Three year sentence for taunting
Perth anti-semite Brendon O'Connell has been awarded a three year prison term for hatefully taunting a young Jew. O'Connell's courtroom antics clearly worked against him:
During the trial, O'Connell refused to acknowledge Judge Wisbey when he entered the court and, instead, rose to bow to the jury.In my opinion anything more harsh than a significant fine is inappropriate in the circumstances; many would persuasively argue that the free speech quashing precedent set by this decision is a dangerous infringement of personal liberty.
Judge Wisbey said O'Connell showed no remorse and his behaviour "was that of a bully".
posted by Anonymous at 4:32 PM |
6 Comments:
I agree, JF - as per my comment on this earlier:
http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2011/01/good-lawyer-needed.html#4760083655854779130
"I still don't agree with even the basic concept of citizens being charged with "racial hatred offences". Too much of a thought-crime, too much of a slippery slope, for me.
"Was there no other law on the books - a traditional, common-law crime - he could have been charged with?"
If he broke the law, he broke the law. But punishment for hurting peoples' feelings is not conducive to free speech.
-------------------------------
“To justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one.
“If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
-US Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Whitney v. California, 1927
OK Spot, despite my initial wavering, you've convinced me...
Im with spot on this one. Justice would be served by a punch on the nose followed by an aquittal on the grounds of provocation..
I posted on a while back on an odious holocaust denier,,, he should be allowed to speak, and be confronted with odium, not legal manouvering.
Should I be able to take lefty head tilters to court because they compared me and my work colleages to nazis?
Guys,
I'm comfortable with your freedom of speech views as I am with the idea of him getting punched in the head.
I think however he was charged with the wrong offence. What he did to that kid was assault and worse. That's what he deserves hard time for, and I fear the discussion will get sidetracked.
With hate speech against Jews rising and the concomitant physical attacks rising against Jews, I'm afraid I'm pretty happy with this sentence against this guy.
If it was just a rant and no one was getting hurt i wouldn't care so much.
But the fact is that in the last twenty years or so, the combination of antiJewish Muslims, nazi tools like this one and hysterical violent leftists, Jews are forced to hide their Jewish identity for fear of being attacked, increasing numbers are leaving their countries to go to Israel for safety reasons - eg those from UK and France and Sth America.
Physical assaults on Jews have risen dramatically worldwide.
These offences are not just hot air any more, they are terror tools and the more of theser tools in priosion and facing the consequences of thei9r hatered, the better I'll like it.
Case by case basis of course.
Oops, apologies for spelling errors!
Post a Comment
<< Home