UK Student loses appeal over prison sentence for racist tweets

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

evilthecat:

Nickolai77:
He just said something that society finds incredibly offensive and therefore he was jailed for it.

He wasn't just jailed for what he said, he was jailed because he said it (deliberately and with full knowledge of what he was doing) in public, in an environment where anyone could see it.

Free speech does not mean that the government or police must give you the right to say whatever you want whenever you want. If the police were monitoring his phone calls and arrested him because he made racist remarks in a telephone call, fair enough. But he knew when he posted on twitter that he was basically saying these things in a public setting.

You don't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, that's illegal because there's a foreseeable risk of someone getting hurt. You don't make racially offensive remarks where thousands of people can read them, that's also illegal because there's a foreseeable risk of someone getting hurt. You can shout "fire" or make racially offensive remarks in private all you want because there's not as much (foreseeable) risk of anyone getting hurt.

Frozen Fox:
Uhhhhhhhh yeah it is. If it was not we could arrest several hundred public figures for using the word, ironically most of them would be black but still how many songs and stand up sketches have you heard it in? A few hundred thousand?

Mens rea.

You can't commit racist hatespeech unless your deliberate intent is to express racial hatred, (or if your failure to recognize that what you were saying would be read as deliberate racial hatred might be considered severe enough to be criminally negligent)

And you can prove my intent was not sarcastic or joking (even if it is) how?

evilthecat:

Nickolai77:
He just said something that society finds incredibly offensive and therefore he was jailed for it.

He wasn't just jailed for what he said, he was jailed because he said it (deliberately and with full knowledge of what he was doing) in public, in an environment where anyone could see it.

Free speech does not mean that the government or police must give you the right to say whatever you want whenever you want. If the police were monitoring his phone calls and arrested him because he made racist remarks in a telephone call, fair enough. But he knew when he posted on twitter that he was basically saying these things in a public setting.

You don't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, that's illegal because there's a foreseeable risk of someone getting hurt. You don't make racially offensive remarks where thousands of people can read them, that's also illegal because there's a foreseeable risk of someone getting hurt. You can shout "fire" or make racially offensive remarks in private all you want because there's not as much (foreseeable) risk of anyone getting hurt.

To be able to freely express oneself in a public setting is sort of the main point of the freedom of speech.

And how on earth is there a foreseeable risk of someone getting hurt? Or does all that falls under the nebulous penumbra of 'feelings' now have legal protection?

captcha: HOW IN THE **** IS A DROP DOWN MENU WITH 5 OPTIONS SUPPOSED TO THWART BOT POSTS?

"Which of the following do you most associate with pnc bank?"

Stability, Convenience, I have never heard of PNC bank, Achievement, Innovation.

How about irritation?

WoW Killer:
I disagree that he was in full knowledge of what he was doing. He didn't understand at the time that his words would be forever contained in the eternity of the internet, and that his words could ultimately creep up on him in future. He was a kid posting shit drunk at a screen. When I was a kid that kind of same mistake (i.e. getting drunk and talking shit) wouldn't have made national news, this time it did.

He pleaded guilty to the offence. Therefore admitting that his intention was to express racial hatred.

If he hadn't though, I imagine he still would have been convicted on the basis of criminal negligence. If you post on twitter, anyone with access to a computer will be able to read what you have written. A reasonable person could have foreseen that. If you post racist abuse against specific people, they will be able to read it and may be hurt by it. A reasonable person could have foreseen that.

Being drunk in this country does not exempt you from the consequences of violating the law, even through criminal negligence.

I think there is something to be said for the fact that he's probably being made a specific example of, and thus the penalty does seem kind of harsh. But the law doesn't mean you can't offend people, in fact it's not about offence at all, it's about whether you are expressing racial hatred with either the deliberate wish or foreseeable result of causing someone emotional distress.

You can still make racist jokes provided the intent isn't to express racial hatred. You can still use racial swear-words provided the intent isn't to express racial hatred. You can even express racial hatred as long as you're doing so in a place where it's not reasonably foreseeable that someone listening might be distressed by it (and yes, if you thought noone would be distressed by it, then it's probably not foreseeable unless you're an utter moron). The law doesn't define what you can and can't say, it doesn't rule out specific words, it just asks that you not be an idiot.

Incidentally, unless you're one of the immortals from highlander, when you were a kid you could still be arrested and charged with harassment if the words you said caused deliberate distress to someone else. The situation hasn't actually changed all that much.

evilthecat:
*lots*

I relalise he admitted to it, whatever it was that he did. I'm just saying that at the time of posting he didn't realise the full implications of posting a tiny little racist slur to the whole world. He didn't realise that what he posted would, or could, become national news. People need to realise this about the internet. Whatever you post could be there forever. He posted his slur as he would whispering to an old drunk down a local, but ended up broadcasting to the nation.

Seanchaidh:
To be able to freely express oneself in a public setting is sort of the main point of the freedom of speech.

Don't be silly. We're not in America. Freedom of speech is a law, not a magic principle handed down from the Gods.

This guy is free to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, the body which actually guarantees our right to freedom of expression. However, his lawyers probably aren't going to, because the convention doesn't cover what he said.

Frozen Fox:
And you can prove my intent was not sarcastic or joking (even if it is) how?

Did you plead guilty?

If not..

Race Relations Act 1976:
(2) Conduct shall be regarded as having the effect specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) only if, having regard to all the circumstances, including in particular the perception of that other person, it should reasonably be considered as having that effect.

evilthecat:
[quote="WoW Killer" post="528.360407.14191855"] ...The law doesn't define what you can and can't say, it doesn't rule out specific words, it just asks that you not be an idiot...

To be honest i infer this to mean the law takes this post as a criminal offense as i see this post as utterly idiotic. Again i have the same reply as i did with "Comando96" i can with ease take you you court over this if "find something to be idiotic or offensive" is contrary to law in fact i can take ANY PHRASE as such, just just that i can find the mere fact that you are a European male idiotic and offensive despite being one.

Free speech is clearly a dead rotting corpse as far as I can tell. Offensive NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE means illegal and if it does i may as we pull the pin on a box of grenades an swallow them whole an curse this world till i draw my last breath for it has gone to hell and life as I once knew it to be is fucked and can never be repaired and i simply put not wroth a damn.

evilthecat:

Seanchaidh:
To be able to freely express oneself in a public setting is sort of the main point of the freedom of speech.

Don't be silly. We're not in America. Freedom of speech is a law, not a magic principle handed down from the Gods.

This guy is free to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, the body which actually guarantees our right to freedom of expression. However, his lawyers probably aren't going to, because the convention doesn't cover what he said.

Hey, hey, just because Europe seems to be a poor backwater when it comes to certain rights, that doesn't mean it needs to continue that way.

I see the thought police are alive and growing in the UK.

While I'd say it doesn't seem like being offensive in that manner deserves jailing...

Hahahaha. Can't say I feel sorry for him at all. Stupid racist piece of shit doesn't deserve sympathy. People react too lightly to racism.

Every time somebody says something offensive, somebody else ties to say its not covered by free speech and that free speech isn't all inclusive. I'm sorry, but free speech "is" all inclusive, otherwise your free speech is a lie.

State: "Free speech covers everything. Except that, and that over there, and this here, and it certainly doesn't cover this."

Citizen: "With all there restrictions you are making up, what "does" free speech cover?"

State: "Very little actually."

Absolute fucking bullshit.

I can't even find words to really describe my views on this, to be really honest with you. So I'll just leave it here.

DANEgerous:

Comando96:

DANEgerous:
See this is the problem that is a perfectly valid response the line for "offensive" is totally subjective. 1 second in jail is far to sever a crime for an insult no matter how rude or severe.

... Grow up.

Calling someone is nigger is not protected under free speech. It isn't in America and it isn't in the UK.

Seriously man what make

less offensive and thus less deserving of legal punishment than n-----?
Huh you stupid n-----? what is it?

I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but I'm still going to spoilerize your post! I've also highlighted the ones that are worse because they discriminate against a person because of their gender, sexual orientation or race. Here's a comprehensive list of other ethnic slurs that are typically unacceptable.
The point is that if you call someone an asshole, you aren't actually suggesting that they are an anus (unless you're off your face on salvia or something), you are calling their behaviour to account.
Calling someone the N-word (no, I'm not going to say it, call me a prude) or similar is insulting a group for what they are, not how they act. That's why it's seen as worse. Make sense?

EDIT: Captcha was 'pie are squared'. Accepts 'circle area' as an answer. Neat!

Comando96:
... Grow up.

Calling someone is nigger is not protected under free speech. It isn't in America and it isn't in the UK.

Yes it is. It's not an incitement to racial hatred, not a breach of the peace, not a violent threat, it doesn't glorify violence... With that there's really no base to the conviction. Nigger is just a word, an expression that is not banned by any exceptions set in law in the UK.

Of course there is a base of the conviction, namely: White person says something that offends privileged minorities. But then again, that makes it a political trial, and not one founded on UK law. Actually it goes against UK law strongly, because making different verdicts based on the defender's race is a horrid breach of the equality before the law principle. If a higher appeal is possible, Stacey definately should fight this racist sentence.


And racism can be shown in this case. There have been a few hatespeech related charges against non-whites in the UK.

Abdul Patel for instance possesed bomb-making tutorials and was 'ready and willing to help terrorists' received only 6 months in a juvenile correction facility. A much worse violation by a Muslim doesn't even get double the sentence, in a much lighter setting than a prison.

Samina Malik wrote poems that glorified terrorism and encouraged violence, a much worse offense. She received no punishment at all, in the form of a suspended sentence. Muslim does something worse, is punished less.

Especially considering Malik's case there is no basis at all for Stacey's prison sentence.

OneCatch :

DANEgerous:

Comando96:

... Grow up.

Calling someone is nigger is not protected under free speech. It isn't in America and it isn't in the UK.

Seriously man what make

less offensive and thus less deserving of legal punishment than n-----?
Huh you stupid n-----? what is it?

I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but I'm still going to spoilerize your post! I've also highlighted the ones that are worse because they discriminate against a person because of their gender, sexual orientation or race. Here's a comprehensive list of other ethnic slurs that are typically unacceptable.
The point is that if you call someone an asshole, you aren't actually suggesting that they are an anus (unless you're off your face on salvia or something), you are calling their behaviour to account.
Calling someone the N-word (no, I'm not going to say it, call me a prude) or similar is insulting a group for what they are, not how they act. That's why it's seen as worse. Make sense?

EDIT: Captcha was 'pie are squared'. Accepts 'circle area' as an answer. Neat!

To be honest no, personally it makes no sense whatsoever. just being honest to me it is ban them all in all circumstances or let them be said. It is utter nonsense to ban something because it is viewed as more offensive or a different form of offensive.

Erg, this is so stupid. Yes he was being incredibly stupid. Yes the guy is probably a huge bellend. But jail time!? For words!? I would be incredibly weary about merely fining the guy, let only sending him to fucking jail.

Wtf is 56 days in jail going to accomplish anyway.

DANEgerous:

To be honest no, personally it makes no sense whatsoever. just being honest to me it is ban them all in all circumstances or let them be said. It is utter nonsense to ban something because it is viewed as more offensive or a different form of offensive.

I'm not arguing about the merits of imprisoning the idiot in the OP (personally I'm not all that bothered that he was put away, but I can see why people would disagree). Though it was a bit odd seeing all the camera crews outside Swansea Court it must be said!

But you must see that there is a difference between racism and general offensiveness. One is a personal insult, the other is characterising a whole group of people in a derogatory manner.
If I walk up to someone and and call them, for example, "an ugly, disgusting, piece of shit" that's offensive, but not hate speech.
But if I say "all black people are the same", that sets alarm bells ringing.
The second statement is less offensive in absolute terms (I haven't even said anything overtly negative), but because it's a generalisation, it's seen as just as bad, if not worse than the first.

OneCatch :

DANEgerous:

To be honest no, personally it makes no sense whatsoever. just being honest to me it is ban them all in all circumstances or let them be said. It is utter nonsense to ban something because it is viewed as more offensive or a different form of offensive.

I'm not arguing about the merits of imprisoning the idiot in the OP (personally I'm not all that bothered that he was put away, but I can see why people would disagree). Though it was a bit odd seeing all the camera crews outside Swansea Court it must be said!

But you must see that there is a difference between racism and general offensiveness. One is a personal insult, the other is characterising a whole group of people in a derogatory manner.
If I walk up to someone and and call them, for example, "an ugly, disgusting, piece of shit" that's offensive, but not hate speech.
But if I say "all black people are the same", that sets alarm bells ringing.
The second statement is less offensive in absolute terms (I haven't even said anything overtly negative), but because it's a generalisation, it's seen as just as bad, if not worse than the first.

Like i said, to be honest no I can not see that there is a difference between racism and general offensiveness. it is still utter nonsense.

His suspension from his university is probably punishment enough.

Pretty fucking stupid - both the man involved, and the sentence received. Jail time for a word ( I don't agree that this was a "fire in a crowded theatre" situation) sets a rather unpleasant precedent.

Frozen Fox:
Uhhhhhhhh yeah it is. If it was not we could arrest several hundred public figures for using the word, ironically most of them would be black but still how many songs and stand up sketches have you heard it in? A few hundred thousand?

... in the right context, it is not protected in itself.

The use of said word ironically is not the right context is it now? No...

Comando96:

Frozen Fox:
Uhhhhhhhh yeah it is. If it was not we could arrest several hundred public figures for using the word, ironically most of them would be black but still how many songs and stand up sketches have you heard it in? A few hundred thousand?

... in the right context, it is not protected in itself.

The use of said word ironically is not the right context is it now? No...

The problem is that it's all so subjective. The N word is obviously a horrible word that most people would rather not hear, but no one is actually physically hurt when it's said. No damage has been done to anyone. If justice is supposed to be impartial and emotionless, then how can it be just for someone to get legally punished for a crime where there was no injury. The guy is already being publicly punished by (rightly) being branded nationwide as a racist idiot. To me, that seems like punishment enough.

Lethos:
The problem is that it's all so subjective.

Well don't have fucktards for judges...

Lethos:
then how can it be just for someone to get legally punished for a crime where there was no injury.

Injured?
Financial loss? You're not physically injured...
Mental abuse? You're not physically injured...

Ok have a look at this then.

The use of words to kill indirectly... young kids are brought up to believe that one group of people is evil indirectly by them being able to use terms of homosexual in a derogatory way... kids who then turn out to be gay commit suicide.

Do some research please.

Free Speech is perfectly fine... well it would be if the majority of the human race isn't susceptible as hell...
So how do you combat things like gay kids killing themselves because... they are gay, therefore (they think they are) inferior... they are black, therefore (they think they are) inferior... they are Jewish, therefore (they think they are) inferior...

So... do we let things like this breed and fester in our societies... or do we takle them?
You can let problems lie... or you can deal with them.

In America there will be a lot of shit to deal with in 100 years Ceteris Paribus... if there hasn't been a nuclear war by then that is...

Comando96:

So... do we let things like this breed and fester in our societies... or do we takle them?
You can let problems lie... or you can deal with them.

It's bad enough that you want to sacrifice free speech so that the government can make sure peoples feelings don't get hurt, but will you even admit that these hate speech laws will never be applied fairly. It's much less likely that any muslim would get prosecuted for preaching hate against any group of non-muslims than a christian would for saying similar things.

JRslinger:
It's bad enough that you want to sacrifice free speech so that the government can make sure peoples feelings don't get hurt

Straw man Fallacy detected. Straw man with just a hint of Ad Hominem Fallacy empowered with the Popular Belief Fallacy. Nice argument you have there.

JRslinger:
but will you even admit that these hate speech laws will never be applied fairly.

Perfectionist Fallacy... try to fix the broken system instead of arguing that due to the broken system nothing should be done.

JRslinger:
It's much less likely that any muslim would get prosecuted for preaching hate against any group of non-muslims than a christian would for saying similar things.

Appeal to Pity Fallacy...
(That and... why are Muslims bad and Christians good all of a sudden in your eyes?)

I mean fucking hell this is dreadful... really really bad...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.361043-A-Series-on-Rhetoric-1-Rhetalogical-Fallacies

Comando96:

Straw man Fallacy detected. Straw man with just a hint of Ad Hominem Fallacy empowered with the Popular Belief Fallacy. Nice argument you have there.

It's not a fallacy when YOU agree with laws that gave someone a jail sentence for merely saying something hurtful. If freedom of speech doesn't allow one to voice their opinion because their opinions are "bad" for society then there isn't freedom of speech.

Comando96:

Perfectionist Fallacy... try to fix the broken system instead of arguing that due to the broken system nothing should be done.

Not saying that nothing can be done, but rather that your method of fixing the problem is orwellianly oppressive.

JRslinger:
It's not a fallacy when YOU agree with laws that gave someone a jail sentence for merely saying something hurtful. If freedom of speech doesn't allow one to voice their opinion because their opinions are "bad" for society then there isn't freedom of speech.

Feelings getting hurt...
Racism...

I live in the UK Free Speech is not unlimited. Your allowed to offend. Ever listen to Frankie Boyal? But there is a line in the sand. He crossed it.

Anyway your Fallacy was saying people aren't allowed to be offended which they are... there is a line however. That line is not detremental to society...

Comando96:

Anyway your Fallacy was saying people aren't allowed to be offended which they are... there is a line however. That line is not detremental to society...

And who decides what is "detrimental to society", the power hungry politicians of course.

Today racists are the main target. But what if someone advocates for reducing social spending. That could easily be considered hateful towards poor people and therefore detrimental to society, so maybe conservatives will be targeted next under these laws. After all how can you stand by and let them promote ideas that are bad for society. As long as anyone can say something that is bad for society then the system is broken right? People should only be allowed to say things that Comando96 considers good.

Comando96:
I live in the UK Free Speech is not unlimited. Your allowed to offend. Ever listen to Frankie Boyal? But there is a line in the sand. He crossed it.

By saying what exactly?

All I've seen of those tweets thus far contained nothing that would fall under any of the exception to freedom of speech in UK law, so there's no basis for that verdict whatsoever.

Unless one is to ditch every form of common sense and rank hypersensitive people feeling butthurt as a 'breach of the peace', lol. But that's like walking into a church on sunday and going "Holy shit, they're practising Christianity here, I'm offended by that, arrest them already!".

Now whereas a bunch of religious zealots harassing you with Christianity on the street may be a breach of the peace, but if you walks into a church, that obviously changes the situation. Likewise, going to Stacey's twitter account and looking at his messages while there's literally millions of other websites are the digital equivalent of walking into a church.

OneCatch :

I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but I'm still going to spoilerize your post! I've also highlighted the ones that are worse because they discriminate against a person because of their gender, sexual orientation or race. Here's a comprehensive list of other ethnic slurs that are typically unacceptable.
The point is that if you call someone an asshole, you aren't actually suggesting that they are an anus (unless you're off your face on salvia or something), you are calling their behaviour to account.
Calling someone the N-word (no, I'm not going to say it, call me a prude) or similar is insulting a group for what they are, not how they act. That's why it's seen as worse. Make sense?

EDIT: Captcha was 'pie are squared'. Accepts 'circle area' as an answer. Neat!

Dude, thanks for the list of racial epitaphs, now I can offend ALL colors of the rainbow!

OT: Yeah, I'm having a hard time justifying sending someone to prison for that long over something that doesn't really have a negative effect at the end of the day. I don't buy into the whole "inciting violence" thing over twitter. Sane, non-racist people aren't going to be swayed by juvenile racist remarks over twitter.

Just getting suspended from his university seems to be crossing the line too. When you have freedom of speech, not everything people say is going to be rainbows and audible chocolate, sometimes people talk shit. It's still nice to live in a country where I can choose to end every sentence with fuck the president of the US, if I choose to do so. I mean I don't but I could without fear of repercussion.

JRslinger:
Today racists are the main target. But what if someone advocates for reducing social spending. That could easily be considered hateful towards poor people and therefore detrimental to society

Slippery slope. Straw man.

JRslinger:
so maybe conservatives will be targeted next under these laws.

At one point in history Slave Traders were the conservatives :)

I don't know the course of the future and neither do you and to suggest that in the future it will be illegal to ban the lowering of social spending... that's a fucking long jump.

JRslinger:
After all how can you stand by and let them promote ideas that are bad for society.

If a law concerning Freedom of Speech against things that are detrimental to society is to be constructed then it is not to suggest something which would be believed to be detrimental to society but saying something that is.

There is a difference. Something which has an impact... and suggesting something that has an impact.

JRslinger:
As long as anyone can say something that is bad for society then the system is broken right?

Its impact upon saying it, not the mere suggesting and for a debate you require the ability to make such a suggestion and until proven in a scientific manner that something is... Racism you think would be a no brainer. And even then things would not be clear-cut when dealing with where the line is. Right now we have the discretion of Judges which has its pro's and cons.

JRslinger:
People should only be allowed to say things that Comando96 considers good.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Lets not go down that road. I'm very good at Total War games but... a whole country... 1 Step at a time. Maybe in 50 years[1]

No. I think this is a pretty good system to have but I'd let where this line in the sand, be decided by some group significantly more qualified than I am. A mixture of scientists and sociologists.

[1]

Comando96:

If a law concerning Freedom of Speech against things that are detrimental to society is to be constructed then it is not to suggest something which would be believed to be detrimental to society but saying something that is.

There is a difference. Something which has an impact... and suggesting something that has an impact.

The natural direction of government is to grow larger and more oppressive, so saying that a slippery slope argument is automatically a fallacy is wrong. Considering human history the freedoms enjoyed by people in western countries today are the exception, not the rule. It takes a strong movement by a determined minority to increase the amount of freedom a nation has, and sometimes these gains are short lived. Example: Russia after the USSR collapsed and Egypt recently. So it's not a big stretch to say today racists are targeted; who else will be tomorrow. In 1984 people knew that saying "bad" things would get them punished because anyone could report them. You may not mind creating this kind of climate of fear regarding racist speech, but since you've given the government the power to punish speech it declares to be bad, isn't the risk of expanded goverment power/abuse much greater than whatever benefit is gained from reducing racist speech?

Comando96:

Its impact upon saying it, not the mere suggesting and for a debate you require the ability to make such a suggestion and until proven in a scientific manner that something is... Racism you think would be a no brainer. And even then things would not be clear-cut when dealing with where the line is. Right now we have the discretion of Judges which has its pro's and cons.

Scientists don't always agree on everything. But anyways lets say that some government appointed scientists in their quest to rid society of bad things conclude that violent video games are bad for society. Since you're already content to allow government and allied scientists to ban whatever they declare to be harmful speech, how could you object to a ban on violent video games?

My point is that in both cases you're throwing away your freedom thinking you'll make society better but you're really just promoting the rise of an oppressive police state.

Comando96:

Frozen Fox:
Uhhhhhhhh yeah it is. If it was not we could arrest several hundred public figures for using the word, ironically most of them would be black but still how many songs and stand up sketches have you heard it in? A few hundred thousand?

... in the right context, it is not protected in itself.

The use of said word ironically is not the right context is it now? No...

So claim any comment you make is satire, no matter how serious you are they can not prove it to the contrary. Have a KKK kill a N***er day and yell N***er at ever black man and fire nerf guns at him. In context this is satire and i would hope thus be protected.

Comando96:

Lethos:
The problem is that it's all so subjective.

Well don't have fucktards for judges...

Lethos:
then how can it be just for someone to get legally punished for a crime where there was no injury.

Injured?
Financial loss? You're not physically injured...
Mental abuse? You're not physically injured...

Ok have a look at this then.

The use of words to kill indirectly... young kids are brought up to believe that one group of people is evil indirectly by them being able to use terms of homosexual in a derogatory way... kids who then turn out to be gay commit suicide.

Do some research please.

Free Speech is perfectly fine... well it would be if the majority of the human race isn't susceptible as hell...
So how do you combat things like gay kids killing themselves because... they are gay, therefore (they think they are) inferior... they are black, therefore (they think they are) inferior... they are Jewish, therefore (they think they are) inferior...

So... do we let things like this breed and fester in our societies... or do we takle them?
You can let problems lie... or you can deal with them.

In America there will be a lot of shit to deal with in 100 years Ceteris Paribus... if there hasn't been a nuclear war by then that is...

But that is the thing there is no problem here, no problem to fester, it cause him no financial loss and as for purely mental damage yeah toss all harm done out the window. And yes "Gay teen suicides" yes they are tragic and horrible, is there any criminal fault? no. Yes i know that make me look like a ice cold sadistic bastard but I honestly do not care. Insults do not cause anything that warrants a punishment as a crime no matter how grave or what you insulted.

he is only sorry cuz he caught. Prison is a good punishment

people need to understand what a Punishment is these days

A man gets 56 days in prison for violating a law that has no business being on the books in the first place, and we've got at least 3 or 4 Stockholm-syndromed Brits defending it here. No doubt some other twats are writing international legal opinion and making international agreements to make those laws global and enforceable by the UN. I'd say you deserve to get taken over by your Muslim population for being so utterly wussy, but you do have a stockpile of nuclear weapons that I don't want to see in their hands, so I'll just say...

Nuke London today. For the good of the world.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked