West Ham Supporters Arrested For Free Speech

[Nessie]

Scotland fans, taunting Italian fans

"Deep fry yer pizzas, we're gonna deep fry yer pizzas!"

 

[IMST]

Scotland fans, taunting Italian fans

"Deep fry yer pizzas, we're gonna deep fry yer pizzas!"

*Shudder*
Worse hate speech I've rarely encountered.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

"Are you Scotland in disguise?"

England fans to just about anyone they're beating in any sport.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I remember as a youngster in the 70s Away Fans arriving by special police patrolled trains in Middlesbrough station and then being escorted by police in riot gear ith mounted sections and dogs in support all the wat to and from the ground and back onto their special train . As the ground is right in the town centre it made for a nice days shopping.

 

[GlennB]

Interestingly, I gather the word "******" is banned from formal Scrabble tournaments in the USA. So much for freedom of speech.

I jest here, but that racial epithet is deemed so offensive you can't put it on a Scrabble board. Damn shame if you hold "*******" on your rack and are staring at a 7-letter word right there.

eta: I see that the words are banned here at JREF too. Curiously I was simply discussing their use, not actually using them in any real world sense.

Yes, I think the UK has a better take on this issue of so-called "free speech".

 

[Agatha]

Interestingly, I gather the word "******" is banned from formal Scrabble tournaments in the USA. So much for freedom of speech.

I jest here, but that racial epithet is deemed so offensive you can't put it on a Scrabble board. Damn shame if you hold "*******" on your rack and are staring at a 7-letter word right there.

eta: I see that the words are banned here at JREF too. Curiously I was simply discussing their use, not actually using them in any real world sense.

Yes, I think the UK has a better take on this issue of so-called "free speech".

Fortunately in the above case you might be able to play gingers, snigger or serging and still get the bonus points.

I don't think any of the banned words are forbidden in UK Scrabble tournaments, if the word is listed in SOWPODS it should be allowed. But I can't check this at the moment and my google-fu is poor.

 

[WildCat]

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.

Just how is the press supposed to regulate itself? And why should it regulate itself, for what?

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.

Panels? Papers? You have to join a club or something to write down an opinion in the UK?

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.

I'm not seeing any sort of misrepresentation. And you certainly seem to support regulation of the press?

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.

You have no libel laws? Slander laws? Laws against phone hacking etc?

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.

No civil suits allowed in the UK?

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

Your TV and radio is all run by the government, isn't it?

 

[WildCat]

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.

That horse has already left the barn, hasn't it?

The fact is the UK is already suppressing political speech.

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

That usually how it's done, you make examples of people who say the wrong things, like Michael Coleman, Pussy Riot, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

 

[WildCat]

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.

Those laws must really be working wonders! Amazing how the stroke of a pen makes all the racists go away...

 

[WildCat]

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

I 100% support the right of the KKK to march, burn crosses, etc. So does the US Supreme Court.

And in fact they are allowed to do all those things in the USA, and their membership has dwindled to almost nothing while the UK, despite laws against spouting racism, can still field mobs of racist asshats.

Good job UK, suppressing speech you don't like is really working!

 

[WildCat]

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

It's actually because our sports aren't as boring as watching paint dry so the crowds don't have to find other ways to entertain themselves.

 

[WildCat]

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.

So why not ban soccer? Clearly it is soccer that is the cause of the racist chants, the riots, etc?

Banning speech doesn't seem to have actually accomplished anything at all.

 

[Agatha]

Just how is the press supposed to regulate itself? And why should it regulate itself, for what?

Hacking into a murdered child's voicemail and deleting existing messages, leading the parents to hope that the child was still alive (and to damage the police investigation) is something that perhaps should be regulated, as it seems the press won't self-regulate over that sort of thing.

Panels? Papers? You have to join a club or something to write down an opinion in the UK?

No, the panel, which would be independent of both the press and the government, would be supposed to react to complaints when the press (such as papers, as in newspapers) oversteps the mark, as in the case of Amanda 'Millie' Dowler above.

I'm not seeing any sort of misrepresentation. And you certainly seem to support regulation of the press?

You are supposing that an independent panel equals government regulation, which is not the case.

You have no libel laws? Slander laws? Laws against phone hacking etc?

Those with money behind them, like celebrities, are able to sue for libel. Those on modest incomes, not so much. Unlike the USA, you have to have all the discovery done prior to commencing a civil suit, and if you lose, you have the newspaper's costs to pay as well as your own. And you can bet that the newspaper will be employing Carter-Ruck or other top lawyers. Conditional fee agreements (no win no fee) are not permitted in libel or slander cases. There is a law against phone hacking, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, but before the scandal that led to the Leveson Inquiry the Crown Prosecution Service took a very narrow view of the law. If the celeb (or murder victim, or a victim's family) in question had already listened to the message but not deleted it, the CPS wouldn't take action. Now they will, but it's still shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

No civil suits allowed in the UK?

Allowed, yes. Financially available to the ordinary man-in-the-street, no.

Your TV and radio is all run by the government, isn't it?

No, what makes you think that? Most of it is run by Rupert Murdoch. The BBC gets money from everyone who owns a television in the shape of the licence fee, but no money from the government. BBC TV and radio isn't run by government, neither is commercial TV or radio.

 

[Ocelot]

So why not ban soccer? Clearly it is soccer that is the cause of the racist chants, the riots, etc?

Banning speech doesn't seem to have actually accomplished anything at all.

Do you find it difficult to remain so ignorant of the facts that you can support your a priori prejudice?

 

[Andy_Ross]

As far as content and what is allowed to be broadcast the UK is far more liberal than the USA.

 

[tsig]

Do you find it difficult to remain so ignorant of the facts that you can support your a priori prejudice?

Willful ignorance and deliberately provocative statements seems to be the M. O.

 

[Giordano]

Those laws must really be working wonders! Amazing how the stroke of a pen makes all the racists go away...

Last I looked people were still robbing banks. I guess there is no point in having laws against bank robbing...

Also the laws were not designed to abolish racism- it is your erroneous claim that the laws were designed to abolish racism or to prevent free speech. The laws are designed to prevent very specific situations that have repeatedly led to violence and assault. I understand that they have helped to do so, although, like laws against bank robbing, they cannot prevent every instance.

 

[Ocelot]

I 100% support the right of the KKK to march, burn crosses, etc. So does the US Supreme Court.

You do realise of course that you can support cross burning rights in general without necessarily supporting the rights to burn crosses in all scenarios and contexts.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2006/August/06_crt_542.html

Just the same way sometimes voicing a racist opinion is not merely free speech but also incorporates a level of harassment which it is not unreasonable to punish.

 

[Giordano]

Wildcat,

The courts in the US, when evaluating free speech issues, typically weigh the purpose of the speech under consideration. Usually political or artistic speech, due to its potential value to society, is judged most protected. Abusive, libelous, fraudulent, dangerous, or threatening speech has little or no value to society, and is usually not considered protected speech under the First Amendment. Remember when "pornography" was judged to be acceptable if it had "redeeming social value?"

Why do you believe that violent, racist, abusive, physically threatening remarks in a crowded public setting have a legitimate value to society that balances out the obvious, proven risks of that speech and its negative effects on the recipients (who, remember, are only trying to enjoy a soccer game for which they paid admission)?

 

[WildCat]

Hacking into a murdered child's voicemail and deleting existing messages, leading the parents to hope that the child was still alive (and to damage the police investigation) is something that perhaps should be regulated, as it seems the press won't self-regulate over that sort of thing.

Just how does "the press" stop that sort of thing?

No, the panel, which would be independent of both the press and the government, would be supposed to react to complaints when the press (such as papers, as in newspapers) oversteps the mark, as in the case of Amanda 'Millie' Dowler above.

And how do they react, and under what authority?

You are supposing that an independent panel equals government regulation, which is not the case.

You cited the phone hacking scandal, people may go to prison over that. Just what weapon will the panel wield that will strike more fear in the hearts of a rogue reporter than prison?

Those with money behind them, like celebrities, are able to sue for libel. Those on modest incomes, not so much. Unlike the USA, you have to have all the discovery done prior to commencing a civil suit, and if you lose, you have the newspaper's costs to pay as well as your own.

And instead of reforming the civil tort system you go after freedom of speech/press? How... bizarre.

No, what makes you think that? Most of it is run by Rupert Murdoch. The BBC gets money from everyone who owns a television in the shape of the licence fee, but no money from the government. BBC TV and radio isn't run by government, neither is commercial TV or radio.

How is that not money from the government? They collect and enforce the license fees, yes? You have private OTA TV and radio?