Man arrested after online rant against Liverpool and Hillsborough disaster victims

Originally posted by sconner755Back to the OP: how disgustingly ironic that you, in your own thread, are spewing your own type of hate towards those who expressed their opinions. I think you should immediately turn yourself in, or at least ban yourself from posting.

Excuse me.

What hate have i spewed in this thread?

I genuinely have no idea what you are on about and would appreciate it if you would kindly point it out.

I've just gone back through every post I've made and haven't go a clue what you're on about.

reply to post by destination now

Did you read what I posted about what happened to my daughter? If not I suggest you go back and read it and then come and maybe not be so patronising

Maybe thats why you seem to have trouble looking at this without emotions clouding your judgement. And what happened to your daughter sounds like a lot worse than what this guy did, a borderline harrassment.

reply to post by SpaceMonkeys



You just don't get it, you fully accept that there should be restrictions on what you can say on a forum, but don't think that should apply in real life? Because it's not about what Govt says we can and can't say, it's about what society decides is acceptable and what is not. The hypothetical example given a few posts above ours about someone taking their disabled son out and having all sorts of abuse shouted at them, is unacceptable, and sadly whilst that was a hypothetical example sadly it happens all too often in real life.

So what do you suggest is a reasonable way to deal with people who verbally abuse people for no reason?

reply to post by Maslo



Yes, but it's still within the realms of freedom of speech, for example, someone who lost a family member or friend at Hillsborough being told that they deserved to die by being exposed to that guy's rant is no different from a bunch of teenage girls telling my daughter to go hang herself...or else where is the line, when does acceptable freedom of speech become hateful, vitriolic and damaging. That;s the problem.

reply to post by destination now


He doesn't say anyone deserved to die.

He doesn't mock the dead.

reply to post by destination now

where is the line, when does acceptable freedom of speech become hateful, vitriolic and damaging.

The line is where it becomes unconsensual, meaning no usual internet forum with blocking functionality where the "victim" freely chooses to view and participate in the abuse, and repeated multiple times over a period of time, because the harm in that case increases exponentialy. Thats harrassment, and illegal even in the US.

reply to post by Rising Against


What happens when "hate speech" is hate against a tyrannical government, an unjust system, a self-serving leader, a community of bigots? Do I not have the right to "hate" such things? What if the government decides that "hating" government policy, the party line, their way of thinking, is in fact a form of hate speech? What happens when morality is legislated and no longer are we free to criticize, complain, or "hate"? Hate can be a powerful tool for justice and a powerful emotion against justice, but do you draw the line about "hate speech" based on what you personally perceive to be right, your own moral projections, and how you think others should behave? These are dangerous waters to tread as throughout history what has been perceived by society and individuals to be "right" has often times been the embodiment of "hate", itself.

When I rant and rave about the injustice of the drug war and the targeting of African Americans am I wrong to "hate" and project that hate through my writings and debates? What if I project that hate towards the bigots responsible that use the drug war for their own personal and financial gain? A few decades ago, I would have been arrested for spewing such "hate".

What if legislators, white bankers, and community organizers purposely built highways that would bypass a poor, inner city community in order to deprive it of business, and the people of that community spoke out against those responsible with "hate". What if the food desserts that resulted in their community caused malnourishment, forced businesses to look elsewhere, drove the community into the last remaining refuge for income (drugs). What if they then labeled their oppressors as "white" and "rich" ......... and the argument was made that they were spewing hate because of the fervor and emotion that their complaints, youtube videos, and facebook posts contained. Maybe they went too far with some of their comments out of the desperation of their situation. Maybe one of their leaders preached, "God damn America" instead of "God bless America". Maybe one of their leaders in a fevered pitch pointed to white people as responsible because it was the only oppression he or she ever knew. Should he or she be arrested for going so far as to label a group as "oppressors"?

Sorry, your logic within your arguments escape me as I try to find my own line in the sand when it comes to "hate speech". As I draw the line I realize it is a line only because it is what I personally believe from my own experiences, which I would never want to project onto others by force but rather through logic, love, and the example of my own life.

reply to post by bates



Well he does mock the dead, he says they crushed themselves, he also says that it happened because they are all drug addicts and alcoholics. Whether you can see it or not, he is making very inflammatory statements against an entire city of people, just because his music career isn't working out

I love freedom. I want to make that absolutely clear. The right to political freedom, to speak ones mind on matters of import, yes, I am all for these. However, I also value politeness, decency, and respect for ones fellow human beings.

With every right comes a symbiotic responsibility. In this case, the right to speak freely, comes with a responsibility to ensure that your statements, especially those you wish to publish, are fair, correct, unbiased, and justly made. Statements that fall outside of that description, which the ones in question surely do, are not examples of freedom of speech, but are actually examples of rhetorical hate speech, which is not supported by law, and is unsupportable in any sensible morality.

Allow me to give you an example. If I say that ALL politicians are lying, thieving, back stabbing traitors to the people of this isle, who, to a man, interfere with children, smoke crack, beat thier wives, kick homeless people, and eat caviar and crap pound notes, that is hate speech.

If however, I provide a reasoned argument against the retention of the position of specific members of the cabinet, as well as some members of the Whitehall elite, who have for years supported the slow errosion of our industries and utility provision, the better to control the population, while offering evidence, citing various sources, and intending to better the nations understanding of the way power works in this country, that... is a fair excersize of my freedom of speech.

Intentionally insulting and baseless hate speech has NEVER been acceptable, and is now illegal, and about bloody time too! It matters not one whit wether the targets are part of an ethnic minority, or a religious minority, or indeed part of the wider population of the nation. Such attacks are not covered, and should not be covered by the freedom of speech which is supposed to render all of us more able to interact with our nation and its governance. Those freedoms are present in order to advance us as a nation, not to allow the worst amongst us a free outlet for opinions that lump them together with Hitler and his cronies, by spewing nothing but piss and bile from thier mouths.

reply to post by Maslo


Yes, I agree, though I think this guy's mental state would probably not preclude him from standing in the street shouting those things and the level his voice was at in that video, I'm sure his neighbours got an earful too (and I'm well used to listening to ranting, shouting neighbours) and then it does become, as you say unconsensual to everyone who has to listen to it and when you think about it, my daughter could just have stopped logging on to her bebo to avoid these messages, but of course that infringes on her freedoms and that's not right either.

Anyway folks, got to leave the debate now, as much as I'm enjoying it as of course it's Hogmany and I've got loads to do...just thought I'd mention in case anyone thinks I'm just ignoring or not replying.

So have a happy, peaceful and safe New Year's eve...(and don't be posting youtube vids or forum comments after a few sherbets as we know where that can lead...the modern day equivalent of drunk dialing

Originally posted by destination now
reply to post by SpaceMonkeys

 

You just don't get it, you fully accept that there should be restrictions on what you can say on a forum, but don't think that should apply in real life? Because it's not about what Govt says we can and can't say, it's about what society decides is acceptable and what is not. The hypothetical example given a few posts above ours about someone taking their disabled son out and having all sorts of abuse shouted at them, is unacceptable, and sadly whilst that was a hypothetical example sadly it happens all too often in real life.

So what do you suggest is a reasonable way to deal with people who verbally abuse people for no reason?

Well those people are vermin, but I still wouldn't give up my freedom of speech, no twisted hypothetical example would make me wave my freedom of speech, none. Because giving governments the power to throw anyone in jail who has an opinion they dont like is far worse than any unlikely scenario you can give me.
And you still don't get it, and then you say I don't get it, so I'm just banging my head against a brick wall here.

reply to post by Bugman82


Comparing your angle on the actions of your government and others in the world, with the attitudes and words used by the person reffered to in the article, is comparing oranges with potatoes. You have a reasonable dispute with the way things are being handled by your nations government, and with the way certain members of society are treated in comparison with others, a dispute which is well founded, and fair.

This idiot however has no such reasonable dispute, and is speaking purely to inflame and aggravate a whole host of innocent, hard working, and proud people, based on an ill concieved notion of the behaviour of a select few residents of the area he is talking about. He is a hater, a bigot, and knows no better than to display his ignorance before all who care to watch, in the most vulgar and outrageous possible terms.

I am sure you are a person of enough intellect to avoid doing such a thing yourself, because as I previously mentioned, you have a legitimate issue with the people you lambast, and do not seek to label them all with the same mark, just because of what they are and what they do. You have a more precise and incisive mind, and a genuine concern to boot.

I fail to see how you can connect these two completely different things in any way what so ever.

reply to post by destination now


He doesn't mock the dead at all.

He certainly doesn't make any suggestion of hillsborough being caused by drug addicts and alcoholics.

reply to post by TrueBrit

I love freedom.

Dont kid yourself.

In this case, the right to speak freely, comes with a responsibility to ensure that your statements, especially those you wish to publish, are fair, correct, unbiased, and justly made.

Nope, the only legal responsibility should be maybe the responsibility that they are not particularly harmful, and I dont mean "hurr durr someone called me names baww" harmful.

Those freedoms are present in order to advance us as a nation

Sounds like blatant social engineering to me.

but are actually examples of rhetorical hate speech, which is not supported by law, and is unsupportable in any sensible morality.

Hate speech as defined in Britain is certainly supportable in lots of sensible moralities. You may not agree, but I fail to see any deeper reason that either to silence those you disagree with, protect your oversensitive fragile feelings, or social engineering. I wouldnt call any of these reasons sufficient for a ban at all.

reply to post by TrueBrit


The two views are strongly intertwined. His experiences formed his perspective. My experiences have formed my own. Maybe his view is "wrong" and mine is "right" but that isn't the point. What if the tables were turned and those legislating hate speech supported his view instead of mine? What if my view was deemed the "hate speech" as it was during the civil rights movement? My point was that morality and our understanding of the world shouldn't be legislated. Sure, legislate actions but legislating the words people speak and the thoughts people have can be rather dangerous.

I would probably support his arrest in this instance. Threats, libel, and slander are all things I can support legislation against. I, however, was primarily arguing against some of the ideas presented about "hate speech" that I can't support.

However, I'm rather intrigued why he believes what he does and how his experiences shaped his rant. I'm intrigued if he really believes what he says or if it was in a snap of rage and anger that he made his comments. I'm intrigued what he would be like outside this state of great passion and if he would be open to rational discussion. I fear that his imprisonment would simply prove his points, harden his line, and give him more purpose through the attention he grabs.

reply to post by IBelieveInAliens

Assault can be verbal as well as physical. Here's a scenario for you. You have a disabled child in a wheelchair who is going to die soon. You take him out for what may be his last view of the outside world. Suddenly I rock up and start pointing at your dying son and saying how his disabled appearance disgusts me and that freaks like him should be kept indoors, or preferably strangled at birth. I finish off by saying that it would give me great pleasure to kill your child, if the law allowed me to.

I suppose in that scenario you'd say "Well I don't necessarily agree with your views good sir, but I respect your right to free speech". No. You'd punch me in the face. Or call the police.

Your hypothetical situation is extreme to prove a point, very detached from any real likely scenario and even more from the situation in the video, so false analogy.

If you "verbally assault" me, I wouldnt punch you because I am not a violent moron. I would call the police if I felt threatened, but not due to a threat to my feelings. If the situation repeated more times in the future despite my objections, then I could press harrassment charges.

Procedure like this is enough to protect everyone from substantial psychological abuse without restricting any free speech based on its content, and actually works all over the world. No need for any hurt feelings laws.

reply to post by Maslo


Contrary to your opinion, freedom is not about doing what the hell you want, with no consequence what so ever, no matter what you do, no matter what you say. Freedom of speech was not written into law so that ignorant, foul mouthed rants could be leveled at entire demographics. It was written into law to prevent peoples political opinions being silenced without the silencers comming under fire from the law, to give legal protection to protestors and activists, and to prevent government censorship of citizens right to air thier legitimate greivances.

The tirade that this thread revolves around does not serve any such purpose, and is a singularly spiteful and utterly pointless diatribe, which deserves none of the protections offered reasonable statements, made by fair minded, unbiased people.

Originally posted by Rising Against
Wow, I came into this thread expecting to see a lot of "well done's", and "thankfully this guy was arrested", but instead I see everyone thus far complaining about it? Seriously? Wow, how absolutely disgusting that is.

The Hillsborough disaster is called a disaster for a reason people. Period. 96 innocent people died that day when they shouldn't have. 96 families were punished in the most horrible way and millions of people even watched this incident take place live on television. It's something that's scarred many. And someone's actually ranting about it and being highly offensive to the victims, victims of which were blamed for their own deaths up until this year until the truth finally came out.

Yet, bearing this in mind, the fact that someone is offending those who wrongly died, some of which were yet to reach the age of 15, the offender is being defended right here on ATS. That actually makes me quite sad to be a member.

Well done for this moron being arrested. He can spew his hate in prison.

Edit: Sad thing is I'll probably be one of the only one's saying this too. But, it has to be said really. This is just pure hate speech from a pure moron. The fact some are defending it sickens me too.

edit on 30-12-2012 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)

I can't believe you would approve of someone being arrested just for speaking their mind, regardless of what the content is. I forget if you're american RA, but the whole point to america's freedom of speech is that you have to protect all speech or none of it is safe. And while I realise the story is not taking place in america, I would think a first world western nation would agree that freedom of speech is an essential right, regardless of one's opinions.

I certainly don't agree with the man's comments or his opinions on the disaster, but locking someone up because they say something you find distasteful? That starts down a dark dark road. Don't let your emotions could your thinking.

On further review of the video I would also note I've heard rants just as insightful from the floors of parliament. I've heard rants that focus on one group, Republicans and Democrats, that are worst than the comments he made. Yes, he lashes out in rage, but this rant is nothing that I haven't heard before on numerous occasions, and it may even be quite similar to the emotions that have risen within my own mind from time to time. He also specifically states that he will use the court system to fight without making any real threats.