UK: Teen arrested over ‘racist’ Twitter message aimed at Arsenal striker Danny Welbeck

Danny Welbeck celebrating his goal for Arsenal against his former club Manchester United

A 15-year-old boy from Wiltshire was held and questioned on suspicion of racial abuse following the posting of a message on Twitter.

The social media post came after England star Welbeck scored the winner to knock his former club Manchester United out of the FA Cup on March 9.

A spokesman for Wiltshire Police said: “A 15-year-old male from the Salisbury area was arrested on the evening of March 12 on suspicion of racial abuse.

“He has been released on police bail until April 13. The investigation is ongoing”…

The article does not mention the content of the tweet. Let this be a reminder that the UK, Canada and Australia do NOT have a First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech.

It also indicates that there will be no revolt against multiculturalism (except possibly in the US): the governments of the other English-speaking countries will simply grow more and more authoritarian towards those who oppose their multicultural project.

The process is further along in the UK than in Canada and Australia. Yet the signs are there: the new anti-terror bill in Canada gives the government sweeping new powers regarding free speech.

Please remember that in Canada the blog owners are responsible for comments left on their blog. This could get very ugly.

  • jayme

    Soccer means more to people in Europe then anything else there have been riots even stadiums burned down that’s how much they care.

  • AmicusC

    we do have section 2(b) free expression and belief. not familiar with the definition of speech in the states but expression is in theory significantly more encompassing.
    I can use interpretive dance to racial insult someone and that would be covered in expression but not speech. just sayin’

    • ntt1

      so that’s why Margie Gillis has gotten away with her provocations all these years.

    • Drunk_by_Noon

      If you don’t have the freedom to insult, mock, and offend, then you do not have freedom of speech.
      The fact that you can be dragged before a HRT and fined for something you said means you have something “less-than freedom of speech”.

      • AmicusC

        by that logic my inability to incite violence or shout fire in a crowded theater means I don’t have freedom of speech.
        everything has reasonable limits placed on it quit being pedantic. when properly apply the hate speech rules as articulated by the scc in taylor are not that bad. the problem is the hrt’s don’t apply the proper test.

        • Drunk_by_Noon

          Did I say “shout fire in a crowded theatre”?
          Now you are being pedantic.

          If you have your speech scrutinized by a HRT, then you do not have freedom of speech.
          Full stop.
          It doesn’t matter what test they are applying. If they are applying ANY test, then you do not have that freedom.
          When you can stand on a street corner and shout that all Muslim immigrants should all be interned and deported, they you can pretend you are free.

          If you don’t have the right to hurt feelings, cause offense, and to marginalize, then you are not free.

          • AmicusC

            again by your retard logic we don’t have any freedom at all since there are limits on what we can do. I cant beat my dog so I have no freedom. I cant drink and drive so I have no freedom. I have to wear a seatbelt or a bike helmet so I don’t have any freedom.
            no one at any point in history has been “free” as you describe and there is a reason for it. all functioning societies require regulations regarding conduct of the members of that society. some are legislative some are socially imposed. all your ranting is doing is making you out to be a ridiculous anarchist.

          • Drunk_by_Noon

            All of the examples that you just mentioned have nothing to do with speech.
            Give up, I have won, even by your own admission.

          • AmicusC

            why? your bs argument is just that. it doesn’t matter what the other examples are they prove the retardedness of your argument. are you “free” despite the fact that there are restrictions placed on your actions or behaviours
            or could it possibly be that you are just a retard that doesn’t understand the same word can have multiple meanings depending on context. are you so mentally deficient as to believe the only definition of free is unfettered?
            please enlighten me as to whether you just suck at the English language and or are you simply an idiot spouting off stupidity?

          • Drunk_by_Noon

            Why don’t you try winning your freedom rather than justifying not having it in the first place?
            You are like the slave a arguing that his quarters could be worse and the food is not too bad. Perhaps, but you are still a slave.

            HRTs for what you say (not do) is not ‘freedom of speech’ but a constraint imposed by the state that abrogates your freedom to say all manner of things based upon someone’s “feeling” about what you said.
            Just ask Ezra Levant.

          • AmicusC

            oh so you are an idiot that doesn’t understand that “free” doesn’t mean unfettered

            but nice attempts at deflection, perhaps you should contact your handler and get them to give you your meds. its been a rough day for you hasn’t it

          • Drunk_by_Noon

            Seriously, send Ezra Lavant an email and ask him how HRTs impact freedom of speech in Canada.
            Were you a big supporter of Section 13 too?

            Before you call anyone “idiot” you might want to take a stab at at least using correct punctuation, spelling and syntactic flow while you are at it.
            It might help your argument.
            Just saying.

          • AmicusC

            aww muffin just keep telling yourself your a special little snowflake.
            also who are you too infringe my speach by trying to foist your grammer rules on me. my point remains your logic is was and shall ever be flawed. if any restriction on your speeach means it is no longer free then you do not have any freedom so perhaps you should address those issues first slave.
            and more to the point you still fail to comprehend language in context that free does not always mean unfettered but keep chasing those windmills.

          • Drunk_by_Noon

            I’m never said I was a special snowflake, but I am more free than you are, if only by accident of birth.
            That’s kind of cool …for me.
            Not so much for you.

  • Hard Little Machine

    UK will no doubt institute a program where persons charged with ‘hate crimes’ are chemically neutralized with drugs, more or less the same way that child molesters can be given depo-provera for chemical castration. I recommend thorazine.

  • Wiaruz

    No sure i see the multi-culturalism angle. Danny Wellbeck is British (English) born and bred and, notwithstanding his skin colour, lives a “normal”way of life based on Judeo Christian values.

    • I guess “multi-culturalism” is being used as an umbrella term by Frau for certain official attitudes. Let’s say that some cultures/religions/races may not legally be criticized or offended in Britain.

      • Wiaruz

        Agreed. But Danny Welbeck is not a member of any. I am against multi-culturalism but I have no problem with multi-ethnicity.

    • canminuteman

      I know a woman who was born in Ethiopia to British parents. No One ever called her Ethiopian.

  • Stronger Than Dirt

    Duly noted Frau …

  • Drunk_by_Noon

    Their mere presence makes us all less free.