[Bobboau]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/bahar-mustafa-charged-with-sending-malicious-message-after-tweeting-kill-all-white-men-a6683241.html

Because I have a well known bias that might lead one to false conclusions about my motivations I will not do my typical "drive by" post style as there is a particular, possibly non-obvious to those who do not know me that well, point here that I take issue with, and there is a very obvious direction this thread could go (and lets face it, eventually will) go but before that happens I am hoping for it to go a different way at least for a little while.

Bahar Mustafa has a right as a human to be able to communicate her thoughts and ideas. I absolutely think she is a horrible detestable person, sexist, racist, teaparty of the left, I put her in the same bubble as the westboro baptists, that is how I feel about her and I mention it only to put what I am saying into a particular context. Just like all of them, she has a right to say what she wants to say, a right to Freedom of Speech. Now the UK government has a difference of opinion with me on this subject, but just because something is a law does not make it right. I do not fear her words because I have a right to freedom of speech as well and can argue against them, I do not fear them because I think I am right and a fair discussion of her positions will show me to be right to reasonable people. I think penalizing people because of what they say, especially by law, only shows that you fear what they have to say, or you are merely vindictive. This is bull****, and I am personally not going to stand for it, though there is little I can actually do, other than start a conversation about it with people who maybe can. Any restriction of speech hurts everyone, any time you make a club to silence your enemies you make a club for your enemies to silence you. Truth can only be found by all options being available and debated and bad ideas argued against, not silenced.

I say again, this be some ****ing bull**** right here.

[zookeeper]

Where would you draw the line? What kind of endorsement, practical tips or other incitement would you require to be added to that message that you'd want it to be illegal? You didn't really say anything about that, yet the only thing people disagree about is where exactly to draw the line and why.

[Bobboau]

typing or speaking into a machine with voice recognition a command that will cause it to cause harm to someone else,
giving an order to a subordinate to commit a crime

never communication of ideas, thoughts, feelings or desires. I don't care how upsetting to how many people. in fact the more unpleasent the more important it is that it is protected because popular speech is never threatened and never going to improve anything.

it is disturbing to me how after a mere 2-300 years this has become controversial in the last 10. this is one of the greatest progressions of civilization ever and lately it looks like people are starting to try to dismantle it.

[Luis Dias]

I'm with you here. Unfortunately, only the US has a vision for Speech that is remotely like what you suggest, which means that we in the rest of the so-called "free" world are ****ing screwed...

[Bobboau]

not if you make some noise and get some laws passed/repealed.
you know, as long as that isn't also illegal.

[karajorma]

Okay, she's claimed that she's received rape and death threats. Should anyone be charged for those?



BTW: I think the fact that we're dealing with a racist and sexist diversity officer is pretty ****ing hilarious in and of itself.

[Bobboau]

no

BTW: I agree with you but if we want to talk about that it should probably be in a separate thread.

[Grizzly]

no

Wait what why?

[NGTM-1R]

Okay, she's claimed that she's received rape and death threats. Should anyone be charged for those?

Considering they're probably as meaningless as the hashtag she used herself, in isolation no. If an individual is doing it consistently, you might have a case for civil rather than criminal harassment. If they're doing it in person or state their intention and then approach her physically you'd probably have escalated enough to warrant criminal charges.

Wait what why?

Because a bunch of assholes being assholes on the internet isn't a criminal matter? I mean, it's speech. It's even threatening speech. It probably makes people feel very uncomfortable. (It sure makes me very uncomfortable.)  But...where's the mens rhea? Are you saying they are statements of actual intention?

No. They're assholes screaming unto the void. Maybe thinking they're clever too.

Being an asshole isn't a criminal offense. Screaming isn't one either. Thinking they're clever just loops back to being assholes.

The irony here is that if you think their threats are serious you pretty much have to think that her use of an ironic hashtag is equally serious, because both of them aren't real statements of intent.

[666maslo666]

I agree with Bobboau, she is a despicable person but this should not be a criminal matter at all. If there is one thing where US justice system is clearly superior over European ones, it is first amendment and resulting strong protections for freedom of speech. I dont really feel like a free person with these kind of oppressive laws being on the books (even tough they are almost never enforced).

Okay, she's claimed that she's received rape and death threats. Should anyone be charged for those?

Not unless there is reasonable belief that those threats were actually serious and would result in her death. Which they most likely were not, being nothing more than internet trolling. So no, nobody should be charged.

[Bobboau]

why?

Why should they? She was talked at. (Actually, no, I think this refers to Twitter (or email) so she was typed at.... (ACTUALLY, now that I think about it I'm still wrong, she subscribed to a service that she pulled messages from, on which that other people published messages in such a way that she would eventually get them.), but whatever same difference)

What crime (including things that are not crimes but that you think should be) took place? Crimespeek? "Cyberviolence"?

[AtomicClucker]

Oh, this crazy *****? I remember hearing about #killallwhitemen a while back and its insane pusher.

I kinda find it funny that not only is she a sexist, racist bigot, and genuine kook, she got foisted on her ownpetard.

Do I agree with absolute free speech? Yes. Do I think she courted danger? Also yes. Do I think this is utterly hilarious? **** yes.

Same stuff her ilk is pushing is pretty ironic when one of them gets ensnared by their own bull**** factory. Or in simpleton, what comes around goes around. American courts have made it clear a few times that in order to file proper charges, there has to be merit in the threat - and sooner or later the UK will have draw its own line in the sand.

If undesirable forms of free speech are criminalized, it can go both ways, which is why I find cyberviolence a funny thing - many of the trolls and dip****s advocating to control free speech quickly realize THEY will put on the chopper's block as well.

[Bobboau]

Try to keep the schadenfreude to a minimum, please.

[NGTM-1R]

Oh, this crazy *****? I remember hearing about #killallwhitemen a while back and its insane pusher.

I kinda find it funny that not only is she a sexist, racist bigot, and genuine kook, she got foisted on her ownpetard.

It's not who you think it is, now hush.

[Mongoose]

Don't worry guys it's okay, she's not really racist!

Ms Mustafa explained that she could not be guilty of sexism or racism against white men "because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system."

[Bobboau]

if she is racist or not is not relevant to the discussion, because if she is right or wrong is not relevant to the discussion.

her tribe is not important.

we are all human, we all have a right to have our perspectives communicated, and we all have a right to be told we are full of ****.

[rubixcube]

The best rule of thumb I can think of when it comes to free speech is "your freedom ends where someone else's begins", so in this case I would say these tweets, although offensive, do not infringe upon anyone else's freedom. If she began to utter things that began to incite violence, then we can talk about charging her.

[Bobboau]

so her freedom is dependent on other people's behavior? I don't think I like that at all. All I have to do to make speech illegal is start enacting violence as a reaction to that speech, or radicalize other people (including people who agree with it) to do it for me. that is not behavior you want to reinforce. and how is she supposed to be responsible for other people anyway?

No, people acting violently are responsible for themselves, not people who they agree (or disagree) with.

[rubixcube]

That's not quite what I meant. What I mean is when you actions start to cause harm to others or violate their rights is when they should be criminally chargeable. So an obvious example is murder, which takes away someones, well life.

 Inciting violence is a bit of a grey area, in this case I agree with you, she should not have been charged.

An example where say a radical muslim is deliberately radicalizing and and inciting others to carry out terrorist acts, that would require some kind of action on the part of the state against the individual inciting these activities, as well as the people being incited of course.

[Black Wolf]

These threads always seem to have the implicit assumption that an American style absolute, untouchable right to free speech is both normal and desirable. It's not. Very few countries, including civilised western democracies, don't have legislation against things like hate speech, and as a resident of one of those countries, I'm glad of it (as are the majority of people in my country, if recent debates around the racial discrimination act are any indicator).

I have no sympathy for this woman. She broke the law, she's been charged, she should have her day in court. Is entirely possible she'll be acquitted, or have no (or no significant) penalty given. Magistrates and judges have that discretion, as they rightly should.

This users that free speech should be absolute and untouchable seems ludicrously simplistic from my perspective.

On an unrelated note, I really hope she takes this opportunity to grandstand, and bust out that "You can't be racist against white men!" rubbish in front of a magistrate, especially if that magistrate happens to be a white man.  The smackdown (on several levels, legal and relevance moat significantly) might potentially be quite amusing.