Man Gets Jailed For Three Years For Racial Postings (serious business)

[Narcolepsy]

Freedom of speech is important because it is just that: free. There are no qualifications to the word "free", and if were to add just ONE qualifier - free, except for racism, for example - that could be twisted to fit almost any corrupted purpose.

I didn't understand the pain of censorship until I became the editor of my high school newspaper. The rest of the staff and I were absolutely adamant about telling the student body the truth - which includes the corruption of the administration. But of course, the administration distributes the paper, so everything remotely seditious was replaced with news about how awesome the latest pep rally was. After a few years of dealing with us, they finally shut us down. So there is no school paper anymore - all because one form of free speech was denied.

 

[kirovman]

Free Speech?

 

[MiccyNarc]

Free Speech?

Liberty is a bitch, no?

 

[hungryduck]

he got what was coming to him.......

 

[Krynn72]

Let me start by saying, I am not threatening you, I am just making a point. Now, lets say I asked a guy to beat you up. Wouldn't you want me to be punished for this?

What really happens in the above senario? I go to jail, for what I said. Its not about not being allowed to say anything you want, its about hurting others with what you say.

Thats completely out of context. At that point you are taking action by planning the beating. In the context in which we were speaking, you would have said "I hope that guy gets beaten up", at which point there is no basis for arrest.

If we were in your context, this guy would have gone to some kkk member or something and asked them to beat up some black guy. But he didnt do that, he was talking on the internet about his views.

 

[dream431ca]

Samuel L Jackson should beat him with a golf club.


Oh and freedom is an illusion. It's not real you weak minded fool.

 

[Darkside55]

Of course I support their right to say it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't piss me off though and that's all I was trying to say. For example when I've got my (white) teacher bitching at me that I'm "bordering on racism!!" and about to write me up because I was having a simple discussion about the jewish religion with my friend which involved no negative comments at all (actually all I said was "Jewish people don't believe in jesus right?" before she immediatly jumped into the conversation). While watching a video in class another one of my teachers (white) sitting there making fun of white truckers who have very bad english, yet at the same time singing the praises of a black man on the streets, speaking in ebonics and broken english while telling kids about how great it is to be a part of a gang. I don't like racists either, when they say (for example) how dirty mexicans are and blacks are smelly, because I have friends of those races and I know it's not true. I'm just saying it's usually the racists that get attention, when their anti-racist counterparts are just as bad/ignorant.

I get what you're saying. I thought that's what you meant, just wanted to be sure. Yeah, when people take it to extremes and see racism in every conversation that brings up race, that's retarded.

How about all of you guys who post how much you hate Bush? What if he were to have you all arrested because you are inciting violence against the bush administration?

There was a case of a bus driver flipping off Bush as he drove past, I think some kind of action was taken against him but I can't remember what it was.

When is the last time you changed your basic moral and ethical code based on something you read in a forum.

No one is going to be "made" racist by visiting a website. If they visit the site in a serious manner then obviously they had some ideas about it before hand.

I have to disagree with you there. It happens. I've seen it happen and heard from people their mentality about it (I recall talking to one racist woman many years back [1996] who was telling me how she became a racist off of things she'd read and heard even in those early days of the internet). They read these kinds of things and they agree with them. It's not just racism anyway; peoples' codes aren't set in stone and tend to be very malleable things. And people are guillible too, don't forget. If something starts sounding true and/or good to their ears, they're gonna take it up, even if they had no prior feelings about it beforehand. It's like when you argue someone down and they have to concede. "Well, that's true..." even if they didn't think so before.

You simply cannot limit free speech if you hope to have a free and equal society. Morality is not black and white and thus you cannot tell someone what they can or cannot say based on any specific moral theory, especially in a majority rule culture. First, racist remarsk are prohibited. Ok, but by whom? Namely, the government or the majority. Ok, great...no more racist remarks. Now let's see...what else offends the majority? How about anti-religious talk? That's pretty offensive...so that has to go. Pro-gay talk? Oh that's definitely out. Let's see here...the majority voted for bush so there obviously shouldn't have been any anti-bush talk allowed after the election.

Dissenting opinion, no matter how tame or extreme, is one of the underlying foundations of a free society. Censorship breeds conformity and creates an unchecked authority. I'm not just pulling this stuff out of thin air. Go read about censorship in history.

I see the point you're making, and I'm inclined to agree with it, but I still have to say that I can't completely dismiss the thought of abolishing hateful speech. Getting rid of racist talk would be beneficial to society, I firmly believe that. About pro-gay talk, you went the wrong way there. It should be anti-gay talk, although with the majority being what it is...that's the problem too, the problem is with people. This wouldn't even be a discussion if people weren't so goddamned hateful of other people for race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, etc. I think we can all agree on that. Which is why I feel that censoring the voice of hate is something we should do. Hate speech exists only to propagate these ideas to more people willing to listen, and though it might not be violent in itself it inspires people to violence.

 

[Jintor]

I see the point you're making, and I'm inclined to agree with it, but I still have to say that I can't completely dismiss the thought of abolishing hateful speech. Getting rid of racist talk would be beneficial to society, I firmly believe that. About pro-gay talk, you went the wrong way there. It should be anti-gay talk, although with the majority being what it is...that's the problem too, the problem is with people. This wouldn't even be a discussion if people weren't so goddamned hateful of other people for race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, etc. I think we can all agree on that. Which is why I feel that censoring the voice of hate is something we should do. Hate speech exists only to propagate these ideas to more people willing to listen, and though it might not be violent in itself it inspires people to violence.

Fixt! :thumbs:

 

[CrazyHarij]

what the **** is up with people today.. if the government controls what we say or think, they can practically control what we do.

all you idiots advocating censorship and reducing of free speech? just what the ****? i have no words.. i'm glad i live in sweden, despite the cold climate and general stupidity of the majority of swedish people, we don't have to put up with shit like this.

these things don't come in little instances and end with little instances. they start with little instances and escalate.

i just don't ****ing get all this political correctness bullshit, it's ****ing with people's rights. so what if someone is offended, it's their ****ing problem. a land without freedom of speech is a land without freedom. just look at 13750whatever, he's a brainwashed lunatic.

 

[PvtRyan]

I hate racists almost as much as I hate black people.. :shh:

 

[repiV]

what the **** is up with people today.. if the government controls what we say or think, they can practically control what we do.

all you idiots advocating censorship and reducing of free speech? just what the ****? i have no words.. i'm glad i live in sweden, despite the cold climate and general stupidity of the majority of swedish people, we don't have to put up with shit like this.

these things don't come in little instances and end with little instances. they start with little instances and escalate.

i just don't ****ing get all this political correctness bullshit, it's ****ing with people's rights. so what if someone is offended, it's their ****ing problem. a land without freedom of speech is a land without freedom. just look at 13750whatever, he's a brainwashed lunatic.

Exactly.
Political correctness is thinly disguised mind control.

 

[Narcolepsy]

If you could really censor the "voice of hate", and ONLY the true infernal voice of hate, I don't think many people would be against it.

In reality, though, it would set an extremely dangerous precedent. How would the law enforcement define "hate"? Simple - in whatever way that's convenient for them.

 

[repiV]

If you could really censor the "voice of hate", and ONLY the true infernal voice of hate, I don't think many people would be against it.

In reality, though, it would set an extremely dangerous precedent. How would the law enforcement define "hate"? Simple - in whatever way that's convenient for them.

Why shouldn't we be allowed to hate?

 

[kirovman]

Why shouldn't we be allowed to hate?

Because then we'd all be New York Taxi drivers :O

 

[repiV]

Because then we'd all be New York Taxi drivers :O

Well damn, ya got me there.

 

[CrazyHarij]

If you could really censor the "voice of hate", and ONLY the true infernal voice of hate, I don't think many people would be against it.

the object hate is extremely subjective. someone once said, a person who doesn't hate, doesn't truly love either.

it's just one part of the spectrum. hate isn't also only "infernal hate", it's also dislike and a very powerful expression. to censor these two would reduce society, make it more bland, reduce the ability to complain, etc etc.

 

[Geogaddi]

The logic of those advocating this sort of thing escapes me...

 

[Narcolepsy]

Why shouldn't we be allowed to hate?

I think I'll have to agree with you. When it comes down to it, I'm a firm believer that for there to be the really good, there has to be the really bad.

I'm not quite sure what I was thinking, but the real point I was making was in the bold, there.

 

[function9]

Freedom of speech is too highly overrated.

At this point in time I have to agree. For the most part it's a smoke screen to make us feel warm and fuzzy inside with the illusion of we can make a difference.

Free speech is the only thing we have that allows us to question thing we have been told. If governments start censoring us, then it will get worse and worse until we the citizens have no idea or opinions on anything other than what out government wants.

There is no need for censorship. They will just ignore the people that are not significant just like they have been. Censorship might cause some sort of uproar. But leaving freedom of speech intact, but ignoring most of it makes it easy for them and keeps those nice blinders on the masses.

 

[Qonfused]

What I don't understand is how someone can be so "offended" by a series of vocal noises. To believe that the noise "ni" with "ger" can offend someone due to their own personal beliefs is moronic. I am Caucasian so maybe I don't truly understand but if I was another race and was called a spic, nigger, chink or any other slur I don't think I'd be offended.

I'm not supporting racial slurs, but I am debating the actual seriousness of it. In my opinion if someone is offended by a simple said word, then they are insecure, fragile and ignorant. Honestly. So what someone said a few things someone might be offended by? Move on. I hate to quote this guy, but he's right: Your feelings are not protected by the Constitution. And as such, this man, no matter what he said, should not be jailed.

 

[15357]

In certain cultures, equal rights for women would be considered a "viral idealogy".

To many Muslims in this world, the very idea of girls in short skirts is dangerous to society. The poor men will have no choice but to rape those tempting pieces of flesh and then execute them for becoming pregnant out of wedlock.

Some of you people are so narrow minded you only think about freedom of speech in the context of your own little worlds where you believe the concepts of right/wrong good/evil are stagnant, unchanging and consistent.

Move to China and start a pro-democracy movement and when you're about to face lethal injections as punishment for your crimes, consider that maybe freedom of speech isn't so OVERrated.

Yes indeed. It's them, however. Cultures will vary, according to the people who agree with it.

Yeah, we banned miniskirts as well 'till 15 years ago. I have no opinions about it however, due to my inexperience.

Freedom of speech is all great, but it should not be allowed when it disturbes the peace, incites social unrest, civil disorder crimes, inciting hatred, and inseminating dangerous ideals that undermime democratic freedom and equality.

Freedom of speech enables every person to be able to voice their opinion, regardless of how stupid, vile, and retarded they may be. Don't like it? Don't listen to it. If you can't avoid it, then just remember that you can disregard it.

It's not me that I am worried about, but society itself. There are people in this world, many of them, that can be swayed by even a quarter-ounce of logic in a hateful message distributed. That may apply to me as well, but just leave that for now.

Locking up people for prejudiced comments isn't going to make the world less racist. It's not going to stop hate crimes. So what's being accomplished here? A man's getting put in prison for nothing more than your emotional satisfaction. "I didn't like what he said, so I'm glad he's getting punished for it" is essentially what you're saying, and that is unbelievably petty. You should thank your lucky stars that the justice system generally doesn't function on such a shallow base.

Freedom of speech is all great, but it should not be allowed when it disturbes the peace, incites social unrest, civil disorder crimes, inciting hatred, and inseminating dangerous ideals that undermime democratic freedom and equality.

Not to go down a slippery slope, but yes, this does leave me asking "Where does it end?", and with good reason. Racism is considered deplorable on a moral basis. Unfortunately, morality is not a concept universally agreed on. So while we may all agree that nobody likes racism, what happens when we reach out to other things? Homosexuality? Atheism? Marxism? Eating meat? It's all dependent on the specific brand of morality of those with the power to incarcerate people.

Danger to democratic freedoms, and not morality is the issue here.

Actions are what should land people in jail. Not opinions.

Yes, and he hath don an action, the insemmination of a viral ideaology called racism.

If the public wants to follow the radical ideology, it's their choice. We can only educate society, it's not in our place to put a leash on others.

Is it?

There are some unwritten rules humans must adhere to. If you can't, go to Siberia and leave the rest of us alone. A person has the right to express himself as long as he does not trample on the rights of others, like the right to some dignity.

Indeed.

Who will guard the guardians?

I will.

Or the chief of police/head of dept. of public security.

what the **** is up with people today.. if the government controls what we say or think, they can practically control what we do.

And thats not such a bad thing when it comes to racism and hate crimes.

all you idiots advocating censorship and reducing of free speech? just what the ****? i have no words.. i'm glad i live in sweden, despite the cold climate and general stupidity of the majority of swedish people, we don't have to put up with shit like this.

Well, you didn't have to insult us so, but Freedom of speech is all great, but it should not be allowed when it disturbes the peace, incites social unrest, civil disorder crimes, inciting hatred, and inseminating dangerous ideals that undermime democratic freedom and equality.

these things don't come in little instances and end with little instances. they start with little instances and escalate.

All for the better.

I just don't ****ing get all this political correctness bullshit, it's ****ing with people's rights. so what if someone is offended, it's their ****ing problem. a land without freedom of speech is a land without freedom. just look at 13750whatever, he's a brainwashed lunatic.

Freedom of speech is all great, but it should not be allowed when it disturbes the peace, incites social unrest, civil disorder crimes, inciting hatred, and inseminating dangerous ideals that undermime democratic freedom and equality.








On another note: MANY of you have said that religion should be banned, and that infringes upon the so called right of speech. How about that?

 

[xcellerate]

I love white supremacy sites. Mainly because I'm in an interracial relationship and it's fun to start debates with those people. I had one guy give me an analogy about an interracial baby, "when you mix a lab with a terrier then the pup is neither of them!"

Which I thought was funny because yea he's right...but the pup is still a dog.

But, how can you get jailed for typing things? How do the police prove it was this person and not this person unless somebody admits to it. Computers are pretty public.

 

[15357]

How do the police prove it was this person and not this person unless somebody admits to it.

Big Brother is watching you.

 

[tehsolace]

This man brought a lot of grief into the lives of the already grieving family of the young man who was terribly murdered in a racial attack. He sure deserves some type of punishment, does he not? Also, he said the family should be burned. Given the insensivitity and hate in that man's words, I wouldn't have been surprised if he had carried through with his threats to burn them all.

*jumps in to reply to this post quite late...*

You're saying he deserves 3 years of imprisonment for, as you claim, "causing a lot of grief into the family of the young man"? How exactly are comments made on the internet supposed to cause grief to a family?

There are people holding up anti-war signs and protesting at people's FUNERALS... and they don't get anything done to them. I would boast that they are causing some real grief to families than this guy did.

On another note: MANY of you have said that religion should be banned, and that infringes upon the so called right of speech. How about that?

I'm not sure how you mean it infringes on the 'right of speech'. Do you mean freedom of religion? Or do you mean that by saying religion should be banned that they are somehow infringing the freedom of speech?

Also on a side note: Numbers, I think your views on democracy and overall peace are admirable, but you have alot to learn about why the government's power must be limited and cannot be so absolute as you tend to suggest.

 

[Jintor]

Also on a side note: Numbers, I think your views on democracy and overall peace are admirable, but you have alot to learn about why the government's power must be limited and cannot be so absolute as you tend to suggest.

Quite right. ^ ^

 

[CrazyHarij]

Freedom of speech is all great, but it should not be allowed when it disturbes the peace, incites social unrest, civil disorder crimes, inciting hatred, and inseminating dangerous ideals that undermime democratic freedom and equality.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

 

[Solaris]

Its not about free speech.

It's about whether you should be allowed to call for the racially motivated murder of others

 

[d00d]

But, how can you get jailed for typing things? How do the police prove it was this person and not this person unless somebody admits to it. Computers are pretty public.

IP address, there are a number of ways computers can be traced and etc.

Everyone has the right of freedom of speech, you just need to see what possible outcomes and consequences will come from it.

 

[Zeus]

IP address, there are a number of ways computers can be traced and etc.

He's saying ya it may have came from that computer but it doesn't mean that PERSON posted the messeges

 

[el Chi]

"Martin admitted posting the messages but insisted he was not racist. He told the officers he had intended to stir up an argument on the website but did not believe in what he had written."
Rrrriiiight...
I think that he should be punished for his racist posts because it contravened free speech laws, was aggressive and inflammatory and was in appallingly bad taste.
However, I'm surprised he didn't get longer for the kiddie porn. I don't know the ins and outs of the law so maybe he'll give them information on where and how he got his hands on it.
I imagine the problem with that is that it's not directly abuse against the child.

I'm not one to post bullshit news stories (CptStern)

Oooh, saucer of milk...

 

[CrazyHarij]

Its not about free speech.

It's about whether you should be allowed to call for the racially motivated murder of others

which, ironically is free speech.

however, in sweden we have something called "inciting rage against a minority", which is forbidden by law, but only particular groups such as jews, muslims, black people and homosexuals count, to prevent any hitler-esque speech to occur again. it's a bit of a vague inconsistent law since it don't apply for all groups of people and there are people who claim it should be removed.

it's probably the only thing against free speech that we have in sweden, also newspapers have journalism laws but other than that, people are free to voice any kind of opinion.

but little instances like this being jailworthy is ridiculous.

"Martin admitted posting the messages but insisted he was not racist. He told the officers he had intended to stir up an argument on the website but did not believe in what he had written."
Rrrriiiight...

It happens. when i was younger i posted something like that when a minor teen celebrity in sweden died and there was an online posting about it (I really regret it in retrospect though). ever heard about the term troll?

 

[el Chi]

There's a difference between "troll" and "racist" and "trolling" on a site dedicated to a kid brutally murdered, set up by mourners is not "trolling" it's "being a c*nt".

 

[CrazyHarij]

the guy's stupid and insensitive, but he's not a racist. as far as i know, there's no punishment to just being stupid, unless you do something that damages others.

it's taking it too far counting a little online reply as something greatly mentally damaging someone. sure, they may be offended, and i can't probably put myself in their position, but if we're going to set up a system that forbids anything that would offend anyone at all (like the US seems to be turning into), it would be a ****ing batshit insane society. Freedom of speech includes the right to offend, that's why it's called freedom. You're supposed to be offended in a free society, it's part of life and part of sharing and exchanging opinions as a human right.

 

[repiV]

the guy's stupid and insensitive, but he's not a racist. as far as i know, there's no punishment to just being stupid, unless you do something that damages others.

it's taking it too far counting a little online reply as something greatly mentally damaging someone. sure, they may be offended, and i can't probably put myself in their position, but if we're going to set up a system that forbids anything that would offend anyone at all (like the US seems to be turning into), it would be a ****ing batshit insane society. Freedom of speech includes the right to offend, that's why it's called freedom. You're supposed to be offended in a free society, it's part of life and part of sharing and exchanging opinions as a human right.

If you've never offended anyone in your lifetime or made any enemies, I would have to question your worth as a human being...

 

[Krynn72]

"Martin admitted posting the messages but insisted he was not racist. He told the officers he had intended to stir up an argument on the website but did not believe in what he had written."
Rrrriiiight...

So you never posted something you didnt belive in? People here do it all the time, but its just to get a rise out of somebody (IE, cause an argument). He isnt racist, he just wanted to mess with people. Thats not illegal... and even if he was racist, its still not illegal.

 

[Darkside55]

I say we throw all trolls in jail.

 

[15357]

I'm not sure how you mean it infringes on the 'right of speech'. Do you mean freedom of religion? Or do you mean that by saying religion should be banned that they are somehow infringing the freedom of speech?

Also on a side note: Numbers, I think your views on democracy and overall peace are admirable, but you have alot to learn about why the government's power must be limited and cannot be so absolute as you tend to suggest.

I think that they're both basically the same things, since both would ban people from talking about their harmful beliefs.

Perhaps, but I hold the hope that absolute power can be turned into absolute democracy.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

In this case, we're giving up an unessential liberty to gain another essential liberty.

 

[Absinthe]

*Sigh*

Throws in the towel

 

[Jintor]

Perhaps, but I hold the hope that absolute power can be turned into absolute democracy.

And never let that hope die, Numbers!

 

[tehsolace]

Perhaps, but I hold the hope that absolute power can be turned into absolute democracy.

In this case, we're giving up an unessential liberty to gain another essential liberty.

Well, its a difficult position to argue that absolute power can lead to anything but oppression considering we have seen nothing but the same result from countless countries in history.

It is short-minded to say that the freedom to say racial comments is an 'unessential liberty'. You can't promote freedom of speech and equality while forbidding specific things such as sharing racist beliefs to the public. Its a double standard.

Racism is something shunned upon (and illegal in some actions) by the government, which is why you believe it should be illegal to even share racist ideas. However, if you look back in history you will find many things were illegal that would of never changed if it were also illegal to speak against them. Jim Crow laws, for example, made segregation mandatory in the US, and was only abolished during the Civil Rights Movement because of the freedom of speech and the freedom to protest your beliefs.