To think the Daily Mail should be prosecuted for allowing hate speech to stand

(27 Posts)
AndShesGone Thu 22-Sep-16 21:01:34

In the comments section of the news articles. Awful racist and homophobic comments that are imo hate speech.

Not moderated, not deleted. And people have to provide email addresses and names to post them - so they could easily be found by the police.

Just tonight I've seen a dozen racist comments under the story of the attempted abduction in East London.

Why are they not prosecuted for vehicling hate speech?

Pettywoman Thu 22-Sep-16 21:08:09

I agree.

pooh2 Thu 22-Sep-16 21:49:17

Yanbu! I totally agree with you. They are facilitating a platform for hate speech. I swear they post some stories just so that people will writw really horrible racist things in the comments, so they don't have to pay their own journalist to!

RaskolnikovsGarret Thu 22-Sep-16 21:53:01

I agree. The racist etc vitriol in the comments is quite shocking.

WorraLiberty Thu 22-Sep-16 21:56:23

I don't imagine they provide their real names?

Chikara Thu 22-Sep-16 21:57:01

I agree and I am a real free speech defender. people should be allowed to express an opinion, however unpopular, but pure hatred, insults, incitement to violence - no.

PenileImplant Thu 22-Sep-16 21:59:30

I'm not sure about the comments I think the individuals should be taken to task.

The daily mail's actual stories should definitely be considered hate speech

Summerwood1 Thu 22-Sep-16 22:00:43

Is that in regards to the train seat article?

AndShesGone Thu 22-Sep-16 22:02:35

Yes, also the disablist comments in the train seat article - more hate speech

Summerwood1 Thu 22-Sep-16 22:04:27

Yes,I read some of them. It's shocking what some people write.

frogmore Thu 22-Sep-16 22:14:37

Do you know I read or heard that the man who started the Daily Mail- Lord Beaverbrook gave a directive to NEVER feature black people in the Daily Mail.
Reading the Daily Mail for someone who is anti bigotry of any kind is torture.
Try to comment against and I promise you your comment will NEVER be published.
It's despicable. No wonder they hired Katie Hopkins and that other vile man- Little John

PenileImplant Fri 23-Sep-16 08:03:48

What train story?

SquatBetty Fri 23-Sep-16 08:33:45

Penile - a passenger with disabilities reserved 2 seats on a train but when she got on the train 2 business men were in the reserved seats and refused to move. The racist commenters didn't like the fact that neither of the business men were white and there were plenty of disabilist commenters as well.

Bet the poor Daily Heil readers didn't know who they were supposed to hate more!

MadHattersWineParty Fri 23-Sep-16 08:42:54

I've reported, complained in the past at some horrendous racist and xenophobic comments. They didn't even get back to me and the comments stood.

JudyCoolibar Fri 23-Sep-16 08:51:05

I don't imagine they provide their real names?

It doesn't matter whether posters provide their real names, the Mail has the power to take down hate speech comments and chooses not to do so. Mind you, they're by no means the only newspaper website with an incredibly lax approach to moderation. I think a few should be prosecuted to force all of them into taking a more responsible attitude. Every time they allow one of these comments to stand, they reinforce bigots in thinking their conduct is acceptable.

Deejeebee Fri 23-Sep-16 09:27:29

I'm not surprised!
You should have seen the story where a racist man followed, shouted racial slurs and proceeded to kick a woman in the stomach while she was pregnant, causing her to loose her child all because she was a "foreigner"! There were comments saying she deserved it and shouldn't be in this country! (Don't know if that was in the daily mail tho)

Katie Hopkins works for them so not surprised...

UsernameHistory Fri 23-Sep-16 09:54:17

And people have to provide email addresses and names to post them - so they could easily be found by the police.

The absolutely couldn't. Finding a single user could cost a fortune and that's before the CPS deciding it isn't in the public interest to prosecute (for example, weak evidence). I worked in cybe security before changing careers.

I am fairly sure that The DM have nice clever lawyers making sure they aren't doing anything illegal.

Unmoderated comments mean that the paper isn't an author of the work and is therefore entirely innocent.

www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2010/04/08/user_comments_ruling/

I think a few should be prosecuted to force all of them into taking a more responsible attitude.

Down with free speech!

Taken from the fastest source I can find, as I really should be working, but

Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden

Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.

Were the comments you read illegal or just offended you?

Do you think MN should be sued if one of its users were libelous?

Seeyouontheotherside Fri 23-Sep-16 10:11:44

Free speech as long as you agree with it - eh? You either have free speech or you don't. Free speech includes what you disagree with. That allows you your own speech which would be illegal and prosecutable if similar minded people to yourself but with different opinions were silencing everyone.

hackmum Fri 23-Sep-16 10:24:30

UserNameHistory - I'm really surprised at the ruling in that Register link. Traditionally, if you publish something libellous, then the victim of the libel can sue you as well as the person who wrote the libel. So you'd think the same would apply for hate speech.

But perhaps that explains why the Mail's moderation is so light-touch. The Guardian moderators rarely let anything offensive stand for more than a few seconds whereas you see all sorts of appalling stuff on the Mail.

As for "Seeyouontheotherside"'s point that "you either have free speech or you don't", a moment's thought will show that that's not true. In this country, we have all sorts of limits on free speech, including laws on libel, malicious communication and incitement to hatred. Very few people believe in complete freedom of speech. Imagine if I started a thread on Mumsnet saying that a particular Mumsnet user was a child abuser, and, for good measure, published their address. Should I be allowed to do that or not?

World wide there are many forums that are much more unmoderated than the mail's, you have to be hard headed to deal within yourself that this is out there. But I would say that it generally exists whether you see it or not. And in some ways forewarned is forearmed.

That said most forums have rules that do not allow naming and shaming or direct publication of an individual's details. I've had a look on some of the mail's comments and equally there are commenter's who do give a set down to anyone who is plain out of order. I've noticed that it varies from forum to forum how quick the mods are off the mark. I guess it varies from forum to forum as well if they are paid or volunteer. I am a moderator for a forum and because I'm not paid and I do work I might log on every so often just to catch up, so I might well not catch a comment until 2/3 hours or more or even a couple of days if I'm away.

Dahlietta Fri 23-Sep-16 10:51:48

YANBU, but you are expecting too much of a newspaper that gives Katie Hopkins a regular platform.

LurkingHusband Fri 23-Sep-16 12:13:24

Do you know I read or heard that the man who started the Daily Mail- Lord Beaverbrook gave a directive to NEVER feature black people in the Daily Mail.

I think Beaverbrook ran the Daily Express (which explains something).

It was a Lord Rotehremere who ran the Daily Mail. When he met Hitler, he reported back on what a decent chap he was.

It's worth remembering the Daily Mail was quite a cheerleader for Hitler for a while. For some reason they really don't like it being mentioned. I bet they'd love to ask Google to remove those search results !

UsernameHistory Fri 23-Sep-16 14:07:42

@Hackmum - that's the point: they aren't authoring or publishing it.

@lurkinghusband - and? So, people who are almost certainly now dead once praised someone else (now dead) who shouldn't have been praised? Sins of the fathers, eh!

Greengager Fri 23-Sep-16 14:22:02

I haven't seen the comments but I think unless they are threatening or abusive then they probably are not illegal. Free speech is vital and people should not be prevented form posting their views even if you or I regard them as disgusting. So much is about context here. If you wrote 'all gays will go to hell' in the comments of a webpage I violently disagree with you but I don't think laws should prevent you from doing this. If you wrote the same thing on a sign and stood outside a gay person's house then I think you should be arrested.

hackmum Fri 23-Sep-16 14:59:40

UsernameHistory: "That's the point: they aren't authoring or publishing it."

Hmm - I think that's one of those debatable points. You could reasonable argue that they are publishing it. Depends on your definition of publishing.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now