to be loud.

A group of people standing in a residential neighborhood shouting at the top of their lungs would be a public disorder, no matter what they were saying.

 

[Diazo]

Okay.

How is this a freedom of speech issue at all? (Beyond it being stated in the OP.)

The people in question here went to a game and engaged in behavior specifically intended to harass and provoke other people with a strong chance of leading to a brawl in the stands.

The police presence jumped on them to put a stop to this and protect public safety.

How is this in any way questionable?

Again, the people engaged in this behavior were specifically doing this to be insulting and trying to provoke people and they were arrested for that to protect public safety.

The free speech is a red herring, their arrest has nothing to do with it.

D.

 

[Nessie]

I'm a bit confused, you mention being rude outside someone's house. Are we still talking about chanting at a sports game? If they left the stadium and were roving around yelling in front of peoples homes.... well then I apologize for misreading this whole thing, and they would have been arrested in the US as well.

I didn't think there's ever been any doubt that they were arrested for collectively saying racist words or phrases. It was not how they were saying them. In the context of a football game, American or Association, its always been perfectly acceptable for the crowd to be loud.

A group of people standing in a residential neighborhood shouting at the top of their lungs would be a public disorder, no matter what they were saying.

Behavior designed to cause distress, upset, provoke violence. Chanting racist abuse at a football match, standing out side an examination in progress professing your love at 100dB, both are covered by the law.

 

[Ocelot]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/nov/26/west-ham-antisemitic-chants-sickening

The following are standard fare for Hammers vs Spurs

• HITLER WAS A COCKNEY!, HITLER WAS A COCKNEY! LA LA LA LA!
• ADOLF HITLER, HE'S COMING FOR YOU!
• YOU'RE GETTING GASSED IN THE MORNING!
• SPURS ARE ON THEIR WAY TO AUSCHWITZ, HITLER'S GONNA GAS THEM AGAIN
• NO CHRISTMAS AT WHITE HART LANE
• WE'LL BE RUNNING ROUND TOTTENHAM WITH OUR WILLY'S HANGING OUT....SINGING I'VE GOT A FORESKIN HAVEN'T YOU (*********** JEW!)
• GAS ONE JEW JEW JEW JEW, STICK EM IN THE OVEN GAS ONE JEW JEW JEW JEW
• WHO WHO WHO LET THE YIDS OUT!

Just the standard level of racist harassment and intimidation."Fighting Words" perhaps. And I mean that in the literal sense. Some singers may be all mouth and no trousers but plenty of others are there with a realistic hope for violence and are trying to provoke a physical response. Of course the term "Fighting Words" also has significance to those in the USA arguing freedom of speech and that's clearly also relevant here. Yet people don't seem to get convicted of any crime for that sort of thing. The FA as a private organisation take a much firmer line and they do use the police service to keep order but our prisons aren't full of people who expressed racist opinions or tried and succeeded in picking a fight.

West Ham fans are saddled with the reputation as the historical home to some of the most feared hooligans in British football, the ICF. The week before this latest incident, there had been racially aggravated violence when Spurs visited Lazio, an Italian team considered ultra right wing even in a country with a still thriving fascist party. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...spurs-fan-terror-as-nazi-mob-stormed-pub.html

Against this background West Ham thugs upped the ante on their usual racist intimation by voicing their support of the Lazio Ultra's near fatal attack. Singing Viva Lazio and inspiring new chants to reference the stabbing.

You can't mistake the following as being anything other threatening.

• CAN WE STAB YOU EVERY WEEK?
• OH WHEN THE SPURS - GET SLASHED TO ****

With the previous form for violence at this fixture I have to consider that there was a credible threat to be dealt with. I'm not surprised the authorities did too. Whilst there we reportedly hundreds taking part in these chants (so probably a few dozens in reality) only two ringleaders were removed from the ground. This was done professionally by people trained in keeping order and physically restraining potentially violent miscreants, i.e. the police. When the police do this we call it an arrest. The legal repercussions to those arrested was a "police caution" They were not jailed, they do not received a criminal record they were just told that their actions could potentially be considered illegal and in return for agreeing that yes they had been naughty boys and promising not to do it again they were released. The club's reaction was a little more weighty One of the fans received a lifetime ban.

Now you can characterise what these two did as simply expressing an opinion. You can deny that what they did should have been considered even potentially illegal, after all the perpetrators were somewhat incentivised towards their confession. For all I know they might be happy for you to disagree with their statement. You can characterise being taken to a police station for a quiet words about how your actions could trigger a riot as an infringement upon free speech. You can deny the threats of violence were overt or even implied ("no one could seriously be threatened by some asking to stab you, its just banter") this is just people inferring a threat we're there is none. You can plead that the two individuals might not have been personally responsible for the historical factors that add credibility to apparent threats they were making or the risk of escalating violence. Or you can say, "so what" Even if people were intimidated, or rationally fearful for their safety, so what even if people were incensed, that's their lookout, no-one in the good old USA of has the right to be protected from mere words (except in Wal-Mart which is a very different situation because of you know erm stuff) You can object to a society daring to choose to be different from your's. How dare we as a society choose to be less tolerant of racially aggravated harassment, intimidation and threats of violence than you feel you are in the USA. How dare we try to prevent violence by unfairly picking on the people who incite it. We're different from you and surely that means at least one of us must wicked and a priori the american way is beyond doubt.

Yes yes yes you could say all of that. You could even tattoo your poorly substantiated ill informed opinion all over your face for everybody to judge you if you want.

You'd still be wrong.

 

[Giordano]

That seems like a very fine line.

Not at all. Verbal harassment, threatening language, and provocation are not free speech. I've always supported the right of the KKK and American Nazi party to demonstrate and present their views peacefully, even though I despise those views. But the goal of these holligans wasn't to present their political views; it was to demean and intimidate others. Not very subtle.

 

[WildCat]

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.

Absolute nonsense. It was the content of their speech that got them arrested, not that they were loud or obnoxious. It was clearly a freedom of speech issue.

 

[angrysoba]

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

I think I might retire there.

 

[WildCat]

The second point doesn't follow from or support the first, though I can't tell if it's meant to either. Speech can harm people - emotionally, or by inciting violence.

I can't saee what could go wrong with a law against hurting someone's feelings, the legal definition of that is rock-solid and it's easily knowable in advance which insult will emotionally harm which individual.

1. Prove that racist chanting in the UK is seen with more legitimacy because it's banned.

Which book do you want to read, the one on the banned list or the one the government says is wholesome?

2. The ban isn't supposed to change people's minds or hearts, it's supposed to stop people from feeling threatened or discriminated against in public places.

It has nothing to do with threats and discrimination, as seen by those arrested, charged, and convicted who threatened and/or intimidated no one. And you just admitted hurt feelings are enough, son please stop with the it's all about threats and discrimination crap, and call it fore what it is: an attempt to legislate a civil society.

Put away the "my country is better than your country" stuff, it just drags the whole debate down. The UK is far less racist than it was 3-4 decades ago, and we have no way of knowing if these laws helped or hindered this but sometimes you have to make a common sense judgement because you have too many variables for a proper scientific one.

We seem to have a different definition of the term "common sense". But that's been obvious since Thomas Paine...

And again with the slippery slope argument. It's only compelling when it's true, and i've seen no evidence that restriction of racist speech in the UK has resulted in political parties clamping down on people speaking out against them.

There's been at least one instance of an ex-pol convicted for writings on his blog, based on a complaint to a rival pol from a different party.

Those aren't comparable at all to the UK, and I think you're aware of this, but you're getting emotional for some reason.

No, not at all comparable. The UK sends just a few people to jail for thought crimes, and they don't even have proper gulags!

 

[WildCat]

Okay.

How is this a freedom of speech issue at all? (Beyond it being stated in the OP.)

The people in question here went to a game and engaged in behavior specifically intended to harass and provoke other people with a strong chance of leading to a brawl in the stands.

The police presence jumped on them to put a stop to this and protect public safety.

How is this in any way questionable?

Again, the people engaged in this behavior were specifically doing this to be insulting and trying to provoke people and they were arrested for that to protect public safety.

The free speech is a red herring, their arrest has nothing to do with it.

D.

So they would still have been arrested if they chanted "go team"? No?

Then it was about the content of their speech, and not their manner.

 

[WildCat]

And now the UK is considering going after freedom of the press, since their crackdown on the spoken word is working out so well:

After months of hearings, a long-awaited report on the behavior of British newspapers embroiled in the phone hacking scandal recommended on Thursday a new system of press regulation that would be backed by parliamentary statute, setting up what threatened to develop into an acrimonious political debate about curbs on Britain’s 300-year-old tradition of broad press freedom.

Because clearly the 300+ year experiment with press freedom has been a disaster.

 

[Giordano]

Wildcat,

Do you think screaming, "Gas one Jew," or "Stick them in the oven," or "You're getting gassed in the morning" represents free speech intended as a means of communication? Or are these chants instead expressly designed to threaten and intimidate people? Do you think that I should have the right, under freedom of speech, to similarly threaten you with death or physical harm? For that matter, do you think I legally should be able to stand on a public street and yell disgusting remarks at women (or men) as they pass by?

Again, I have no problem with despicable groups voicing despicable ideas; just not when the obvious goal is to frighten or incite people.

 

[WildCat]

Wildcat,

Do you think screaming, "Gas one Jew," or "Stick them in the oven," or "You're getting gassed in the morning" represents free speech intended as a means of communication? Or are these chants instead expressly designed to threaten and intimidate people? Do you think that I should have the right, under freedom of speech, to similarly threaten you with death or physical harm? For that matter, do you think I legally should be able to stand on a public street and yell disgusting remarks at women (or men) as they pass by?

Again, I have no problem with despicable groups voicing despicable ideas; just not when the obvious goal is to frighten or incite people.

How many Jews have been gassed by these people? What are their Jew-gassing capabilities?

Why is the speech a police matter? If they actually start assaulting people then it's a police matter. Hold the ball club responsible for not providing proper security if their fans are getting violent, threaten to pull their license/permit/whatever.

That this stuff is going on kind of shows the futility of the law, doesn't it?

 

[WildCat]

Real football's real fans know to take their frustrations out on their sucky team, not other team's fans:

 

[The Don]

And now the UK is considering going after freedom of the press, since their crackdown on the spoken word is working out so well:

The UK has an unfortunate history of despicable press behaviour. There have been 7 separate investigations into the behaviour of the press since 1949 and all have come to the same conclusion that "Self-regulation of the press does not work" because the same things are happening again and again.

The press rules are there but the self regulatory body is so toothless (and optional) that they are largely ignored. The individuals who have suffered at the hands of the press could take legal action but those who are most likely to be damaged are those who lack the means for a long and complex legal case.

The most extreme proposal from the Leveson Enquiry is that there should be an independent panel (as opposed to the current one which is mostly made up of the editors of the papers subject to the panel's ruling) to allow the press to be censured in the worst cases. Of course the newspapers are having the vapours about the proposal but it does not amount to government control of the press. The NYT (and other newspapers) are deliberately misrepresenting the Leveson Enquiry's proposals.

Because clearly the 300+ year experiment with press freedom has been a disaster.

The issue is that, for the last 60 years, the UK press has employed illegal means and has ruined the lives of many people while the body which is supposed to regulate the press is convened by the press and has editors on it. There is no effective redress where a paper prints outright lies.

Of course people could choose to resort to law (and many celebrities and other well-heeled people do) but for the person in the street whose life is ruined by press lies and illegal tactics there is no redress because they lack the means to mount a legal fight and in any case apart from a small fine there would be no punishment of the paper involved.

TV and Radio on the other hand have a much tighter set of regulations which do provide for effective censure and redress.

 

[MikeG]

Wildcat,

Do you think screaming, "Gas one Jew," or "Stick them in the oven," or "You're getting gassed in the morning" represents free speech intended as a means of communication? .........

I wonder if the problem, Giordano, is that Americans don't have any tradition of crowd singing and chanting? "You're going home in a ******* ambulance" is one thing if said by one person, but an entirely different thing if chanted repeatedly, in unison, by 20,000 people whilst all pointing at their potential victims, who all know full well that there are some people who actually mean it, and have the means to ensure it happens.

I think those commenting on free speech in a different society might well benefit from visiting that country to see how things work. Endlessly parroting "it's a restriction of free speech".....well.......what's the phrase?...........I believe you might find that it's a bit more complicated than that.

Mike

 

[3point14]

<Lots of goode stuff>
You'd still be wrong.

Good post.

I think Wildcat has a bit of a problem that other societies don't run on the same rules as his, I'm not sure why.

He also seems to think that there's some sort of 'freedom contest' going on. I'm not sure why.

Wildcat, I'll let you know as soon as any political speech is curtailed in the UK, but, as far as I can tell, the folks over here are alright with the way this incident has been handled.

I'm not sure how many oppressive regimes suppress speech then have the suppression plastered all over the newspapers for everyone to read about.