Anti Racist Humour is Apparently Illegal

spen666

Well apparently in Manchester it is now?

The Guardian - Police confiscate Manchester United fanzine with Luis Suárez Klan joke

Sad state of affairs



My take on this

daviesee

Is he innocent? No.
Is he in the KKK? No.
Is it funny? No.

Fails on all three counts.

spen666

daviesee wrote:

Is he innocent? No.
Is he in the KKK? No.
Is it funny? No.

Fails on all three counts.

so because you don 't find it funny it should be illegal?


I am not a fan of either club but can see the attack on freedom of expression.

I don't agree with your views so should that make them illegal?


As for truth - can we oly have 100% true jokes? Looks like your logic means the end of every comedy series or sit com on TV. What a dull world

shouldbeinbed

Where to start? Nowhere, the thread title is excellent trolling.

P. S. I support a team even further north than yours so no vested interest there

notsoblue

So do you think they were right to confiscate them, Spen666?

spasypaddy

they confiscated them as its incitement. and in an already turbulent atmosphere could put things over the edge.

i also think its possible slanderous/libellous as its claiming suarez and LFC are members of the KKK which they clearly are not

bompington

Whatever the stated reasons about racially aggravated bla bla bla, surely the real reason was the fear of crowd trouble rather than sense of humour failure?
In which case, we might think they were being over-sensitive, but then most of us haven't had to take responsibility for crowd behaviour that has on many occasions resulted in people actually getting killed. Easy to criticise from the safety of your keyboard.

notsoblue

spasypaddy wrote:

they confiscated them as its incitement. and in an already turbulent atmosphere could put things over the edge.

i also think its possible slanderous/libellous as its claiming suarez and LFC are members of the KKK which they clearly are not

So you don't think they should have confiscated them?

veronese68

I think they were right to confiscate them. There are 2 groups of people, some of whom will be spoiling for a fight, tensions are already running rather high. Should somebody be allowed to stir things up?
Regardless of wether or not I agree with what they are trying to say. The police are right to try and avoid violence. It is a sad state of affairs. It's a sad state of affairs that groups of grown men will take almost any excuse to beat others up because of which team they support.

daviesee

spen666 wrote:

so because you don 't find it funny it should be illegal?
As for truth - can we oly have 100% true jokes? Looks like your logic means the end of every comedy series or sit com on TV. What a dull world

At no point did I suggest that they are or should be illegal.
Just that they failed on all counts, including humour. They could be deemed to be provocative though.
A joke doesn't have to be true but it should at least be funny.
I guess that is where the wider debate begins. What is funny?...............

rick_chasey

Presumably you were frothing at the mouth about the #twitterjoketrial too?

Wallace1492

I am, sure it is funny to a Man Utd fan.

It is rather OTT from GMP.

Don't understand why Evra is getting stick, he was the agrieved party, then Suarez deliberately did not shake his hand, although Evra graciously offered it. Quite right of him to rub in the victory.

Used to have huge respect for Liverpool and Kenny, but this whole debacle has left a very sour taste in my mouth.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

Presumably you were frothing at the mouth about the #twitterjoketrial too?

Aimed at me?
In which case, no.
I am not "frothing" at this either.
As I don't find it funny and it doesn't make any comment worth debating I just don't see the point of printing it in the first place.
It's a slow morning so far though so I am up for a debate

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Presumably you were frothing at the mouth about the #twitterjoketrial too?

Aimed at me?
In which case, no.
I am not "frothing" at this either.
As I don't find it funny and it doesn't make any comment worth debating I just don't see the point of printing it in the first place.
It's a slow morning so far though so I am up for a debate

Nah, was aimed at spen :P

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

Nah, was aimed at spen :P

Goes off elsewhere looking for a debate...........
Mark Duggan seems to be the most likely

spen666

spasypaddy wrote:

they confiscated them as its incitement. and in an already turbulent atmosphere could put things over the edge.

i also think its possible slanderous/libellous as its claiming suarez and LFC are members of the KKK which they clearly are not

Incitement per se is not an offence

So incitement to what? Have a laugh at an opponent?






As for defamation - its not a criminal offence and police have no powers to act. Also, no court in the land would find it defamatory as it is clearly an attempt at humour and no one reading the fanzine would believe it was a statement ment to be true.

spen666

Veronese68 wrote:

I think they were right to confiscate them. There are 2 groups of people, some of whom will be spoiling for a fight, tensions are already running rather high. Should somebody be allowed to stir things up?
Regardless of wether or not I agree with what they are trying to say. The police are right to try and avoid violence. It is a sad state of affairs. It's a sad state of affairs that groups of grown men will take almost any excuse to beat others up because of which team they support.

So, you would agree if the police start confiscating bicycles off every cyclist they see as this would avoid violence between motorists and cyclists, some of whom will be spoiling for a fight

Sad world some people want to live in, or is it different when you are a member of the oppressed group?

PS as I have said, I am neither a fan of either club, just an interested observer who is worried that police are preventing lawful activities

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Presumably you were frothing at the mouth about the #twitterjoketrial too?

The issues in the twitter joke trial were rather different than here, albeit both involve freedom of expression.


There is clear established authority that for example shouting "fire" in a theatre can be an offence.

In the twitter case, the person threatened to blow up an airport. Doing this at a time of increased vigilance due to terrorism threats.

The twitter case is also only reported selectively, so we are all only debating what the media have reported.

At the time the message was posted, no one knew it was a "joke" comment. Clearly with hindsight it was, but its a bit like saying in the "fire" shout it was a joke and its irrelevant people were trampled to death in the stampede to escape the theatre

In the Red Issue case, the publication is not inciting or threatening to commit any crime

spen666

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Presumably you were frothing at the mouth about the #twitterjoketrial too?

The issues in the twitter joke trial were rather different than here, albeit both involve freedom of expression.


There is clear established authority that for example shouting "fire" in a theatre can be an offence.

In the twitter case, the person threatened to blow up an airport. Doing this at a time of increased vigilance due to terrorism threats.

The twitter case is also only reported selectively, so we are all only debating what the media have reported.

At the time the message was posted, no one knew it was a "joke" comment. Clearly with hindsight it was, but its a bit like saying in the "fire" shout it was a joke and its irrelevant people were trampled to death in the stampede to escape the theatre

In the Red Issue case, the publication is not inciting or threatening to commit any crime

Incidentally, just as I posted this I learn that Schipoll airport has been closed owing to a bomb threat

veronese68

spen666 wrote:

So, you would agree if the police start confiscating bicycles off every cyclist they see as this would avoid violence between motorists and cyclists, some of whom will be spoiling for a fight

Whilst there are a few instances of motorists attacking cyclists, I think there have been rather more people involved in football related violence.
Your example of confiscating bicycles is more like banning football matches. A more appropriate comparison would be for the police to stop a motoring group from distributing leaflets saying cyclists should pay road tax as they create just as many problems as cars do.
I would also approve of that being stopped because it is also untrue, unfunny and likely to cause resentment.

sketchley

Veronese68 wrote:

I think they were right to confiscate them. There are 2 groups of people, some of whom will be spoiling for a fight, tensions are already running rather high. Should somebody be allowed to stir things up?
Regardless of wether or not I agree with what they are trying to say. The police are right to try and avoid violence. It is a sad state of affairs. It's a sad state of affairs that groups of grown men will take almost any excuse to beat others up because of which team they support.

+1. If I was accused of being in the KKK I'm likely to be more than a little pi$$ed off with the accuser and I'm unlikely to see the joke. In big crowd of people that all feel the same way then that anger is multiplied, plus there was already tension. Police were spot on in stopping it and it has nothing to do with "illegal humour" and everything to do with public order.

notsoblue

spen666 wrote:

So incitement to what? Have a laugh at an opponent?

Problem is, the KKK isn't a very good subject to have a laugh about really is it?

Hilarious..

The imagery that the KKK mask evokes is that of black people having their churches and homes burned down and being publicly lynched (a horror) in the US. The people who published the mask were probably ignorant, and didn't mean to evoke this. But that doesn't mean that the police isn't probably correct to confiscate the material.

Also, given the history of racism and far right groups with football hooliganism (Roots of the EDL) I'm not surprised at all that the police are erring on the side of caution. The consequence of their action is that an edition of a fan magazine doesn't go out but also that people aren't associating public lynchings with football. I think its worth the inevitable lawsuit from the publishers tbh.

ddraver

Outstanding!

Spen, you are the Troll King of the internet once more, I must congratulate you!

spen666

ddraver wrote:

Outstanding!

Spen, you are the Troll King of the internet once more, I must congratulate you!

I feel sorry for you as you seem unable to actually see the bigger picture.

I have no support for Man U, Red Issue, liverpool, Racism, the KKK or anything to do with this issue

I can however see the removal of freedom of speech.

This publication did not incite anyone to do anything illegal. It is no different to the current Private Eye which has a similar cartoon in it.

Private Eye was on sale at Newsagents around Old Trafford, the police seized Red Issue from said shops, but not Private Eye.

Hardly suggesting the picture is the problem

notsoblue

spen666 wrote:

This publication did not incite anyone to do anything illegal. It is no different to the current Private Eye which has a similar cartoon in it.

It wasn't a cartoon, it was a cut out and keep mask.

dhope

spen666 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Outstanding!

Spen, you are the Troll King of the internet once more, I must congratulate you!

I feel sorry for you as you seem unable to actually see the bigger picture.

I have no support for Man U, Red Issue, liverpool, Racism, the KKK or anything to do with this issue

I can however see the removal of freedom of speech.

This publication did not incite anyone to do anything illegal. It is no different to the current Private Eye which has a similar cartoon in it.

Private Eye was on sale at Newsagents around Old Trafford, the police seized Red Issue from said shops, but not Private Eye.

Hardly suggesting the picture is the problem

Few things I care less about than this, but still.
Private Eye will always be taken tongue in cheek. MUFC match day magazine will be intended to wind up LFC.
There's your difference.

Overall though, meh.

spen666

dhope wrote:

spen666 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Outstanding!

Spen, you are the Troll King of the internet once more, I must congratulate you!

I feel sorry for you as you seem unable to actually see the bigger picture.

I have no support for Man U, Red Issue, liverpool, Racism, the KKK or anything to do with this issue

I can however see the removal of freedom of speech.

This publication did not incite anyone to do anything illegal. It is no different to the current Private Eye which has a similar cartoon in it.

Private Eye was on sale at Newsagents around Old Trafford, the police seized Red Issue from said shops, but not Private Eye.

Hardly suggesting the picture is the problem

Few things I care less about than this, but still.
Private Eye will always be taken tongue in cheek. MUFC match day magazine will be intended to wind up LFC.
There's your difference.

Overall though, meh.

Well there you go. You do not even know what publication you are talking about.

The MUFC match day magazine has nothing to do with this debate and is as relevant as the current issue of Cycling Plus magazine is to the subject

ddraver

spen666 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Outstanding!

Spen, you are the Troll King of the internet once more, I must congratulate you!

I feel sorry for you as you seem unable to actually see the bigger picture.

I have no support for Man U, Red Issue, liverpool, Racism, the KKK or anything to do with this issue

I can however see the removal of freedom of speech.

This publication did not incite anyone to do anything illegal. It is no different to the current Private Eye which has a similar cartoon in it.

Private Eye was on sale at Newsagents around Old Trafford, the police seized Red Issue from said shops, but not Private Eye.

Hardly suggesting the picture is the problem

Hah!

Keep it up buddy, you re really brightening up my monday!

rjsterry

spen666 wrote:

dhope wrote:

spen666 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Outstanding!

Spen, you are the Troll King of the internet once more, I must congratulate you!

I feel sorry for you as you seem unable to actually see the bigger picture.

I have no support for Man U, Red Issue, liverpool, Racism, the KKK or anything to do with this issue

I can however see the removal of freedom of speech.

This publication did not incite anyone to do anything illegal. It is no different to the current Private Eye which has a similar cartoon in it.

Private Eye was on sale at Newsagents around Old Trafford, the police seized Red Issue from said shops, but not Private Eye.

Hardly suggesting the picture is the problem

Few things I care less about than this, but still.
Private Eye will always be taken tongue in cheek. Red Issue magazine will be intended to wind up LFC.
There's your difference.

Overall though, meh.

Well there you go. You do not even know what publication you are talking about.

The MUFC match day magazine has nothing to do with this debate and is as relevant as the current issue of Cycling Plus magazine is to the subject

Yes, you're quite right, with dhope's comment corrected, his argument just falls apart.

For the avoidance of doubt :roll:

ETA: If we are going to pick holes spen, his name is Patrice, not Patrick.

dhope

spen666 wrote:

Well there you go. You do not even know what publication you are talking about.

The MUFC match day magazine has nothing to do with this debate and is as relevant as the current issue of Cycling Plus magazine is to the subject

Christ, replace Official MUFC rag with generic MUFC rag if it changes anything.

Private Eye, not intended to incite.
MUFC bog roll, intended to incite.

Edit: Ah yes, RJS got there first :roll:

gtvlusso

**wonders if Sepp Blatter will contribute to this thread.....