Man From Aberdeen Charged With Offensive Online Post After Celtic Win

[The Boofon]

Been like that for years zander. This is why we run.

[chaos_defrost]

We have free speech in this country to an extent but it's not 100% free speech. We can't preach hate or offend minorities and that's obviously sensible. You can't have 100% free speech in any civilised society.

[Guest RosemountRed]

We have free speech in this country to an extent but it's not 100% free speech. We can't preach hate or offend minorities and that's obviously sensible. You can't have 100% free speech in any civilised society.

 

So it's ok to offend majorities but not minorities? What a deeply disturbing development.

[RAZOR]

Be interesting to see if Frankie Boyle comes out with anymore if his nonsense.

[chaos_defrost]

 

So it's ok to offend majorities but not minorities? What a deeply disturbing development.

 

Obviously not but then I never said that.

[ChutneyLove]

What about the religious (don't even know their denomination) clerics preaching hate? Or people who take the bible to its literal level and preach the gospel? Offend all kinds of folk those cunts, they should be locked up.

[Guest RosemountRed]

The government have managed to get so confused and amalgamate religion and race together, like they are some how the same or similar.

 

Race, ie. the colour of your skin is something that you are born with.

 

Religion is something that you make a conscious decision to be / follow.

 

Therefore I fully agree it is not acceptable to abuse or discriminate against someone for their race, however it should be fully acceptable to abuse, attack or criticize someone for their religion.

[Tommy]

The government have managed to get so confused and amalgamate religion and race together, like they are some how the same or similar.

 

Race, ie. the colour of your skin is something that you are born with.

 

Religion is something that you make a conscious decision to be / follow.

 

Therefore I fully agree it is not acceptable to abuse or discriminate against someone for their race, however it should be fully acceptable to abuse, attack or criticize someone for their religion.

Can't agree with that.

Nobody should get grief for their religion either.

[boboisared]

I would agree with that (though the certain flags in our support recently might suggest otherwise).

 

 

Im not defending anything, I didnt mean to give that impression, I condemned civilian deaths unequivocally.

 

I just thought it odd for us to criticise others for that, when we have a poor record ourselves.

 

Its not a big deal, lets just forget it.

I'm sorry, but which flags were these?

[barassie_afc]

FLEGS !

[Pudgie]

FLEGS !

Is that fit you get fan you look in the mirror?

[Clydeside_Sheep]

The government have managed to get so confused and amalgamate religion and race together, like they are some how the same or similar.

Thats an excellent point and it is born of the fact that the most touchy religious people in the UK - muslims - are mostly (not universally) of immigrant stock. Mostly they are not white, and this is how the two things have become conflated.

 

Similarly, its my opinion that religious-prejudice in Scotland lingers on because the affected people are mostly white and therefore many people do not like to consider them as being somehow different.

 

Race, ie. the colour of your skin is something that you are born with.

 

Religion is something that you make a conscious decision to be / follow.

 

Therefore I fully agree it is not acceptable to abuse or discriminate against someone for their race, however it should be fully acceptable to abuse, attack or criticize someone for their religion.

I disagree here though - believing in God isnt actually a choice, more of an experience or event. Its not a yes/no like "do you want a cup of tea?".

 

And where would this criteria leave (eg) opinions on homosexuality - which is ultimately a type of behaviour, rather than an innate characteristic.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

1. A generalisation, and not demonstrably true.

 

2. That is how most lawmaking is, and neither exlusive to nor indicative of Freedom of Speech.

 

3. You can favour it, but it won't ever exist. See #2. Like most things, it should be a matter of taking instances on a case by case basis, rather than trying to have one Cookie-Cutter, one law fits all methodology, because that simply wouldn't work.

 

4. Again, refer to 2. Most laws seem to be open to interpretation, and that includes Freedom of Speech. But Freedom of Speech does exist and there are plenty examples of cases brought and dropped/thrown out specifically because we have the right to say those things.

 

To further address #1, where you say we're all in favour of Free Speech until it involves us personally, that's fairly natural.

 

Re the bold - surely if its natural, then its demonstrably true?

 

I agree largely with what you say above - especially regarding the limitations of law-making.

 

But regarding the "one cookie cutter" approach - I think what the thread is showing that freedom of speech isnt a principle, in that it doesnt stand up in every case.

 

Maybe, rather than freedom of speech, we should instead prize freedom of thought, but temper this in the public square via common decency (ie a desire not to offend others).

 

Though of course, sometimes offence is inevitable, but we could try to avoid it as far as is reasonable.

[spamspamspam]

Can't agree with that.

Nobody should get grief for their religion either.

 

Depends, in my opinion.

If they ram it down your throat then you have a right of reply, if they take offence at that reply thats their bad, not mine.

 

No idea what was written to Griffiths but he's fair game after his gypo rant in the pub. If he is happy to dish it out, he has set himself up to take it. Doing it on a public forum is no different to him screaming out in a bar.

 

People are far too eager to be offended these days though, thicker skin is whats needed and not laws upon laws.

[Bluto10]

Yeah plenty people could do with a cup of man the fuck up juice.

 

Being offended is an industry now.

Common amongst bongo religions and lawsuit happy Americans.

[Tommy]

Depends, in my opinion.

If they ram it down your throat then you have a right of reply, if they take offence at that reply thats their bad, not mine.

 

 

 

Of course.

It's when they try to tell you that your choice is wrong you are entitled to argue.

[zander]

How can fenian be deemed offensive when Celtic fans call themselves "Fenians"

[beer gut]

How can fenian be deemed offensive when Celtic fans call themselves "Fenians"

Suppose its the same as the N word which is offensive unless you are a black rapper then its OK.

[Ke1t]

 

Re the bold - surely if its natural, then its demonstrably true?

 

I agree largely with what you say above - especially regarding the limitations of law-making.

 

But regarding the "one cookie cutter" approach - I think what the thread is showing that freedom of speech isnt a principle, in that it doesnt stand up in every case.

 

Maybe, rather than freedom of speech, we should instead prize freedom of thought, but temper this in the public square via common decency (ie a desire not to offend others).

 

Though of course, sometimes offence is inevitable, but we could try to avoid it as far as is reasonable.

 

You misunderstand. What I said was that it's not demonstrably true that 'everyone' is for Free Speech until it involves themselves, not that it demonstrably wasn't true. As a generalisation I couldn't agree with it, because even if you or I perhaps think it's true it's not necessarily true. For example, there are parents who will actually forgive the person who murdered their child. I, personally, can't even contemplate operating on that kind of level of emotional maturity (or detachment), let alone actually operate on that level myself. But people do, clearly, and perhaps many people do. So as a generalisation I can't agree that there's a universal reaction. Hence my 'fairly natural' as opposed to 'perfectly natural' or 'universally natural'. There were deliberate semantic choices in my post.

 

One problem with Freedom of Speech is that there seems to be a tendency to give all speech an equal footing... from someone saying, "That kid's a spuzzy" in the case of a disabled kid, or, say, someone calling for the literal massacre of Muslims/Christians. Obviously not all speech is equal in intent or consequence. That's why cookie cutter doesn't work, and why each case needs to be on a case by case basis.

 

In the case of someone saying, "That kid's a spuzzy", a one remark off is moronic and scummy, but if it becomes a pattern of harrassment then I would say that elevates what was initially a stupid comment to something more serious. That's why police involvement over the cretin of an (presumably) Aberdeen supporter being lowlife enough to demean a handicapped child is a nonsense (in my opinion), but if it continued then, sure, at some point action needs to be taken against the tit.