I think the last few posts show some of the basic differences between the US and the UK. Any speech that causes destruction of any person or property is not defensible. But simply because someone is offended by what another person says, doesn't deserve to be outlawed.
It's not about offence. No one is outlawing offensive speech. There is a difference between someone saying something that some people find offensive and saying something with the intent to cause injury to a person or group of people. And before the inevitable rejoinder - the 'sticks and stones' argument should be left in the playground, well aimed words can cause just as much pain and distress as a baseball bat.
I haven't read the tweets by the guy who was jailed, but was he suggesting that the football player should be injured or attacked?
Neither. He started off by celebrating that he thought he was dead after his collapse. The tweets which then caused a problem were his followup replies when people called him on his original message. They were (and are) illegal under UK law. Incidentally I'm curious what the bastion of free speech brigade make of the newly proposed Arizona law, which would make it illegal to 'annoy or offend' people using any electronic medium, such as the internet?
From that description, it sounds utterly foolish. Are you so pro-censorship that you'd submit to it yourself? Would you be willing to spend jail time for posting something on MAP that someone found offensive?
I'm not pro-censorship. I was simply pointing it out as an ironic example. Yes, it does sound utterly idiotic - the worry is that America has shown far too much willingness in recent years to apply for extradition for those they think have committed a crime (against American laws, obviously), even when it wasn't a crime in the country it was committed in. Obviously, being a relatively sane individual, I'm completely against the law given that it is utterly mad as written.
Wow, I'm amazed there aren't more Americans here defending our constitution. I guess we view the constitution as the cornerstone of our democracy rather than an archaic document. I don't want us to be like some third world country that changes its constitution every 10-12 years whenever they get a new dictator. And speaking of archaic, isn't the idea of a royal family rather dated?
Abolishing capital punishment might be a good place to start. America is a very strange country.It is well developed materially but in other ways it is worse than some third world countries.It spouts on about human rights yet it has one of the world's most barbaric prison systems.It needs to get its own house in order before it starts lecturing others.
I don't want to start a capital punishment debate here, but until we get a much better prison system, some people NEED to die. Just look up some of the horrific things a human being is capable of inflicting on others, and capital punishment won't seem so repulsive.
The big problem with capitol punishment is when you start looking at the horrific things people do to others... like imprisoning innocent individuals for decades only to have DNA testing come along and exonerate them or for witnesses to come forward and admit they were coerced or for judges/police officers found to be corrupt and in collusion to pin the blame on an innocent person. Happens all the time. Horrific things indeed.
A much better prison system? The threat of life without parole in one of your prisons should be enough to deter anyone but that dosen't seem to be the case.Neither did the threat of the electric chair.I think we have to accept there will always be murder in any society and the threat of draconian retribution won't stop it. I would say that some people deserve to die rather than need to die but is it appropriate for the state to play God?
I know, that's pretty horrible too, sometimes I talk out of passion, but it's just frustrating how someone can end another human being(s) life so mercilessly and doesn't get a deserving punishment. Yes, life in prison is pretty terrible, but in some cases it should be an eye for an eye... I don't know how to improve the prison system, but there's a pattern of individuals who go in there inexperienced (robbed a place, something along those lines), but come out seasoned criminals; of course there are others who completely change their lives around, but many return to prison over and over again. Shouldn't prison be fixing that instead of worsening the problem? No, it's not really playing God...I would think if the criminal confesses and there are overwhelming evidence that prove him to be the murderer (video evidence, numerous witnesses, DNA, etc.) that make for an solid case, then he should be removed permanently from society. Sort of like if he is convicted he is given life in prison, and if the evidence are overwhelmingly against him, then he is raised to the death sentence. I know, there are too many factors, but if some aren't deterred by life-imprisonment (where they realistically can gain tremendous influence and can send a hit out on anyone, plus they're responsible for the deaths of lesser inmates on the hierarchy, plus rivalries and whatnot), then they should die.
let me get this straight... there is no freedom of speech across the pond? What were his actual charges>?
Racially offensive comments on twitter. In all honesty there is plenty of free speech in the UK.I can openly criticise and ridicule the prime minster without any fear of being thrown in jail.I couldn't do the same in China or North Korea.People are free to criticise and ridicule Muamba's performance as a football player as long as they don't use choice words in reference to his race.
