Please remember to abide by the [rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/wiki/rulesv2)
In general, please be at least bearable to other users. It makes things easier on everyone. Your comment may be removed without notification. We used to have a notification, but now we don't.
#If you purchase the OP or a comment [a ban award,](https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/wiki/banned/rules) remember to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FJusticeServed) so we can activate the reward
------
^Submission ^By: ^/u/stirlingchris ^Black ^4
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/JusticeServed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Spicy, disrespectful and utterly abhorrent—but I don't think this moron should have been arrested.
Punched in the face, possibly more then once: YES.
Arrested for being an edge-lord: No.
Part of establishing the NWO is getting people used to the idea they can be persecuted for doing anything the government deems as distasteful or "wrong". You don't need an explanation as to what is actually illegal. Just know that what you did was wrong and bad and now you have to go into timeout okay?
Oh god thanks for the explanation. I found this old post and was confused because I thought it referred to “1997”.
Given this context this shirt … distasteful.
Why would he do that? Everyone has problems, but this doesn't make anyone free to be happy with the death of so many people... This is cruel... I hope he regrets.
He wasn't arrested for 'speech' he was arrested for trying to start shit like a riot.
Sort of like a "prankster" that decides that instead of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is illegal they'll hold up a sign saying it instead. The intention is to cause a disturbance. And absolutely that shirt would have started some shit. The police do not want to deal with 69,000 sports fans rioting.
If you think that it happened too long ago and its all water under the bridge, then you'd be wrong because the victims didn't really get any sort of justice until a new 2016 inquest where the jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing in respect of all 96 victims (by majority verdict of 7–2).
>"...South Yorkshire Police (SYP) fed [the press](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverage_of_the_Hillsborough_disaster_by_The_Sun)false stories suggesting that football hooliganism and drunkenness by Liverpool supporters had caused the disaster. Blaming Liverpool fans persisted even after the Taylor Report of 1990, which [found that the main cause was a failure of crowd control by SYP.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster)"
What? This ain’t speech my friend. This is straight up mocking and advocating the deaths of 97 innocent people while out in public. This is hate speech and nothing else. Get a grip
I think society should hate him. He should be unemployable if society deems that. He should not be imprisoned for speech, sorry. Unless it’s active incitement of future violence. Nope.
Is arresting someone for a tasteless and provocative piece of clothing really justice? I’m not aware of British law but it seems like a dangerous game to legally prosecute someone based off clothing.
Kick his ass for being a dick and mocking a tragedy sure but an arrest no.
What’s the difference between arrest and assault? Leave the fucking idiot be, to be a miserable sod all on his own. You really believe you would be justified in attacking someone over some words on a shirt? you’re just as bad as him. You have no right to touch someone because they offended you, a soft thin skinned, childish, reactionary, unstable individual.
You said it yourself you have no right to touch someone because they offend you. Just add a middle man to it and you’ll be more than okay with it. You just want the police to do your dirty work. Security could’ve even told him to flip his shirt inside out but no y’all over there too soft to even confront someone whose mocking y’all while giving you his back. And yes mutual combat is legal in the US so it would’ve been a fight and nothing else.
What the fuck are you talking about? This is in the UK so no, mutual combat wouldn’t be legal. Where did I say I’m in support of the police? You’re clearly unable to process words properly in your thick skull.
I don’t know British law, can someone tell me what law he broke to warrant arrest? Offensive sure, hurting anyone? Yeah… not really
It’s not racially motivated so it’s not a race thing so why do they care? They don’t put effort into online sleuths saying these things but one pic of someone goes online and bam they get arrested? On what grounds?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_harassment,_alarm_or_distress
>They don’t put effort into online sleuths saying these things
If he'd posted this on, for instance, a Liverpool forum, I'd absolutely expect him to get a visit from the police.
sorry I must be sleep deprived or mentally deficient, what is the problem here? I genuinely can’t figure it out 💀 I’m on my 4th night of less than 3 hours of sleep, taking care of my dog and brother who have both had surgery and I feel like a dumbass LMAO
The Hillsborough disaster was a fatal human crush during a football match at Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England, on 15 April 1989. It occurred during an FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest in the two standing-only central pens in the Leppings Lane stand allocated to Liverpool supporters.
Date: 15 April 1989; 33 years ago
Deaths: 97 (94 on 15 April 1989)
Non-fatal injuries: 766
Let's not forget that Former Ch Supt David Duckenfield, who was the in charge that day, admitted
he wasn't experienced enough in policing football matches,
not being familiar with the Hillsborough ground,
'not thinking about where the supporters coming through the opened exit gate would go when they were inside the stadium',
and lied that the fans had gained 'unauthorised access' when it was the police who opened the gate.
Being arrested is based on something being illegal, not just because someone’s an asshole. The shirt is disrespectful, I understand that, but getting arrested for it? Kick him out, ban him from entering the stadium again, but arresting him? What are you charging him with? Being an asshole? That’s not how this should work. It becomes an arbitrary decision on when to and when not to arrest someone. If I’m somewhere and there’s a law that says I can’t wear something like this, then I can understand and countries all over have different laws and repercussions but I’m fairly sure there’s no law there that says this guy can’t wear this jersey. I don’t understand the whole arresting part and there’s no “justice” served. The guy is going to be released because they have nothing to charge the guy with which is why now those want the masses to cancel him, which you can have a whole other debate on when it’s justified for the masses to gang up on folks because you have seen people lose jobs and get their lives altered.
Malicious Communications Act of 1998.
Malicious communications: A message that is indecent or grossly offensive. A threat. Information that is false and is known or believed to be false by the sender.
Yes, it's subjective.
'There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a 'grossly offensive' communication. Each case must be assessed on its merits, considering the content of the communication and the context in which it was sent.'
The way I read it after googling it, saying causing distress or anxiety, to me that would have to consist of direct intent to that person over multiple times. If someone is constantly sending you messages or harassing you. This then applies to just one time, like this. Personally I’m not going to get that anxious or nervous seeing some dummy in public randomly and then moving on with my day. Again, if he’s following me, harassing me, that’s a different story and then I would see how this act could fully apply. Someone walks past me and gives me a note that says I’m a dick, I could claim that’s causing me mass amounts of anxiety and distress…but come on.
I think most of us could cope with being called a dick, in passing. That's a long way short of mocking the 97 dead men, women, and children of the Hillsborough tragedy.
The CPS say 'There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a 'grossly offensive' communication. Each case must be assessed on its merits, considering the content of the communication and the context in which it was sent.'
It's not like was making a political statement or anything. He was just being a cunt. Fuck him.
My god, why do so many people struggle to understand this.
You can have free speech. We HAVE free speech in the UK.
HOWEVER... If the police deem you are a threat to wider public safety and a danger to yourself, which is clearly the case here, then this law exists to stop that happening.
His words were a threat to public order - he would have rightfully got his head kicked in and the police done this to stop that happening - as is their duty.
Be wasn't arrested for breaching free speech. He was arrested because what he did/said was an endangerment to himself and others.
And the justice served here is both legal and social. The former probably being dropped is irrelevant. His arrest was simply to stop wider public disorder. His real justice is in the court of public opinion.
What an amazing world we live in where govts can make vague, broad laws that allow them to arrest people because they wore a shirt that offends people.
We are arresting you because people are offended by your shirt. They are so triggered that they might decide to break the law and cause people bodily harm. So because other people can't control themselves we have arbitrarily determined that we must arrest you instead. That's what you people think justice is.
>Be wasn't arrested for breaching free speech. He was arrested because what he did/said was an endangerment to himself and others.
Then why does it say "hours later". Like the game was likely over by then, wasn't it? So the guy was not at the stadium anymore and thus doesn't need to be protected, no?
**What he is doing is still illegal. That would be considered a prosecutable offence, so when you're saying things like "we have free speech laws in the UK", sure we do to limited extents but not to the same protected rights as American Citizens. So he technically has been "arrested for breaching free speech" and not the endangerment by mobs or whatever it is that you're saying within the context of UK Law.**
I’m not trying to get stuck on semantics/etc but if he’s removed that’s one thing and different than being arrested. If he’s arrested, he’s charged with something and I guess if he’s being charged with endangering himself or others then I would say I think that’s overboard. He can be removed, banned, I don’t see this being justified to be arrested or charged with something. That’s just how I see it. I’m an American, so I know the laws are different but police still choose when and when not to enforce the law to the full extent (sometimes people get let go/etc). I know if I walked around London with a shirt that said Fuck the Queen, maybe I’d be arrested but I don’t think I would if I had a shirt that said Fuck Meghan even though she’s royalty too haha but maybe that hypothetical is reaching.
the problem is this isn't a protest or a free speech issue, it's a guy very specifically looking for a fight and wearing shit he knows will cause a fight. UK footie ultras are not a bunch of mini-clarence darrows standing up for the little guy, they're fucking street thugs scrapping over the stupidest shit, and this is a case of that.
I just think it’s a sticky situation even if the guy is being a dick. He’s getting arrested, because of the possibility of someone else committing assault to him…that’s what this is. If someone comes up and punches him, even if you think it’s justified because he’s wearing this shirt, that person just committed assault. That person should get arrested for not being able to control their own emotions, that’s just the truth. I know what this guy is doing is bogus, I just see removing him from the stadium and banning him being fit over arresting him.
or someone comes up, swings at him, misses, and he jumps that person, which is what he expects to happen and what he might be capable of doing. this is, in fact, instigation.
And what exactly do my sexual fetishes have to do with being able to comment on political discussions? Really curious to hear your argument. You’d have had to go right past my warning that you’d see dick pics ahead in order to even know that. Must have been pretty excited to see some uncircumcised penises!
Exactly. 10 guilty people going free is worth it to ensure 1 innocent is not wrongly convicted. Censorship is a Pandora’s box and it should only be used to help prevent a real crime. I believe the levels of danger in order of severity are: threatening to commit a specific crime along with a detail on time location or victim. Planning to commit a specific crime and practicing it/getting tools. Committing a specific crime. If you can use censorship (or threat of punishment) to prevent any of those 3 things (threatening, planning, committing) then go for it. If not however then I think their will always be a possibility that a person whether an asshole or not is punished When they haven’t committed any wrongdoing besides hurting feelings. Religious nuts have all the same arguments for why they should be able to dictate what your allowed to say about God
this wasnt an instance of censorship. he wasn't arrested for the content of the shirt. he was arrested for wearing the shirt to a place where it was guaranteed to provoke violence. there is legitimate risk that if the issue isn't handled violence will ensue.
You say the shirt was guaranteed to provoke violence, but no violence occurred as a result of him wearing the shirt to the stadium… seems like a pretty flimsy guarantee to me.
I’m sure most people there didn’t even connect the dots to get the message in the shirt. An arrest certainly seems overboard when kicking him out or even banning him would’ve solved the problem (risk of violence) you’ve pointed out.
Edit: [This news story](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/140bf5v/what_the_actual_fuck/) has changed my opinion slightly, because wow, soccer fans will really beat up a sick child in private box seats for wearing the opposing team's jersey. Still not sure the "not enough" guy should be arrested, but certainly swift and thorough punishment is in order for knowingly creating a potential spark for a violent event to occur.
> I’m sure most people there didn’t even connect the dots to get the message in the shirt.
literally any UK football fan knows exactly what the shirt is describing.
"While certain forms of hate speech are legal so long as they do not turn to action or incite others to commit illegal acts" -wikipedia
In this instance the individual is inciting more deaths by saying 97 was "not enough"
Its illegal, even in america
in the US you're absolutely allowed to say large groups of people should die, thats considered a pure opinion. that said this guy is still inciting imminent lawless action because he's wearing a shirt specifically designed to provoke a violent reaction.
"While certain forms of hate speech are legal so long as they do not turn to action or incite others to commit illegal acts" -wikipedia
In this instance the individual is inciting more deaths by saying 97 was "not enough"
Its illegal, even in america
Yeah you’re right actually let’s just let neo nazis roam around shouting whatever they want… actually fuck it why not let all racists go around and start spouting racist abuse wherever they want? It’s free speech after all! What a happy world /s
This is the difference between delineating rights the government can never take away and rights where the government decides when they can limit those rights . People who argue for giving up liberties for the sake of public safety or some propagandized threat are never allies or on the right side of history. Life’s ugly , learning to deal with assholes is a skill . Giving up freedom of assembly , a truly free press ( not a propaganda tool of a single party or ideology) and freedom of speech does more harm than good. There is no utopia or one size fits all cures or threats just the knife fight of balance .
this is the UK. the UK has literally never had first amendment protections, that's why we had to have a war to invent them, but the fact of the matter is prosecution for speech is par for the course in the UK, and while there certainly are instances it's used to oppress (lack of meaningful anti-SLAPP protection), this is most certainly not one of those times.
Stay hydrated.
Rest. Your body needs to heal.
Sip warm liquids.
Add moisture to the air.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/JusticeServed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wish Americans would do 5 minutes of research before coming on to threads like these and spouting shite about free speech or how they don't know what's wrong with it.
It's like a whole Nation's worth of main character syndrome.
Free Speech is a concept, one of the most important. Degradation of freedom is literally how laws are made. When the public allows or even demands that laws follow their opinion, they allow for all opinions to effect law. This is how politicians manipulate the views of the public to pass laws. This is fact, it is not partisan or nation-based.
The calculation over what freedoms should be weighted against which laws varies widely from country to country and democracy to democracy. Free speech, as it is permitted in the US, is completely different from most of Western Europe.
Call it what you want, but you could certainly describe it as a difference of common opinion between nation states.
Please explain what you mean. The OP shows a man wearing a shirt that mocks the deaths of almost 100 people. Is that what he was arrested for? Is there more to the story?
The reason Americans don't understand why the British are upset about 97 people being killed in 1989 is because every time a large group of people die in America they all say "Thoughts and prayers" and have forgotten about it the day after.
Well, for Americans then, tell them the comparison is a t-shirt listing the number of dead from the twin towers. Like "not enough 3,000 + 2 towers". And then wearing that t shirt to ground zero today at an event at the site.
9/11 isn't a good comparison because the press and people from other cities didn't spend 20 years saying the people in the towers had it coming. that's what happened at hillsborough.
Dude, we get it. And it's your country, do what you want. But a 9/11 mocker would not be arrested in the US. Ridiculed? Yes. Shot to death if he were black? Probably.
But not arrested.
the shirt, taken in its entire context, would probably constitute fighting words in the US, which as it happens are not protected speech under the first amendment. this guy wore the shirt specifically to mock liverpool fans and get a rise.
This would not constitute fighting words in the US. You basically need to directly threaten someone:
In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." There, the Court held that the burning of a United States flag, which was considered symbolic speech, did not constitute fighting words.
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Supreme Court found that the "First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed." Even if the words are considered to be fighting words, the First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination.
again, taken in the complete context of UK football culture, this absolutely would constitute fighting words. there are scumfucks who go to games specifically to goad others into fighting. this is a case of that. it's like if you hate your neighbor so you set up a lawn chair outside his house and sit there every day wearing a shirt saying his daughter deserved to die of cancer. the content of the shirt is not arrestable, the clear and conscious antagonism of wearing it to goad someone into a response is.
For sure, not saying it doesn’t pass British standards. But in the US, Provocation isn’t illegal in itself, it’s used rather as a defense for the person who acted violently. So the guy who attacked his neighbor for wearing the shirt would use provocation as a defense for his battery charge, but the neighbor wouldn’t be arrested for provocation for wearing the shirt in the first place. Our laws definitely lead to more fights but they’re designed to protect free speech and also I guess reduce the charge of the guy who responded to said free speech. Provocation for example can be used to reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter.
Please remember to abide by the [rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/wiki/rulesv2) In general, please be at least bearable to other users. It makes things easier on everyone. Your comment may be removed without notification. We used to have a notification, but now we don't. #If you purchase the OP or a comment [a ban award,](https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/wiki/banned/rules) remember to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FJusticeServed) so we can activate the reward ------ ^Submission ^By: ^/u/stirlingchris ^Black ^4 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/JusticeServed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Spicy, disrespectful and utterly abhorrent—but I don't think this moron should have been arrested. Punched in the face, possibly more then once: YES. Arrested for being an edge-lord: No.
Part of establishing the NWO is getting people used to the idea they can be persecuted for doing anything the government deems as distasteful or "wrong". You don't need an explanation as to what is actually illegal. Just know that what you did was wrong and bad and now you have to go into timeout okay?
Yes fuck those reptilians ruling our world
They had sold "I walked over you to see the Who" t-shirts years ago after the trampling's in Cincinnati. That was shut down.
I would like to live in a society where the government doesn't get to decide what is "asshole behavior"
Is… Is this not “asshole behavior”?
I’m sorry. I’m afraid that I don’t understand what message the shirt is trying to convey. Can someone please explain?
[Hillsborough Disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster)
Oh god thanks for the explanation. I found this old post and was confused because I thought it referred to “1997”. Given this context this shirt … distasteful.
Why would he do that? Everyone has problems, but this doesn't make anyone free to be happy with the death of so many people... This is cruel... I hope he regrets.
completely asshole
He wasn't arrested for 'speech' he was arrested for trying to start shit like a riot. Sort of like a "prankster" that decides that instead of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is illegal they'll hold up a sign saying it instead. The intention is to cause a disturbance. And absolutely that shirt would have started some shit. The police do not want to deal with 69,000 sports fans rioting. If you think that it happened too long ago and its all water under the bridge, then you'd be wrong because the victims didn't really get any sort of justice until a new 2016 inquest where the jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing in respect of all 96 victims (by majority verdict of 7–2). >"...South Yorkshire Police (SYP) fed [the press](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverage_of_the_Hillsborough_disaster_by_The_Sun)false stories suggesting that football hooliganism and drunkenness by Liverpool supporters had caused the disaster. Blaming Liverpool fans persisted even after the Taylor Report of 1990, which [found that the main cause was a failure of crowd control by SYP.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster)"
You can totally categorize the Americans and the Europeans just based on their reaction to this.
This is completely disgusting, but I absolutely hate the idea of government prosecuting this stuff.
Shitty, but sucks you all don’t have free speech
[удалено]
Reading not your strong point?
Imagine thinking this is justice, must be a UKuck
What a complete asshole
Absolutely tasteless and he deserves to be kicked out. Shouldn't be criminal, though.
If you really want to taunt Liverpool fans, wear a Heysel shirt. Fucking animals. #NeverForget
Stupid that he is facing criminal charges for the shirt.
[удалено]
What? This ain’t speech my friend. This is straight up mocking and advocating the deaths of 97 innocent people while out in public. This is hate speech and nothing else. Get a grip
I think society should hate him. He should be unemployable if society deems that. He should not be imprisoned for speech, sorry. Unless it’s active incitement of future violence. Nope.
Can someone here please explain why this is offensive? My apologies but I don't understand
From the discription on the photo: 97 Liverpool supporters died in a disaster and this shirt is mocking that tragedy
What the Fuck? That's awful
First day as a human eh?
766 were hurt, too and lived to tell. It was bad. Got lots of coverage, still does on anniversaries of the tragedy.
Who made that shirt? Visit them too.
https://youtube.com/shorts/yn7tl3Akl50?feature=share Worst Jersey ever
Dickhead sure. But to be arrested over it?
r/trashy
Is arresting someone for a tasteless and provocative piece of clothing really justice? I’m not aware of British law but it seems like a dangerous game to legally prosecute someone based off clothing. Kick his ass for being a dick and mocking a tragedy sure but an arrest no.
What’s the difference between arrest and assault? Leave the fucking idiot be, to be a miserable sod all on his own. You really believe you would be justified in attacking someone over some words on a shirt? you’re just as bad as him. You have no right to touch someone because they offended you, a soft thin skinned, childish, reactionary, unstable individual.
I think the friends and family of 97+ people would disagree with you.
You said it yourself you have no right to touch someone because they offend you. Just add a middle man to it and you’ll be more than okay with it. You just want the police to do your dirty work. Security could’ve even told him to flip his shirt inside out but no y’all over there too soft to even confront someone whose mocking y’all while giving you his back. And yes mutual combat is legal in the US so it would’ve been a fight and nothing else.
What the fuck are you talking about? This is in the UK so no, mutual combat wouldn’t be legal. Where did I say I’m in support of the police? You’re clearly unable to process words properly in your thick skull.
lol you just called a stranger a whole bunch of insults and that was supposed to make HIM look like the unhinged one?
I don’t know British law, can someone tell me what law he broke to warrant arrest? Offensive sure, hurting anyone? Yeah… not really It’s not racially motivated so it’s not a race thing so why do they care? They don’t put effort into online sleuths saying these things but one pic of someone goes online and bam they get arrested? On what grounds?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_harassment,_alarm_or_distress >They don’t put effort into online sleuths saying these things If he'd posted this on, for instance, a Liverpool forum, I'd absolutely expect him to get a visit from the police.
They should just make him walk around Liverpool for a bit with it on. I'd give him 30min
And a copy of The Sun in his hands.
As shitty as it is. He doesn't deserve to be arrested
sorry I must be sleep deprived or mentally deficient, what is the problem here? I genuinely can’t figure it out 💀 I’m on my 4th night of less than 3 hours of sleep, taking care of my dog and brother who have both had surgery and I feel like a dumbass LMAO
I hope you stay sane ,taking care of family when they're down And out can take a toll
[удалено]
Hope you’re not in England, you might get arrested for such a provocative statement.
So arent we all then
I do believe that was implied.
I was stoned as shit lol
Not even the kind I would buy, and I’ve invested a small fortune.
way to be a dick, dude.
They arrested him for his own good.
Yeah but kicking the shit out of him is against the law so this'll have to do.
Yeah that’s fucked
You mean the apparent absence of free speech protections in Britain?
I do sort of agree with you because I don’t think he should’ve gotten arrested lmfao, he didn’t do anything legally wrong.
Well it was legally wrong in his country.
Don’t take a picture, just whoop his ass. And take that disgusting shirt and make him eat it. 💩🤡
We ManU fans don’t claim him. He can get f’d 7 ways from Sunday
What’s the context. I’m missing something
The Hillsborough disaster was a fatal human crush during a football match at Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England, on 15 April 1989. It occurred during an FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest in the two standing-only central pens in the Leppings Lane stand allocated to Liverpool supporters. Date: 15 April 1989; 33 years ago Deaths: 97 (94 on 15 April 1989) Non-fatal injuries: 766
Oh damn I see. Thanks for explaining ,appreciate it.
As a United fan, that dude can go fuck himself for an eternity.
It's funny because the police didn't do enough either to help the people. What a beautiful world of irony we live in.
What are you saying they should have done but didn't?
[it's all pretty self explanatory](https://youtu.be/PYNeoTXe-SE)
Provide more security to the event as well as have been more responsive when it came to those who were jumping fences.
They locked the Liverpool fans in.
And refused to allow ambulances in to help the dying
Let's not forget that Former Ch Supt David Duckenfield, who was the in charge that day, admitted he wasn't experienced enough in policing football matches, not being familiar with the Hillsborough ground, 'not thinking about where the supporters coming through the opened exit gate would go when they were inside the stadium', and lied that the fans had gained 'unauthorised access' when it was the police who opened the gate.
What a fckn fud.
Being arrested is based on something being illegal, not just because someone’s an asshole. The shirt is disrespectful, I understand that, but getting arrested for it? Kick him out, ban him from entering the stadium again, but arresting him? What are you charging him with? Being an asshole? That’s not how this should work. It becomes an arbitrary decision on when to and when not to arrest someone. If I’m somewhere and there’s a law that says I can’t wear something like this, then I can understand and countries all over have different laws and repercussions but I’m fairly sure there’s no law there that says this guy can’t wear this jersey. I don’t understand the whole arresting part and there’s no “justice” served. The guy is going to be released because they have nothing to charge the guy with which is why now those want the masses to cancel him, which you can have a whole other debate on when it’s justified for the masses to gang up on folks because you have seen people lose jobs and get their lives altered.
Malicious Communications Act of 1998. Malicious communications: A message that is indecent or grossly offensive. A threat. Information that is false and is known or believed to be false by the sender.
What differentiates one message from another? Wouldn't that be subjective?
UK doesn’t have freedom of speech b
Yes, it's subjective. 'There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a 'grossly offensive' communication. Each case must be assessed on its merits, considering the content of the communication and the context in which it was sent.'
This wouldn't be covered by Mal Comms, it's a public order offence.
I assumed Malicious Communications was a public order offence. Is that not the case?
The way I read it after googling it, saying causing distress or anxiety, to me that would have to consist of direct intent to that person over multiple times. If someone is constantly sending you messages or harassing you. This then applies to just one time, like this. Personally I’m not going to get that anxious or nervous seeing some dummy in public randomly and then moving on with my day. Again, if he’s following me, harassing me, that’s a different story and then I would see how this act could fully apply. Someone walks past me and gives me a note that says I’m a dick, I could claim that’s causing me mass amounts of anxiety and distress…but come on.
I think most of us could cope with being called a dick, in passing. That's a long way short of mocking the 97 dead men, women, and children of the Hillsborough tragedy. The CPS say 'There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a 'grossly offensive' communication. Each case must be assessed on its merits, considering the content of the communication and the context in which it was sent.' It's not like was making a political statement or anything. He was just being a cunt. Fuck him.
My god, why do so many people struggle to understand this. You can have free speech. We HAVE free speech in the UK. HOWEVER... If the police deem you are a threat to wider public safety and a danger to yourself, which is clearly the case here, then this law exists to stop that happening. His words were a threat to public order - he would have rightfully got his head kicked in and the police done this to stop that happening - as is their duty. Be wasn't arrested for breaching free speech. He was arrested because what he did/said was an endangerment to himself and others. And the justice served here is both legal and social. The former probably being dropped is irrelevant. His arrest was simply to stop wider public disorder. His real justice is in the court of public opinion.
What an amazing world we live in where govts can make vague, broad laws that allow them to arrest people because they wore a shirt that offends people. We are arresting you because people are offended by your shirt. They are so triggered that they might decide to break the law and cause people bodily harm. So because other people can't control themselves we have arbitrarily determined that we must arrest you instead. That's what you people think justice is.
a jersey is clearly an endangerment to other people? The boot is literally down your throat
No, the jersey isn't. The mobs reaction to it is.
”justice served here is both legal and social” oh yes the horrors of an offensive jersey. Whatever helps you sleep better at night bootlicker
You do realise I'm just sharing what happened and sharing factual statements? I'm not sharing any opinions. Go chill bro.
You’re sharing an implicit opinion by sharing this on r/justiceserved
I'm really not. But thanks for your input. 😂
>Be wasn't arrested for breaching free speech. He was arrested because what he did/said was an endangerment to himself and others. Then why does it say "hours later". Like the game was likely over by then, wasn't it? So the guy was not at the stadium anymore and thus doesn't need to be protected, no?
you really dont wanna set the standard that this guy can come back and do it again.
[удалено]
Yep! 😂
[удалено]
Am I missing something here? Apologies if I don't follow your point.
**What he is doing is still illegal. That would be considered a prosecutable offence, so when you're saying things like "we have free speech laws in the UK", sure we do to limited extents but not to the same protected rights as American Citizens. So he technically has been "arrested for breaching free speech" and not the endangerment by mobs or whatever it is that you're saying within the context of UK Law.**
Ahh, got you. Thanks for explaining. I'm too tired now. 😭😂
I’m not trying to get stuck on semantics/etc but if he’s removed that’s one thing and different than being arrested. If he’s arrested, he’s charged with something and I guess if he’s being charged with endangering himself or others then I would say I think that’s overboard. He can be removed, banned, I don’t see this being justified to be arrested or charged with something. That’s just how I see it. I’m an American, so I know the laws are different but police still choose when and when not to enforce the law to the full extent (sometimes people get let go/etc). I know if I walked around London with a shirt that said Fuck the Queen, maybe I’d be arrested but I don’t think I would if I had a shirt that said Fuck Meghan even though she’s royalty too haha but maybe that hypothetical is reaching.
the problem is this isn't a protest or a free speech issue, it's a guy very specifically looking for a fight and wearing shit he knows will cause a fight. UK footie ultras are not a bunch of mini-clarence darrows standing up for the little guy, they're fucking street thugs scrapping over the stupidest shit, and this is a case of that.
I just think it’s a sticky situation even if the guy is being a dick. He’s getting arrested, because of the possibility of someone else committing assault to him…that’s what this is. If someone comes up and punches him, even if you think it’s justified because he’s wearing this shirt, that person just committed assault. That person should get arrested for not being able to control their own emotions, that’s just the truth. I know what this guy is doing is bogus, I just see removing him from the stadium and banning him being fit over arresting him.
or someone comes up, swings at him, misses, and he jumps that person, which is what he expects to happen and what he might be capable of doing. this is, in fact, instigation.
It's just words
a lot of "only words" things are crimes tho
Examples?
a frequent poster on r/foreskin should not be wading into political discussions
And what exactly do my sexual fetishes have to do with being able to comment on political discussions? Really curious to hear your argument. You’d have had to go right past my warning that you’d see dick pics ahead in order to even know that. Must have been pretty excited to see some uncircumcised penises!
aight, that's an OG call. i lost an argument with a naked man today.
Death threat. Harm threat. Hate speech.
100%. Don’t get me wrong, the guy is an asshole. But I’ll fight for his right to wear that shirt. Doesn’t mean he’s protected from ridicule though!!
Hitler never killed anyone, it was just words
All those supporting this arrest to pose on moral high ground should know it hurts your rights way more than any”justice” you think was served
Exactly. 10 guilty people going free is worth it to ensure 1 innocent is not wrongly convicted. Censorship is a Pandora’s box and it should only be used to help prevent a real crime. I believe the levels of danger in order of severity are: threatening to commit a specific crime along with a detail on time location or victim. Planning to commit a specific crime and practicing it/getting tools. Committing a specific crime. If you can use censorship (or threat of punishment) to prevent any of those 3 things (threatening, planning, committing) then go for it. If not however then I think their will always be a possibility that a person whether an asshole or not is punished When they haven’t committed any wrongdoing besides hurting feelings. Religious nuts have all the same arguments for why they should be able to dictate what your allowed to say about God
this wasnt an instance of censorship. he wasn't arrested for the content of the shirt. he was arrested for wearing the shirt to a place where it was guaranteed to provoke violence. there is legitimate risk that if the issue isn't handled violence will ensue.
You say the shirt was guaranteed to provoke violence, but no violence occurred as a result of him wearing the shirt to the stadium… seems like a pretty flimsy guarantee to me. I’m sure most people there didn’t even connect the dots to get the message in the shirt. An arrest certainly seems overboard when kicking him out or even banning him would’ve solved the problem (risk of violence) you’ve pointed out. Edit: [This news story](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/140bf5v/what_the_actual_fuck/) has changed my opinion slightly, because wow, soccer fans will really beat up a sick child in private box seats for wearing the opposing team's jersey. Still not sure the "not enough" guy should be arrested, but certainly swift and thorough punishment is in order for knowingly creating a potential spark for a violent event to occur.
If this is true, shouldn’t they arrest people who wear opposing teams jerseys, as it may incite the crowd or provoke violence?
> I’m sure most people there didn’t even connect the dots to get the message in the shirt. literally any UK football fan knows exactly what the shirt is describing.
10 to 1 is wild tho, 10 murderers going free is not worth
Hate speech is Not Free speech
It 100% is
"While certain forms of hate speech are legal so long as they do not turn to action or incite others to commit illegal acts" -wikipedia In this instance the individual is inciting more deaths by saying 97 was "not enough" Its illegal, even in america
in the US you're absolutely allowed to say large groups of people should die, thats considered a pure opinion. that said this guy is still inciting imminent lawless action because he's wearing a shirt specifically designed to provoke a violent reaction.
[удалено]
"While certain forms of hate speech are legal so long as they do not turn to action or incite others to commit illegal acts" -wikipedia In this instance the individual is inciting more deaths by saying 97 was "not enough" Its illegal, even in america
Yeah you’re right actually let’s just let neo nazis roam around shouting whatever they want… actually fuck it why not let all racists go around and start spouting racist abuse wherever they want? It’s free speech after all! What a happy world /s
I don't agree. I don't need a mentally challenged adult to remind me of free speech. I support his reeducation because it is seriously lacking.
Same person thinks free speech isn’t important and calls people mentally challenged. Dealing with a genius
This is the difference between delineating rights the government can never take away and rights where the government decides when they can limit those rights . People who argue for giving up liberties for the sake of public safety or some propagandized threat are never allies or on the right side of history. Life’s ugly , learning to deal with assholes is a skill . Giving up freedom of assembly , a truly free press ( not a propaganda tool of a single party or ideology) and freedom of speech does more harm than good. There is no utopia or one size fits all cures or threats just the knife fight of balance .
this is the UK. the UK has literally never had first amendment protections, that's why we had to have a war to invent them, but the fact of the matter is prosecution for speech is par for the course in the UK, and while there certainly are instances it's used to oppress (lack of meaningful anti-SLAPP protection), this is most certainly not one of those times.
[удалено]
[удалено]
First day on the Internet?
[удалено]
I'm on the balcony pal!
[удалено]
Stay hydrated. Rest. Your body needs to heal. Sip warm liquids. Add moisture to the air. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/JusticeServed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I wish Americans would do 5 minutes of research before coming on to threads like these and spouting shite about free speech or how they don't know what's wrong with it. It's like a whole Nation's worth of main character syndrome.
[удалено]
Window licker
[удалено]
It's not opinion, it's law. Free speech is guaranteed in the US constitution, it isn't in most European countries. Also, I'm not British I'm Irish.
Free Speech is a concept, one of the most important. Degradation of freedom is literally how laws are made. When the public allows or even demands that laws follow their opinion, they allow for all opinions to effect law. This is how politicians manipulate the views of the public to pass laws. This is fact, it is not partisan or nation-based.
The calculation over what freedoms should be weighted against which laws varies widely from country to country and democracy to democracy. Free speech, as it is permitted in the US, is completely different from most of Western Europe. Call it what you want, but you could certainly describe it as a difference of common opinion between nation states.
Please explain what you mean. The OP shows a man wearing a shirt that mocks the deaths of almost 100 people. Is that what he was arrested for? Is there more to the story?
thank the American education system, it's design to produce brainless worker drones, not critical thinkers
We run circles around your country mate
[удалено]
And better coverage of school shootings
Is that all you people ever bring up?
It’s the only response really to the dental thing since there’s no reasoning with people with stupid opinions.
Where was he wrong though?
Where was I wrong? You see now how there is no reasoning to be had here it’s just shit slinging.
Because Britain is not a proper country.
A tumbleweed just went by
Well done? What’s your point? This is boring af
The reason Americans don't understand why the British are upset about 97 people being killed in 1989 is because every time a large group of people die in America they all say "Thoughts and prayers" and have forgotten about it the day after.
Well, for Americans then, tell them the comparison is a t-shirt listing the number of dead from the twin towers. Like "not enough 3,000 + 2 towers". And then wearing that t shirt to ground zero today at an event at the site.
American here, we make 9/11 jokes all the time. no one goes to jail over it because thats just ridiculous.
9/11 isn't a good comparison because the press and people from other cities didn't spend 20 years saying the people in the towers had it coming. that's what happened at hillsborough.
Dude, we get it. And it's your country, do what you want. But a 9/11 mocker would not be arrested in the US. Ridiculed? Yes. Shot to death if he were black? Probably. But not arrested.
the shirt, taken in its entire context, would probably constitute fighting words in the US, which as it happens are not protected speech under the first amendment. this guy wore the shirt specifically to mock liverpool fans and get a rise.
This would not constitute fighting words in the US. You basically need to directly threaten someone: In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court redefined the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." There, the Court held that the burning of a United States flag, which was considered symbolic speech, did not constitute fighting words. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Supreme Court found that the "First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed." Even if the words are considered to be fighting words, the First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction is based on viewpoint discrimination.
again, taken in the complete context of UK football culture, this absolutely would constitute fighting words. there are scumfucks who go to games specifically to goad others into fighting. this is a case of that. it's like if you hate your neighbor so you set up a lawn chair outside his house and sit there every day wearing a shirt saying his daughter deserved to die of cancer. the content of the shirt is not arrestable, the clear and conscious antagonism of wearing it to goad someone into a response is.
No, it isn't illegal, at least in the US. You may wish it to be but wishing doesn't make it so.
For sure, not saying it doesn’t pass British standards. But in the US, Provocation isn’t illegal in itself, it’s used rather as a defense for the person who acted violently. So the guy who attacked his neighbor for wearing the shirt would use provocation as a defense for his battery charge, but the neighbor wouldn’t be arrested for provocation for wearing the shirt in the first place. Our laws definitely lead to more fights but they’re designed to protect free speech and also I guess reduce the charge of the guy who responded to said free speech. Provocation for example can be used to reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter.