Man charged over racial slurs/online abuse (Nic Nat)

[Wokko]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/22085122/charge-over-nic-nat-slurs/

This kind of thing is absolutely terrifying to me. The fact that in this country you can be jailed for NINE years for the words you choose to use on Twitter is beyond insane. Now I find using the word (Seems this board censors the word, it's a slang term for Negro) towards a Fijian man to be firstly uneducated and the wrong racial slur to use in that context to begin with and secondly a low brow and crude thing to say but to think it's worthy of an extended jail sentence just sends shivers down my spine. The law that he's being charged with states "using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence". A blanket, non specific law like this is open to all kinds of abuse (define offence, offensive to who, but what/whose standards). There IS some semblance of a threat in Vinh Nguyen's tweets but it is just generic "I'd like to bash you" not "I'm coming to bash you". The guy is a nasty immature twat, but being an arsehole shouldn't mean rotting in Jail.

Things like this are why we need to enshrine freedom of speech. The consequences of saying things like this come without involving governments or the Police and Nic Nat would have avenues to sue, or this guy might find himself unemployable and with very few friends. In the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall in discussing Voltaire; "How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,"

[What'sinaname]

Probably a good reminder to all of us about the legal implications of what is written in this forum.

[Stupied]

Very well said Wokko

[Mugwump]

There is free speech and there is incitement to hatred and violence. This loser probably has a psychiatric issue, and i'm not too concerned about seeing him prosecuted given what he is reported to have said. I'd rather live in a society where this type of speech is not tolerated.

However, i agree that the bar to prosecution should be very high, as this type of legislation can readily be used vexatiously by minority groups to stifle any discussion of group characteristics, or to claim the moral status of a victim in response to unreasonably self-defined "offence". In this case, however this "tweeter" needs some time in incarceration, probably a psychiatric institution.

[Hiss]

The problem with this big brother regulation of speech is it can be abused by rat bag politicians who decide that one day, any comments they don't like should be prosecuted. Then sometime in the future, imagine a Greens Government, that prosecutes anyone who questions climate change. The point I am making is that politicians cannot and should not be trusted. They routinely abuse their power and tell lies. Regulating speech is the most dangerous thing a government can do. Throughout history the most brutal and oppressive dictatorships have all done it. It is their trademark. No matter what way you try and justify the regulation of speech, you can never be sure that a bad government may someday turn that regulation back on you and restrict your speech, because they don't like what you say about them. The safest thing in any healthy democracy is to leave speech alone. If some idiot wants to racially slur someone else, give it back to them. That is fair and proportionate. If you support the regulation of free speech, beware it may one day turn around and be used to bite you.

[Wokko]

[HAL]

What makes you think I would try and rile people up incite hatred then your words will allow a rational argument based response rather than blanket censorship?

[watt price tully]

There is no such thing as freedom of speech - never has been. It is errant nonsense to suggest that there might be.

There are always limits. Twitter, shmitter or any form of public communications.

This idiot has been caught out. Being an idiot doesn't equate to having a mental illness. Bad behaviour is bad behaviour.

I'm not sure if this constitutes incitement to racial hatred say like Alan Jones seems to have (allegedly) done with the lead up to the Cronulla Riots - seems to have come pretty close.

It is utterly responsible to have laws banning incitement to racial hatred & violence. The issue for me is how it is applied.

[Piesnchess]

[MagpieMad]

accountable for the words you speak? what a concept.

[sixpoints]

This is Australia mate. We have laws in regard to what you utter, author, publish, broadcast, post, tweet etc.
You libel someone - you can be prosecuted
You defame someone - you can be prosecuted
You menace, harass, cause offense on a carrier service - you can be prosecuted.

You can then defend yourself in court against any claims made against you.

They are our laws. Knowing that, how about you don't libel, defame or menace anyone and all will be well.

In regard to this "free speech" mantra that some people keep spouting. I think you are watching too much American TV or literally believing the nonsense that some columnists here publish.

[Lazza]

[Wokko]

Being accountable for words does not mean the government should kidnap you at gunpoint and keep you locked in a room for years. It means there are consequences to being a dick, either through court action by individuals or through consequences of breaching the 'social contract' to not act like a dick.

Libel = civil matter, you can be sued for damages
Defamation = civil matter, you can be sued for damages

As for defending any law about 'causing offence' well I am deeply offended by people who advocate against free speech, and hey, you've offended me via a carrier service. Off to jail with you.

Finally on the last point, Freedom of Speech is a well recognized RIGHT of citizens of free nations. It is not a uniquely American concept, although the founding fathers, understanding the methods of tyranny, chose to ensure that such freedoms were not merely implied but were part of the core makeup of the laws of their society. Infringing on freedom of expression always starts 'reasonably'.

As for bringing up Nazi Germany I'd be interested what their laws were regarding free speech and freedom of the press, because it was lack of free speech that allowed that toxic ideology to take hold because people couldn't speak against it. Ideas should never be silenced, even ones that are offensive, unpalatable, disgusting or terrifying. If someone wants to make the claim that "Jews control Hollywood" (Mel Gibson style) then they should be able to say that (Mel was allowed to say that in the USA), defend or argue their point then deal with the consequences of saying it (The Jews who don't control Hollywood blacklisting you from working ever again) If you forbid, prosecute or attack people for saying or printing things then you allow the idea to survive under the surface. Do you think that banning anything to do with Nazis or Holocaust historical revision in Europe has prevented those ideas or ideologies from surviving? No, they just allow them to survive unchallenged.

[nomadjack]

[die4pies]

The problem you defamation law experts fail to see is that a significant number of those that are vilified come from an oppressed minority group who do not have the know how or finances to bring civil proceedings.

This is an area of law where society has deemed that the criminal courts should protect people because they can't protect themselves. Which is precisely how a civilised system should work. Otherwise you have survival of the fittest (read: wealthiest).

Repost this because it is spot on: