Never realised so many folk hate us

[hackbike 666]

I would have thought Facebook would have deleted the group by now. Far too many idiots on that group, the vast majority of which should not be allowed a driving licence.

I was tempted to start my own group,why I hate motorists as I can think of many reasons...

Just as a wind up you understand...In a sort or Jeremy Clarkson sort of way.I dont really hate motorists.

http://www.thevacuum.org.uk/issues/issues0120/issue08/is08artmybeef.html

 

[skudupnorth]

I was tempted to start my own group,why I hate motorists as I can think of many reasons...

Just as a wind up you understand...In a sort or Jeremy Clarkson sort of way.I dont really hate motorists.

http://www.thevacuum...8artmybeef.html

Sign me up ! I cannot hate them too much as they pay the dealer i work at lots of money so i can buy bikes

 

[al78]

Dont engage with them, flag them for trolling. If you own the page delete their crap off it. Its what I do on youtube and if we all practised this on otther websites then they'd have less of a voice.

The problem is, when you do things like that, you get accused of supressing free speech and censoring opinions just because they differ from yours.

 

[benb]

I agree with @al78. I wouldn't delete anything unless it was seriously abusive. People have the right to express their opinion, no matter how wrong it is. And everyone also has the right to criticise other people's opinions and point out why they're wrong.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." ~Noam Chomsky

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

I agree with @al78. I wouldn't delete anything unless it was seriously abusive. People have the right to express their opinion, no matter how wrong it is. And everyone also has the right to criticise other people's opinions and point out why they're wrong.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." ~Noam Chomsky

… but even Chomsky draws the line at the point where individuals may suffer physical harm.

Limiting Freedom of Speech simply because what is said is offensive is, in my opinion, wrong – not least because you’ll always find someone who finds what is said to be offensive. This is where Chomsky’s definition of FoS as being allowing others to say things you despise is accurate. And he certainly puts his money where his mouth is on that one… but that’s not the same thing as allowing people to call for harm to be done to others.



For example:

“I hate all cyclists, they clog up the roads and are f…ing c..ts and don’t pay road tax” etc

whilst I don’t like that, and find it offensive (and inaccurate) that’s freedom of speech

But

“I hate all cyclists, run them over and stab them” etc – when said to people who are likley to carry out that action, isn’t FoS – even under Chomsky’s definition. That’s an incitement.



The test is how likely you think the action being called for will be taken. If you think it’s just idiots venting their opinions who don’t have the ball’s to run a cyclist over, then it is FoS. As someone who has had the odd chav try and run me over on purpose, I’d beg to differ…

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

Just to add to that – what if (and I’m just talking hypothetically here) the police arrest Archie’s little tosser of a driver (http://www.cyclechat.net/topic/67325-this-could-get-nasty/) , go through his internet records, and he’s a member of that, or a similar, cyclist hating group? Would there be any joint culpability? It might be hard to prove, but if someone else had said “go and run a cyclist over” and half an hour later he rammed his car into Archie, would there be a case to answer?

If a racist attack happened and the perpetrator had recently been online and been encouraged by other UK forum members to make an attack, wouldn’t they share some legal responsibility for the actions?

 

[Matthames]

Just to add to that – what if (and I’m just talking hypothetically here) the police arrest Archie’s little tosser of a driver (http://www.cyclechat...ould-get-nasty/) , go through his internet records, and he’s a member of that, or a similar, cyclist hating group? Would there be any joint culpability? It might be hard to prove, but if someone else had said “go and run a cyclist over” and half an hour later he rammed his car into Archie, would there be a case to answer?

If a racist attack happened and the perpetrator had recently been online and been encouraged by other UK forum members to make an attack, wouldn’t they share some legal responsibility for the actions?

I think in that case, instead of dangerous driving the police would probably charge the driver with attempted murder instead. The driver has made threats to kill and has taken steps towards taking that action. If the action of the driver was seen as deliberate, for instance swerving towards a cyclist for no reason then my guess is that this is enough proof of mens rea and in being a deliberate act would also prove actus reus.

 

[Crankarm]

+ on several occasions clarkson has said a few bad things about cyclists. but who / what doesn't he say bad things about?

The point is not really that Clarkson makes these ignorant bigoted remarks, althought it is, but that he is in a position of influence/responsibility occupying air time on a widely watched TV programme. I doubt he himself would actually escalate some of the nasty comments he has made or even that the pr1ck James Martin who advocated driving into cyclists would acutally do so. But the point is there are knuckle dragging pond life that watch these programmes and listen to these statements or who log onto FaceBook or Youtube who lack the cognitive capability and social to skills to realise or understand that behaviour of this nature is totally unacceptable or that if they do escalate their warped views on human interaction by actually physically attacking or running down cyclists or anyone else they have expressed hatred of, then they believe they can get away with it. These people pose the greatest danger. The likes of the BBC, Youtube and Facebook have a public and moral duty not to incite criminal acts or promote hatred against others in a tolerant open society who are quite lawfully going about their daily business.

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

The likes of the BBC, Youtube and Facebook have a public and moral duty not to incite criminal acts or promote hatred against others in a tolerant open society who are quite lawfully going about their daily business.

+1

 

[StuartG]

The likes of the BBC, Youtube and Facebook have a public and moral duty not to incite criminal acts or promote hatred against others in a tolerant open society who are quite lawfully going about their daily business.

Be careful what you wish for. I hate many things: religion, nationalism, racism, Eastenders ... would these qualify too?

If so I and many others would feel my freedom of thought and speech was seriously damaged. If not - what criteria would we use to distinguish between 'good' hates and 'bad' hates. No - the issue surely should be freedom to distinguish between opinion no matter how vile and organising action to damage people. This FB Group certainly scores on vileness but I really don't feel threatened by it or at greater risk. I think the onus is on the banners to show this group is actually causing or very likely to cause injury or death. Otherwise just ignore it.

 

[benb]

Be careful what you wish for. I hate many things: religion, nationalism, racism, Eastenders ... would these qualify too?

If so I and many others would feel my freedom of thought and speech was seriously damaged. If not - what criteria would we use to distinguish between 'good' hates and 'bad' hates. No - the issue surely should be freedom to distinguish between opinion no matter how vile and organising action to damage people. This FB Group certainly scores on vileness but I really don't feel threatened by it or at greater risk. I think the onus is on the banners to show this group is actually causing or very likely to cause injury or death. Otherwise just ignore it.

+ lots

 

[Crankarm]

Be careful what you wish for. I hate many things: religion, nationalism, racism, Eastenders ... would these qualify too?

If so I and many others would feel my freedom of thought and speech was seriously damaged. If not - what criteria would we use to distinguish between 'good' hates and 'bad' hates. No - the issue surely should be freedom to distinguish between opinion no matter how vile and organising action to damage people. This FB Group certainly scores on vileness but I really don't feel threatened by it or at greater risk. I think the onus is on the banners to show this group is actually causing or very likely to cause injury or death. Otherwise just ignore it.

Perhaps I need to explain my post for the hard of reading or are you being deliberately flippant to be provocative? Freedom of Speech is not an unfettered right. One can say, broadcast or publish anything subject to not committing, inciting, procuring aiding or abetting a criminal act or making statements that are defammatory or libellous. The rule of law is there to protect everyone.

Freedom of speech does NOT mean that one can state that various people or a group of people should be targetted, marginalised, so they are harassed, humiliated, persecuted, tortured or killed because of their race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, etc. These are basic human rights. In Western developed countries these are fundamental rights that all Governments have signed up to and have enshrined in their domestic law. Most people recognise their responsibilities in an open tolerant society to adhere to the law.

The recent challenge to this has been the likes of FaceBook or Youtube who have exploited the borderless boundaries of the world wide web or internet. Often they fail to remove and prevent those individuals who preach hate and violence against others. These individuals are using their anonymity to promote mailcious hatred and may well be committing or inciting criminal acts. They know that FB or Youtube will not remove or ban them from their site as FB and Youtube are more interested in their commercial interests than removing content that might be criminal or unlawful.

FB, YT and these odious people play on the fact that the internet or www has no jurisdiction and that unless forced to remove content by law enforcement agencies continue to promote their nasty propaganda and hate. FWIW these people should be visited in the small hours by the law enforcement authorities and should never see the light of day again. They should be denied means to ever publish or broadcast their abhorent views which would mean no access to a computer or the internet ever again.

 

[StuartG]

Perhaps I need to explain my post for the hard of reading or are you being deliberately flippant to be provocative? Freedom of Speech is not an unfettered right. One can say, broadcast or publish anything subject to not committing, inciting, procuring aiding or abetting a criminal act or making statements that are defammatory or libellous. The rule of law is there to protect everyone.

Your first sentence proves you do not understand where I am coming from. Hence much irrelevant comment.

First if the law has been broken then they can be prosecuted. End of issue. The fact that Facebook have not been prosecuted would suggest no law has been broken but you find the situation unacceptable and appear to be calling for an extension on hate crime or for these organisations to take issues of free speech into their own hands. Have I misunderstood this?

If so I apologise. If not, I stand my ground.

The curtailment of free speech is always a delicate matter. We start from crying 'FIRE' in unburning Theatre is beyond free speech because of very obvious and real dangers that everybody can accept. When it gets to opinion rather than action the downsides, the unintended consequences to democratic debate can be too high to justify curtailment.

I would distinguish between the BNP who, vile as their philosophy is, are mostly giving vent of the true feelings of many people in this country. To not hear that can (and I believe is) a greater danger than the BNP itself. So their glorious leader on BBC Question Time is great. Whereas the English Defence League is quite another matter. The evidence is very strong that they seek to deliberately provoke fights with both political and ethnic enemies. That should not be allowed. The fact that they share many ideas and even people is not relevant. We should consider banning one but not the other.

Going back to the rather more pathetic FB Group. They appear to me to be congentically incalpable of organising a pi**-up in a brewery (if only because of age). The group are not an organised or even disorganised threat to cyclists. Though I have no doubt one or two members may indeed be so. Oh and to pinkos, queers ...

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

Be careful what you wish for. I hate many things: religion, nationalism, racism, Eastenders ... would these qualify too?

If so I and many others would feel my freedom of thought and speech was seriously damaged. If not - what criteria would we use to distinguish between 'good' hates and 'bad' hates. No - the issue surely should be freedom to distinguish between opinion no matter how vile and organising action to damage people. This FB Group certainly scores on vileness but I really don't feel threatened by it or at greater risk. I think the onus is on the banners to show this group is actually causing or very likely to cause injury or death. Otherwise just ignore it.

As I read it, Crankarm isn’t calling for a curtailing of Freedom of Speech. He said that there is a “moral duty (on the BBC etc) not to incite criminal acts or promote hatred against others.”

That’s not thought control

My understanding of that statement is that it is fine to hate religion, nationalism, racism, Eastenders – slag them of any way you like, call Jesus/Mohamed/God every name under the sun, despise homosexuals, hate the Daily Mail, whatever turns you on - have as much freedom of thought as you like, BUT the line is drawn at inciting criminal acts.



The right to Freedom of Speech is enshrined by everyone tolerating others to say things we despise, but that is not the same thing as allowing people to say things that WILL result in torture and murder of innocent people. Human rights outweigh absolute Freedom of Speech.



If they didn’t, then any dictator that organised (but didn’t actually personally carry out) genocide would be not guilty of a crime against humanity - they would be protected by an absolute right to say (instruct the massacre of others) what they like.



That’s an extreme example, but no one has “the right” to tell someone else to attempt to kill me because they simply feel I shouldn’t be riding a bike.

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

With regards to FB not being prosecuted yet, it doesn’t necessarily follow that what they are doing is right or legal in most decent democratic states – it could mean that they get away with it because of what Crank already pointed out – ie the borderless nature of the www makes it difficult if not impossible to prosecute; geographical governments have difficulty implementing rules on companies or entities that have no geographical basis – it’s a fundamental strength of the internet, but it’s a double edged sword.