West Ham Supporters Arrested For Free Speech

[brodski]

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.

It wasn't just at the football match. I had the misfortune to be passing through Liverpool street station that day, and saw hundreds of drunk fans on the street shouting violent and racist chants in unison. They could be heard from streets away (although this u s lately a commercial area there are some homes there). If they had been shouting anything it would have been a public rider issue, shouting violent racist and threatening chants just made it worse.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

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

What Mike said. Chanting is the thin end of the wedge, experience proves it.

 

[MikeG]

I'm guessing that wildcat is perfectly OK with the Ku Klux Klan marching, burning crosses and intimidating black people, because that is the logic of his position on the West Ham supporter's issue.

Clearly, I am not suggesting that he supports the KKK, its aims, or any of its acts of violence.

Mike

 

[The Don]

I'm guessing that wildcat is perfectly OK with the Ku Klux Klan marching, burning crosses and intimidating black people, because that is the logic of his position on the West Ham supporter's issue.

Clearly, I am not suggesting that he supports the KKK, its aims, or any of its acts of violence.

Mike

...and as long as those who feel intimidated have a way of seeking redress - for example suing the group who has intimidated them or taking out a restraining order against the group who are intimidating - then I suppose that it's OK to allow this kind of intimidation to go on BUT it's very difficult to determine who to sue if they're disguising themselves, the process could take a very long time and if financial penalties are applied it may be difficult to actually get the money.

I personally am happy with the UK's lack of free speech but I suppose it could lead to a slippery slope argument where any dissenting voices could be silenced.

 

[zooterkin]

Regarding monkey chants:

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

In the UK? I've not heard it, and it would be nearly continuous since about a third of professional football players in the UK are black.

 

[The Don]

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

Well maybe if the people who feel intimidated could resort to a "Second Amendment solution" then the chanting would stop

The United States does not have a history of gang violence around sporting events and should be applauded for this. I'm not sure of the reasons for this but in my opinion they include:

• That U.S. sporting events tend to be more family oriented
• That these days there aren't so many teams in the same city so less opportinity for large blocks of away fans to be present
• Something to do with the cost of attending - though these days it's expensive to go to a top football game - heck, it's even expensive to watch Middlesbrough
• US "tribalism" has developed along different lines. Rather than allegance being to a team, it's to a neighbourhood or racial grouping

 

[chillzero]

I'm a bit confused, you mention being rude outside someone's house. Are we still talking about chanting at a sports game?

No - if you follow back the chain from my responses, someone was asking about singing a song they have written the words for on this thread outside another forum member's house.

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.

They were saying those racist words in an aggressive manner ... not conversing with each other, quietly, but yelling them at others, possibly in a very intimidating fashion, and likely continuing after being asked to stop. That's a public order offense.
It's how people get themselves arrested for swearing at police officers.

Regarding monkey chants:

In the UK? I've not heard it, and it would be nearly continuous since about a third of professional football players in the UK are black.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/sunderland-monkey-gesture-arrest-suspect-1461444

 

[Nessie]

Well maybe if the people who feel intimidated could resort to a "Second Amendment solution" then the chanting would stop

The United States does not have a history of gang violence around sporting events and should be applauded for this. I'm not sure of the reasons for this but in my opinion they include:

• That U.S. sporting events tend to be more family oriented
• That these days there aren't so many teams in the same city so less opportinity for large blocks of away fans to be present
• Something to do with the cost of attending - though these days it's expensive to go to a top football game - heck, it's even expensive to watch Middlesbrough
• US "tribalism" has developed along different lines. Rather than allegance being to a team, it's to a neighbourhood or racial grouping

Exactly, whereas in the UK football was all male, an excuse to blow off steam and for many years alcohol fueled. Cricket is not so bad and rugby more like the US example.

 

[stokes234]

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.

It's easily knowable in advance that chanting racist slogans at a football game is offensive, yes. Your grievance appears to boil down to not trusting the british authorities to know where to draw the line, but i'm not seeing you giving examples of it being crossed.

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

I can't even tell why you think that statement qualifies as "proof" of anything.

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.

We disagree on the meaning of "intimidation", then. Chanting racist slogans at a football game is something I would class as intimidating, and also something that could potentially cause violence.

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.

Cites, please. Let's have this one out in the open.

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!

Sorry, who went to jail? I must have missed that part of the story.

 

[Cleon]

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

Ah, that's a special case - those are Jets fans. "You suck" and "you're a disgrace" is just New Yorkish for "good game, see you next week."

 

[Giordano]

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?

You do realize that shouted threats at soccer games have escalated to violence? Do the targets, Jews in this case, have to be gassed for the threat to have meaning, or is beat up and stabbed good enough to take the threats seriously? Should the police wait until there is a riot before intervening?

Threatening people with violence is wrong, not freedom of speech. If someone is on a corner yelling at women, "Rape the slut," I don't think how able the person is to carry out the threat should determine if it is freedom of speech or a crime. It is a crime.

 

[zooterkin]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/sunderland-monkey-gesture-arrest-suspect-1461444

Thanks, there clearly are some idiots about; however one person making gestures, and being dealt with, is a far cry from what used to happen, which was:

A decade or two back, every time a black player touched the ball, a section of the crowd chanted chimp noises. Is this the sort of free speech that you are bemoaning the loss of?

Which is what Donal was claiming still happened.

 

[Diazo]

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.

They were engaged in behavior intended to start a brawl so they were arrested as they should be.

The fact that what they were saying has racial content is a red herring and has nothing to do with the fact they were arrested to prevent physical violence from starting.

Wildcat, you seem to be holding up Free Speech as the most important personal freedom we have. However I (and most other posters in this thread I think) hold the right of Personal Security (being free of threats and bodily harm) to be more important.

And the sports team and UK government agree in this case. The right of Personal Security of the players and other fans in the stadium took priority over any right to Free Speech the people chanting this stuff had.

(Note that I am not sure what they were chanting would be covered under Free Speech regardless, but that is a different point then what I'm making with this post.)

D.

 

[MikeG]

.............The fact that what they were saying has racial content is a red herring and has nothing to do with the fact they were arrested to prevent physical violence from starting.............

Sorry, but that simply isn't so.

Under the 1991 Football Offences Act, indecent or racist chanting is forbidden at designated football matches. It is a criminal offence to do racist chanting at professional football matches.

The onus is thrown onto the clubs, rather than the spectators themselves normally. It is deemed that a club is responsible for the behaviour of its fans, and clubs have been heavily fined, banned from competitions, or forced to play matches behind closed doors after their fans misbehaved.

Mike

 

[Ocelot]

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?

What an excellent point. Doesn't work quite so well with regard to the stabbing chants though does it? For that you'll have to come up with something better than a wilful ignorance of possibility of metaphor in a threat.

Tell you what why don't you walk down the Queens Road in a Tottenham shirt next Saturday. You can use your rights of free speech to peacefully proclaim your opinion that threats of violence from West Ham fans aren't credible threats and shouldn't be taken seriously.

That's a joke by the way. I know you're on the other side of the Atlantic and there's no chance of you trying it else I wouldn't risk the suggestion. People who do live near enough to try this on a whim know better than to take their life in their hands.

I know you still think I'm exaggerating. I'm not Jewish, I don't look jewish. I've no strong footballing loyalties. I support Arsenal on the telly in the comfort of my own home once in a while. I've been to one match in my life, own no regalia, avoid pubs that show matches and live 30 miles from the West Ham grounds. As such I've only been beaten up by West Ham fans a couple of times in my life and only in my youth. Perhaps that reveals some source of bias, explains my lack of sympathy for the trampled rights of people signalling their allegiance to same violent and hateful sentiment but for you to suggest that these threats weren't credible is laughable and just a little bit hurtful.

And guess what you have every right to ignore and disrespect the personal experiences and viewpoint of all the Brits here in this thread telling you that this was a public order issue not a free speech issue. That West Ham are notirous for Public Order issues. That since Heysal the UK as a whole backs a strong stance against football hooliganism. Feel free to insult us as molly coddled sheep suckling on the teat of a Nanny State for tackling a situation responsible for hundereds of people being seriously injured and dozens dead. You can feel free to incense us with your wilful ignorance because you have that right both in the UK and the USA whatever you claim.

But you're still wrong.

 

[Diazo]

Sorry, but that simply isn't so.

Under the 1991 Football Offences Act, indecent or racist chanting is forbidden at designated football matches. It is a criminal offence to do racist chanting at professional football matches.

The onus is thrown onto the clubs, rather than the spectators themselves normally. It is deemed that a club is responsible for the behaviour of its fans, and clubs have been heavily fined, banned from competitions, or forced to play matches behind closed doors after their fans misbehaved.

Mike

As I understand it, that law was put in place because indecent and racist chanting was one of the largest, if not the largest provocations that would lead to the brawls that would happen at games.

Therefore, to prevent brawls from breaking out, one of the major causes of brawls starting was made illegal.

Again, the point being to protect the personal freedom of Personal Security by preventing the physical harm from occurring.

The point here is to protect people from coming to harm. The point is not that the chants being used to provoke physical violence happened to have racial content.

(For the record, I am not a UK native so all my information on this is second hand.)

D.

 

[Ocelot]

Cites, please. Let's have this one out in the open.

He's referring to Michael Coleman BNP activist and former Councillor who used his blog for racially aggravated harassment and was given a suspended sentence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-19755336

The complaint came from a member of the public but they complained to a Councillor rather than the police. The councillor relayed the complaint. Two posts were cited. One has now been removed. The remaining one is a bit of a stretch to consider as supporting continuing racial violence in Stoke but it does refer to "inevitable violence". Wild Cat asserts that whatever was said in the removed post cannot have been serious enough to require the involvement of the courts even though he hasn't seen it and like me only has the reporting of a paper with demonstrated BNP sympathies to go on. He also characterises it as politically motivated.

 

[brodski]

In a further erosion of free speech rights I was arrested in a bank today for expressing myself. All I did was run in wearing a ski mask and shout 'put the money in the bag and nobody gets hurt '. Honestly puts like a police state here.

 

[Nessie]

With freedom of speech come certain duties and responsibilities towards your fellow man, which some WHUFC supporters failed to observe.

Apologies from me to Wild Cat, who I am sure understood my ironic way of conveying such

 

[IMST]

I'm so glad that my local football rivalries tend toward making fun of how Portland is full of generally odorous hipsters and respectfully acknowledging that Vancouver is generally too polite to really come up with a really good way to hate.