Great Britain fines free speech during Olympics

[Ravi]

I agree that they have every right to kick the guy out of the event, and ban him from attending any future events. I vehemently disagree with the British Government having the authority to fine him for making monkey noises and giving a nazi salute.

Why? It cost them money to deal with him.

Since when is that the standard?

I didn't say it was just that he did cost them money.

Why do you feel he shouldn't be fined?

 

[High_Gravity]

Yea.

A Lithuania fan made Nazi gestures and monkey chants during a game against Nigeria on Tuesday. He pleaded guilty to a charge of "racially aggravated behavior" and was fined $3,910 by a London court. A lawyer for the fan said Wednesday his client believed such behavior was acceptable at sports events at home.

Free speech doesn't give you a right to show your ass in public, if he did that here in the US he would have been tossed out of the arena and probably got his ass stomped in the parking lot.

 

[L.K.Eder]

In court on Wednesday a lawyer for the Lithuanian fan on trial said his client believed his gestures and behaviour were acceptable at sports matches at home.

haha

 

[manifold]

London is hosting the Olympics. Great Britain is paying for security. Therefore they have every right to enforce sanctions against bad behavior.

I agree that they have every right to kick the guy out of the event, and ban him from attending any future events. I vehemently disagree with the British Government having the authority to fine him for making monkey noises and giving a nazi salute.

So do I. Though what do you think would happen if someone made a big show of making Nazi salutes on 5th Avenue during the day?

I seriously doubt he'd be charged with a crime.

 

[manifold]

Why? It cost them money to deal with him.

Since when is that the standard?

I didn't say it was just that he did cost them money.

Why do you feel he shouldn't be fined?

Because I don't believe any government should have the authority to fine someone for speech that offends someone else. And frankly, it saddens me that you do.

 

[manifold]

Yea.

A Lithuania fan made Nazi gestures and monkey chants during a game against Nigeria on Tuesday. He pleaded guilty to a charge of "racially aggravated behavior" and was fined $3,910 by a London court. A lawyer for the fan said Wednesday his client believed such behavior was acceptable at sports events at home.

Free speech doesn't give you a right to show your ass in public, if he did that here in the US he would have been tossed out of the arena and probably got his ass stomped in the parking lot.

But he wouldn't have been dragged into court, forced to plead guilty to a crime and given a $4K fine.

 

[High_Gravity]

Yea.

Free speech doesn't give you a right to show your ass in public, if he did that here in the US he would have been tossed out of the arena and probably got his ass stomped in the parking lot.

But he wouldn't have been dragged into court, forced to plead guilty to a crime and given a $4K fine.

Probably not but every country has their own laws and people need to at least read into them before they go there. In a Muslim country you can get fined for holding your girlfriends had in public and you can get thrown in prison for having sex with someone who isnt your wife.

 

[Ravi]

Since when is that the standard?

I didn't say it was just that he did cost them money.

Why do you feel he shouldn't be fined?

Because I don't believe any government should have the authority to fine someone for speech that offends someone else. And frankly, it saddens me that you do.

You aren't making sense. On the one hand you claim it is acceptable to punish him (eject him and not allow him back to any of the events) and on the other hand it is unacceptable to punish him (fine him).

I would personally be fine with just the fine and allowing him to attend future events. Seems much fairer.

I also fail to see how being disruptive while a guest of Great Britain is his right.

 

[Swagger]

Yea.

Free speech doesn't give you a right to show your ass in public, if he did that here in the US he would have been tossed out of the arena and probably got his ass stomped in the parking lot.

But he wouldn't have been dragged into court, forced to plead guilty to a crime and given a $4K fine.

In some European countries you can get up to three years in prison for simply denying the Holocaust.

 

[manifold]

Free speech doesn't give you a right to show your ass in public, if he did that here in the US he would have been tossed out of the arena and probably got his ass stomped in the parking lot.

But he wouldn't have been dragged into court, forced to plead guilty to a crime and given a $4K fine.

Probably not but every country has their own laws and people need to at least read into them before they go there. In a Muslim country you can get fined for holding your girlfriends had in public and you can get thrown in prison for having sex with someone who isnt your wife.

That's not a model I'm interested in replicating here. How about you?

 

[manifold]

I didn't say it was just that he did cost them money.

Why do you feel he shouldn't be fined?

Because I don't believe any government should have the authority to fine someone for speech that offends someone else. And frankly, it saddens me that you do.

You aren't making sense. On the one hand you claim it is acceptable to punish him (eject him and not allow him back to any of the events) and on the other hand it is unacceptable to punish him (fine him).

I would personally be fine with just the fine and allowing him to attend future events. Seems much fairer.

I also fail to see how being disruptive while a guest of Great Britain is his right.

Once again you fail to recognize the difference between government and the private sector.

 

[Liability]

What Great Britain did is emblematic of their different notions of free speech. I think many of us Americans view that incident with a bit of discomfort because we have a First Amendment. We have traditionally placed a much higher value on the idea of unfettered speech. We tend to view the derisive racist words and actions of that asshole as something that can be justifiably derided and put down and rebutted and refuted in "the free market place of ideas." We tend to be aghast at the idea that a government can resort to the force of law to silence an idea, no matter how stupid or ugly that idea might be.

Great Britain doesn't see things our way.

I think we bring some problems down on our own heads because of our notions. But I wouldn't have it any other way.

And I believe Great Britain would benefit from emulating OUR notions in that regard.

I'm pretty confident, though, that for the most part, nobody in Great Britain gives a shit about my advice.

 

[Swagger]

Because I don't believe any government should have the authority to fine someone for speech that offends someone else. And frankly, it saddens me that you do.

You aren't making sense. On the one hand you claim it is acceptable to punish him (eject him and not allow him back to any of the events) and on the other hand it is unacceptable to punish him (fine him).

I would personally be fine with just the fine and allowing him to attend future events. Seems much fairer.

I also fail to see how being disruptive while a guest of Great Britain is his right.

Once again you fail to recognize the difference between government and the private sector.

The London Olympics is being funded by the taxpayer.

 

[Ravi]

Because I don't believe any government should have the authority to fine someone for speech that offends someone else. And frankly, it saddens me that you do.

You aren't making sense. On the one hand you claim it is acceptable to punish him (eject him and not allow him back to any of the events) and on the other hand it is unacceptable to punish him (fine him).

I would personally be fine with just the fine and allowing him to attend future events. Seems much fairer.

I also fail to see how being disruptive while a guest of Great Britain is his right.

Once again you fail to recognize the difference between government and the private sector.

The government is providing security. If the private sector was providing security, it wouldn't have been an issue.

btw, the Brits already had a law against what they deem "an olympic offense."

The Definition of an Olympic Crime

Why do you hate Olympic values? That seems rather bigoted.

 

[manifold]

You aren't making sense. On the one hand you claim it is acceptable to punish him (eject him and not allow him back to any of the events) and on the other hand it is unacceptable to punish him (fine him).

I would personally be fine with just the fine and allowing him to attend future events. Seems much fairer.

I also fail to see how being disruptive while a guest of Great Britain is his right.

Once again you fail to recognize the difference between government and the private sector.

The London Olympics is being funded by the taxpayer.

Taxpayers fund roads too. Does that mean you surrender your free speech rights when you're on a public road.

 

[Liability]

Once again you fail to recognize the difference between government and the private sector.

The London Olympics is being funded by the taxpayer.

Taxpayers fund roads too. Does that mean you surrender your free speech rights when you're on a public road.

Free speech based on who pays?

I'm pretty sure Ravi doesn't see anything implicitly ridiculous and self-contradictory in that formulation. She is wrong, of course.

 

[manifold]

You aren't making sense. On the one hand you claim it is acceptable to punish him (eject him and not allow him back to any of the events) and on the other hand it is unacceptable to punish him (fine him).

I would personally be fine with just the fine and allowing him to attend future events. Seems much fairer.

I also fail to see how being disruptive while a guest of Great Britain is his right.

Once again you fail to recognize the difference between government and the private sector.

The government is providing security. If the private sector was providing security, it wouldn't have been an issue.

btw, the Brits already had a law against what they deem "an olympic offense."

The Definition of an Olympic Crime

Why do you hate Olympic values? That seems rather bigoted.

I never said they didn't act in accordance with their laws dummy. I simply think their laws in this area go too far to stifle free speech.

 

[Ravi]

Once again you fail to recognize the difference between government and the private sector.

The government is providing security. If the private sector was providing security, it wouldn't have been an issue.

btw, the Brits already had a law against what they deem "an olympic offense."

The Definition of an Olympic Crime

Why do you hate Olympic values? That seems rather bigoted.

I never said they didn't act in accordance with their laws dummy. I simply think their laws in this area go too far to stifle free speech.

IIRC, the Brits don't follow the concept of free speech like we do.

However there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive, or insulting speech or behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[56][57] incitement,[58] incitement to racial hatred,[59] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[58][60] glorifying terrorism,[61][62] collection or possession of information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[63][64] treason including imagining the death of the monarch,[65] sedition,[65] obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[66] defamation,[67] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[68][69] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[69] scandalizing the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[69] time, manner, and place restrictions,[70] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.

wikipedia

 

[Swagger]

What Great Britain did is emblematic of their different notions of free speech. I think many of us Americans view that incident with a bit of discomfort because we have a First Amendment. We have traditionally placed a much higher value on the idea of unfettered speech. We tend to view the derisive racist words and actions of that asshole as something that can be justifiably derided and put down and rebutted and refuted in "the free market place of ideas." We tend to be aghast at the idea that a government can resort to the force of law to silence an idea, no matter how stupid or ugly that idea might be.

Great Britain doesn't see things our way.

I think we bring some problems down on our own heads because of our notions. But I wouldn't have it any other way.

And I believe Great Britain would benefit from emulating OUR notions in that regard.

I'm pretty confident, though, that for the most part, nobody in Great Britain gives a shit about my advice.

You'd be quite wrong in that regard. Confirmation of this can be found on most comment pages of all the broadsheets covering the ejection of the Lithuanian fan and the two Olympians Papachristou and Drygalla. Indeed, the Telegraph's comment section crashed six times last night after reporting on the utterly unfair removal of the German rower because her boyfriend (her boyfriend, not her) has been linked to a far-right group in Germany. Even the traditionally lefty Guardian readers slammed the German team's decision to remove Drygalla after the IOC leaned on them. Her removal at the behest of the IOC is irredeemably spiteful and unfair. Though it comes as no surprise seeing as this Olympics has been completely hijacked by the PC brigade and UN, the latter of which enjoyed an uncormfortable presence at the opening ceremony.

 

[Ravi]

The London Olympics is being funded by the taxpayer.

Taxpayers fund roads too. Does that mean you surrender your free speech rights when you're on a public road.

Free speech based on who pays?

I'm pretty sure Ravi doesn't see anything implicitly ridiculous and self-contradictory in that formulation. She is wrong, of course.

That's not quite what I said. The Brits are providing security and therefore have every right to, guess what?, provide security. They obviously consider racist behavior a security risk to the people attending or competing at the Olympics.