Fabrice Muamba

[Shaggy]

Amazing. That's a pretty beautiful sight.

[Lee]

What's that on his neck?

[Pablo]

Awesome pic

He looks about 40 there though poor fella.

[Gibbo]

Amazing. So happy to see he is on the mend.

[ChesterDave]

Out of curiosity, do you know the details of the case?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/tm_objectid=17516638&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=equality-officer-secretly-filmed-sex-scenes-name_page.html

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/cardiffonline/cardiff-news/2012/02/03/playgroup-close-to-closure-after-12-000-was-taken-from-account-by-treasurer-suzy-barrett-91466-30262669/

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/south-wales-news/cynon-valley/2006/11/02/cash-was-for-sex-says-man-91466-18040312/

[Kenneth]

[Mattshark]

I've still heard nobody make a rational argument for how calling someone a n****R, or telling some to suck a n****R d**k incites others to hate black people.

It was clearly not harrassement as it was individual responses to people contacting him.

Nor was what he said threatening so aasualt would be extremely unlikely to stick.

It's a perverse interpretation of incitement that clearly goes beyond the intention of the law imo.

And no, people shouldn't be able to use the internet in any way they like, or feel that they can. They shouldn't be allowed to plan terrorist attacks for example. They should be able to fling racist abuse at people though and if people don't want to partake in a medium that enables this, they should use a different site with more censorship and moderation. There is no right not to be insulted on twitter.

Sorry how does that not make it harassment?

You have that right in general, the internet doesn't give you anonymity from that. Same laws that apply outside the internet are just as valid on it. Seriously your talking rubbish.

[ChesterDave]

I look forward to paying 97% tax to house everyone who faces 56 days in jail for insulting others.

[Gingawaria]

What's that on his neck?

I'm assuming that he needed a tracheotomy at some point to aid his breathing.

[Mattshark]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wa...name_page.html

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/cardiffonline/cardiff-news/2012/02/03/playgroup-close-to-closure-after-12-000-was-taken-from-account-by-treasurer-suzy-barrett-91466-30262669/

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/so...1466-18040312/

Ok, Voyeurism is a low level offence, a lower level offence the inciting racial hatred. Probably would have been longer if he had been filming someone other than himself.

The second specifically goes into why there was no jail sentence and the judge said in normal circumstance their would.

Third one would be a reduced sentence due to the money being returned to the victim prior to the case.

[Mattshark]

I look forward to paying 97% tax to house everyone who faces 56 days in jail for insulting others.

I think you are really failing to understand this. He could have actually got 7 years (As said by the CPS) btw. And insulting people is not legal, whether you like or not it can cause serve damage to peoples lives, even if you don't view in such a manner. This is not a civil case, it is down to semantics. It is a criminal case, the law was either broken or not, the man admitted to the offence he was tried for, he could have gotten worse.

[Kenneth]

Why are you repeatedly talking anonimity? Maybe he wouldn't have said it face to face, but so what? How is any of that relevant to the judgement?

The same laws are of course as valid/invalid in relation to the internet as off it but you are trying to defend the judgement by making reference to things he wasn't even charged with Online, face to face, on the phone, whatever, he didn't incite anyone to hate anything (apart from maybe him). Incitement to hatred laws are illiberal, far too political and are being given too broad an interpretation.

The judge playing to the crowd is another issue which makes the judgement perverse.

[Mattshark]

Why are you repeatedly talking anonimity? Maybe he wouldn't have said it face to face, but so what? How is any of that relevant to the judgement?

The same laws are of course as valid/invalid in relation to the internet as off it but you are trying to defend the judgement by making reference to things he wasn't even charged with Online, face to face, on the phone, whatever, he didn't incite anyone to hate anything (apart from maybe him). Incitement to hatred laws are illiberal, far too political and are being given too broad an interpretation.

The judge playing to the crowd is another issue which makes the judgement perverse.

Because a lot of people think that the internet is a place to hide and be immune from law. Thought that quite was simple to understand.

Maybe he shouldn't have gone around abusing people. He got off light, as I said, you can get 7 years for what he did.

I was responding to your comments which you claimed it wasn't harassment, which it clearly was and your claim that there is no right to not be insulted on twitter, well yes their is. Why should you be allowed to abuse people in such a manner on the internet when it is clearly not acceptable in public.

[Kenneth]

And in reality, the medium does matter when it comes to harassment. Impinging on the dignity of Twitterer546 is not the same as going so to a named individual, and its hard to argue that twitter is an 'environment' when someone can voluntary click another link and leave with no detriment to their lives.

[Kenneth]

Maybe he shouldn't have gone around abusing people. He got off light, as I said, you can get 7 years for what he did.

I was responding to your comments which you claimed it wasn't harassment, which it clearly was and your claim that there is no right to not be insulted on twitter, well yes their is. Why should you be allowed to abuse people in such a manner on the internet when it is clearly not acceptable in public.

why is it not 'acceptable' in the public sphere?

He 'could' have got 7 years if he'd been charged and found guilty of other offenses. It is not for the CPS to decide what he could/should have got IF he'd been found guilty.