Twitter troll jailed for racist abuse

[FJRider]

"Freedom of speech" is not about saying whatever the hell you want, with no possible repercussions ...

[pzkpfw]

Is there really a difference between having a private conversation online in a public place, to having a private conversation in person in a public place? I don't think there is. Anyone who gets pissed off at the subject matter has the right to speak up, but essentially they're being nosey, rude, interrupting bastards and should keep their overly pointy beaks out of it.

There are places where Twitter feeds become public. For example at a conference where twits sent with a certain hash tag get shown on a scrolling display behind the speaker.

(
"Police were inundated with complaints as members of the public, former soccer player Stan Collymore among them, reported the student's comments."

How did these people see his comments?
)

A private twitter conversation between you and your friend, sure, that's your business. But as soon as the general public can see/read it, then your responsibilities increase.

Just like, say, having an offensive (yes I know that's subjective) loud conversation in a cafe. If other people can hear you (without specifically eavesdropping) they have the right not be unreasonably offended.

e.g. parents who object to excessive swearing from people near them in a cafe. The right to "free speech" of the swearing people does not trump the right of those parents to moderate what their children are exposed to.

[avgas]

Thank god he didn't mention Scandinavia then.

As for the racist remarks. I would be more concerned about being told to suck a dick, irrelevant of the colour of it.

[Ender EnZed]

Here they are

There's nothing there that wouldn't be said on KB.

[mashman]

There are places where Twitter feeds become public. For example at a conference where twits sent with a certain hash tag get shown on a scrolling display behind the speaker.

(
"Police were inundated with complaints as members of the public, former soccer player Stan Collymore among them, reported the student's comments."

How did these people see his comments?
)

A private twitter conversation between you and your friend, sure, that's your business. But as soon as the general public can see/read it, then your responsibilities increase.

Just like, say, having an offensive (yes I know that's subjective) loud conversation in a cafe. If other people can hear you (without specifically eavesdropping) they have the right not be unreasonably offended.

e.g. parents who object to excessive swearing from people near them in a cafe. The right to "free speech" of the swearing people does not trump the right of those parents to moderate what their children are exposed to.

I suppose that's my area of concern, something being "uttered" in a public "domain" makes it public, where in fact it is a private conversation between 2/3/4 people (not saying that this is what happened in this instance), but that should not matter. Where do you draw that line? If I am of the opinion that my comments are for KB members only and visitors to the site read them and get their panties in a bunch enough to send the popo around, then are my intentions ignored because I offended someone who gets offended by anything they don't agree with? There's something very wrong there. Being a racist isn't against the law and is still part of free thinking and free speech unfortunately, irrespective of where the sentiment is conveyed. If some people get offended that's their problem surely? They can choose not to read it, they can choose not to listen, the can challenge the sentiment etc... but being banged up for it, mmmmmm, nar, that's a slippery slope. If that had have been a politician, they would have apologised and that would have been that, in fact Brownlee insulted the Finns recently, definately racist, yet not a murmur, just an apology. Being banged up, no, wrong, totally and utterly.

[FJRider]

Brownlee insulted the Finns recently, definately racist, yet not a murmur, just an apology. Being banged up, no, wrong, totally and utterly.

The Finn's have still an option to take legal action in any form they choose. If they choose not to ... that is their choice to make. If they don't ... it is not because they can't.

[oneofsix]

If that had have been a politician, they would have apologised and that would have been that, in fact Brownlee insulted the Finns recently, definately racist, yet not a murmur, just an apology. Being banged up, no, wrong, totally and utterly.

Brownlee had the good sense to make his 'racist' remarks under parliamentary privilege and therefore can't be sued, arrested or any nor procedure. the speaker or his party can slap his wrist but that's all. Meanwhile the Finns have been having their own fun with it.

[pzkpfw]

I suppose that's my area of concern, something being "uttered" in a public "domain" makes it public, where in fact it is a private conversation between 2/3/4 people (not saying that this is what happened in this instance), but that should not matter. Where do you draw that line? If I am of the opinion that my comments are for KB members only and visitors to the site read them and get their panties in a bunch enough to send the popo around, then are my intentions ignored because I offended someone who gets offended by anything they don't agree with? There's something very wrong there. Being a racist isn't against the law and is still part of free thinking and free speech unfortunately, irrespective of where the sentiment is conveyed. If some people get offended that's their problem surely? They can choose not to read it, they can choose not to listen, the can challenge the sentiment etc... but being banged up for it, mmmmmm, nar, that's a slippery slope. If that had have been a politician, they would have apologised and that would have been that, in fact Brownlee insulted the Finns recently, definately racist, yet not a murmur, just an apology. Being banged up, no, wrong, totally and utterly.

I don't think it's so easy to "choose not to read it" or "choose not to listen".

I agree with KB comment. Fact is, if I ran the Zoo some people would simply be banned for posting what they do. But regardless of my distaste, I know what KB is and I choose to be here and read threads. I can choose not to read what's here, so it's my problem if I get "offended".

But say you are at the football, in the crowd, and tweets with the hash tag #manvsunited are being copied to the big screen. You can't really avoid what's posted there, and that's a case where I think the onus is on the tweeter to use their brain (or the organisers to just not do it).

(P.S. I still don't know exactly how the offended people actually saw those tweets.)

You can say "choose not to read" or "choose not to post" - but there are places where it's better to "choose not to post" or "choose not to speak".

Slippery slope? There are lots of grey (and not so grey) areas. Censorship is bad? Well, I'm happy that child porn is banned.

[avgas]

Now is not the time,
to say a racist remark,
instead you should just swallow it down,
in time to make a fart.

So don't be a racist,
its not the thing to do.
But be careful when you express yourself,
to not let out a poo.

I think that is my best poem yet. Certainly made me laugh.

[Bassmatt]

Censorship is bad? Well, I'm happy that child porn is banned.

Youre equating child porn with a couple of racist comments on twitter?

[pzkpfw]

Youre equating child porn with a couple of racist comments on twitter?

No. I'm not. You missed the point. (It was in the half of that line that you cut off).

Which was: things simply are not black and white. I don't believe in the all or nothing approach.

Some people say censorship is bad, well, most of us agree there are some things that should be censored.

Some people say "free speech!", well, most (?) of us agree there are some things that should not be said in certain situations.

Another example: those memorial web pages where people can talk about someone they loved who died. Then some wanker comes along and posts a bunch of rude upsetting stuff on that web page. Is that "free speech" that should be protected? (I'd like 46 days in jail for that type of person!).

The World has changed.

New ways to bully kids, means new ways needed to protect kids: http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/66...e-experts-warn

New ways to breach privacy, means new ways needed to protect privacy: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...-be-overhauled

[SMOKEU]

I am pretty sure you can have freedom of speech anywhere you go because nobody gives a fuck what you say anyway!

I don't believe that's true because some people feel the need to have a big cry when they get upset over something I say.

They won´t print what he said, does it only apply to people with different colored skin or can I go to jail if I call someone on the internet a dumb yank, whinging pom, aussie prick, kiwi sheep shagger, yarpie, pikie, jock, mick or spick? Not all in the same sentence you understand, just to be clear.

Didn't you know that only white people can be racist? Gooks, spicks and coons can say whatever derogatory comments they want against whites without fear of being labelled a racist.

Nothing to do with not having freedom of speech - you can say whatever the fuck you like, just don't cry when the consequences kick in

I often read things on the internet that I don't approve of, but that doesn't mean I have to kick up a big fuss every time. If I was too scared of being offended then I wouldn't use the internet at all.

Oh for the love of Holy Black Female Jesus and her nignog offspring that turned into us... he was technically dead for 78 mins, but why haven't all of the members of the KKK, National Front, Peoples Front of Judea, SmokeU's happily racist tribe and other assorted openly racist groups not been banged up too? I now declare that the world has gone completely, totally and utterly fuckin insane.

I'm not racist, I'm a realist.

[oneofsix]

I don't believe that's true because some people feel the need to have a big cry when they get upset over something I say.



Didn't you know that only white people can be racist? Gooks, spicks and coons can say whatever derogatory comments they want against whites without fear of being labelled a racist.



I often read things on the internet that I don't approve of, but that doesn't mean I have to kick up a big fuss every time. If I was too scared of being offended then I wouldn't use the internet at all.



I'm not racist, I'm a realist.

Bloody blanco

[SMOKEU]

Bloody blanco

First time I've ever heard of that term, I had to search it on urbandictionary.com

[oneofsix]

First time I've ever heard of that term, I had to search it on urbandictionary.com

Nigger comes from the diminutive of the Spanish for black so just thought I would use the Spanish for white