Ship of Fools: Man imprisoned for wearing t-shirt

Thread: Man imprisoned for wearing t-shirt Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023794

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

A man named Barry is imprisoned for wearing a homemade, fairly mean-spirited t-shirt.

For 8 months.

WHAT THE FUCK?

We're going to imprison people for wearing the wrong clothing?!?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

This is why Americans believe in freedom of speech.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

He was imprisoned for being in breach of a suspended sentence.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
He was imprisoned for being in breach of a suspended sentence.

No, that was only 4 months of the 8 months he was imprisoned for. The other 4 were purely for wearing the t-shirt.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

Quite. He sounds like a cock but not even cocks should be imprisoned for wearing clothes that others find offensive.

Thurible

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:

"Stuart Duke, defending, said Thew had been an inpatient at a mental health unit and was still on anti-psychotic medicine, but the judge replied mental health was "not a factor".

He said Thew had a longstanding dispute with Greater Manchester police over the death of his son three years ago and repeated stop-and-search procedures. He said the wearing of the T-shirt was not in response to the deaths of the two police officers, but was related to another case. He said he was already wearing the T-shirt when he heard the news."

You've got to wonder how a shirt reading 'One Dead PiG' becomes connected to the murder of
two officers. It looks like someone has taken offence too easily. Not a Shipmate then.

Is Judge Lakin making a bid for the Melford Stevenson Memorial Award?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

He's obviously a guy with problems - as well as broaching his parole. Despite the hurt feelings and offence it seems to be making more of this than it needs, to imprison him for it. Sounds like he needs more therapy rather than more prison time.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
He's obviously a guy with problems - as well as broaching his parole. Despite the hurt feelings and offence it seems to be making more of this than it needs, to imprison him for it. Sounds like he needs more therapy rather than more prison time.

I'm sorry, I really doubt the clothing he was wearing was either a) specified in the parole conditions or b) can justly be taken into account when setting a punishment for breaking the bail conditions. The whole idea is preposterous.

The guy might be a total fruitcake, but that is no reason to throw the book at him on account of his clothing. Whatever next? Judging criminals by their collar size?

Posted by Loquacious beachcomber (# 8783) on :

Freedom of speech, yeah; freedom for hate speech, no, not really.
In the 1980s, I saw idiots wearing T-shirts featuring what looked at first like a can of Raid bug spray, and bearing the slogan: "AIDS - kills fags dead before they spread."
That, IMO, crossed the line into hate crime; so the line is probably there, like it or not.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Given he was psychiatrically unwell, and in dispute with the police over the death of his son - I'd have been inclined to just confiscate the t-shirt.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

He was not imprisoned for wearing a t-shirt. he was imprisoned for displaying an offensive and inciting t-shirt.

Is he a 22-carat wank-head? Yes. Does that deserve a custodial sentence? No, thank fuck, or we would all be inside. Is it a reasonable response to a very poorly timed slogan? Probably.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for him. He knew it was provocative. It was unfortunate and delicate timing, and he paid for that. But he is clearly a complete tosser, so it is one less arsehole on the streets.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

There is no freedom of speech without freedom of hate speech.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
He's obviously a guy with problems - as well as broaching his parole. Despite the hurt feelings and offence it seems to be making more of this than it needs, to imprison him for it. Sounds like he needs more therapy rather than more prison time.
I'm sorry, I really doubt the clothing he was wearing was either a) specified in the parole conditions or b) can justly be taken into account when setting a punishment for breaking the bail conditions. The whole idea is preposterous.

The guy might be a total fruitcake, but that is no reason to throw the book at him on account of his clothing. Whatever next? Judging criminals by their collar size?

Isn't that what I said? [Confused]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
There is no freedom of speech without freedom of hate speech.

Only one country on the planet thinks that.

But then of course you go "oh, terribly sorry, there IS freedom of speech without freedom of defamatory speech", etc etc.

Absolutist when it suits you. Not absolutist when it doesn't.

[ 12. October 2012, 01:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You can say whatever you like in my country- so long as it doesn't hurt anyone's feelings

PASS.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Is he a 22-carat wank-head? Yes. Does that deserve a custodial sentence? No, thank fuck, or we would all be inside. Is it a reasonable response to a very poorly timed slogan? Probably.

No. Otherwise we're back to imprisoning old ladies at bus stops for expressing too loudly their stupid opinions.

There is only one reason this guy was arrested, and that is because he is a criminal and it is generally considered appropriate to throw the book at him for any perceived wrong.

Clearly there isn't much thought involved into the consequences of this judicial ruling. There is a question hanging in the air about whether he has now been imprisoned for someone taking offense even though the incident to which the t-shirt is not the one they think it is (as it were).

If he has broken bail rules then that is fair enough. But don't bring his clothing into it.

[ 12. October 2012, 06:58: Message edited by: the long ranger ]

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

How long before books start being banned?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You can say whatever you like in my country- so long as it doesn't hurt anyone's feelings
PASS.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
How long before books start being banned?

You think they aren't already? Plenty of banning occurs in your own country. Google is your friend.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
You've got to wonder how a shirt reading 'One Dead PiG' becomes connected to the murder of
two officers. It looks like someone has taken offence too easily.

Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
even though the incident to which the t-shirt is not the one they think it is (as it were).

One police officer died at the scene, the other died shortly after in hospital. Therefore at the point he made the T-shirt, the news was reporting one death, one serious injury.

I'm with Doublethink - the T-shirt should have been confiscated. He should not have been jailed.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
One police officer died at the scene, the other died shortly after in hospital. Therefore at the point he made the T-shirt, the news was reporting one death, one serious injury.

I'm with Doublethink - the T-shirt should have been confiscated. He should not have been jailed.

The man appears to have a mental illness and a long-running dispute with police. The t-shirt was being worn before the shootings in question.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Is he a 22-carat wank-head? Yes. Does that deserve a custodial sentence? No, thank fuck, or we would all be inside. Is it a reasonable response to a very poorly timed slogan? Probably.
No. Otherwise we're back to imprisoning old ladies at bus stops for expressing too loudly their stupid opinions.

As I said. And he was not just speaking but displaying. Maybe they should have got Gene Hunt to kick his fucking head in.

The problem is I cannot find any sympathy for him. This is not the same as imprisoning old ladies, with no previous, for being bigots. He was promoting killing policemen just at the point when another bastard had just done precisely that. Bad timing, and he is paying for this.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
Freedom of speech, yeah; freedom for hate speech, no, not really.
In the 1980s, I saw idiots wearing T-shirts featuring what looked at first like a can of Raid bug spray, and bearing the slogan: "AIDS - kills fags dead before they spread."
That, IMO, crossed the line into hate crime; so the line is probably there, like it or not.

I think most of us would say there is something wrong with inciting hatred for people because of what they *are* (gay, black, asian, transgender etc) but not necessarily for inciting hatred for people because of what they do (being a member of the National Front, war crimes, seal-clubbing, double-parking, using plastic bags etc).

Does it boil down to a question of whether it's "wronger" to hate someone for being a police officer than for being a member of the National Front?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Is he a 22-carat wank-head? Yes. Does that deserve a custodial sentence? No, thank fuck, or we would all be inside. Is it a reasonable response to a very poorly timed slogan? Probably.
No. Otherwise we're back to imprisoning old ladies at bus stops for expressing too loudly their stupid opinions.
As I said. And he was not just speaking but displaying. Maybe they should have got Gene Hunt to kick his fucking head in.

The problem is I cannot find any sympathy for him. This is not the same as imprisoning old ladies, with no previous, for being bigots. He was promoting killing policemen just at the point when another bastard had just done precisely that. Bad timing, and he is paying for this.

He is mentally ill. Quite what imprisonment will achieve is a mystery, beyond a serious risk of assault while he's inside.

Still, if you're happy, I suppose that's all that matters. Maybe every kid wearing an FCUK T-shirt ought to go down too?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
As I said. And he was not just speaking but displaying. Maybe they should have got Gene Hunt to kick his fucking head in.

Or maybe we should all have the maturity to deal with something they have actually done in accordance with sensible and enforceable laws rather than giving anyone sanction to kick anyone else's fucking head in.

I find it fucking unbelievable that anyone thinks that the memory of two unarmed policewomen is somehow preserved by total knee-jerk over-reaction against someone doing something unpleasant. Get a fucking life.

quote:
The problem is I cannot find any sympathy for him. This is not the same as imprisoning old ladies, with no previous, for being bigots. He was promoting killing policemen just at the point when another bastard had just done precisely that. Bad timing, and he is paying for this.

The law is supposed to treat everyone equally and consider each case on its own merits. If this person broke bail or parole, then there is ample reason to give him the required punishment. But deciding to give him extra because you don't happen to like the cut of his jib is so far beyond justice as to be irresponsible.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
The law is supposed to treat everyone equally and consider each case on its own merits. If this person broke bail or parole, then there is ample reason to give him the required punishment. But deciding to give him extra because you don't happen to like the cut of his jib is so far beyond justice as to be irresponsible.

Indeed- that's why justice is depicted as being blind. The fact that people don't like the opinions being voiced is why they need to be protected.

Pretending it's free speech when speech is only limited to nice things is like Ford's apocryphal saying "You can have your Model-T in any color you like- so long as it's black."

[ 12. October 2012, 12:12: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
He was imprisoned for being in breach of a suspended sentence.
No, that was only 4 months of the 8 months he was imprisoned for. The other 4 were purely for wearing the t-shirt.

There's both more and less going on here than there appears to be. Some sharp legal work that takes a small amount of reading between the lines to figure out.

He was ordered to serve two four month concurrent sentences. Meaning he serves both at the same time. Total time in jail: 4 months - each month counts to both sentences. That he wore the t-shirt adds a total jail time to him of 0.0 days.

He also admitted to a public order offence. In short he pled guilty.

So we have the following events.

Man pleads guilty to a crime in court. Which means the judge at this point must give him a sentence. At which point the judge looked at the rest of what he was being accused of and gave him a harsh-seeming sentence in a way that did precisely nothing - he's already serving those four months in prison.

In summary: Man pleads guilty to the crime of being an asshole. Judge wrangles it so although the punishment appears harsh there is literally no punishment.

For the record the normal use of concurrent sentencing is so the judge can say "Well yeah. You have managed to convict him of technically eight separate crimes. But in reality they are all part of the same thing. So for sentencing terms it should only be one jail term." but it is sometimes used, as here, for the judge to say "Well, yeah. I have to sentence him for that. He plead guilty/the jury found him guilty. But it's not worth bothering with is it?" The four months for the t-shirt being the same as the four months for the cannabis is not a coincidence. It's a subtle rebuke to the police/prosecution.

[ 12. October 2012, 13:13: Message edited by: Justinian ]

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
[ The four months for the t-shirt being the same as the four months for the cannabis is not a coincidence. It's a subtle rebuke to the police/prosecution.

I'd prefer a less-subtle, "Charge dismissed, and quit wasting the Court's time with this rubbish."

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The shirt says "Kill a Cop" on it. That is a criminal offence in civilized countries. As is threatening to assault someone, raising your fist as if to strike someone. As are calls for terrorism. There are indeed rights to free speech, but they also have limits. A look through newspapers in the fist half of the 20th century, particularly French ones, will show that if there was a call to kill someone, usually a politician, someone generally shot or blew him up. We cannot have people advocating killing of anyone. Any sensible person would understand that free speech rights are exceeded by the right not to be killed or threatened.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
[ The four months for the t-shirt being the same as the four months for the cannabis is not a coincidence. It's a subtle rebuke to the police/prosecution.
I'd prefer a less-subtle, "Charge dismissed, and quit wasting the Court's time with this rubbish."

Possibly. But after he's pled guilty I don't think the judge can legally do that. This is the equivalent of awarding £1 in damages to a successful plaintiff.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
[ The four months for the t-shirt being the same as the four months for the cannabis is not a coincidence. It's a subtle rebuke to the police/prosecution.
I'd prefer a less-subtle, "Charge dismissed, and quit wasting the Court's time with this rubbish."
Possibly. But after he's pled guilty I don't think the judge can legally do that. This is the equivalent of awarding £1 in damages to a successful plaintiff.

Well, yes. The charges ought have been tossed before he got to the pleading.

Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :

In other news on a sort-of-related theme, a man was arrested for getting a good deal at a car dealership. Yay America.

[ 12. October 2012, 16:12: Message edited by: Jonathan Strange ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
In other news on a sort-of-related theme, a man was arrested for getting a good deal at a car dealership. Yay America.

The story reads thus "Man arrested for ridiculous reason. Man was freed immediately and his accuser apologized."

So... 'splain what that has to do with the case at hand?

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
In other news on a sort-of-related theme, a man was arrested for getting a good deal at a car dealership. Yay America.
The story reads thus "Man arrested for ridiculous reason. Man was freed immediately and his accuser apologized."

So... 'splain what that has to do with the case at hand?

In neither case was there any actual jail time for the offence?

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Within this tread and the event in particular, there is something a little more disturbing that perhaps ought to be faced by those who might pride themselves as liberal minded. Whether we like it or not, there clearly has been some creep in what is regarded as criminal or free speech. This may not be typical in illustating it, but it is there.

There has also been some creep (or perhaps such genetical types have just been let off the leash) in other areas of national life. The quite extraordinary growth of legislation under the Blair-Brown administration in the UK is a small illustration of this.

There is a sort of traffic-warden 'you can't park here!' growth of a non-religious puritanism that is quite sinister. A sort of round headed prohibitionism that one might at best regard as a personality disorder, and at worst an attempt to redefine freedom and liberty in the light of those individuals' own personal prejudice and desire for control.

Of course if one disagress, one is regarded as slightly deviant. Just a little like the way the writing was gradually changed on the wall in Animal Farm, the majority bleat along in agreement and willful or non-willful blindness.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
In neither case was there any actual jail time for the offence?

Getting a 4 month sentence that happens to coincide with a sentence for another crime isn't quite the same thing as getting no jail time. The man was still found guilty and punished for expressing a disagreeable idea about a government institution.

And that still doesn't explain what this other case is supposed to prove about the United States.

[ 12. October 2012, 17:52: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Jonathan Strange (# 11001) on :

Simply this: if you don't like something, your knee-jerk reaction is to have the little guy arrested.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
And that still doesn't explain what this other case is supposed to prove about the United States.

That American courts handle this sort of silliness correctly- toss the ridiculous charges out. At least that's the only relation I can see.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
Simply this: if you don't like something, your knee-jerk reaction is to have the little guy arrested.

The guy was immediately freed and charged with nothing. I am sorry you can't understand the difference.

[ 12. October 2012, 18:22: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
And that still doesn't explain what this other case is supposed to prove about the United States.
That American courts handle this sort of silliness correctly- toss the ridiculous charges out. At least that's the only relation I can see.

Uhh, I'd be a bit more careful about making generalizations like that. In this case, the court handled the case correctly by tossing the charges out (likely having only cost the person thousands in legal fees and untold humiliations). However, the cops still arrested him, seeing as how that's what this country is all about.

But back to your regularly scheduled... uh, what is this? A rant about how the UK no longer has freedom of speech and the US is rapidly heading that way? Whatever it is, back to it.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

There were no fees in the other case. The accuser dropped the charges and apologized. That's it. it didn't have anything to do with free speech either- the guy was accused of theft.

But, as was said, that's nothing to do with nothing. The issue is here is free speech.

[ 12. October 2012, 18:32: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
Simply this: if you don't like something, your knee-jerk reaction is to have the little guy arrested.
The guy was immediately freed and charged with nothing. I am sorry you can't understand the difference.

To quote the article:

quote:
The charges against Sawyer have been dropped, according to the Virginian-Pilot.

I'm sorry you don't understand what the word 'dropped' means or the fact that his arrest and the charges against him will come up in every search for housing, employment, etc.

must stop posting on thread tangent

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
There were no fees in the other case.

He was released on bond. There damn sure were both legal fees (to a lawyer) and court fees. Please learn something about how our legal system works before pontificating about it.

But, as you say, back to free speech.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Did I pontificate? People have lashed out at the US system in a weak attempt to deflect from the original case, but I never held out the US system as an example.

[ 12. October 2012, 18:54: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

Vocabulary pedantry: that's more like it. Yeah, 'pontificate' was the wrong word, although I also disagree with your description that people have lashed out in an attempt to deflect attention from the original case (but that may just be because I don't see that much to say about the original case).

I mean, if this thread is about the reduction in free speech in the UK, then why aren't we discussing any of the cases written about here?

Ah, well, mysteries of the Ship I suppose.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Americans ranting about how we don't have freedom of speech in the UK, and live in a fascist state, pop up regularly on the Ship. Is there any chance the topic could get labelled as a Dead Horse? To my mind it is a subject that gets "flogged just a wee bit too enthusiastically". I'd like to see it redirected to "the place where all done to death threads get booted to, so that they can happily canter along with the other old nags".

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The man was still found guilty

Wrong. He entered a plea of "guilty". Big difference.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Americans ranting...

It's telling that more than one person on this thread wants to make this about fat, hypocritical American attacking the British way of life instead of talking about what free speech is and whether what happened to this man was truly just.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The man was still found guilty
Wrong. He entered a plea of "guilty". Big difference.

Not really. The court doesn't (and can't) punish people if they plead guilty to things that aren't crimes. The fact that it is actually illegal to express disagreeable ideas is the problem here.

This isn't an attack on an arbitrary or capricious court. Which is why (among other things) the tangent about that American case is so irrelevant.

[ 13. October 2012, 13:03: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Zach82. Find another thread to ruin before a lot of people transfer their dislike of you and your bone-headed ideas to Americans in general.

Thanks.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

You're accusing me of spoiling this thread AND making a grade school ad hominem attack in the same post? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You're accusing me of spoiling this thread AND making a grade school ad hominem attack in the same post?

Yup. I'm trying to get the thread back on track and this is the place for ad hominem attacks. Glad you recognised the purpose of my post.

eta: grade school level deliberate, to aid comprehension.

[ 13. October 2012, 13:59: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

My question was "Is this just?" and your commment was "Shu'up, nobody likes you." Which is quite astonishing, since your profile says you're 55 years old.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
My question was "Is this just?" and your commment was "Shu'up, nobody likes you." Which is quite astonishing, since your profile says you're 55 years old.

i) 'Is this just?' is way too purgatorial for Hell. (FWIW it was daft to wear the shirt, but our law enforcement is very squeamish).

ii) When I want to say that, I'll do so much more clearly. Still, if that's how you take it, I'm not going to argue the toss.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I am sure you think you've said something uncommonly clever, but your illusions are of no account to me. Though do explain how bullying me is supposed to get this thread back on track.

[ 13. October 2012, 14:33: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The man was still found guilty
Wrong. He entered a plea of "guilty". Big difference.
Not really.

Yes really. There was not systematic investigation as to whether his actions would be considered provocative. Why he pleaded guilty is irrelevant, but it does not necessarily mean that he accepts fault, just that he accepts an appropriate punishment for what he did. That is important.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Yes really. There was not systematic investigation as to whether his actions would be considered provocative. Why he pleaded guilty is irrelevant, but it does not necessarily mean that he accepts fault, just that he accepts an appropriate punishment for what he did. That is important.

So would this have been unjust if he pleaded innocent? It doesn't seem to me that justice has anything to do with what the defendant believes or pleads. It has to do with what actually is just and whether what he has done violates the principles of just law.

The question for me is, "Is it just to punish him for speaking disagreeable ideas?" Framed that way, I think it would have been exactly as unjust to punish him if he pleaded innocent.

[ 13. October 2012, 14:45: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Just to show that this really is about principles and not nationalist clap-trap, in the US there is a huge problem of prosecutors frightening perfectly innocent people into pleading guilty with the promise of a shortened sentence. But punishing innocent people for any length of time is unjust. The pleading guilty aspect is just another part of the injustice.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
He is mentally ill.

His mental illness was considered "not a factor".

I understand that others may not agree, but I think when people do really stupid things and then get some comeback for it, I do not feel any sympathy. And I think that people who start to call foul miss the point.

As others have pointed out, he did not get 5 years, and he did not have to spend any extra time in jail for this offense. I just struggle to know why people get so het up about this. It is not about free speech - that is always the cry of those who want to support idiots. It is about an idiot getting in trouble.

Freedom of speech is far too important a matter to be wasted on this loser. If you make it about FoS, you lose. FoS does not mean you can be a jerkoff without response.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Freedom of speech is far too important a matter to be wasted on this loser. If you make it about FoS, you lose. FoS does not mean you can be a jerkoff without response.

The thing is, it's the disagreeable ideas that have to be protected. "You can say whatever you like, so long as it's nice and reasonable" is precisely the definition of unfree speech.

[ 13. October 2012, 15:04: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

Hmm. What if, after the horrific killing of two gay newly-weds, the T-shirt had said...

"One Less FaG Perfect Justice."

And:

"KiLL A QUEER 4 Fun.co.uk HA, haaa?"

Or, after the killing of Osama Bin Laden it had read:

"One Less MuSLIM Perfect Justice."

And:

"KiLL A MUSLIM 4 Fun.co.uk HA, haaa?"

Would that constitute a criminal offence worthy of a custodial sentence? I think it probably would.

[ 13. October 2012, 15:14: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

I saw a court case about that, Zach.

Here's some of the testimony:

Officer Leary: I told him to move on, but he continued to use profanity and he refused to leave the premises.

Judge Rayford: What sort of profanity?

Officer Leary: You know, the normal kind.

Judge Rayford: Officer Leary, we've all heard these words before, now for the record what did he say?

Officer Leary: He used... "fuck" a lot.
[quiet laughter from the gallery]

Officer Leary: ..."piss on you"...
[more laughter]

Officer Leary: ...then said he was gonna... "bung-hole the short order chef"... "cream on the waitress"...
[more laughter]

Officer Leary: ...stuff like that, Your Honor.

Defendant: There's a very good reason for all of that, Your Honor.

Judge Rayford: Oh? What is that?

Dapper Defendant: I'm a diabetic.
[loud laughter from the gallery]

Judge Rayford: I fail to see the connection. I've never heard of diabetes causing foul language!

Dapper Defendant: That's because you're a douchebag.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I want to make it absolutely clear that I find the sentiments on this guy's shirt absolutely horrific. But if it becomes illegal to state horrific ideas then the distinction between free and unfree speech becomes meaningless.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I understand that others may not agree, but I think when people do really stupid things and then get some comeback for it, I do not feel any sympathy.

Do you really not see any distinction between "some comeback" and "criminal prosecution"?

quote:
And I think that people who start to call foul miss the point.

Which is what? If you have enough power you can prosecute others for offending you, but if you don't, others can do whatever they want to you, including killing your child?

quote:
As others have pointed out, he did not get 5 years, and he did not have to spend any extra time in jail for this offense. I just struggle to know why people get so het up about this. It is not about free speech - that is always the cry of those who want to support idiots. It is about an idiot getting in trouble.

The mind boggles. To quote the OP article:

quote:
He said Thew had a longstanding dispute with Greater Manchester police over the death of his son three years ago and repeated stop-and-search procedures. He said the wearing of the T-shirt was not in response to the deaths of the two police officers, but was related to another case. He said he was already wearing the T-shirt when he heard the news.

quote:
Freedom of speech is far too important a matter to be wasted on this loser. If you make it about FoS, you lose. FoS does not mean you can be a jerkoff without response.

Look, I'm not going to defend the fact that this guy was wearing that particular t-shirt at all. And I admit that, being on the other side of the pond, I am limited in my ability to investigate just what the hell went down.

But I am curious, based on what was in the article about his objection to stop-and-search procedures, and based on what I know about stop-and-frisk procedures in the US: who do you report it to when the police are the ones harassing you? How do you "reasonably" protest in that situation?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

You're right, Schroedinger's Cat, freedom of speech doesn't mean you can be a jerkoff without response. What it means is that you can be a jerkoff without being thrown in jail for it. Being a jerk is not a crime, or shouldn't be. All the sentiments expressed in the OP about how horrible Barry Thew's crime was essentially say, "We were already hurting, and he made it worse."

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
But I am curious, based on what was in the article about his objection to stop-and-search procedures, and based on what I know about stop-and-frisk procedures in the US: who do you report it to when the police are the ones harassing you? How do you "reasonably" protest in that situation?

You can make a formal complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission or go to your local member of parliament's (equivalent to a congress person but for a much smaller area) constituency surgery and ask them to pursue the matter for you.

[ 13. October 2012, 18:25: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Set aside freedom of speech for a moment. The man lives in a country where he knows that certain offensive speech might get him jailed. He displayed that kind of speech on a tee shirt and ended up with a problem. Not a surprise and not worth getting into a pissing match.

The bits that interest me have to do with his series of stops and frisks and with how it went as far as it did.

As someone else has pointed out earlier in this thread, the police could have not pressed charges. I cannot tell if it was the genuine outrage they undoubtedly felt upon seeing this clown right after two of their own had been killed. It sure seems likely. But, arrest is one thing. Going on with testimony later is another. It seems to me that some other factor is at play in the police not just dropping the charge after a cooling off period.

Repeated stops and frisks in combination with a troubled mental history seems to be the factor. Outside of truly corrupt countries (and the UK is not among that number) cops simply do not repeatedly stop and frisk someone unless they give them a reason for doing so.

In my view the police kept up the prosecution because they saw a way to keep someone they considered a dangerous nut job off the street for a while. It is also my guess that the judge was making sure he didn't get too long a sentence and playing up to public sentiment a bit.

In other words, I think the story in the news missed what actually happened, because what actually happened was going on under the surface.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I want to make it absolutely clear that I find the sentiments on this guy's shirt absolutely horrific. But if it becomes illegal to state horrific ideas then the distinction between free and unfree speech becomes meaningless.

Well, in most countries the distinction is meaningless, then. Because the rhetoric of 'free speech' is just that: rhetoric.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Well, in most countries the distinction is meaningless, then. Because the rhetoric of 'free speech' is just that: rhetoric.

Still not interested in your whinging about countries. Principles are what interest me. And if you think free speech is an empty phrase then we really have nothing to talk about.

[ 14. October 2012, 03:10: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

After rereading my post again, I apologize for calling your post whinging. I am quite horrified that you find free speech to be mere rhetoric, but that was uncalled for anyway.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Apology accepted. But I'm certainly not horrified. Just realistic about the fact that virtually all rights are subjected to limits. Limits are scattered throughout most rights documents. Even in the good old free democracies of the world, there are lots of different approaches to things like hate speech and defamation.

The Wikipedia article on "Freedom of speech by country" is quite good at outlining all this, and illustrating that "SPEECH MUST BE FREE" pretty well always comes with an asterisk and small print.

As to "don't bring countries into it"... well, sorry, mister, but that's what laws ARE. The rules in countries. I'm going to bring countries into it precisely because the 'principles' you've grown up with are a product of the country you've grown up in. A country that allows a whole bunch of things that the rest of the West doesn't. Unless you think that automatically makes us a bunch of authoritarian Commies, you're going to have to cope with the fact that other parts of the world don't automatically see things the way Americans do.

[ 14. October 2012, 03:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Just realistic about the fact that virtually all rights are subjected to limits.

That freedom has limits I accept. That this justifies just any old limitation of rights I cannot. There has to be a just reason to limit freedoms, or it is injustice. Because fundamental human rights are not granted by governments, they are something intrinsic to being human. That is why they are called "fundamental human."

quote:
As to "don't bring countries into it"... well, sorry, mister, but that's what laws ARE.

That's not what justice is. That comes from God, not kings.

[ 14. October 2012, 04:01: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Just realistic about the fact that virtually all rights are subjected to limits.
That freedom has limits I accept. That this justifies just any old limitation of rights I cannot. There has to be a just reason to limit freedoms, or it is injustice. Because fundamental human rights are not granted by governments, they are something intrinsic to being human. That is why they are called "fundamental human."

quote:
As to "don't bring countries into it"... well, sorry, mister, but that's what laws ARE.
That's not what justice is. That comes from God, not kings.

Justifying the limits has to do with the policy and goals of the limits. It's perfectly possible to agree with you, 'on principle', that limits on speech should be kept in check by saying they should only be those limits that are reasonable and justifiable. But that doesn't provide any kind of automatic answer to particular situations whereby we'll all agree that a particular kind of limit is a reasonable and justifiable one.

As for the origins of both rights and justice, there are a number of theories. You're clearly a natural law kind of thinker. When it comes to the laws of the land, I'm not. Not least because some of the things that we'd regard as rights or justice took thousands of years to evolve. If you suggested to our ancestors from 1000 or 2000 years ago that they could happily wear a piece of clothing that, for example, said something negative about the king or emperor, they would have stared at you in complete incomprehension. They would probably wonder why anyone would WANT to do such a thing, never mind their astonishment that anyone might be PERMITTED to do it.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
But that doesn't provide any kind of automatic answer to particular situations...

Laws are supposed to be about particular situations. It's in particular situations that a law is with obeyed or broken.

quote:
As for the origins of both rights and justice, there are a number of theories. You're clearly a natural law kind of thinker. When it comes to the laws of the land, I'm not.

You are pitching absolute subjectivism here. Which makes it very difficult to maintain any sense of the inherent dignity of a human person. That's what freedoms are founded on, after all.

quote:
Not least because some of the things that we'd regard as rights or justice took thousands of years to evolve.

So did the belief that women are equal to men, yet I hope you aren't going to say that women are equal to men just because their governments say they are.

[ 14. October 2012, 04:30: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So did the belief that women are equal to men, yet I hope you aren't going to say that women are equal to men just because their governments say they are.

No. I'm going to say that it scarcely matters whether or not they are equal in some kind of abstract theory of justice if they can't get recognition of that in practice.

Which they didn't for a very, very long time because hardly anyone actually thought that men and women were equal in most respects. Or at least, hardly anyone ACTED like they were equal.

[ 14. October 2012, 05:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It's worth keeping in mind, for instance, that the people who put freedom of speech into your constitution didn't think that women were capable of voting.

EDIT: Except in New Jersey, apparently. So long as they had property and didn't have a man to do the voting for them.

[ 14. October 2012, 05:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I think justice matters.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Man imprisoned for wearing t-shirt.

It's funny how all things are true but nothing is the truth.

Posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus (# 2515) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The shirt says "Kill a Cop" on it.

Really?

Here's a photograph of the t-shirt.

I can't see where it says those words but maybe your eyesight is better than mine.

This case makes me ashamed to be British.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's worth keeping in mind, for instance, that the people who put freedom of speech into your constitution didn't think that women were capable of voting.

EDIT: Except in New Jersey, apparently. So long as they had property and didn't have a man to do the voting for them.

Just goes to show that folks can sometimes be right and sometimes be wrong.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

OK, I just fixed a link on a post- that now seems to have disappeared [Confused]

Reference seeing both sides of the t-shirt. The link is here.

Doublethink
Confused Hellhost

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
The man lives in a country where he knows that certain offensive speech might get him jailed. He displayed that kind of speech on a tee shirt and ended up with a problem.

I live in the same country and I certainly didn't know that that kind of speech on a T-shirt might get me jailtime. I wouldn't personally want to wear such a thing, but I find it frightening that someone who does, for whatever reason, could be punished. I can see the justification for outlawing hate speech against groups who have historically (and currently) been discriminated against, but the police scarcely come into this category.

I wonder whether if he had contested it, rather than pleading guilty, he would have been found not guilty?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think justice matters.

And I think we have a damned difficult job defining what it consists of a lot of the time. Apart from people's spidey-sense tingling when we think it isn't present.

[ 14. October 2012, 23:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
That freedom has limits I accept. That this justifies just any old limitation of rights I cannot. There has to be a just reason to limit freedoms, or it is injustice.

So all your bitching on this thread is because you happen to disagree with the specific limits applied to free speech in the UK?

Please yourself, I guess. But that's a far cry from the idealistic "any limitations at all = no free speech" shit you were coming out with earlier.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
So all your bitching on this thread is because you happen to disagree with the specific limits applied to free speech in the UK?

So all of your bitching on this thread is predicated on the idea that restriction of free speech isn't that big a deal so long as the restricted ideas are unpopular? Or is it all allowed because there are some problems in the justice system of my own country? Those are the general arguments on this thread.

According to Orfeo Freedom of Speech is nothing, or rather a mere courtesy provided by some governments, but I should hope not everyone on this thread is as breath-takingly cynical as that.

[ 15. October 2012, 17:20: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
So all your bitching on this thread is because you happen to disagree with the specific limits applied to free speech in the UK?
So all of your bitching on this thread is predicated on the idea that restriction of free speech isn't that big a deal so long as the restricted ideas are unpopular? Or is it all allowed because there are some problems in the justice system of my own country? Those are the general arguments on this thread.

"Kill a cop" is not about free speech. It is about advocating violence toward specific people. It is incitement to murder.

You can't be seriously considering that advocating murdering police is free speech.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So all of your bitching on this thread

My bitching? Where's that then?

You're the one frothing at the mouth about Freedom of Speech. I'm just pointing out that your view seems to allow for restrictions on that freedom just like everyone else's, so what's the freakin' problem?

[ 15. October 2012, 18:03: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I don't consider the commission of murder to be free speech- I see it as participation in murder. These distinctions are important in Law.

But it seems a long shot to me that this guy was commissioning a crime instead of merely expressing hatred for a government institution in an appalling manner- which he was actually punished for.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But it seems a long shot to me that this guy was commissioning a crime instead of merely expressing hatred for a government institution in an appalling manner

"Incitement to murder" covers far more than just commissioning a crime.

It's a bit of a stretch to apply it in this case though. Probably why they didn't.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My bitching?

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I just think an injustice has been done, and if you think that's "frothing at the mouth" and "bitching" then what isn't?

quote:
You're the one frothing at the mouth about Freedom of Speech. I'm just pointing out that your view seems to allow for restrictions on that freedom just like everyone else's, so what's the freakin' problem?

Orfeo made this argument earlier- if there are just reasons to restrict speech, thenany old restriction of free speech is just.

I don't agree with that, m'self, but as some are so fond of pointing out I am an American, and that supposedly makes all the difference.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Orfeo made this argument earlier- if there are just reasons to restrict speech, thenany old restriction of free speech is just.

I don't agree with that, m'self

Fair enough, but arguing about which restrictions are appropriate is not the same as arguing about Freedom of Speech itself.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Fair enough, but arguing about which restrictions are appropriate is not the same as arguing about Freedom of Speech itself.

This just seems self evidently false to me, of in the very least we have to establish what free speech is before we can think about how it can be justly restricted.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
This just seems self evidently false to me, of in the very least we have to establish what free speech is before we can think about how it can be justly restricted.

Surely unrestricted free speech means being able to say (and/or print, publish, broadcast, wear on a t-shirt, etc.) literally anything you want, at any time you like, in any place you happen to be, to whomever you please.

Anything less than that is already restricted, and therefore not completely "free".

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Surely unrestricted free speech means being able to say (and/or print, publish, broadcast, wear on a t-shirt, etc.) literally anything you want, at any time you like, in any place you happen to be, to whomever you please.

Anything less than that is already restricted, and therefore not completely "free".

Sounds good to me. But then, what is this guy being punished for? As I said, it seems a long shot that he is actually intending to commission a crime.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Surely unrestricted free speech means being able to say (and/or print, publish, broadcast, wear on a t-shirt, etc.) literally anything you want, at any time you like, in any place you happen to be, to whomever you please.

Anything less than that is already restricted, and therefore not completely "free".
Sounds good to me. But then, what is this guy being punished for?

Transgressing the restrictions on free speech that apply in the UK.

Personally, I don't mind there being such restrictions in place. It's quite nice to know that someone who took it upon themselves to walk two paces behind me shouting "you're scum" over and over again could be legally prevented from doing so, and it's also quite nice knowing that the Phelps Clan are not welcome to peddle their hate-filled lies over here.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Surely unrestricted free speech means being able to say (and/or print, publish, broadcast, wear on a t-shirt, etc.) literally anything you want, at any time you like, in any place you happen to be, to whomever you please.

Anything less than that is already restricted, and therefore not completely "free".
Sounds good to me. But then, what is this guy being punished for? As I said, it seems a long shot that he is actually intending to commission a crime.

I dunno. They take my nail file off me at the airport security. Me carrying it is a long shot that I was going to stab someone on the plane.

Do you not agree that there are limits to all rights in a free and democratic society? The argument seems to be where the line is places, with some of us pretty worried about incitement of violence. And you apparently less so.

[ 15. October 2012, 19:06: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I just struggle to know why people get so het up about this. It is not about free speech

Yes it is.

quote:

- that is always the cry of those who want to support idiots. It is about an idiot getting in trouble.

And the world woud lbe a better place if we coudl halp keep idiots out of trouble a bit more.

OK, he deserves a Darwin Award (TM). Walking round the streets with a slogan saying "kill a cop for fun" is stupid. And in lots of places would get you a lot worse than a four-month sentence. But I'd like us to be better than that.

quote:

Freedom of speech is far too important a matter to be wasted on this loser.

Nonsense. It only works when stupid, evil peopel can say stupid, evil things. Because as soon as we ban stupid evil stuff we risk someone else deciding that we are stupid and evil .

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's quite nice to know that someone who took it upon themselves to walk two paces behind me shouting "you're scum" over and over again could be legally prevented from doing so,...

Yes, but it wouldn't be n the grounds of free speech, it would be some sort of harrassment or stalking. Or even common assault.

They could go and tell other people you were scum as much as they wanted.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I have started a Purg thread about cyberbullying, which resulted in a death here.

Would you limit the free speech that caused this girl to kill herself?

Would you have a different opinion about the 'kill a cop t shirt' if someone killed a cop after reading it?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Thank you, no prophet. Can we please stop for a moment and seriously consider whether death threats should be protected speech? ( Particularly death threats against individuals that WE have tasked with OUR safety? ) There are always some social / legal limits on speech, for good reason. And yes, it's important to keep those limits as few and as narrow as possible. But words have to mean something if freedom of speech is to be worth anything, and we generally operate on the principle that people mean what they say. Otherwise, "free speech" is just an adult version of "sticks and stones".

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Marvin the Martian:
It's quite nice to know that someone who took it upon themselves to walk two paces behind me shouting "you're scum" over and over again could be legally prevented from doing so,...
Yes, but it wouldn't be n the grounds of free speech, it would be some sort of harrassment or stalking. Or even common assault.

They could go and tell other people you were scum as much as they wanted.

OK, so harassment is one reason why 'free speech' can be restricted. Any more?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Plotting of various kinds, putting dangerous information in the public domain - e.g. this is how to effectively poison the water system of a small city etc

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Plotting of various kinds, putting dangerous information in the public domain - e.g. this is how to effectively poison the water system of a small city etc

I suspect that such information is available on the internet.

Moo

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Orfeo made this argument earlier- if there are just reasons to restrict speech, thenany old restriction of free speech is just.

That is in fact the exact OPPOSITE of what I said. Nice going.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

By sheer chance, a colleague forwarded me today an academic article that has a section on the 'right' of free speech.

A choice quote:

quote:
The point is not to deny the essential nature of the right to a tolerant and vibrant democracy. On the contrary, it is hard to deny the importance and virtue of the values that underpin the right to freedom of speech and the ideals and aspirations which it embodies. But the content of the right is hotly contested and largely indeterminate. In this regard, the right to free speech does not have a core content that judges can reasonably and non-controversially determine and so protect through the application of the principle of legality. It does not function well as a legal rule, since, as noted, it is essentially a political or moral claim that must be mediated through a process of internal qualification before the 'right' to be protected in any given circumstance can be identified.

Well, guess it isn't just me, then, in the so-called 'cynical' camp...

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I've learned well enough to just stop bothering when your line becomes "Zach, you're stupid and you can't understand me because you are mean and stupid."

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

What about when it becomes other people's line?

Because when other people said pretty much the same thing that I was conveying, it suddenly started looking for a minute like you were listening.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

Is anyone honestly arguing that free speech should be entirely without limits?

My take is that the real argument is on where they should be drawn. Wearing an offensive T-shirt? Really? You'd have to lock up most every teenager I encounter in a day.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Is anyone honestly arguing that free speech should be entirely without limits?

My take is that the real argument is on where they should be drawn. Wearing an offensive T-shirt? Really? You'd have to lock up most every teenager I encounter in a day.

I think we've all agreed that there can be just limits on free speech. What hasn't been explained is why writing mean things about government institutions on one's shirt can be justly limited.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Is anyone honestly arguing that free speech should be entirely without limits?

My take is that the real argument is on where they should be drawn. Wearing an offensive T-shirt? Really? You'd have to lock up most every teenager I encounter in a day.
I think we've all agreed that there can be just limits on free speech. What hasn't been explained is why writing mean things about government institutions on one's shirt can be justly limited.

I think the word you're looking for is incitement.

There has to be an understanding about what is incitement and what is hot-headed protest on the other. It can be a fine line.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

That's the long odds part. For this to be a crime apart from free speech it has to be more than something that could just happen to incite violence. It has to be actually intended to drive people to crime.

In this case the chances of actual incitement seem particularly negligible, and I can't really see the intent there. Instead, it seems he's being punished for expressing outrageous ideas.

[ 16. October 2012, 17:26: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
... What hasn't been explained is why writing mean things about government institutions on one's shirt can be justly limited.

The shirt isn't saying a mean thing about a government institution. It's suggesting killing a person who works for that institution.

Free speach means nothing if our words don't mean something.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

The horror of the opinion expressed is irrelevant in truly free speech. The concern is whether, in expressing this idea, there is danger of incitement.

Though I repeat, it isn't clear to me that he's actually saying police ought to be killed, instead of expressing hatred of the police in a despicable manner.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
... it isn't clear to me that he's actually saying police ought to be killed ...

What do you think "kill a cop for fun" means, then?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I've said "I'm going to kill him!" when angry before, but I should hope you aren't so literalistic as to interpret that as intent.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I've said "I'm going to kill him!" when angry before, but I should hope you aren't so literalistic as to interpret that as intent.

Depending on where you say it, what has transpired before you say it, and who is listening, it likely in some instances you would be taken literally and you would be charged. Try it in an airport for example, or in a police station.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The horror of the opinion expressed is irrelevant in truly free speech. The concern is whether, in expressing this idea, there is danger of incitement.

That's not the only concern. There's also the question of whether it counts as harassment, assuming you're OK with harasment not being protected free speech of course...

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

While the intent of the "speaker" ought to be a factor, that intent should be interpreted through the lenses of how the audience reacts and how a reasonable person would react.

Here, neither the audience, nor would any reasonable person, react by creating violence against the police.

As far as I can tell the reaction of the police was to be angry and further saddened. I am not sure where such an expression should fall in the crime and punishment to free speech spectrum.

Just a thought.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
While the intent of the "speaker" ought to be a factor, that intent should be interpreted through the lenses of how the audience reacts and how a reasonable person would react.

Here, neither the audience, nor would any reasonable person, react by creating violence against the police.

Exactly.

I have seen young persons, on occasion, wear T-shirts saying things such as, "F__k The Police!" Here again, I doubt anyone was planning to take the statement literally. Yet I gather this would be beyond "free speech" to the minds of some posters, as it may cause offense.

Incitement, however, requires more than a statement- it requires a reasonable possibility that others will act on the statement. Without that, the offensive speech is merely that- offensive.

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
As far as I can tell the reaction of the police was to be angry and further saddened.

Which makes me think that if the police in question are unable to be "angry and further saddened" without taking that out on the persons they are supposed to protect and serve, they may wish to find other employment- being a police officer means handling unpleasantness from other people is an everyday occurrence.

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I am not sure where such an expression should fall in the crime and punishment to free speech spectrum.

For me- purely in the realm of free speech. No incitement is present (lack of reasonable belief others will react by killing police), which leaves us with causing offense and upset. As do many things in this world, most of which, thankfully, are perfectly legal. Offensive, to be sure, but protected speech nonetheless.

YMMV, of course.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
I have seen young persons, on occasion, wear T-shirts saying things such as, "F__k The Police!"

I can see it now. "This boy wants to RAPE the poor police! This cannot be borne! Arrest him at ONCE!"

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
Freedom of speech, yeah; freedom for hate speech, no, not really.
In the 1980s, I saw idiots wearing T-shirts featuring what looked at first like a can of Raid bug spray, and bearing the slogan: "AIDS - kills fags dead before they spread."
That, IMO, crossed the line into hate crime; so the line is probably there, like it or not.

Yes, because you are born a police officer, and you can never, ever stop being one.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Don't know quite where this fits in but this thread reminds me a little of the recent of the issue about 'hating' on Facebook pages. You know, where malicious people would post jokes and nasty comments on tribute pages for murdered or missing children. I may be misremembering, but I think there was a successful prosecution recently of someone who was doing that.

As I say I don't know where that really fits in with free speech, or freedom of expression in public forums, but the lines are pretty blurry, on the one hand, and OTOH, there is something definitely reprehensible in certain forms of hating on people.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
I have seen young persons, on occasion, wear T-shirts saying things such as, "F__k The Police!"
I can see it now. "This boy wants to RAPE the poor police! This cannot be borne! Arrest him at ONCE!"

You laugh, and yet I was informed by the police (a different set than the ones who are holding some sort of grudge against me for some mysterious reason) that the fact that I said 'of course I'm not afraid of physically hurting him; I pretty sure I couldn't hurt him even if I wanted to' was taken as evidence that I had the desire and intent to hurt a particular person (a police officer) but couldn't figure out a way to do actually do it.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
Freedom of speech, yeah; freedom for hate speech, no, not really.
In the 1980s, I saw idiots wearing T-shirts featuring what looked at first like a can of Raid bug spray, and bearing the slogan: "AIDS - kills fags dead before they spread."
That, IMO, crossed the line into hate crime; so the line is probably there, like it or not.

"Hate speech" is a bullshit distinction dreamed up in the half-cooked brains of PC morons.

Good heavens, I've said something unkind about morons!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Good heavens, I've said something unkind about morons!

So long as you keep it in the family.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Hate speech is defined by the Canadian Criminal Code (and parliamentarians). So it exists, whether you like it or not.

It doesn't stop vigourous political debate. But it does stop "attack[ing] the person, not the issue". Unless there are consenting adults, in private.

This has been a 10C commercial*.

*Not necessarily applicable in Hell. Usual restrictions apply.

[ 24. October 2012, 09:25: Message edited by: PeteC ]

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Hate speech is defined by the Canadian Criminal Code (and parliamentarians). So it exists, whether you like it or not.

It doesn't stop vigourous political debate. But it does stop "attack[ing] the person, not the issue". Unless there are consenting adults, in private.

This has been a 10C commercial*.

*Not necessarily applicable in Hell. Usual restrictions apply.

I just don't see how voicing an unflattering opinion about a group of people should be criminalized. I understand that it is in some PC backwaters. I suppose I'm glad that I live in a country where no one is going to try to stifle opinions they don't like by crying 'bigot' to the cops.

At least Canada has hockey going for them.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0