... to be appalled at the creeping erosion of freedom of speech rights?

[Cel982]

This knobhead was arrested yesterday for incitement to racial hatred:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35888748

Now, to be clear, I think he's a twat. I don't agree with what he posted, and was glad to see him being roundly mocked on Twitter and elsewhere.

But the idea that the police can turn up at your door just for saying something which was not by any interpretation harassment, or threatening, or even specifically targeted at a particular individual, is terrifying to me. Their bar for what is likely to incite racial hatred seems set incredibly low. For a start, the Daily Mail publishes articles saying this kind of thing most days of the week, and I don't see any of their 'journalists' being hauled before the courts (though I think Katie Hopkins did get a visit from the police in her pre-DM days, over that really nasty piece on refugees).

This isn't the first episode of this kind, and I think in the past several of them have been thrown out of court, but they should never get there in the first place. I'm not sure whether the problem is in the legislation itself, or in the police force's interpretation of it, but something needs to change. This sort of carry on has no place in a liberal democracy.

Op dont think i am calling you a fucking idiot. its the BBC I know you are just saying what they wrote in the story

This erosion of free speech really bothers me. As others have said, who decides what is ok to say and when. My personal view is that suppressing the views of idiots like this pushes them underground and gives power to the real racist, sexist, right wing whereas exposing them to logic and ridicule is a far more effective response.

I agree. We need to respect others' views. You get the same thing on many threads on MN. Some of us are very much behind the Tory policies on cuts and yet to express that view really dose upset some people but if we politely set out the reasons we support that way of protecting the less fortunate you do often feel censored by the majority contrary view. Ditto issues you get on whether women should work or not and breastfeeding v formula feeding. Never mind all the bigger issues.

I think need to ensure people grow thick skins and develop stoicism and tolerance for views of others although it is certainly wise to be polite always and set out your reasoning for a particular view.

I want to be in an England where people can be very different from each other and our rights to express that view - whether it be reading out the bits of the Koran and Bible which are sexist and anti gay rights or whatever or saying there is no God (a capital offence in 9 muslim states).

(..the capital offence being if a Muslim in those states renounces the religion).

Well from the article , he sounds like a complete muppet and a bit of a coward to boot , noticed he asked a woman and not a man ! However what I deeply love are some of the tweets in response which basically show that the people of Britain will always, given the opportunity, take a shite argument and destroy it with sarcasm and ridicule , long live sarcasm and ridicule

He is a tool. I suspect he's not quite all there from the reports I've read. But in all honesty I don't even believe it happened.

He approached a total stranger and demanded an explanation for a terrorist attack based solely on the woman's garb. That in itself is racist.

this Independent story shows the problem.

He approached a total stranger and demanded an explanation for a terrorist attack based solely on the woman's garb. That in itself is racist.

Of course it is, but it's not against the law to be racist. Certain behaviours that are motivated by racism are illegal, but not fact of holding racist opinions itself.

And just to clarify, Eustace and others, I absolutely do not agree that all views should be tolerated and deserve respect. There are lots of widely-held opinions I have no respect for, and I think it's absolutely fine for them to be shouted down as part of the public discourse. That's how things should work. The state sanctioning someone for holding or expressing those views is the problem.

but not the fact of holding racist opinions itself

YANBU. What the man wrote was loathsome IMO, but he should not have been arrested for it. Freedom of speech has to mean that people are entitled to express opinions that others may find objectionable. Otherwise it only means we are free to say whatever the government has deemed acceptable. And that is a very slippery slope indeed. There are reasonable exceptions when speech can be curtailed, but this idiot's tweet doesn't remotely approach that boundary IMO.

I think the best way to deal with a mindless twit like this guy is exactly what happened after he tweeted his "mealy mouthed" nonsense: people responded with clever mockery to show exactly how ridiculous he was. Arresting him was a tremendous mistake.

He approached a total stranger and demanded an explanation for a terrorist attack based solely on the woman's garb. That in itself is racist.

What race is she?

I've not against shouting down at all. I want to live in a UK where people can say the Queen should die or Osborne is evil and indeed in my own case say Thatcher did huge good for the nation or whatever the view is and I am more than happy to stand here and people try to shout me down. Ditto Jesus and Mo cartoon - let people make them. If religious people who are stupid enough to believe in invented Gods are offended then they need therapy - it would be a very weak religion which could not stand up to mocking. Let the mocking take place. That is the point - Je suis Charlie - let the comments be made and let others express their views too. That is tolerance and free speech.

I reckon the police were doing him an act of kindness. He has been mocked across the world and that is certain punishment enough for being nothing more than a bit of a prat. By arresting him for something so trivial the police will probably drum up a bit of sympathy for him.

Leastways I hope so. Otherwise I wonder why the fuzz should go off and arrest some actual criminals.

What race is she?
I have no idea, I was trying hard to think as a particularly stupid person would.
However, if we're both adults about this, we both know that in all likelihood he approached a woman, probably darker skinned than he is, and probably wearing a hijab and demanded an explanation regarding an act of terrorism. He probably came across as intimidating and threatening. Oh, and the bit of assault and battery that one can be arrested for, demanding answers in a menacing tone, with intent to intimidate is the 'assault' part of that.

But we are told he wasn't arrested for that (and rightly so - frankly it sounds like a minor incident).

Oops. Looks like the Met screwed up - de-arrested and un-charged. The CPS took one look and went "Nope."
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/matthew-p-doyle-race-hate-charge-dropped-by-metropolitan-police_uk_56f66379e4b0ca3c7feb1e46

And now he is planning to sue.

Perhaps now on the police will stick to arresting people who are actually a threat to the public.

Freedom of speech is sacrosanct. It isn't only right -wingers who can be persecuted. It is only 60 years ago that those suspected of holding left wing views could lose their jobs, friends, livelihoods, (McCarthyism for example for those who don't remember).

So, whether you think some views are ok and some are not is irrelevant. People can think whatever they like.

I don't care if people are racist, sexist , believe in God or none, believe in ghosts or unicorns - it does not matter what is inside their heads. If people act or behave in a way that is against the law - that is a different thing. I will fight for equality, fairness, respect for all. But let people think what they will and if they voice it, let them do so and be mocked or disagreed with - and maybe have their minds changed...

Agree.

"I tweeted some rude things
Flat trashed, and me arrested.
A most hamfisted reply".

Presumably the free speech supporters would see no problem with a racist walking down the street calling black people the n-word. It's "free speech" is it not?

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 makes provision about offences involving stirring up hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds. So from a legal point of view, the whole "muslims ain't a race, innit" argument doesn't really stack up.

Irish your racist should not be arrested for it, even if I would dislike it.

Presumably the free speech supporters would see no problem with a racist walking down the street calling black people the n-word. It's "free speech" is it not?

Actually you can support free speech and still believe that he should be arrested for that. If an individual is harassed or threatened and made to feel in danger by something said to them personally then that is a crime. So shouting the 'n' word in the street, asking a woman in the street to explain an attack she had nothing to do with or even leaving the race/religion angle out of it swearing and abusing someone in the street. You can believe in freedom of speech but still believe that speech which proposes a direct threat is criminal.

The problem is when you start extrapolating that saying things which are not criminal in themselves, do not cause another to reasonably feel a clear immediate threat to themselves personally or do not incite criminal acts, only May incite the wrong type of thoughts in others - that's what causes the problems with freedom of speech and expression.

Shamelessly nicking from Wiki, such exceptions in the US constitution from freedom of speech are:

"fighting words".[27] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction". Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".

So in that context, had the woman approached complained arresting him would have been perfectly acceptable. Arresting someone using the 'n' word to others in the street -perfectly acceptable and all reasonable still within the bounds of supporting free speech.

Sending a few objectionable tweets addressed to nobody in particular -arresting not acceptable

Presumably the free speech supporters would see no problem with a racist walking down the street calling black people the n-word. It's "free speech" is it not?

If someone calls me the n word they're not going to be arrested for it, whether I or anyone else thinks thats ok or not.

Far worse is said and done than what this man did, Daily Mail and Britain First comes to mind here. Albeit he was wrong, I feel he was singled out because you cannot be seen to do/day anything deemed to be "against" Muslims. Whilst we live in sensitive times, there really is a dangerous naivety in the UK. More people should speak directly to those who have had to flee their own countries due to dangerous, murdering fanatics, and hear what they actually think about those people committing atrocities in Europe yet being freely allowed to enter and live here. Its an eyeopener.

In the current climate you are bound to get people like this guy shouting their mouth off. But as to whether he should have been arrested - No, I don't think he should have. I don't like "selective outrage" in that way