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

Recommended Videos

FirstNameLastName

Premium Fraud
Nov 6, 2014
1,080
0
0
I'm not sure what to think about all this. On one hand, I don't believe that this hashtag (assuming it is about the hashtag, which it might not be) is bad enough to warrant legal action.
But, on the other hand, I would say this sets a bad precedent, if the precedent wasn't already set long ago. She's hardily the first person to be charged with hate-speech/inciting violence, and as long as others are being charged for equally petty offences, then I don't believe she ought to get special treatment.
Aside from that ...
Redd the Sock said:
Idealistically, yes, no one deserves arrest for the stupid shit they say online.

More realistically, Given how far some people want to push an anti-harassment agenda, it's generally benifical to have a reminder that "punching up / punching down" or "no bad tactics only bad targets" is not in the law and as such, their own hostility and negativity will come back to bite them if they actually get these measures in place.

If the arrest is just just trying to make that point, more power to it.
.. I'm going to have to agree with this. This might be exactly what some people need. At this point I feel like social justice fanatics need to feel the sting of government repression before they'll understand that advocating for such laws might not be the best of ideas, since simply telling them that free speech is important doesn't seem to have worked. Perhaps if more people get charged for hate speech against straight people, white people, and males, in the same way as you'll be charged if it's against LGBT people, ethnic minorities, and women, then we might see more people waking up to the reality of what they're advocating for.
Although, they might just cry "oppression", and stay the course. That seems just as likely.
 

1981

New member
May 28, 2015
217
0
0
Mustafa was initially accused of racism for asking white men not to attend a students' union meeting intended for ethnic minority women and non-binary attendees.
Reminds me of a 3rd Rock from the Sun episode where Dick Solomon heard about a black support group and wanted to attend their meeting. He was told he couldn't. He then declared "well I'll find a white support group then". Guess how people reacted. And that was at least 15 fucking years ago.

Not saying she shouldn't be held accountable for sending those kinds of tweets a communication conveying a threatening message via a public communication network, but we can't ignore the context.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
EternallyBored said:
inu-kun said:
100% deserve it, whetether it's black, jew, muslim, chinese, etc. even joking about mass murder should not be accepted under any circumstance. She should be punished for it, and no she's not protected by "free speech" at all.

And saying that some people do it and don't go to court is not an actual defence.
In the UK, you're right, she's not protected, in the U.S. However, what she said is considered free speech. The USA has different standards for what's considered actually illegal speech, and to. E considered threatening she would have had to be making imminent threats against a specific target, generic threats about how a specific group needs to die without an immediate call to action are still protected by the first amendment.
Depends, if someone were to act upon that threat and kill one or more people, or cause bodily harm otherwise and it can be linked/attributed to that tweet as a call to action, then it can fall under criminal facilitation, maybe even an outright murder charge if they can prove the source had a depraved indifference or otherwise conspired to cause harm or death of another human. First amendment only protects certain types of speech but does not protect things that can be attributed to the cause of a criminal act. Inciting a riot is not protected, nor is what Charles Manson did even though he didn't take part in the killings he was still found criminally liable because people followed his words.
Free speech is a thing, but its not an all encompassing get out of jail free card to say anything you want without repercussions.

You can't even say you want to kill the President, you can't shout fire in a crowded room, those are two other examples of unprotected speech.

Its also up to the prosecuting attorney to determine whether or not a crime may have been committed and submit said crime to a grand jury for indictment. Some things may be illegal but difficult to prosecute. Either way though, if it is committed by someone outside of the US, depending on extradition laws, it may in fact be impossible to prosecute except in a trial in absentia situation.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
Imperioratorex Caprae said:
EternallyBored said:
inu-kun said:
100% deserve it, whetether it's black, jew, muslim, chinese, etc. even joking about mass murder should not be accepted under any circumstance. She should be punished for it, and no she's not protected by "free speech" at all.

And saying that some people do it and don't go to court is not an actual defence.
In the UK, you're right, she's not protected, in the U.S. However, what she said is considered free speech. The USA has different standards for what's considered actually illegal speech, and to. E considered threatening she would have had to be making imminent threats against a specific target, generic threats about how a specific group needs to die without an immediate call to action are still protected by the first amendment.
Depends, if someone were to act upon that threat and kill one or more people, or cause bodily harm otherwise and it can be linked/attributed to that tweet as a call to action, then it can fall under criminal facilitation, maybe even an outright murder charge if they can prove the source had a depraved indifference or otherwise conspired to cause harm or death of another human. First amendment only protects certain types of speech but does not protect things that can be attributed to the cause of a criminal act. Inciting a riot is not protected, nor is what Charles Manson did even though he didn't take part in the killings he was still found criminally liable because people followed his words.
Free speech is a thing, but its not an all encompassing get out of jail free card to say anything you want without repercussions.

You can't even say you want to kill the President, you can't shout fire in a crowded room, those are two other examples of unprotected speech.

Its also up to the prosecuting attorney to determine whether or not a crime may have been committed and submit said crime to a grand jury for indictment. Some things may be illegal but difficult to prosecute. Either way though, if it is committed by someone outside of the US, depending on extradition laws, it may in fact be impossible to prosecute except in a trial in absentia situation.
That post was made under the assumption that the #killallwhitemen was what she was being prosecuted over, even if someone did act on the hashtag, it would be almost impossible to prove that tweet as a legitimate call to action on its own. The later posted tweets could maybe be linked depending on the circumstances, although you would still have a hard time proving immediacy if she defended herself well enough.

You can indeed say you want to kill the president, you can't however make it look like an imminent threat, the secret service might want to talk to you, but they generally won't press charges unless the threat is explicit enough, and you certainly can post under a hashtag like #killthepresident. It's up to the federal government whether they will press charges on threats against the president.

Your last paragraph explains it well enough, edge cases fall to the prosecutor to press charges, and judges to interpret the law, the ACLU also tends to step in to defend cases where explicit threats aren't being made.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
EternallyBored said:
That post was made under the assumption that the #killallwhitemen was what she was being prosecuted over, even if someone did act on the hashtag, it would be almost impossible to prove that tweet as a legitimate call to action on its own. The later posted tweets could maybe be linked depending on the circumstances, although you would still have a hard time proving immediacy if she defended herself well enough.

You can indeed say you want to kill the president, you can't however make it look like an imminent threat, the secret service might want to talk to you, but they generally won't press charges unless the threat is explicit enough, and you certainly can post under a hashtag like #killthepresident. It's up to the federal government whether they will press charges on threats against the president.

Your last paragraph explains it well enough, edge cases fall to the prosecutor to press charges, and judges to interpret the law, the ACLU also tends to step in to defend cases where explicit threats aren't being made.
I posted that stuff under the idea that the examples made are things it would be better to avoid saying in public, even as a joke, much like the whole talking about bombs in the airport. Sure some people may not take it seriously but I'm the type of person to say its best to avoid things that could be misconstrued by the wrong people at the wrong time, the internet especially because you never know what certain folks might find a reason to take issue with.

It may not be illegal, but its not baseline protected speech either. Satire and a few other things may indeed protect a person from prosecution but as you said the Secret Service may want to have a word with people that seem somewhat sincere in their words. As I said some things are better left unsaid unless you explicitly ensure its taken as a joke or satire. Basically what I'm saying is even though we have a free speech clause in the Constitution, there still are some areas where its deemed unprotected due to the nature and intent of the words being at the very least gray, if not outright dangerous. Threats or panic inducing speech for example is an area best left untouched unless one wants to be chatting with law enforcement, local, state or federal depending on type.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
Strazdas said:
Im kinda with Milo here. I agree that she should not be arrested for tweeting. Instead i think she should be arrested on racial segregation while performing her duty as diversity officer, which is an actual crime.
Wait, she seriously got arrested for Tweets as opposed to actual segregation?

This is as bad as the whole Paula Deen thing. The women had her career trashed for saying the "N" word. But when you look at her past history she has done a lot worse shit that should of garnered outrage. (Like actual segregation.)
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
FirstNameLastName said:
Perhaps if more people get charged for hate speech against straight people, white people, and males, in the same way as you'll be charged if it's against LGBT people, ethnic minorities, and women, then we might see more people waking up to the reality of what they're advocating for.
Although, they might just cry "oppression", and stay the course. That seems just as likely.
This isn't a jab at your comment, because I otherwise agree.

The problem with this scenario is that aside from gay, lesbian, and bisexual people (on their good days.) there are still ethnic minorities and queer sexualities that do face some pretty hefty hate talk and when they turn to the law nothing happens.

It's especially bad with trans people. There have been numerous cases where trans men/women have basically been beaten to death just for existing and everyone KNOWS it happened due to hate and said perpetrators never get the justice they deserve.

Not saying that your comment is wrong. It's just that the reality of it is that some people in this group probably don't give a shit because the law never gave a shit about them in the first place.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Dragonbums said:
Strazdas said:
Im kinda with Milo here. I agree that she should not be arrested for tweeting. Instead i think she should be arrested on racial segregation while performing her duty as diversity officer, which is an actual crime.
Wait, she seriously got arrested for Tweets as opposed to actual segregation?

This is as bad as the whole Paula Deen thing. The women had her career trashed for saying the "N" word. But when you look at her past history she has done a lot worse shit that should of garnered outrage. (Like actual segregation.)
According to the Guardian article - yes. The quote from police representative: "A woman interviewed under caution regarding a complaint of racially motivated malicious communication made on a social media network has been summonsed to court" seems to express that quiteclear to me. She also still havent been fired and continues working as diversity officer.
 

JemothSkarii

Thanks!
Nov 9, 2010
1,169
0
0
Well first there's the whole '1984 was a warning, not a handbook on what to do'.

People say stupid shit all the time, both online and in public. Some throwaway tweets that shouldn't be cause for arrest. Review for employment maybe, as she's a DIVERSITY OFFICER, but nothing to be arrested over.

But the opposite is happening; she keeps her job but gets arrested. That's... unfortunate. I feel bad for the UK.

Reminds me how they made it illegal to rip music from your CDs.
 

Buckets

New member
May 1, 2014
185
0
0
If a young muslim had tweeted that, they would be in Prison in a second.
Looks like her idiotic comment has come back to bite her on the arse. She has a history of being a dickhead (look her up for further details) so glad she is finally getting her just desserts.
 

VaporWare

New member
Aug 1, 2013
94
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
Well the content of these communications have not yet been revealed, one of which is a private communication, so I'll just assume that the private one is reaosnably considered a threat and that the other is a similarly threatening message until the messages in question are known.

dirtysteve said:
She tweeted some stuff around the Conservative Party Conference,

*image snip*

I think this is the basis for inciting violence, as apparently some people were spat on and threatened.
I'm not sure this would legally constitute as inciting violence anymore than saying "she was dressed like a slut, she deserved to get raped" is inciting rape or holding up a sign that says "God Hates Fags" is inciting hate crime. Tasteless, crass, offensive and hateful, but its not encouraging people to go out and a commit an act of violence.
The part where she states that violence against a broad group of people (in this case 'Torys') "isn't violence" may be taken as incitement, using the same contortion of logic by which she justifies her rather racist and sexist stances on diversity. When people assert that it 'doesn't count if I do it', applied to violence, that's concerning.

This would be less "the victim asked for it" and more "the people you oppose don't count as victims if you hurt them because they have already provoked us".
 

Dango

New member
Feb 11, 2010
21,066
0
0
Alright, she's clearly a prick, but being a prick isn't a crime, and unless she actually spouted hate speech or assaulted someone, arresting her is too much.
 
Aug 31, 2012
1,774
0
0
It's a very minor, nit-picky point, that doesn't alter or counter any arguments or statements made here, but nowhere does it say she's been arrested, she's been interviewed under caution, charged and then issued a summons to appear in court. That's not the same thing as being arrested.
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
Strazdas said:
Im kinda with Milo here. I agree that she should not be arrested for tweeting. Instead i think she should be arrested on racial segregation while performing her duty as diversity officer, which is an actual crime.
In the UK, calling for the use of violence against individuals/groups is also a crime.

Usually you have to be a bit more specific than 'all XYZ' to attract the wrath of the police. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if she's been charged this is not the first complaint they've received about this person specifically, whether previous incidents were publicised or not.

I'd never heard of them before this article, but then I am pretty tone deaf to his kind of thing.
 

VaporWare

New member
Aug 1, 2013
94
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
VaporWare said:
The part where she states that violence against a broad group of people (in this case 'Torys') "isn't violence" may be taken as incitement, using the same contortion of logic by which she justifies her rather racist and sexist stances on diversity.
So in other words its not.

Justice is meant to be cold and dispassionate, not hot-blooded and petty.
To clarify, I mean that her statement, using her own pattern of logic, could be used that way by those who might take her seriously, not that the law or anyone opposing her should do so. I can see people using such as an /excuse/ for violence, and why that might concern people. Once a violently inclined person has what sounds like a logical excuse, it's very hard to stop them from hurting someone.

MarsAtlas said:
Still no. At least not in regards to my homeland, the United States. Its still a matter of "I ain't gonna feel bad if they get hurt." Its the same way somebody could say something like "fags must die for the sake of our nation" and be protected under free speech because its not immediately telling somebody to do something violent. Thats something the Westboro Baptist Church in particular has said without facing legal consequences. A similar example would be a neo-nazi saying something like "we need another holocaust" and being allowed but being arrested for saying something like "lets go out and kill some jews".
Right there with ya, I just can see how this might have wound up leaning the way it has, especially if it's been a consistent pattern of behavior in this context. I do agree that if it is all talk it shouldn't matter, at least as far as the judiciary. So long as it remains conversation, she can be fought on the soapbox like every other reprehensible demagogue that ever found an audience.

To take a moment to really play devil's advocate though, I have to wonder why someone would furnish a justification for violence against a group they openly despise if they did not endorse it. Whether or not one finds this worthy of being removed from society for any length of time, it's a very toxic position to adopt. Perhaps not jail-worthy, but I don't much care to treat her like she's the next MLK or other unjustly treated civil rights champion. Her ideals, so far as she has demonstrated them, do not speak to that.

And perhaps that, too, is as good a reason as any not to have wasted the police on her.
 

mad825

New member
Mar 28, 2010
3,379
0
0
JemothSkarii said:
Reminds me how they made it illegal to rip music from your CDs.
It was illegal however it was never enforced.

What Mustafa said is illegal and has been for as long as I know it. The problem is if it's spoken, someone would need to present evidence (video/audio, third/second party witness or first hand account from an officer) otherwise it's unenforceable, cases when it's one word against another is also unenforceable.