So, Bahar Mustafa has been charged with RMMC (according to the Guardian)

[Leg End]

Like owning child porn?

Because owning normal porn and even pictures and videos of criminal acts (such as murder and torture) is protected under the US's Free Speech laws.

Not touching that with a ten foot pole.

 

[Leg End]

You should keep that in mind when talking about free speech in the future, or when making that nonsense "defend to the death" statement.

Your definition of nonsense differs greatly from my definition it seems.

Different countries have different levels of free speech, nowhere is truly free. Where the line is drawn in Britain is below where it's drawn in the US

Which is where half of my humor comes from.

but keep in mind that criticising people being arrested for their speech and making quips about tax payer money being wasted is hypocritical if you also think people should be arrested for their speech.

That would be you making an assumption based on my refusal to answer, which is what that was. My statement should be read as "I will not discuss that matter on this particular forum".

 

[Leg End]

It's always fun to see people championing free speech whilst being afraid to have discussions about free speech.

The point you are trying to discuss is a can of worms you do not want to open on this particular forum. While from an American perspective, the First Amendment in short guarantees that the government shall not censor speech, private entities however can within their domain. The Escapist is a private entity that controls at its discretion what can or cannot be spoken about on its forums and this particular subject is a very sensitive one that typically leads to other discussions and the subject itself turns info a fiery shitflinging and The Escapist has a small bit of the TOS that begins to cover this particular subject.

So, I will not discuss your particular point on this particular forum. This is not me being afraid of such a discussion, this is me respecting The Escapist and the rules of the forum and the desire to prevent this thread from derailing so hard the train would be flying. I will not speak any further on this particular point.

 

[Smooth Operator]

It seems most got the impression she got arrested for using twitter... as far as I can tell the offence was inciting genocide, not the use of twitter. And it might come as a surprise to many but your country more then likely has laws against that, the genocide part not the twitter part.

And if nothing else comes of this we do get a very clear record of how much support you can garner with racism and sexism as long as you pick the right side.

 

[jklinders]

Did you seriously just suggest that the entire white population of Scotland and Ireland has extreme contempt for ethnic minorities?

If the majority was going to be at that meeting and threatened to kill her and proceeded to insult minority groups because their invitations were cancelled, then yes. But that's clearly not what happened. The point is that those people didn't start doing it after she lost her mind. Those people are the reason she lost her mind.

I think you may be imposing a motivation upon other people's arguments that may not actually be present.

I just read what they say.

These are entirely theoretical hardships constructed from voodoo theories about The Patriarchy or whatever.

There are also people who deny the holocaust.

Did you seriously take an ethereal concept like the patriarchy (please understand I am talking about feminism's BS about every man being in on the Patriarchy whether they know it or not, Orwell would have an orgasm over this kind of newspeak) and compare it to the reams of hard evidence being denied by Stormfront over the holocaust?

That. Is. Rich.

 

[1981]

The point you are trying to discuss is a can of worms you do not want to open on this particular forum. While from an American perspective, the First Amendment in short guarantees that the government shall not censor speech, private entities however can within their domain. The Escapist is a private entity that controls at its discretion what can or cannot be spoken about on its forums and this particular subject is a very sensitive one that typically leads to other discussions and the subject itself turns info a fiery shitflinging and The Escapist has a small bit of the TOS that begins to cover this particular subject.

That's absolutely right. It will get ugly because there's no way to have a casual conversation about things like these. Well, unless everyone's on drugs or legally insane. They've done a good job with the cesspool that is the Game Industry Discussion. If they wanted to prevent any meaningful discussion in this thread, they could've just moved it to Religion and Politics. That's where it belongs, BTW.

 

[Tilly]

If the majority was going to be at that meeting and threatened to kill her and proceeded to insult minority groups because their invitations were cancelled, then yes. But that's clearly not what happened. The point is that those people didn't start doing it after she lost her mind. Those people are the reason she lost her mind.

What on earth are you talking about? That didn't answer my question. And where did this bizarre hypothetical about threatening to kill and insult minorities just come from?
You don't seem to have specified at any point who exactly you're blaming for this. Yet you think it justifies banning all white men? I'm reasonably certain she hadn't met most white men in London before coming to the conclusion they're all a problem.

 

[Lightspeaker]

See this is the point many are missing: she absolutely does not deserve to be "let off because reasons", or more specifically because random people on the internet thinks she should.

That's a gross mischaracterization. The discussion has been about what happened and why. Because that's the only thing there is to discuss. We are not the government, police or court of law.

No its not a mischaracterisation. This thread is full of people saying "she shouldn't be charged/arrested because its just words on the internet". They're wrong. She should by charged because she has broken the law; a law that other people have broken previously in a similar way and have also been charged with. To not charge her 'because reasons' would make a mockery of the legal system.

There is absolutely no legitimate argument against not charging her here. Arguing that the law is inappropriate is fine, I might even agree (I'm not going to actually express my views on the law in question because its unnecessary to my point), but regardless of personal feelings on that law, it is still a law.

"Wrong. She absolutely DOES deserve to be criminally charged for them"

She broke a law but I disagree that she should be charged for speech. That is to say I feel the law in this case is unjust. You can say is was valid to charge her, but you don't get to say that i am wrong to feel that is is stupid and possibly unjust. My utter revulsion for her attitude and beliefs do not color my perspective on this at all. I never brought up the law in my post once. the law and my opinion are separate things. I stand by every word I posted.

You're arguing that she shouldn't be charged for breaking the law and that is precisely what I'm stating is absolutely wrong in every way. You are well within your right to claim that the law in question is unjust, unfair, inappropriate or whatever. But under the law she absolutely SHOULD be charged because she has committed a crime. This isn't a situation with opinions matter, its a question of legality and the legitimacy of the legal system itself.


And with that I'm out, peace.

 

[Silvanus]

There is absolutely no legitimate argument against not charging her here. Arguing that the law is inappropriate is fine, I might even agree (I'm not going to actually express my views on the law in question because its unnecessary to my point), but regardless of personal feelings on that law, it is still a law.

That's a bit of a nonargument, really. Law is not intended to be followed to the letter, regardless of impact, just because it's written. It's illegal (and punishable by a huge fine) to fly a kite in the city due to an archaic old Act, but nobody in their right mind would argue people should be actually charged today just because it's on the books.

 

[1981]

What on earth are you talking about? That didn't answer my question. And where did this bizarre hypothetical about threatening to kill and insult minorities just come from? [...]

There are too many generalizations to counter, so I'll just quote my references. Again.

The typical insults no diversity meeting would be complete without:

Surely you want people outside of the victims to be there to help raise those issues outside of the room? You're not having a debate or engaging in anything useful, it's just masturbatory slacktivism. Luther King didn't just sit in a room complaining how hard done by he was, nor did the people leading the charge of the gay rallys in the 80s. They fucking went out there and did stuff.

Death threats (this is so old I doubt anyone will even bother trying to accuse her of lying):

After the furore, Mustafa denied that her initial request for white men to stay away from a union meeting was racist or sexist, and said she had received rape and death threats.

 

[EvilRoy]

There is absolutely no legitimate argument against not charging her here. Arguing that the law is inappropriate is fine, I might even agree (I'm not going to actually express my views on the law in question because its unnecessary to my point), but regardless of personal feelings on that law, it is still a law.

That's a bit of a nonargument, really. Law is not intended to be followed to the letter, regardless of impact, just because it's written. It's illegal (and punishable by a huge fine) to fly a kite in the city due to an archaic old Act, but nobody in their right mind would argue people should be actually charged today just because it's on the books.

If anything that is a good argument for why the laws SHOULD be applied regardless of impact as written. The only way to clear out the bullshit is to apply these laws as they are written to apply, and then question if it should exist at all anymore or if it was poorly written. The only way to ensure equality and fairness before the law is to apply each law to the letter - the fact that a law drafted to deal with people shouting kill the blacks has been found to apply to a woman shouting kill the (conservatives?) is an indication that either the law is poorly drafted and needs to be revisited, or the law is functioning exactly as intended.

 

[Silvanus]

If anything that is a good argument for why the laws SHOULD be applied regardless of impact as written. The only way to clear out the bullshit is to apply these laws as they are written to apply, and then question if it should exist at all anymore or if it was poorly written.

That would be catastrophic. We would have people sent away for utterly inoffensive and unharmful behaviour, solely to iron out a clerical issue.

The only way to ensure equality and fairness before the law is to apply each law to the letter - the fact that a law drafted to deal with people shouting kill the blacks has been found to apply to a woman shouting kill the (conservatives?) is an indication that either the law is poorly drafted and needs to be revisited, or the law is functioning exactly as intended.

The law was poorly drafted, and that could be sorted out by simply revising it. No rational reason on earth we would need to apply it as written in order to revise it.

 

[jklinders]

See this is the point many are missing: she absolutely does not deserve to be "let off because reasons", or more specifically because random people on the internet thinks she should.

That's a gross mischaracterization. The discussion has been about what happened and why. Because that's the only thing there is to discuss. We are not the government, police or court of law.

No its not a mischaracterisation. This thread is full of people saying "she shouldn't be charged/arrested because its just words on the internet". They're wrong. She should by charged because she has broken the law; a law that other people have broken previously in a similar way and have also been charged with. To not charge her 'because reasons' would make a mockery of the legal system.

There is absolutely no legitimate argument against not charging her here. Arguing that the law is inappropriate is fine, I might even agree (I'm not going to actually express my views on the law in question because its unnecessary to my point), but regardless of personal feelings on that law, it is still a law.

"Wrong. She absolutely DOES deserve to be criminally charged for them"

She broke a law but I disagree that she should be charged for speech. That is to say I feel the law in this case is unjust. You can say is was valid to charge her, but you don't get to say that i am wrong to feel that is is stupid and possibly unjust. My utter revulsion for her attitude and beliefs do not color my perspective on this at all. I never brought up the law in my post once. the law and my opinion are separate things. I stand by every word I posted.

You're arguing that she shouldn't be charged for breaking the law and that is precisely what I'm stating is absolutely wrong in every way. You are well within your right to claim that the law in question is unjust, unfair, inappropriate or whatever. But under the law she absolutely SHOULD be charged because she has committed a crime. This isn't a situation with opinions matter, its a question of legality and the legitimacy of the legal system itself.


And with that I'm out, peace.

I'm arguing that the law is stupid, regardless of who gets dinged with it. there is absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing with a stupid law. there is everything wrong with allowing an oppressive law of that nature run roughshod over ANYBODY. If you are fine with having your freedom of speech taken from you by the government that is your business. Don't expect the rest of use to fall inline behind you like good little cattle.

 

[EvilRoy]

If anything that is a good argument for why the laws SHOULD be applied regardless of impact as written. The only way to clear out the bullshit is to apply these laws as they are written to apply, and then question if it should exist at all anymore or if it was poorly written.

That would be catastrophic. We would have people sent away for utterly inoffensive and unharmful behaviour, solely to iron out a clerical issue.

... We do that all the time now, without following the letter of the law. In fact, wishy washy application of laws tends to lead to this much more than simply following the letter of the law. A lot of people go to prison because we are 'pretty sure' they did something wrong, despite lacking the ability to fully satisfy the letter of the law.

The only way to ensure equality and fairness before the law is to apply each law to the letter - the fact that a law drafted to deal with people shouting kill the blacks has been found to apply to a woman shouting kill the (conservatives?) is an indication that either the law is poorly drafted and needs to be revisited, or the law is functioning exactly as intended.

The law was poorly drafted, and that could be sorted out by simply revising it. No rational reason on earth we would need to apply it as written in order to revise it.

We need to apply it as written in order to find out that it was poorly written. It might seem obvious to you now that there is an issue with the law, but that is all hindsight. At the time of writing the wording all likely made sense - there is after all no reason to believe someone would TRY to apply the law to political dissidents or run of the mill mysogonists/mysandrists, and now that we know we can strike down the law, rewrite it, and call for a retrial of the person in question given the unfair/misapplied nature of the law.

Or it is being applied exactly as intended, which means that it is really good that this is happening to a high profile woman with lots of money, so it will actually garner enough attention for people to be outraged at its unfairness and do something about it. If this was a homeless white guy he would be FUCKED. Nobody would come to his defense, and nobody would care enough to question the law.

 

[Silvanus]

... We do that all the time now, without following the letter of the law. In fact, wishy washy application of laws tends to lead to this much more than simply following the letter of the law. A lot of people go to prison because we are 'pretty sure' they did something wrong, despite lacking the ability to fully satisfy the letter of the law.

A failure to fulfil standards of evidence is, of course, an entirely different issue; a failure of the courts, not a failure of legislation.

We need to apply it as written in order to find out that it was poorly written. It might seem obvious to you now that there is an issue with the law, but that is all hindsight. At the time of writing the wording all likely made sense - there is after all no reason to believe someone would TRY to apply the law to political dissidents or run of the mill mysogonists/mysandrists, and now that we know we can strike down the law, rewrite it, and call for a retrial of the person in question given the unfair/misapplied nature of the law.

Any halfway competent lawyer or legislator could foresee such an obvious interpretation, I'd say. Had I heard of this particularly archaic piece beforehand, I'd have been able to spot this potential misuse with ease. There's no earthly reason we'd need to go through with a needless legal kangaroo court.

Hell, as it currently stands, she's not been successfully prosecuted on this charge, and you're perfectly capable of spotting misuse yourself. If you can see it now, without prosecution, why do you also believe prosecution is necessary to see it?

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

There are also people who deny the holocaust.

I deny that Doritos are the best potato chip. That's propaganda spread by the rich banker Frito-Lay Bolsheviks pulling the strings.

It seems most got the impression she got arrested for using twitter... as far as I can tell the offence was inciting genocide, not the use of twitter. And it might come as a surprise to many but your country more then likely has laws against that, the genocide part not the twitter part.

And if nothing else comes of this we do get a very clear record of how much support you can garner with racism and sexism as long as you pick the right side.

My country is der Ooh. Ess. Ahh. You would have to do something really bad to get hit with inciting genocide here. Maybe she did, I don't know. I'd be surprised.

The typical insults no diversity meeting would be complete without:

I never even heard arguments like that until this brand of cyber-hysteria started getting big. It isn't general to diversity campaigning. It is far more specific than that.

EDIT: On second reading, I'm not sure what I just said is correct. I think my eye was drawn to words like 'slacktivism' and 'victim'. Tunnel vision on my part, perhaps. I'm not going to delete it so that this doesn't get confusing.

Death threats (this is so old I doubt anyone will even bother trying to accuse her of lying):

After the furore, Mustafa denied that her initial request for white men to stay away from a union meeting was racist or sexist, and said she had received rape and death threats.

I have never accused anyone of making up online threats because I don't see the point of making them up. It's easy enough for anyone who wants them to get them. It's easy to get them if you don't want them. As for this being a good example of the oppression people like Mustafa experience- eh. Try to imagine the avalanche of indifference you would feel if someone like, say, me got a death threat. It's not like she organized a mass Muhammad drawing or something.

People actually care that she gets death threats. That's not oppression from my vantage point. If she is oppressed then I don't see why I am not oppressed.