What is your opinion on the arrest of this Australian guy for racist comments?

What is your opinion on the arrest of this Australian guy for racist comments?

This is the link: theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/30/man-charged-over-allegedly-posting-racists-comments-on-nova-peris-facebook-page

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Y69tkCbeC5o
youtube.com/watch?v=aeOkybuCXX0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Sad to say it, but our lucky country doesn't have freedoms. This is what happens in a country without freedoms.

Fuck racists

I don't like racists but arresting them for voicing their opinions is pretty shit desu.

>Man

Is that even a man?

And no I don't believe that the state should police speech and expression. I think that is overstepping their role.

If the post really was slanderous then they were in the right in charging him

I don't like racists either, but arresting them is ridiculous. Australians, come to America. We have free speech there.

That's the person who the racist comments were made too.

>If the post really was slanderous then they were in the right in charging him

You what?

Slander is civil, not a criminal offense. You can sue for Slander (assuming you can prove damages and all that), you can't get someone arrested and put in prison for it.

I can see how it would be made desu, """she""" looks like a typical abbo lmao

He wasn't arrested for slander. I'm pretty sure he violated a stupid "hate speech" law.

>Australians can take bants!!!

How bad are your hate speech laws?

I stand corrected.
I do agree with you in that calling someone with racist names is not necessarily hate speech

Do you think "hate speech" should be regulated?

So when will the Aussie police arrest every single one of their kangaroo posters here.

What country are you from? I don't recognize the flag?

Yes, for the cases when it's clearly inciting violence towards any group (not simply name-calling).

>How bad are your hate speech laws?

Don't think they're as bad as memes are, I dunno tho. I can't really think of people getting in trouble for hate speech


It's weird because "Hate speech" is such a loose term. What constitutes or doesn't constitute hate speech is really extensible and arguable, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which grants us Freedom of Expression, but idk how it all works desu

How do you define inciting violence though? I don't think that threats should be legal, but I think the inciting violence thing should be defined very narrowly.

"I think x are all y should be z" kind of things come to mind

The problem with hate speech laws is that they are so broad. It gives the government tons of power to regulate speech they don't like, whatever that speech may be.

>The problem with hate speech laws is that they are so broad. It gives the government tons of power to regulate speech they don't like, whatever that speech may be.

Yeah I know.

But we have our version of the "constitution" and it says we have Freedom of Expression, so I'm not sure how Hatespeech laws would Conflict with our Freedom of Expression, I guess you'd need to take it to the Supreme court of Canada and argue it there, a long and gruesome process.

I don't think that should be illegal. That's just too broad. What if you say "some x are y" or something else? It gives people too much power to regulate speech they don't like.

>“You were only endorsed by Juliar because you were black. Go back to the bush and suck on witchety grubs and yams.”
I see nothing wrong with the arrest. Insults should not be legal

>chiropractor

If only every other magic voodoo bullshit peddler could be sent to jail

Hate speech is freedom of expression. The idea that you are not allowed to say certain things contradicts with the idea that you have the freedom to say almost anything.

>you can be arrested for posting your thoughts
>western "freedom of speech"

do you guys know any cunt which allows full-freedom of speech?

youtube.com/watch?v=Y69tkCbeC5o

How's the comedian who got arrested by the state for making fun of Turkey's Prime Minister?

Yes I know but I'm wondering whether we can say it or not.

It's too contradictory, so we have freedom of expression but "hate speech" is forbidden, what does that even mean?

It should be legal to hate people. This idea that we can police what people think is retarded and Orwellian.

'Merica.
You can't threaten people, libel, or slander people, but other than that you can pretty much say anything.

I dont know if you have read the poem, but it is not really satire, basically just insulting erdogan, calling him goatfucker etc. I see nothing wrong with the comedian beeing found guilty.
This whole story shouldnt have been a great deal in the first place

There should be some safeguards to avoid the worsening of social segregation.

Mind you I'm not saying social issues shouldn't be discussed (they definitely should), but not through the means of unconstructive criticism and generalization

Hate speech is an excuse used by authoritarian leftists(usually SJWs) to regulate thoughts that they don't like. That is all that hate speech laws are. In short, they violate your freedom of expression.

>There should be some safeguards to avoid the worsening of social segregation.

Why though?

>Insults should not be legal
Kill yourself, retard.

yeah you can libel people, in order to be convicted you have to both prove that it's not true AND the defendant knew it wasn't true, in other words impossible

Hate speech laws are excuses by leftist authoritarians(usually SJWs) to regulate the speech of people they don't like. That's all it is. It means that SJWs found a way to circumvent your rights.

>america
>you can literally be attacked for supporting trump

youtube.com/watch?v=aeOkybuCXX0

say it to my face and see what happens

This.

Because it results in violence and instability.
I don't like refugees and minorities any more than other Sup Forums users, but when discussing the structure of society I think there's one best case solution for everything

>“You were only endorsed by Juliar because you were black. Go back to the bush and suck on witchety grubs and yams.”

Yeah that is pretty racist. Not worthy to be arrested for, to be honest, just ridiculed by the rest of society.

Racists should be rounded up. If you disagree you probably have secret racist thoughts and need to do some serious thinking

>I don't like refugees and minorities any more than other Sup Forums users
>But the state should silence and jail people who are being honest about what they believe

Retarded. People should be free to destroy their own reputation. It's the same thing with Holocaust denialism.

Define an insult.
See how it is so broad you could then arrest anyone for insulting you? Neighbor called me a dick, call the police. Or what if criticizing someone's policies insulted them, and thus made it so that it would be impossible to criticize political figures. This would be an Orwellian nightmare. Also,
>insults should be illegal
>goes on Sup Forums

And then get arrested. It's a crime to attack people.

As I previously said, the problems should be discussed, but blurting out poorly justified opinions that on the long run might be extremely damaging to the society should be regulated.
It's not just about one person's reputation

There is a difference if you insult somebody in a private conversation or in a public space.

>Or what if criticizing someone's policies insulted them
It doesn't matter if the politician feels insulted or not. If its not an insult, then its not illegal.

So now it's the governments's job to decide how well thought out an opinions is?

>and get arrested
what if im white

Government's job is to make sure every citizen can lead safe and stable lives with equal opportunities, in my opinion at least

Pretend I am the head of a political party. I call Angela Merkel corrupt and dishonest. Should I be arrested?

>but blurting out poorly justified opinions that on the long run might be extremely damaging to the society should be regulated.

Yeah, but don't you see that what is considered "extremely damaging" is completely ideological?

A person can literally be arrested for a racist tweet, but nobody arrests a mob of Islamists calling for the death of cartoonists, or Islamists advocating for the stoning of homosexuals, meanwhile a man was arrested for Tweets in Canada that disagreed with top representatives of feminism over there.

Censorship is always ideological, and while agree with you that social cohesion is very necessary for a functioning state, there is no way to have "even-handed" or neutral censorship, because it is by definition ideological.

no, because it is not an inslut
if you call her a whore, you should be arrrested/fined
Also, it is importand that you do it in a public space. If somebody hears you saying that to your friend, and then tells the police, this shouldnt be persecuted.

>nobody arrests a mob of Islamists calling for the death of cartoonists, or Islamists advocating for the stoning of homosexuals

They should. These double standards shouldn't exist and are caused by subjective interpretation of the law

So you wouldn't be insulted if I called you a liar?

>subjective interpretation of the law
Irony. The whole problem with hate speech laws is that they can be "subjectively interpreted" to silence people.

no
also,before court, it shouldnt matter if your words hurt my feelings or not. The questions is if what you said is objectivly an insult or not

Then define an insult.

Clear lines should be drawn to minimize the possibility of abuse.
As faulty as the current hate speech laws are, I still think a free-for-all would be the worst possible way to handle it.

i am pretty sure some law professor did that already
I for once have no problem to differ insult from critique

And who gets to do the regulating, I wonder?

If some law professor defines it, then show me what his definition is.

Why?

you can look up law yourself
wikipedia is your friend

There are no hate speech laws in the US. You said that some law professor defined it. There are millions of law professors, and probably thousands of definitions. If you have a specific one in mind, show me.

look up german law

Orwell was right

"Insult is the illegal attack on the honor of another person through intentional expression of disrespect."
Found it. That's retarded. Why should you be sued for violating someone's honor?

This.
Except no matter how terrible their beliefs are, I do believe they should be allowed to speak. I can't support any transgressions against free speech.

>say "“You were only endorsed by Juliar because you were black. Go back to the bush and suck on witchety grubs and yams.”
Fucking hell. People on comment sections here call for the concentration camps to be reopened and nothing happens to them.

There should be a line, though. If someone at my university insults me on an ethnic basis, I want to be able to report him and get him kicked out or at least suspended for a year.

Not at a public university in America. Since those are part of the government, they have to abide by the First Amendment.

stupid non-country

>arresting people for saying mean things on the internet
>Australians can't handle the bants

I think people who spout racialist stuff are generally retards but arresting people for voicing their opinions is shit.

>They should. These double standards shouldn't exist and are caused by subjective interpretation of the law

Yes, they should. But we don't live in Shouldland, and the reality is that people will use hate speech laws for political and ideological purposes.

Then why aren't leftists on takku.net jailed every time they call for international culling of right wing? :^) Is this hate speech thing a privilege for the select few?

>Then why aren't leftists on takku.net jailed every time they call for international culling of right wing?
Because the laws are faulty and allow open interpretation. They're not implemented the way I would have them

>Because the laws are faulty and allow open interpretation.

So do away with them, I say. I have no interest in trying to tip-toe around the line of illegal and legal every time I want to express my opinion. I should have complete freedom of speech and others should then use their freedom to fuck off if they don't like my message. Constant butthurt and crying over petty shit is one of the main reasons I hate modern western world.

>There should be a line, though. If someone at my university insults me on an ethnic basis, I want to be able to report him and get him kicked out or at least suspended for a year.
OH BOOHOO! MY FEELINGS WERE HURT BY A BIG MEANIE! HIS LIFE MUST BE DESTROYED IN A PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE STRIKE!

So free will is an illusion and people are products of their environment who need help except when they are racist. Then they circumvented the laws of science and became singularly worthy of hatred. Fuck you.

>I see nothing wrong with the comedian beeing found guilty.

Surely this isn't a politically motivated arrest

>As faulty as the current hate speech laws are, I still think a free-for-all would be the worst possible way to handle it.
Criminalizing any other speech than libel and slander leads to a slippery slope of inch-by-inch censorship.