Ugly Gets its Comeuppance

Anyone who has been to a stadium here in the U.S. to watch two rival teams go at it, or anyone who has sat in the bleachers at Wrigley, knows well how ugly some fans’ comments and chants can get.

Over in the U.K., they are taking this sort of thing a bit more seriously than we do here.  The Hampshire police are looking for sixteen football fans (that’s soccer over here) who, during a game between Tottenham Hotspur and Portsmouth, greeted Portsmouth defender Sol Campbell with chants of:

“He’s big, he’s black, he takes it up the crack!”

Lots of other racial and homophobic chants were hurled, and as a result, the Hampshire police posted photos of sixteen of the “brilliant lads” in hopes of getting the public to find them.  To date, two have been arrested.

Both the police, and, more importantly (it seems to me) the Football Association that governs this league, are taking this crap seriously.  Both specifically pointed to the despicable content of the chants as both racist and homophobic.  Europe knows all too well the potential negative effects of racism and homophobia (Nazis showed European folks what this crap can lead to) and the lethal combination this sort of behavior can have in the context of football matches.

Comments

[Lewis]

Good for them! Now if we could only be that smart over here it would be a better, and safer place to live. Since all of these guys are just so hypermasculine I just don't see it ever happening. After all, "That's SOOO GAY!" is something I hear all too often, even from adults that are supposed to know better grammar.

[califorlif3]

uh, not exactly. disallowing someone to be vocal about racism or heterosexism in a public and very crowded place does not preclude them from feeling the way they do. moreover, i love america for those little rights we get here and there to protect me from persecution for speaking my mind. saying what i want is not the same as doing what i want. instances of prejudice turned violent are not a result of free speech, but a complacent or supportive government to such brutality. sometimes it sucks, but it is when you let the government restrict what you can think and say that a nazi-esque regime can actually take over.

[David]

I hear racial slurs so much more than I hear anything else, yet people seem to get their underwear tied in a knot over "That's gay"...

[Chuck]

Umm, Califorlif3, would you care to tell us how you feel about people who go even further like the "Good" Reverend Fred Phelps, who is publicly calling for a federal law, outlawing homosexuality and making it a crime punishable by death?

And you can make this pronouncement, right on the heels of having had another one of your civil-rights ripped away from you by the people who utter the same words of derision and hatred right here in America?

Hello. Can't you see what is happening right before your very own eyes?

And, if you think that I am making this up, please go to to www.godhatesfags.com and check it out for yorself.

You worry about the "rights' of horrific people like this while people like him would sooner see you dead, much less protect your rights?

To you, this may just be "Freedom of speech", but would you still feel that way if the Church crowd ever get their way, like Hitler and his henchmen did?

How much of a case would you be able to make for "Freedom of Speech" when your ass is swinging from a gallows, like the two poor kids in Iran?

They too, were the victims of "Hate Speech"...straight from the Koran. Islam condemns homosexuality and calls for the death of all homosexuals. Shall we allow the Muslims to "import" that thought and right to practice it here America as well, under the guise of freedom of speech, just to protect their rights? I mean, where do we draw the line?

I say, think what you like, but keep it to your fucking self or at least confine it within the walls of your religious institution. I am sick to death of hearing the verbal abuse we have been the victims of for thousands of years, especially when that freedom of speech removes my freedoms as we are witnessing. What's good for the goose, is also sauce for the gander.

Sports stadiums and arenas are a place for sports, not religious rhetoric and platforms for espousing bigotry and hate. Those of us who are agnostics, atheists and non-believers do not go to church on Sunday for the express purpose of maligning their beliefs and trashing the mass. Why can't those rabble-rousers show the same "respect" they are always telling the rest of that we should be showing toward them?

Can we keep it that way, or do you object to that as well?

[poogoo macoo]

No thank you, freedom of speach has a cost. Get over it and stop giving words so much power.

[Brady]

Haha, you spelt "speech" wrong. THE IRONY!

[Ken]

I belive in Freedom of speech but also feel that some people "abuse" that freedom when they spew hatred and biggotry, when one hides behind free speech so they can encourage hate and even violence against any certain minority,something needs to be done as someone posted above that People Like Rev. Phelps could get thier way we're all in trouble. I belive in free speech but there has to be a line when it comes to encouraging personal Harm to others,chants like those at sports games and other events leads to violence.

[M]

This is scary. You should be allowed to say whatever you want. Get over yourselves already.

[BabyBlue1972]

While I truly believe in the right to freedom of speech, no one has the absolute right to it. Yelling racial slurs and homophobic comments, in my opinion, is the equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crouded theatre. You don't say comments like that without the intent of inciting a reaction. If people get hurt, physically or otherwise, because of what you said, you can be held liable for any damages, not to mention the fact that untrue speect is slanderous. People need to take responsibility for what they say, an I am glad that the U.K. is actually taking steps to try and curb this inappropriate behavior.

[Johncalvin]

When will we stop giving words so much power and be more concerned about the actions of ourselves and those around us?

The freedom of the right to speak ones mind works both ways. If you have the right to say "thats so gay" then not only do I have the right but also the responsibility to ask you to NOT say something like that around me. if people would step up more and show that some speech is not acceptable then we wouldn't have to rely on the police and legislation to stop us from being offended.

I say don't complain about someone elses speech until you are willing to step up and call them down for it.

[MikeSteen]

The UK Football Association (FA) has had an anti-homophobia policy for some years now and is making concerted in-roads into ensuring that no disrespectful and prejudiced chants or actions take place amongst fans or indeed players. Their "Kick racism out of football" campaign has been particularly strong in this regard and it is only right that other groups who bear the brunt of verbal and physical aggression receive the same protection.

The argument regarding freedom of speech is something of a red-herring as the article refers to policy in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and laws are different to those in the United States of America. Recently, it must be remarked that policies on employment law and civil partnerships inclines me to believe that the old country is taking a very proactive and enlightened view on LGBT rights and that this policy from the Football Association tallies with this.

[Tom]

So this is how freedom of speech dies? With thunderous applause?

[James]

Tom, Star Wars much?

[Harold]

I'm white, I'm tight, and I take it with all your might!

[Dumbass0or0not]

I totally agree with "Califorlif3" about the fact that it would be taking away what I consider the most important amendment, that being the right to freedom of speech. He made some other important points that I will not paraphrase because you can read his post yourself. I think that "Chuck" is a 'doomsayer/doomsdayer' who just took this post for a chance to RANT, straying far from the main topic, and moving towards rants such as regulating the atmosphere of a sports arena. Of course, we all find the 'homophobic/ homo-targeted' commenting offensive, but would amending the First Amendment be the answer? C'mon guys, look at how much fun we poke at each other; moreover, a good example, of playing down/poking fun at bottoms. "you are SUCH a typical bottom", "he's just a dumb bottom", "how can he protect us as a cop since he is a total bottom". 'We' have plenty of ridicule 'ourselves' withing the homosexual community that I think it is outrageous to ASSUME that NOBODY in UK sports arena group chanting were a few of 'us' and that the group is just being silly and using a cheap shot because it is available. It is OBVIOUS that the UK is ahead of 'us' is MANY ways because I don't see many football (NFL/AFL) or basketball (NBA) players that live outside the closet and have their boyfriend sitting in family/friend seating at all their games! As far as aiming to control the First Amendment: Think of 'regulated pornography', no more gay.com, or no more pride day; because, IF, a lobbying organization could prove that the words being said at pride day speeches could provoke emotional harm on people incidentally walking by the event, it could be grounds to shut down pride days. Think about the very old days when pride days were SELF-CENSURED and called things like 'creative mens' art festival" and held on private property in remote/rural areas. I petition specific readers not to take every article on here as chance to rant (especially go off topic) and think of the consequences involved before you write. Perhaps, if the British think that chanting/screaming ANYTHING offensive ruins that atmosphere of 'good sportsmanship', then testing the idea of having people sit quietly in their seats, not chanting, and not yelling IS BETTER TESTED IN BRITAIN THAN HERE IN THE UNITED STATES!!! Remember history folks, 'we' fought long and hard (no pun intended) to be free from British rule and imposition. Lets not get 'our' 2Xist undies in a bunch over a small test of law and order in the UK.

[Dahgda]

While I deplore the sentiment behind the words - even when used by people I consider pro-gay, it bothers me - I am against censoring speech.

Consider that if you are allowed to start censoring other people's words because you deem them to be hurtful or hate-filled, what is to stop those same idiots from putting the Advocate out of business for its content? Or banning Pride because they deem it deviant?

No, the price of freedom of speech for yourself is that you have to sometimes hear things you deem offensive. If you do, by all means, talk back!!! I know I do when I hear hate spewed around me...

[Jimmy]

I'm pretty sure that this is a violation of free speech, as others have said. Is it immature on the part of these "brilliant lads"? Yes. Illegal...I'm not sure.

Personally, their racial slurs bothered me more than their anti-gay slurs.

[HT]

Thanks to family guy and american idol, such degenerate talk is encouraged.

Even in restaurants and other public places, if somebody trips or drops something, some a-hole has to yell out some degrading remark.

What's on television is not real life.

But if society's ending, may they take you rabble first.

[livelife83]

This is why I'm proud to be an American. Even if they said terrible things, it's a shame that people in the UK cannot speak their mind without being arrested.

[D]

This is a very scary story. We shouldn't be regulating what people say, regardless of the content.

Unfortunately with the US and the UK very much being the police states they are, I fear its only a matter of time before we here in the US start to do the same thing.

This is very sad.

[H.Mac]

There is NO place for comments like this. You talk about freedom of speech in society which means you get to say or do whatever you think because you belive that you have the right to express yourself? Well where does it stop?

What if I thought it was right that I should go and beat the shit out of someone because they pissed me off? Based on the same logic, I shouldn't be arrested because I was merely expressing my own anger at someone. I just took a different approach. A man abuses his wife physically, or a child is mentally abused by their parents... Is that then also free speech?

Yes, the examples I have provided are a bit extreme, but I don't really see how some of your arguments are any different. If you put it down to silly boys or stupid should-know-better-but-clearly-don't men who made the damn comments, and they should be cautioned or something, then fine. But what so many of you talk about is the fact that you think these guys have the right to do it. They do not.

And let us not forget that these weren't just insults that were thrown out in a moment of heated intensity, but they were specifically CHANTED at an opposing football player.

I'm proud that the police are taking such an aggresive stand-point and that the FA are sticking to their rules. Which, by the way, were violated from the moment they began chanting their insults and so they have every right to prosecute, as they should and as they have.

[Matt]

I'm in disbelief over some of the comments made on this blog. At least in the U.S., it's basic civics that freedom of speech is not absolute. Americans have never had a right to just say anything they want, even when it violates the rights of others. Speech that disturbs the peace or can be expected to incite violence is unlawful, as it should be. Study after study has shown that gay people who are frequently exposed to slurs like f*g and comments like "that's so gay" are more likely to experience depression, anger, anxiety, and many other problems. In one study, lesbian and gay high school students reported making suicide attempts and becoming addicted to alcohol and drugs as a result of continual antigay harassment. Equal protection under the law is a longstanding constitutional principle. Until ENDA and similar laws can be passed, the police have a responsibility to enforce existing laws that protect people, gay and straight, from harm. I'm glad to see that the U.K. police are taking basic rights seriously, and I think the police here need to do the same.

[Beware the new nazis]

You talk about Nazis, but Nazis had speech laws too, all fascist regimes do...and yet you embrace them.

And H, Mac, you might want to have someone explain the difference between speech and assault to you.

Holy cow, the freedom of speech exists to protect unpopular speech, not speech everyone approves of.

[queerplanet]

Fucking breeders. Destroying the planet with their damn kids and now this.

Dimwitted pussy fuckers. Retarded hatchet wound lovers.

And their women, always running around taking it up the crack to make more babies.

God damn environmental disasters on legs, always breeding and shopping and then whining about how the homos ruin everything.

And when they aren't sticking dick to pussy like a bunch of missing link animals, they're playing sports. Ignorant losers.

We should stop them from saying bad things about us!

[servant_36]

feedom of speech is simply that. a freedom and can be taken away. Freedoms have limits and responsibilities to go with them. Want to pass along hate speech, fine...live with the cansequences.

[queerplanet]

servant

I did not like the tone of your comment and I think you should be arrested for upsetting me!!!!

When will people learn how senstive I am to their comments?

Arrest that man!

People should only say things that do not upset me!!!!

[Nate]

This is perfect example of why I'm glad we have our rights written here in the U.S. as opposed to just being part of current British tradition, the "rights of an Englishman". They've tried to do the same bullshit with people expressing political views that seem to be sympathetic to terrorism.

It is extremely dangerous to have the government making these decisions of what is "dangerous" or "hateful" speech. If the football league or the owners of the stadium want to do it that is one thing, they're private organizations and they can make whatever rules they want for those that come to their events. But to be arrested for using offensive language, that's too much. With these kinda laws, and what they do with CCTV, England is seeming more and more Orwelian by the day.

And what does it accomplish anyways, except make those people like us even less cuz "those fags are trying to control how we speek." It's like when that moron Jessie Jackson tried to argue that the word nigger should be banned. This type of behavior only gives people of hate more power.

[Jaylor]

I think arresting those people is a good idea, however; I don't think they should be prosecuted and here is why:

Arresting them will be a slap on the wrist which will serve as an education for them and other people because of the mass media coverage.

It will raise awareness of gay issues, gay rights it.

I think they should be arrested and educated about gay rights etc and just released.

People being arrested for homophobic comments is a good wake up call for the general public.

And as for those people that are screaming that it goes against the Freedom of Speech in the first amendment? I seem to remember in school learning something about having that right ONLY if it does not infringe upon the rights or harm others.

As a gay person, I'd say homophobic slurs harm me.

Again, I stress the fact that its all about a wake up call and giving the general public an education; more so that there is more and more prove that being gay is either genetic or something that happens in the womb(or a combo of both).

All though really, what we think in the US is totally besides the point: This happened in England where they have a totally different constitution.

[Nate]

David, we have to protect the rights of free speech of those assholes. You always have to protect the rights of those you hate most, as you never know when you might be the most hated by others. And gays have been pretty hated.

Ok, it sounds great to censor people who are antigay crusaders, but imagine that same power in the hands of the other side. If you want to give more power to government you always have to think how that power would be used by the worst government possible. The same mentality you expose could be used to censor any pro gay rights messages in the media because it is offensive to Chrisitians and Muslims. Or to say that it is illegal to show gay relationships in TV shows. If the government had that sort of power for the last eight years of Bush, you really think things like that would not have happened?

And honestly, as to your whole rant about free speech leading to Muslims forcing the law of the Koran on us and hanging gays. I don't even know what to say. Surely any rational person could see that allowing people to say what they think should be done, is very different than stoning or hanging people. If a Muslim stones a gay person to death it's fucking murder, free speech has nothing to do with it.

[Nate]

my mistake, my last message was a response to Chuck not to David. Got confused with whether the name is above or below the post.

[The Devil of the Contra Code]

Well, I see Britain and censorship go hand in hand. I wish I could be surprised, but frankly, I'm not. This, is terrible. Anyone who thinks otherwise, is a fascist.

[The Devil of the Contra Code]

And Tom? Thanks for the Star Wars reference. That was all kinds of awesome, not to mention appropriate.

I ONLY WANT TO HEAR WHAT I WANT TO HEAR ACTUALLY BTW. I WANT TO TEACH BY TAKING AWAY RIGHTS!

Fascists. I'm dead serious. Anyone, who thinks THIS IS GOOD, is a FUCKING FASCIST.

[kablamo]

While the disregard for human rights like freedom of speech is distressing enough, the fact that this article is so casually in favor of the polices violation of basic liberties is absolutely shocking.

[TMX]

"Free speech" does not allow you to say anything you want any time, anywhere.

Good to see this happening. I'm sick of everything being "gay", instead of just sucking. There's several words that have slipped into common usage that should never have.

(Thanks a fucking lot, South Park...)

[TMX]

"Free speech" does not allow you to say anything you want any time, anywhere.

Good to see this happening. I'm sick of everything being "gay", instead of just sucking. There's several words that have slipped into common usage that should never have.

(Thanks a fucking lot, South Park...)

[AmberGambler]

Nate says:

This is perfect example of why I'm glad we have our rights written here in the U.S. as opposed to just being part of current British tradition, the "rights of an Englishman". They've tried to do the same bullshit with people expressing political views that seem to be sympathetic to terrorism.

So, I suppose locking people away in Guantanemo Bay with no rights at all is totally different, huh?

As for written rights, Nate is quite correct, the Brits don't have a written constitution - they don't have an automatic right to free speech, nor do they have the right to bear arms. It must be tragic they don't have that right - the same number of Brits died in 2007 of gunshots as died on one average day during that year in our country. If that's what you get for having automatic "rights", then I'm for censorship!

[MikeSteen]

I think perhaps Amber's comments are taken out of context. Yes, the UK have lower firearm related deaths, but that has more to do with the ban on handguns and heavy licensing in place, than the lack of a written constition. Besides, the Magna Carta of 1215 signed by King John, enshrines basic rights in the same way as the constitution, as well as predating it by several centuries.
I refer readers to my original posting - this debate concerns the laws of a different country, and they are permitted to enforce their laws as an independent democratic state. Surely if we were to prevent them from enacting laws passed by their democratic parliamentary system, then we would be censoring a whole nation, which is surely a far greater crime?

[Steve]

You can slap fines or jail sentences on these people all you like, but that won't stop them thinking these things. It's not the fact that they say them that's the worst thing, it's the fact that they think like that to begin with. I agree with an earlier comment also, that it's the racial slurs that bother me more than the homophobic ones

[wallace]

If religous people really hate gays, then why are they cornholing little boys????????????????

[wallace]

if these slandurous people really hate the gays...... ask them what they do when they're alone???? ask them what they have in their hands???
Is it wishfull thinking,or thinking wishfull???

[wallace]

people are what they are. hatred is no cure at all. The real problem is the straits who rape and behind closed doors will get at the children. The gays are to blame though aren't they??? strait people cause more crime than anyone, and guess where they'll end up....... getting the bone.... from someone they despise!!!!!!!!!! yet you see a smile on their faces as they get it !!!

[wallace]

don't let mY writings let the weird gay people get away with their evil deeds. The perverts, strait, or gay have got to go to prison! they have no right to anything. Capitol punishment would more than please me ! these people who are the ones who make it bad for the good gays. They are like drug dealers, only out for themselves. TURN THE ASSHOLES IN

[Nate]

To Amber: Personally I believe Guantanamo is clearly a violation of the Constitution, and one far more severe than if we had laws like this one in England (though I still think here it would be a violation of the First Ammendment, and therefore do not want to see something similar here). Obviously the U.S. is not perfect. But the benefit to having the rights writen clearly is that you have a better chance to chalenge them. Yes this process has been slow, far too slow, with Guantanamo. But the mistakes that we make don't justify those of others (and again I'm not saying this law in England is anywhere close to as bad as the situation with Guantanamo).

And really, I think probablly the English can handle this law better than we would. The people don't feel the need to have a Bill of Rights there I think because they feel enough of a sense of power and efficacy in their government that their not gonna let them take the censorship of speech to an extreme.

In the U.S., however, I think this possibility is much greater. In many ways we are more prone to extremism, especially with anything that relates in anyway to religion. If there were laws like this here, the political right would be saying that they should be able to do the same thing to protect their kids from being damaged by seeing "sinful" gay relationships on TV presented as something normal, and things of that nature. I mean, shit, we have to fight just to talk about condoms in Sex Ed classes, even for vaginal straight sex.

To Mike: Yes of course I am aware of the Magna Carta, what I was trying to say is that there is not an equivelant to the Bill of Rights, which in our cases says, in no uncertain terms: Congress shall pass NO LAW which infringes on the right of free speech. The exceptions that exist (slander, yelling fire in a crowded place when there is no fire, inciting a riot) are exceptions which had to be clearly defined by the Courts. And they are defined so as to be as limited as absolutely possible in order to protect the public safety.

I really don't think the people who were doing these chants had any intention to do incite physical harm against the player. Talking shit is part of playing sports, sure I don't like shit talking which is homophobic or racist in nature, but it simply is not the same as trying to incite a riot or creating panic in crowded area and possibly causing people to be trampled.

And yes I know that people have been killed that way in football games but that has much more to do with people being too drunk and things that happened in the game, then a homophobic chant.

As for trying to censor all of England, I never said anything of the sort. I simply expressed that I don't think it is a good law, and that I am glad that our Constitution would prevent something like that here. Perhaps I went a little overboard with the Orwelian comment, I should have a little more confidence in the English people to not let that happen.

Also, there are many comments suggesting that it would be good to have a law like this one here in the States. What we who don't like this law are saying is that this law here would be unconstitutional, we are obviously not suggesting that England should have to follow our Constitution.

You gotta give people the benefit of the doubt, and not just assume we're all dumbasses who think everyone needs to have the same laws as Americans. That's no better than the stupid comments about anyone who agrees with the law being a Fascist.

In conclusion, a homophobic or racist chant in a stadium isn't going to bother me as long as I know if anyone attempts to turn it into something physical that the security in the stadium will defend equally gays, straights, blacks, whites, etc.. That's equality under the law, not trying to control the mouths of other people.

What scares me more is that from what many have said, it sounds like, some people here want to even censor people from saying "that's so gay." I mean really what's next, we can't say stupid, or retarded, or dumbass, or any word which might offend some group or other. Vaya mierda.

[The Devil of the Contra Code]

This is seriously the gayest shit I've ever read on the site. And that is really saying something.

Shall I go further?

This reeks of faggotry. Major loads of faggotry.

BAN ME PLZ 4 WORDZ.

[Douglas Spencer]

The British don't tolerate the nonsense that Americans put up with, espeically since they are a law and order sort of place! I hear the N- Word at times when I am walking to work and i wish i can call the police and report it! Trouble is people think that free speech is hate speech and say it's their constitional right to call people niggers and faggots! The British however are educated and know the difference between free speech (He sucks) and hate speech (he's a cocksucking faggot), which is something we will never learn in this country

[MikeSteen]

To Nate:
Thank you for the qualifications in your comments which I sincerely appreciate and gratefully receive. I do begin to understand those people in this debate who, like yourself, are worried that the implementation of such precepts in US law could cancel the ability of anyone to verbalise their thoughts. And yes, that is an Orwellian vision. Worryingly, if people are unable to verbalise or to get their points across, they tend to resort to deeds - and on this point I agree with you entirely.

In the case of the Football Association, I would add one further reason behind their policies - this being that Football used to be a game in the UK blighted by a great deal of violence amongst fans. Such football "hooliganism" was responsible for severe injuries and deaths, as well as taking up a great deal of police time and additional cost to the British taxpayer in terms of policing games. In recent years this hooliganism is nowhere near as apparent, and football is once again becoming a game where people bring their families. The FA is determined not to go back to the "old days" of hooliganism, and it has taken the decision to class racist, homophobic and other hate-fuelled chanting as being harmful to family attendance. It must also be remarked that Football in the UK is a very lucrative business, why else would two very rich US brothers have recently bought Manchester United? Anything that turns away the paying public is something that the FA wants to see stamped out.

Of course a counter argument could be that by gagging such chants, violence could break out as free speech has been silenced and I recognise that this is a potential possibility.

On a lighter note, one particular English football team, Brighton and Hove Albion has always received more than its fair share of gay ribaldry. Brighton is well known as a big gay capital in the South of England and the traditional chant from opposing teams to the Brighton fans is "Does your boyfriend know you're here?"
I'm also aware that one gay couple have taken to responding by holding up placards. One holds up the sign "Yes, he does" and the other holds up the sign "Here I am!" I'm reliably informed that this is taken in good spirits by both teams and neither fan has been the target of any homophobic violence before, during or after the game.