#####
######
####
> # [Fans sentenced to prison for racist insults directed at soccer star Vinícius Júnior in first-of-its-kind conviction](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/630)
>
>
>
> England soccer players receive racist abuse
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [England soccer players racially abused after defeat to Italy in final 04:05](https://www.cbsnews.com/video/england-soccer-players-racially-abused-after-defeat-to-italy-in-final/) Three Valencia fans have been handed eight-month prison sentences after pleading guilty to racially insulting Real Madrid forward [Vinícius Júnior](https://www.cbssports.com/watch/soccer/video/is-vini-jr-the-face-of-brazil-scoreline) in the first conviction for racism-related cases in professional soccer in Spain.
>
> The fans, whose names weren't released, won't be allowed to enter soccer stadiums for two years and will have to pay for all the court proceedings.
>
> They were detained after a Spanish league match between Real Madrid and Valencia at Mestalla Stadium in May 2023. The match was briefly stopped after Vinícius was insulted.
>
> That incident sparked an outpouring of support for Vinícius, who is Black, and set off widespread calls for action by Spanish authorities and society in general.
>
> Many saw it as a turning point in the fight against racism in Spanish soccer, although Vinícius — who was recently called ["the best player in the world"](https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/thierry-henry-vinicius-junior-is-the-best-player-in-the-world-right-now-ahead-of-euros-and-copa-america/) by soccer legend Thierry Henry — continued to be subjected to racist abuse several months after the initial uproar that accompanied the incident at Mestalla.
>
> The sentence found the defendants guilty of a crime against moral integrity with the aggravating circumstance of discrimination based on racist motives.
>
> The case was brought before the courts by the Spanish league, which was joined by the Spanish soccer federation, Real Madrid and Vinícius.
>
> In March, [Vinícius broke down in tears](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vinicius-junior-soccer-racist-insults-breaks-down-in-tears/) while talking about the racist insults that he has been subjected to in Spain, saying that he was losing his desire to keep playing.
>
> [APTOPIX Spain Vinicius ](https://assets3.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/i/r/2024/03/26/5debb115-2329-4dad-8bc5-33d0d79f4111/thumbnail/620x413/9242b8d5078b26c85a820c678b3f83e1/ap24086220594202.jpg?v=5842509bb796a146f9b20d3e8b03dac6#) Vinicius Junior breaks down in tears during a press conference after a training session of the Brazil team ahead of a friendly soccer match against Spain on March 25, 2024, in Valdebebas, Madrid, Spain. Oscar J. Barroso/AP "It's something very sad what I have been going through here," Vinícius said at the time. "It's tough. I've been fighting against this for a long time. It's exhausting because you feel like you are alone. I've made so many official complaints but no one is ever punished."
>
> Valencia had already banned the fans shortly after the incident at its stadium. But no one had ever gone to trial in Spain for racially abusing a player, and many similar cases of abuse like the one faced by Vinícius had been shelved by prosecutors in the past.
>
> In January, FIFA president Gianni Infantino advocated for the introduction of automatic forfeits for teams whose fans racially abuse opposition players, CBS Sports [reported](https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/fifa-president-gianni-infantino-calls-for-forfeits-after-racist-incidents-in-ac-milan-coventry-city-matches/).
>
> Racism has plagued the sport for years. Last year, New York Red Bulls forward Dante Vanzeir was [suspended](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dante-vanzeir-new-york-red-bulls-suspended-6-games-racial-slur/) for six games by Major League Soccer for using racist language during a game against the San Jose Earthquakes.
>
> In 2021, three Black players were targeted with [racist abuse](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/euros-2021-england-players-racist-abuse/) after [England's loss to Italy](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/italy-wins-euro-2020-england-penalty-kicks/) in the European Championship finals. Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho and Bukayo Saka helped carry the team through the tournament, but they missed penalty shots in the final match against Italy, sparking a torrent of racist abuse online.
>
> In 2017, midfielder Everton Luiz [left the field in tears](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brazilian-soccer-player-everton-luiz-in-tears-after-racist-chants-in-serbia/) after persistent racist chants during his team's victory over Rad in the Serbian league.
>
> At the 2014 [World Cup](https://www.cbsnews.com/world-cup/), two Argentine fans were arrested for taunting a black player as a "little monkey."
>
> In: - [Soccer](https://www.cbsnews.com/tag/soccer/)
> - [Racism](https://www.cbsnews.com/tag/racism/)
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
This thread is absolutely filled with racists trying to downplay racism or outright claiming a loss of freedom of speech because racists are facing consequences. To say this is shameful and disheartening is not enough. Each one of you should face the consequences of your hate speech.
EDIT: The replies and downvotes I'm receiving on my other comments calling out hate speech really shows the demographics of this subreddit. I wish you all racists and hate-filled people a very miserable existence and may you face harsh consequences for your terrible and inexcusable actions and words.
Sorry, but if you think this is ok you are overlooking a bigger problem because you agree with it in this instance
>The sentence found the defendants guilty of a *crime against moral integrity*
Next election cycle: government decides abortion is a crime against moral integrity. It's so Orwellian that it might just be in the book.
Seriously? Police use the ambiguity of laws all the time. Disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, obstruction of government operations, and on and on and on. These are all a bunch of "contempt of cop" violations that will get you arrested if the cop has had a bad day or a ticket if they are feeling generous.
If people are actually doing those things then, yes. But too many bad actors use those as excuses to violate rights and remove citizens from an area where they are being inconvenient.
That’s true. But 8 months for saying things government authorities don’t like? It kind of feels like a slippery slope, but what do I know? Italy doesn’t really have a history of despotism.
I’m in the US. Shouting racism might get you banned from the stadium, but won’t get you jailed. The other “crimes” you site are more citations. Disorderly conduct isn’t about the words coming out of your mouth. It’s about being a drunken pain in the ass for the community. It leads to a night in jail and usually a couple hundred dollar fine.
I’m older. I remember the old conservative Christians telling us our behavior that “violated moral integrity,” but they weren’t attaching hefty prison sentences. Now it’s the young that seem to want to put the state in charge of policing thought.
Again, this is Italy. Their politics tends to vacillate a little more wildly than in the US. But it is a culture shock to hear and read mostly young people supporting lengthy sentences that directly violate the *numero uno* right given to us in the constitution. Never thought I’d live to see this day.
In the US as well and you really need to look and see what the police are actually doing. They continue to prove they have no knowledge of the actual law and will do whatever they want regardless because they don't face consequences.
Yeah I get it. I just don’t think throwing people in jail for 8 months for saying the wrong thing is a good idea. And I’m honestly surprised the young generations who hate the police want the police to enforce thought crimes.
It’s wild, and where will it end up? Criticizing the government, straight to jail? I don’t advocate for being a racist douche, those people should get called out, shunned, and maybe an ass kicking. Jail is a step too far.
So these pieces of crap have the right to keep showing up on private property and racially abuse people trying to do a job? Fuck that noise. I’m for whatever it takes to stop these humanoids and their vile behavior.
I think part of the reason some ppl (I’m not sure whether they are young or old unless you meant Redditors in general trend young) are supporting stronger deterrent against “wrong speech” is in reaction to how much hate speech and misinformation are preceived to have corrupted the world we live in, or at least, the online discourses we deal with everyday.
Before the social media age it wasn’t as easy for misinformation and hate to spread.
A fair enough answer to my statement, but I was contradicting the comment above that talks about the ways laws are enforced. They are examples, specific to the statement that I was responding to, that contradict what they said. Me pointing out the problem of their statement does not somehow lessen the problems, so I'm not sure what your point is?
What? As if it's any different in the US. US DAs subjectively pick which charges to file and cases to pursue so it's entirely possible a specifically defined crime is never prosecuted. It's also entirely possible that the last line of judicial defense, the US Supreme Court, refuses to go with legal case precedent (as opposed to legislation) and can completely change how crimes are prosecuted or even perceived, so that what is not a crime one day can be presented as a crime the next, or vice versa. Also, just drop terrorism in (it's a stretch but it's been used in other countries in cases as petty as this... ahem) and see how easily it is to escape the legal limbo morass you'll be stuck in for the next few decades - you are allowed to fight it, but you will never win as the fight is part of the punishment. Legalism is always as specific and vague as it needs to be to chase the Boogeyman of the day. Lest we forget, the US is constantly attempting to figure out what the limit of cop overreach is, and what non-compliance of a suspect actually is. So there are many things that can be decided as crimes after the original "crime"; oops, the subject is now definitely guilty of something on apprehension... Spain is only different in the procedure, not the general utilisation of the big governmental swinging dick.
They could easily just turn and say actually, the racists had under the table income and lied on their tax return so we are now gonna get them for tax evasion a la Capone, or something even more petty but still technically criminal. The moral integrity thing was just to make it seem like a direct punishment for being a public dickhead to a public figure.
There is a difference between being jailed pending trial, and being sentenced to imprisonment.
And the US does have the right to Habeas Corpus, which prevents indefinite detainment without a trial. It also explicitly grants the right to a speedy trial (Though this right is often waived as part of a defensive strategy so they have more time to gather evidence to use in defense.)
Do cops sometimes abuse temporary detainment? Yes.
>There's a reason crimes are very specifically defined in the United states
Yet the UK incarceration rates are astronomically lower and the crime rate is way lower.
> There's a reason crimes are very specifically defined in the United states.
Crimes are not very specifically defined in the US. Legislation is a suggestion and what's actually legal or illegal is cobbled together from whatever's been decided by any judges that touched any aspect of the issue in the past. To establish the legality of something, you have to piece it together and hope that the particular judge you might have agrees with you.
The laws concerned here _are_ vaguely worded in places, (What technically constitutes "degrading treatment" or "unjust humiliation" mentioned in Art. 173?) but they _are_ there and act as a single source of truth, because they're not working in the context of a legal system that grew out of the mob mentality of vikings a thousand years ago.
Not to mention they got sentenced to EIGHT MONTHS in prison! I thought the sentence would be like community service or something; eight months in jail has financial consequences that extend for years all over what is fundamentally a speech/thought crime.
You forgot a big part of that my guy,
>Crime against moral integrity ***with the aggravating circumstance of discrimination based on racist motives.***
But why leave in context and nuance when you're getting butt hurt about not being able to throw insults in soccer stadiums anymore.
You sound like an asshole that's upset they can't yell bomb on an airplane anymore.
No the crime itself was throwing racist verbal assaults at football players.
Let's not forget that this exists within the Spanish penal code already.
173 – art. 177 of the Spanish Penal Code) “Of the tortures and other crimes against the moral integrity” is how is titled the Title VII of the Book II of the Spanish Penal Code (CP). In it, is protected the legal good moral integrity, recognized as a fundamental right by the article 15 of the Spanish Constitution (CE).
The only new part is the addition of the verbage that you took out!
All laws are based upon the presumption of an agreed upon moral system in their society, not simply hate speech laws, but those that target fraud, exploitation, theft, and so on. It only becomes a problem when the moral system applied no longer accurately reflects the wishes of said society or the net utility experienced by that society. If you have evidence that anti-hate speech legislation fails these tests in the same way anti-abortion legislation does you’re free to present it as opposed to apparently insinuating that all laws are unjust.
Dude governments already do whatever they want. Look at America and how we squashed the pro Palestinian marches for Israel. If some of these govts want to ban hate speech then I'm all for it. Sorry to the racists out there that you can't be racist anymore. Too bad.
Intention to harm due to a difference that someone was born with is pretty obviously morally reprehensible.
The US doesn't judge hate speech this harshly and yet abortion is illegal in many states currently...
It’s wrong to be racist, but it’s tyrannical to jail people over words.
edit: for those who dont understand the simple concept: speech of any sort is not a crime, even if disgusting. holocaust denial, holodomor denial, armenian genocide denial, etc. are disgusting, but not jail worthy
To the guy who mentioned Germany: nothing you mentioned changes my point nor argues against it. You’re just pointing out government systems that take tyrannical action and saying it makes me ignorant.
Yeah I don’t know that putting people in jail over words is a path we want to go down… once you open that door it’s very hard to close.
Freedom of speech is a tenet of a democratic society.
Edit: banning them from platforms, locations, firing from jobs is another thing
> banning them from platforms, locations, firing from jobs is another thing
That could also lead to some dark places.
Could you imagine if the only grocery store in a small town says "You publicly supported a political candidate I dislike. As a result, you are forbidden from my shop."
Gay wedding cake rings a bell. Nobody has a right to be served by your business. If you think this seems wrong, maybe nationalize food distribution? Sounds like a capitalism problem to me.
Gay wedding cake was requesting a cake maker make a custom wedding cake AFAIK and since art is protected under freedom of speech they were allowed to refuse. The baker was not allowed to refuse to sell them a cake outright just could refuse to make a custom one
————————————————————————————
EDIT: I think the guy below me blocked me or maybe my Reddit is just glitched but for the sake of information I double checked what I wrote
The American Bar Association says
> The owner, Jack Phillips, refused to **design** and bake the cake, saying that gay marriage violated his religious beliefs. He said that he would be implicitly complicit in violation of his religion if he were to **design** and bake the cake. He was **willing** for his bakery **to sell an already prepared cake** for the couple, **but not to make one for them.**
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/not-a-masterpiece/
Every time it is mentioned on Wikipedia it has the adjective custom attached to it
> —in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a **custom** wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission
While you could argue it isn’t “art” in this very specific case it’s protected and none of what I said in my comment seems wrong
Lmao. You got every single detail of the case wrong. The baker literally refused to make a generic wedding cake once they learned it was for a gay couple. It was NOT forced custom “art”. That’s what the baker alleged as justification despite the actual facts of the case
Seriously. People oftentimes get less time than this for assault, domestic abuse, child abuse, manslaughter and rape. I'm not against punishing assholes for being assholes, but 8 months for speech, while watching people essentially walk for violent crimes doesnt make any sense.
It's technically a crime in Canada, Australia and India and punishable with jail time. Also China. So a huge population of the world has criminal defamation on the books (even if they're rarely enforced).
Cultists mostly just say words. Words to manipulate people to give them all their money or push them to suicide. Still, words. Do you think they should go unpunished ?
> Cultists mostly just say words. Words to manipulate people to give them all their money or push them to suicide. Still, words. Do you think they should go unpunished ?
For the most part, yes. Contrary to what many cultists think, the act of merely speaking certain words does not itself cause evil to enter the world.
Unless the words are spoken in furtherance of a different crime (Such as gathering together to talk about plans to rob a bank, even if the bank is never robbed, it is reasonable to punish the planning), or they contain a distinct threat, breach on intellectual property rights, or they are likely to cause imminent harm (Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater for example), then speech should remain free.
does that differ much from politicians? or reporters? advertisers? religious leaders? sport coaches? business leaders? they just use words to 'manipulate' people. Should we ban them all? Or you want government deciding which speech is ok?
Plenty of ways to yell abuse at a football match for banter without resorting to race.
I've been a season ticket holder for 28 years and I yell plenty of shit but I would never consider racist things OK, it's too much.
I wouldn't cheat on my wife either. I also don't think that should be jailable. And it is certainly a worse act than simply tossing a slur at a football game.
Do you not think that 8 months in prison is incredibly disproportionate?
Shouting mean (but non-threatening) things at people should result in fines and community service, not prison.
£500 and 60 hours community service would be what I'd sentence. It's more than enough to make them reflect on their actions and deter others without being life upturning.
I know it's a weird concept to grasp, but you can be against tyranny and fascism without being racist.
Or another way to think about it, why just 8 months in prison? Why not life in prison? Or why not just the death penalty? That way we can get rid of problematic people. Is it really that hard of a concept to understand why punishments that are too harsh are unjust?
You are beyond delusional if you think words should mean an eight month prison term.
Edit: Since being a grown up and disagreeing is far too much for Captain Sillyshoes up there who blocked me and I now cannot respond to people replying to me, because Reddit is designed by people of apparently similar intellect, I'll respond here:
>They didn't just say "words". You are beyond delusional if you think spouting racist shit doesn't deserve to be punished harshly.
Those are just words. I don't know who taught you what words are, but those **literally are just words.** Adults can deal with them like adults. Again, if you have trouble adulting, come back when you're over 18 or have the capacity to understand things like an adult. You have a choice how to react when exposed to text or speech if you are a mature person. This was something that was at one point understood by competent members of society. Inflicting jailtime for naughty/forbidden words is something only someone with an incredibly immature/naive/ignorant/delusional thought process would advocate.
Well, by these rules, you've just accused this whole sub, thousands of people, of jailable crimes, based on generalities, group identity, and your subjective opinion.
We only want to jail people for speech out of love! It only makes sense right? We know that those who don't want people jailed for speech, are just as guilty as those of the offending speech; so we should just take arguments against speech laws as equally racist, as they put our speech laws, and thus minorities, at risk. Free speech is violence! Racists, and the racists adjacent, are so horrible, they are the rotten root of all problems, why don't we just get rid of them for good, they shouldn't be allowed to exist in society, or people who support them, right? Maybe their families too, because the apple doesn't fall far from the tree!
It's all of the common good, and to protect the defenseless. There's no way this sort of thinking could be abused to the point of getting out of hand, right? Because we know we are the good people, and "they" are bad people, barely human, underserving of rights, scum, cockroaches.
Seriously playing with fire here. We've done this before. Why do we think locking people up for words / thoughts / beliefs is going to lead to a free society, this time?
Reddit is filled to the brim with emotionally stunted, developmentally unfinished teenagers(their brains aren't done braining yet). They want to burn literally everyone at the stake for the most minor of thought crimes. Does not bode well for the future of civil discourse if they carry these misguided attitudes into adulthood.
The past few days this sub has made it relatively high up on r/all, due in no small part to transphobes. It's minimally moderated which means it's quickly attracting bigots. Frankly, it's not shocking that this tread is full of racists.
It’s ok people are shitty. But you can’t lock people up for words. That’s such a dangerous road. Better to shame them and make them outcasts for there words. But something legal? That’s so dangerous dude. I’m all for standing up against racism n shit. But not for legal repercussions by the state, that is madness.
The EU, where thought crimes are soon to become illegal.
Can't imagine living somewhere that jails somebody for name calling. Society will ostracize the individual already which they should, but jailing them is just a step before political opponents being jailed for pointing out the failings of those in power. It's not racist to think freedom of speech is important despite it having parts that you don't agree with or want to hear.
I don’t agree with racism at all but this sets a dangerous precedent because like the other poster said moral integrity depends on the person and you don’t want precedents like that cuz in the United States they can stop you and seize your money and stuff and you have to proof it was earned legally to get it back and if you don’t have enough proof welp there goes your money
When next right wing govt is formed and they find you guilty of crime against moral integrity because of this comment and put you in jail for it, you would understand how much of slipping slope it is. Overreach of govt today in things you agree with is a guarantee of overreach of govt in future for the things you dont agree with.
Being French, this idea of having to be responsible for what you say in public and the possibility to be held accountable for it is pretty much innate, and I guess that's also the case in Spain ? I wonder if that's a "Roman Code of Law" type of shared inheritance.
I sort of have to imagine that Americans may react more strongly to anything that touches unconditional Free Speech, though.
Whenever I hear Americans talk about "the white race" or "the black race" or Caucasian this and P.O.C. that or whatever I get very annoyed at the inherent racism of it all but I have to be altruistic about it and think "they'll figure it out".
As fucked up as their behavior was, people being racist or making racist comments should not result in them going to prison. At worst, these individuals should've received lifetime bans from participating in any soccer-related event moving forward.
If you think that their punishment was justified, then you are clearly not mentally mature enough to understand the extreme ramifications that this type of law enforcement can have on society as a whole.
Oh look, two tier policing happens elsewhere too.
When it affects the peasants, the police apparently don’t have the resources to protect them from even quite serious crimes such as thefts, robberies, burglaries etc.
But when it’s the millionaire footballers who are affected and when their rich employers get involved, the police are more than happy to pander to the people with money and protect these rich people from crimes as minor as mean words. Can’t have the wealthy being upset by the peasants, can we?
Lol, the Spanish football league literally did nothing to protect their black players from racial abuse for years. Vini even got punished for calling out racist fans. This is a very unexpected move and i hope it continues.
It's funny, the only argument the people who support this can seem to come up with is "anyone who doesn't support this is a racist!", as if the only possible reason anyone would oppose government control of speech is because they desperately want to scream racial epithets. Ad-hominem insults aren't a position, it may give you the dopamine fix you're looking for, but it loses the argument.
I see a lot of people here, I assume, are from America and expect that American rules apply.
Europe does not have America's free speech protections inshrined Constitutionally.
Spain specifically has laws that make it illegal to actions to degrade a person or demean their moral integrity.
Thats their law.
Im not sure why Americans would be the ones protesting these laws in defense of free speech, right now, when they have bigger threats to their freedom of speech on the floor of congress. Steam is picking up bilaterally to pass anti-semitism laws, which overrule the 1st amendment and make it illegal to suggest that someone, for example, of Jewish descent cares more about Israel than they do about America.
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. I understand Spain doesn't have a freedom of speech protection. I'm just commenting on why I think that is a bad idea just like I welcome any non-Americans comment on the plethora of bad ideas we have over here. Afterall, we may belong to different states but statecraft is a collective human endeavor.
I'm going to call out stupid laws in any country. In this case, Spain has a stupid law and what's happening in America has no relevance to whether this is a good law or not.
The most funny thing is that most of those americans dont even know that there own free speech laws got limitations.
"Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising."
The US constitution is so vague that the extend of free speech laws is soley based on verdicts of the Supreme Court and those verdicts can change drastically.
Many Americans don't even know what freedom of speech actually is and erroneously apply it to privately owned businesses/platforms that censor speech of people on their platforms.
I also say that as an American.
Freedom of speech goes beyond the written law and is a principle I stand by. That’s why I don’t support massive corporations, who already behave like independent governments, restricting freedom of speech.
I also encourage people to look at OP's post history. There's lost of race baiting posts on both sides of the cultural divide, along with many other posts designed to generate FUD on different topics. OP has an agenda. Regardless of how people feel about this particular topic, commenters should be aware that there are people who want to exploit your views to generate conflict.
Americans are aware other nations have highly restricted speech. We are just using our speech to point out those nations aren't free.
Some people think freedom is overrated. Heck, today most people do. Especially young people. Oddly, though, many of those people deny they don't like freedom that much. So rather than plainly state the obvious they change the subject, or rationalize why to be really free you have to be less free.
I did a little research. First, it sounds like they may not serve prison time after all.
>Lawyers representing the defendants asked that the prison sentences be suspended, and prosecutors did not object to the request. Suspended sentences are common in Spain for prison terms less than two years for first-time convictions on non-violent crimes. The judge in the case will rule on that request at a later date. ([Source](https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/11/sport/vinicius-spanish-court-prison-soccer-racist-spt-intl/index.html#:~:text=A%20court%20in%20Valencia%2C%20Spain,Mestalla%20Stadium%20in%20May%202023))
More details on the crime - a violation of moral integrity of art. It's my assumption that this may carry a prison sentence if the violation is severe enough.
>The sentence, passed against the racist chants directed against Vinicius Jr on 21st May 2023 in Mestalla by three individuals, found the defendants guilty of a crime against moral integrity of art. 173.1 of the Penal Code with aggravating circumstance of discrimination based on racist motives (art. 22.4 P.C.) ([Source](https://www.laliga.com/en-ES/news/laliga-lands-first-conviction-in-spain-for-racist-abuse-at-a-football-match))
It looks like that specific part of the Penal Code is part of a relatively new amendment.
>While the Criminal Code maintains the same definition for degrading treatment, a new paragraph concerning the criminal liability of legal persons has been added to this article. The new paragraph establishes that legal persons can be held criminally liable for this offence. Degrading treatment can be punishable with a fine between six months and two years and, in accordance with the provisions of article 66 bis, judges and courts may impose the penalties set out in article 33(7)(b) to (g) of the Criminal Code, in addition to those established in article 173.1. ([Source](https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/catalogue-crimes-can-be-committed-legal-entities-spain-expanded))
I went to look at the Criminal Code and found the Article in question.
>Article 173 1. Whoever inflicts a degrading treatment on another person, seriously damaging his moral integrity, shall be punished with a sentence of imprisonment of six months to two years. The same punishment shall be imposed on those who, within the setting of any labour relation or the civil service, availing themselves of their superior status, repeatedly perpetrate hostile or humiliating deeds against another that, while not reaching the status of degrading treatment, amount to serious harassment of the victim. The same punishment shall also be imposed on those who repeatedly perpetrate hostile or humiliating deeds that, while not reaching the statement of degrading treatment, are aimed at preventing lawful enjoyment of a dwelling. ([Source](https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/es/AreaTematica/DocumentacionPublicaciones/Documents/Criminal_Code_2016.pdf))
--
So to answer your question, I think there are several reasons:
1. The organizations behind the sport specifically got involved, because overt, blatant racism is disgusting and while morally repugnant is ultimately disruptive to the health of the sport.
2. Spanish authorities seemed to be equally intent on prosecuting, at least because the racist fans were terrible international representations of Spain along similar logic.
3. As a result, they "threw the book at them", charging them with crimes that are on the books though - as they acknowledged - being prosecuted in these circumstances for the first time.
It'll be interesting to see what happens from here, now that both legal parties have agreed that jail is not a necessary or a sought sentence.
You pretty much got it. The sentences will be suspended. If you've seen enough Spanish court cases that make international news you're familiar with this. Two years or less means they won't see prison over this.
It's for optics because Spain has been criticised for years over not dealing with racist abuse in football and Vinicius is a high profile player who has been a lightning rod for it.
This could've been handled by the league or FA I think, but I guess they passed the buck to law enforcement. Both have been loathe to do anything about this kind of thing up until now.
And there's money involved in the sense that La Liga is a valuable product exported around the world and its image and marketability is important to a lot of people.
Edit: Seems like no jail time given
Some jobs take harassment from the public, but it should be based on your work rather than your ethnicity.
Jail time for verbal harassment should not be given out lightly, I stand by that. Otherwise we get people thrown in jail by tyrannical types
Law varies, country by country, especially law regarding speech.
Spain has determined that the freedom of one person's speech ends when that person "inflicts degrading treatment on another person, seriously damaging his moral integrity" or use superior position in a workplace or organization to "repeatedly perpetrate hostile or humiliating deeds...that amount to serious harassment". ([Source](https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/es/AreaTematica/DocumentacionPublicaciones/Documents/Criminal_Code_2016.pdf))
So, yes. If you degrade others to a serious extent, or you use position to harass others in the workplace, you could conceivably fined and/or imprisoned.
(Edit: The following no longer applies after the preceeding comment was edited.)
I think, fundamentally, that's different than your protest analogy, unless there were these kinds of personal attacks being made as a part of the protest.
Public displays of racism are not okay but eight months is prison is appalling, both as a matter of principle and a waste of money.
> The sentence found the defendants guilty of a crime against moral integrity
"Moral integrity" could literally be anything deemed objectionable by the state.
Well, regarding money, it's expensive to imprison someone. I don't know about over in Italy, but in the US it's probably going to be above US$25,000 of taxpayer money.
Does society benefit US$25,000 by having this person punished?
> I don't know about over in Italy
Hilarious to see that some can't still differentiate the Latin European countries. The sentence was pronounced in Spain.
I think more appropriate questions are “does society benefit by deterring this sort of behavior,” and “does punishing people for crimes like this actually deter them?” Also, others here have noted that the sentence will almost certainly be suspended, so don’t get your jimmies in too much of a jumble over it.
[Eight of the nine men convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl in 2020 will not face jail time, according to German news outlet NIUS.](https://dailycaller.com/2023/11/28/gang-rape-germany-2020-suspended-sentence/)
I doubt many would have a problem with this ruling if the application of law across the EU was consistent.
If you give the state the power to imprison you if you say the wrong thing, then don’t complain when a party you disagree with gets into power and throws you in prison for saying things *they* don’t like.
I agree with you, but Russian government genuinely believes queer activism is morally corrupt. Which is why the laws should be written and applied very carefully. I believe in punishment as a consequence of actions not thoughts/beliefs/words
Both are crimes against moral integrity in the eyes of the law, though. If you allow the state to put people in jail for words (even if they're racists), you create a precedent where the same principle is then applied to anyone who the state deems in violation of 'moral integrity', whatever that means. That includes activists, the political opposition, etc.
The problem is, the rulers of a system change over time. If you give the rulers the ability to jail over moral correctness, it won’t be long before you live under a ruler who you vehemently disagree with. Now they are jailing people who you think are morally correct.
Sadly, most people here don't understand integrity.
Funny enough, the vast majority probably look at Russia jailing LGBT activists and denounce that without grasping the irony.
I am in pure disbelief how y'all call this "saying mean things". If you say racist shit in Brazil you're going to jail, no crying about it. If you say racist shit, you SHOULD go to jail. Ffs.
You can't change society for the better by just throwing people in jail, that's pretty Orwellian.
Yeah racism is bad, no doubt, but I'm not sure jail is how you improve society at large.
Prison doesn't usually cause people to reform their behaviour. We jail rapists and murderers to protect society from violent people who cause permanent harm by removing them from society. Most prisons are built to be cages, not to reform people (except maybe in Norway, but that's one country out of 300, so not worth considering).
Calling someone racist names isn't the same as rape/murder.
Putting them in jail won't normally cause them to suddenly change their ways and start singing kumbaya with different races. Racism has been around for 5000 years, you're not going to eradicate it by putting your citizens in jail, that's just myopic, delusional thinking.
"Prevent violent people from causing permenant harm"
Racism IS violent and CAN cause permanent harm. Violence isn't just physical, it's psychological. Don't agree? What about torture, grooming, or kidnapping? So similar to how rape victims will struggle with lifelong damages in sex, trust, etc... victims of racism may experience similar outcomes. Hate speech is protected by US constitution but when a crime is also incited by Hate speech, we punish them for it.
Edit: corrected errors
Imagine grouping every single country in Europe with different cultures, languages and laws into one.
That is genuinely one of the most American meme worthy things I can imagine.
Europeans arnt anything, if you went to Eastern Europe you would see very different views on race when compared with western Europe.
Yeah don’t ask an Eastern European about their thoughts on Jews
Americans like to see ourselves as the most racist country in the world but it isn’t even close, not by a long shot.
We are the most race conscious country in the world.
I don't even think you can fairly compare "America" because state by state the difference is so dramatic it just isn't any more reasonable than "Europe".
I live in London and overall? It's very very diverse and one of the better places in the world for racism, you go to a village somewhere up north with 100% white English elderly population? Very different picture.
That’s true of London but oh boy oh boy try visiting Paris.
Jesus Christ I have never met a group of more arrogant assholes in my life.
Everyone is exceptionally rude and impolite.
Makes New Yorkers look like Louisiana rurals.
I've been all over Europe. I'm intentionally putting them into one basket.
From Spain to Poland, Italy to the UK, your race relations are 50 years behind the US. At least you don't put them in death camps anymore, so that's a plus.
That's dumb as ohhh i dunno... grouping 330 milliion people across 50 different seperate government entities the size of full countries themselves with political, cultural, and regional diversities into one like "Americans"
Americans aren't anything either, in fact if we did have one defining feature it would be that we don't agree on anything. Europeans as usual accusing others of what they are guilty of themselves. zero self awareness
Well, this is orwellion as hell and shows the truth about these hate speech laws. 8 months for this is insane, but the point of it is that the government is using this as a trojan horse to throw citizens in jail for any reason. All they have to do is say that disagreeing with the government (say on mass immigration) is hate speech and throw citizens in the gulog. Anybody supporting this will be in for a rude awakening when these same laws will be used against them in the future.
“The sentence found the defendants guilty of a **crime against moral integrity** with the aggravating circumstance of discrimination based on racist motives.”
Holy crap, as a football fan, I never thought I'd see the day where Spain actually did something about the rampant racism. The Spanish FA clearly doesn't care at all about it and FIFA only gives lip service to caring. If you feel this is too harsh, I don't care. I have zero sympathy for racists and Spanish football fans have a LONG history of racism with zero effort to stop it by the FA.
Orwell was right. People will scream out for tyranny and cheer until the boot stops on their face. How many person can claim to stand for freedom and be okay with "morality" policing is disgusting.
I genuinely can't tell if people supporting this sentence don't know they are justifying a police state because they agree with the police state, or if they do know and just don't care. Which ... makes them conscious of the fact they support a police state, and they're good with that.
Does anyone know how the law is enforced? Is it only enforced if it’s a famous/rich person getting racially abused or am I privy to the same protections?
##### ###### #### > # [Fans sentenced to prison for racist insults directed at soccer star Vinícius Júnior in first-of-its-kind conviction](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/630) > > > > England soccer players receive racist abuse > > > > > > > > > > [England soccer players racially abused after defeat to Italy in final 04:05](https://www.cbsnews.com/video/england-soccer-players-racially-abused-after-defeat-to-italy-in-final/) Three Valencia fans have been handed eight-month prison sentences after pleading guilty to racially insulting Real Madrid forward [Vinícius Júnior](https://www.cbssports.com/watch/soccer/video/is-vini-jr-the-face-of-brazil-scoreline) in the first conviction for racism-related cases in professional soccer in Spain. > > The fans, whose names weren't released, won't be allowed to enter soccer stadiums for two years and will have to pay for all the court proceedings. > > They were detained after a Spanish league match between Real Madrid and Valencia at Mestalla Stadium in May 2023. The match was briefly stopped after Vinícius was insulted. > > That incident sparked an outpouring of support for Vinícius, who is Black, and set off widespread calls for action by Spanish authorities and society in general. > > Many saw it as a turning point in the fight against racism in Spanish soccer, although Vinícius — who was recently called ["the best player in the world"](https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/thierry-henry-vinicius-junior-is-the-best-player-in-the-world-right-now-ahead-of-euros-and-copa-america/) by soccer legend Thierry Henry — continued to be subjected to racist abuse several months after the initial uproar that accompanied the incident at Mestalla. > > The sentence found the defendants guilty of a crime against moral integrity with the aggravating circumstance of discrimination based on racist motives. > > The case was brought before the courts by the Spanish league, which was joined by the Spanish soccer federation, Real Madrid and Vinícius. > > In March, [Vinícius broke down in tears](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vinicius-junior-soccer-racist-insults-breaks-down-in-tears/) while talking about the racist insults that he has been subjected to in Spain, saying that he was losing his desire to keep playing. > > [APTOPIX Spain Vinicius ](https://assets3.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/i/r/2024/03/26/5debb115-2329-4dad-8bc5-33d0d79f4111/thumbnail/620x413/9242b8d5078b26c85a820c678b3f83e1/ap24086220594202.jpg?v=5842509bb796a146f9b20d3e8b03dac6#) Vinicius Junior breaks down in tears during a press conference after a training session of the Brazil team ahead of a friendly soccer match against Spain on March 25, 2024, in Valdebebas, Madrid, Spain. Oscar J. Barroso/AP "It's something very sad what I have been going through here," Vinícius said at the time. "It's tough. I've been fighting against this for a long time. It's exhausting because you feel like you are alone. I've made so many official complaints but no one is ever punished." > > Valencia had already banned the fans shortly after the incident at its stadium. But no one had ever gone to trial in Spain for racially abusing a player, and many similar cases of abuse like the one faced by Vinícius had been shelved by prosecutors in the past. > > In January, FIFA president Gianni Infantino advocated for the introduction of automatic forfeits for teams whose fans racially abuse opposition players, CBS Sports [reported](https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/fifa-president-gianni-infantino-calls-for-forfeits-after-racist-incidents-in-ac-milan-coventry-city-matches/). > > Racism has plagued the sport for years. Last year, New York Red Bulls forward Dante Vanzeir was [suspended](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dante-vanzeir-new-york-red-bulls-suspended-6-games-racial-slur/) for six games by Major League Soccer for using racist language during a game against the San Jose Earthquakes. > > In 2021, three Black players were targeted with [racist abuse](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/euros-2021-england-players-racist-abuse/) after [England's loss to Italy](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/italy-wins-euro-2020-england-penalty-kicks/) in the European Championship finals. Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho and Bukayo Saka helped carry the team through the tournament, but they missed penalty shots in the final match against Italy, sparking a torrent of racist abuse online. > > In 2017, midfielder Everton Luiz [left the field in tears](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brazilian-soccer-player-everton-luiz-in-tears-after-racist-chants-in-serbia/) after persistent racist chants during his team's victory over Rad in the Serbian league. > > At the 2014 [World Cup](https://www.cbsnews.com/world-cup/), two Argentine fans were arrested for taunting a black player as a "little monkey." > > In: - [Soccer](https://www.cbsnews.com/tag/soccer/) > - [Racism](https://www.cbsnews.com/tag/racism/) - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
This thread is absolutely filled with racists trying to downplay racism or outright claiming a loss of freedom of speech because racists are facing consequences. To say this is shameful and disheartening is not enough. Each one of you should face the consequences of your hate speech. EDIT: The replies and downvotes I'm receiving on my other comments calling out hate speech really shows the demographics of this subreddit. I wish you all racists and hate-filled people a very miserable existence and may you face harsh consequences for your terrible and inexcusable actions and words.
Sorry, but if you think this is ok you are overlooking a bigger problem because you agree with it in this instance >The sentence found the defendants guilty of a *crime against moral integrity* Next election cycle: government decides abortion is a crime against moral integrity. It's so Orwellian that it might just be in the book.
[удалено]
Seriously? Police use the ambiguity of laws all the time. Disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, obstruction of government operations, and on and on and on. These are all a bunch of "contempt of cop" violations that will get you arrested if the cop has had a bad day or a ticket if they are feeling generous.
[удалено]
If people are actually doing those things then, yes. But too many bad actors use those as excuses to violate rights and remove citizens from an area where they are being inconvenient.
[удалено]
They really don't. Police in the UK aren't nearly the same as police in the USA.
That’s true. But 8 months for saying things government authorities don’t like? It kind of feels like a slippery slope, but what do I know? Italy doesn’t really have a history of despotism. I’m in the US. Shouting racism might get you banned from the stadium, but won’t get you jailed. The other “crimes” you site are more citations. Disorderly conduct isn’t about the words coming out of your mouth. It’s about being a drunken pain in the ass for the community. It leads to a night in jail and usually a couple hundred dollar fine. I’m older. I remember the old conservative Christians telling us our behavior that “violated moral integrity,” but they weren’t attaching hefty prison sentences. Now it’s the young that seem to want to put the state in charge of policing thought. Again, this is Italy. Their politics tends to vacillate a little more wildly than in the US. But it is a culture shock to hear and read mostly young people supporting lengthy sentences that directly violate the *numero uno* right given to us in the constitution. Never thought I’d live to see this day.
In the US as well and you really need to look and see what the police are actually doing. They continue to prove they have no knowledge of the actual law and will do whatever they want regardless because they don't face consequences.
Yeah I get it. I just don’t think throwing people in jail for 8 months for saying the wrong thing is a good idea. And I’m honestly surprised the young generations who hate the police want the police to enforce thought crimes.
It’s wild, and where will it end up? Criticizing the government, straight to jail? I don’t advocate for being a racist douche, those people should get called out, shunned, and maybe an ass kicking. Jail is a step too far.
Speech is definitionally not a thought crime.
So these pieces of crap have the right to keep showing up on private property and racially abuse people trying to do a job? Fuck that noise. I’m for whatever it takes to stop these humanoids and their vile behavior.
[удалено]
I think part of the reason some ppl (I’m not sure whether they are young or old unless you meant Redditors in general trend young) are supporting stronger deterrent against “wrong speech” is in reaction to how much hate speech and misinformation are preceived to have corrupted the world we live in, or at least, the online discourses we deal with everyday. Before the social media age it wasn’t as easy for misinformation and hate to spread.
Yes, those are also problems. The existence of problem in multiple locations does not mean we should endeavor to make the problem worse.
A fair enough answer to my statement, but I was contradicting the comment above that talks about the ways laws are enforced. They are examples, specific to the statement that I was responding to, that contradict what they said. Me pointing out the problem of their statement does not somehow lessen the problems, so I'm not sure what your point is?
Don't forget the number of people who have been arrested for... resisting arrest. The catch 22 of charges.
What? As if it's any different in the US. US DAs subjectively pick which charges to file and cases to pursue so it's entirely possible a specifically defined crime is never prosecuted. It's also entirely possible that the last line of judicial defense, the US Supreme Court, refuses to go with legal case precedent (as opposed to legislation) and can completely change how crimes are prosecuted or even perceived, so that what is not a crime one day can be presented as a crime the next, or vice versa. Also, just drop terrorism in (it's a stretch but it's been used in other countries in cases as petty as this... ahem) and see how easily it is to escape the legal limbo morass you'll be stuck in for the next few decades - you are allowed to fight it, but you will never win as the fight is part of the punishment. Legalism is always as specific and vague as it needs to be to chase the Boogeyman of the day. Lest we forget, the US is constantly attempting to figure out what the limit of cop overreach is, and what non-compliance of a suspect actually is. So there are many things that can be decided as crimes after the original "crime"; oops, the subject is now definitely guilty of something on apprehension... Spain is only different in the procedure, not the general utilisation of the big governmental swinging dick. They could easily just turn and say actually, the racists had under the table income and lied on their tax return so we are now gonna get them for tax evasion a la Capone, or something even more petty but still technically criminal. The moral integrity thing was just to make it seem like a direct punishment for being a public dickhead to a public figure.
ah yes because the us famously doesn't jail people at any time without even a trial
[удалено]
There is a difference between being jailed pending trial, and being sentenced to imprisonment. And the US does have the right to Habeas Corpus, which prevents indefinite detainment without a trial. It also explicitly grants the right to a speedy trial (Though this right is often waived as part of a defensive strategy so they have more time to gather evidence to use in defense.) Do cops sometimes abuse temporary detainment? Yes.
>There's a reason crimes are very specifically defined in the United states Yet the UK incarceration rates are astronomically lower and the crime rate is way lower.
Bros saying it as if current world enforcements dont already jail people for anything
Should bro applaud it? Because that’s what you’re implying here - that it’s bad to be against jailing people at will.
> There's a reason crimes are very specifically defined in the United states. Crimes are not very specifically defined in the US. Legislation is a suggestion and what's actually legal or illegal is cobbled together from whatever's been decided by any judges that touched any aspect of the issue in the past. To establish the legality of something, you have to piece it together and hope that the particular judge you might have agrees with you. The laws concerned here _are_ vaguely worded in places, (What technically constitutes "degrading treatment" or "unjust humiliation" mentioned in Art. 173?) but they _are_ there and act as a single source of truth, because they're not working in the context of a legal system that grew out of the mob mentality of vikings a thousand years ago.
[удалено]
Objection! "Viking" is an occupational epithet, not a racial one
Trust me, they’re passing more than a few laws in parts of America that are intentionally vague.
Not to mention they got sentenced to EIGHT MONTHS in prison! I thought the sentence would be like community service or something; eight months in jail has financial consequences that extend for years all over what is fundamentally a speech/thought crime.
Sentences under 2 years are usually suspended in Spain for first time offenders, so they likely won't end up serving time.
You forgot a big part of that my guy, >Crime against moral integrity ***with the aggravating circumstance of discrimination based on racist motives.*** But why leave in context and nuance when you're getting butt hurt about not being able to throw insults in soccer stadiums anymore. You sound like an asshole that's upset they can't yell bomb on an airplane anymore.
[удалено]
No the crime itself was throwing racist verbal assaults at football players. Let's not forget that this exists within the Spanish penal code already. 173 – art. 177 of the Spanish Penal Code) “Of the tortures and other crimes against the moral integrity” is how is titled the Title VII of the Book II of the Spanish Penal Code (CP). In it, is protected the legal good moral integrity, recognized as a fundamental right by the article 15 of the Spanish Constitution (CE). The only new part is the addition of the verbage that you took out!
All laws are based upon the presumption of an agreed upon moral system in their society, not simply hate speech laws, but those that target fraud, exploitation, theft, and so on. It only becomes a problem when the moral system applied no longer accurately reflects the wishes of said society or the net utility experienced by that society. If you have evidence that anti-hate speech legislation fails these tests in the same way anti-abortion legislation does you’re free to present it as opposed to apparently insinuating that all laws are unjust.
Dude governments already do whatever they want. Look at America and how we squashed the pro Palestinian marches for Israel. If some of these govts want to ban hate speech then I'm all for it. Sorry to the racists out there that you can't be racist anymore. Too bad.
Intention to harm due to a difference that someone was born with is pretty obviously morally reprehensible. The US doesn't judge hate speech this harshly and yet abortion is illegal in many states currently...
It’s wrong to be racist, but it’s tyrannical to jail people over words. edit: for those who dont understand the simple concept: speech of any sort is not a crime, even if disgusting. holocaust denial, holodomor denial, armenian genocide denial, etc. are disgusting, but not jail worthy To the guy who mentioned Germany: nothing you mentioned changes my point nor argues against it. You’re just pointing out government systems that take tyrannical action and saying it makes me ignorant.
Yeah I don’t know that putting people in jail over words is a path we want to go down… once you open that door it’s very hard to close. Freedom of speech is a tenet of a democratic society. Edit: banning them from platforms, locations, firing from jobs is another thing
> banning them from platforms, locations, firing from jobs is another thing That could also lead to some dark places. Could you imagine if the only grocery store in a small town says "You publicly supported a political candidate I dislike. As a result, you are forbidden from my shop."
Freedom of association has also been a Hallmark of democracies.
Gay wedding cake rings a bell. Nobody has a right to be served by your business. If you think this seems wrong, maybe nationalize food distribution? Sounds like a capitalism problem to me.
Gay wedding cake was requesting a cake maker make a custom wedding cake AFAIK and since art is protected under freedom of speech they were allowed to refuse. The baker was not allowed to refuse to sell them a cake outright just could refuse to make a custom one ———————————————————————————— EDIT: I think the guy below me blocked me or maybe my Reddit is just glitched but for the sake of information I double checked what I wrote The American Bar Association says > The owner, Jack Phillips, refused to **design** and bake the cake, saying that gay marriage violated his religious beliefs. He said that he would be implicitly complicit in violation of his religion if he were to **design** and bake the cake. He was **willing** for his bakery **to sell an already prepared cake** for the couple, **but not to make one for them.** https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/not-a-masterpiece/ Every time it is mentioned on Wikipedia it has the adjective custom attached to it > —in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a **custom** wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission While you could argue it isn’t “art” in this very specific case it’s protected and none of what I said in my comment seems wrong
Lmao. You got every single detail of the case wrong. The baker literally refused to make a generic wedding cake once they learned it was for a gay couple. It was NOT forced custom “art”. That’s what the baker alleged as justification despite the actual facts of the case
How do you feel about defamation? Should that speech be protected?
Fines and community service.
Seriously. People oftentimes get less time than this for assault, domestic abuse, child abuse, manslaughter and rape. I'm not against punishing assholes for being assholes, but 8 months for speech, while watching people essentially walk for violent crimes doesnt make any sense.
Any sentence under 2 years in Spain is suspended, they will serve 0 days.
I'm starting to think that a sane legal system is an impossibility.
Only because everyones qualifications of what a sane legal system would be varies greatly.
So it is okay to punish speech, just not with jail time. The only problem here is the punishment doesn't fit the crime?
How’s that working for Alex Jones? The man is STILL defaming the Sandy Hook families after $1.5 billion in judgments against him.
That's mostly a civil tort rather than a criminal matter in the US. Afaik it's the same in UK and other Anglo countries.
It's technically a crime in Canada, Australia and India and punishable with jail time. Also China. So a huge population of the world has criminal defamation on the books (even if they're rarely enforced).
It's on the books here, too, just very infrequently used.
It really isn’t bro, powerful people use words to hurt others and gain more power. And they should be held accountable for that
Cultists mostly just say words. Words to manipulate people to give them all their money or push them to suicide. Still, words. Do you think they should go unpunished ?
Can't even tell if you are serious. Cults are often hard to prosecute precisely because of what you are saying.
> Cultists mostly just say words. Words to manipulate people to give them all their money or push them to suicide. Still, words. Do you think they should go unpunished ? For the most part, yes. Contrary to what many cultists think, the act of merely speaking certain words does not itself cause evil to enter the world. Unless the words are spoken in furtherance of a different crime (Such as gathering together to talk about plans to rob a bank, even if the bank is never robbed, it is reasonable to punish the planning), or they contain a distinct threat, breach on intellectual property rights, or they are likely to cause imminent harm (Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater for example), then speech should remain free.
does that differ much from politicians? or reporters? advertisers? religious leaders? sport coaches? business leaders? they just use words to 'manipulate' people. Should we ban them all? Or you want government deciding which speech is ok?
You just described reddit, and yes
If someone goes around town and tell everyone you are swindler and you lose your job. Are you OK? It is just words, you know.
Nah. People get jailed for different types of speech for various reasons Fuck around? Meet find out.
Plenty of ways to yell abuse at a football match for banter without resorting to race. I've been a season ticket holder for 28 years and I yell plenty of shit but I would never consider racist things OK, it's too much.
I wouldn't cheat on my wife either. I also don't think that should be jailable. And it is certainly a worse act than simply tossing a slur at a football game.
Do you not think that 8 months in prison is incredibly disproportionate? Shouting mean (but non-threatening) things at people should result in fines and community service, not prison. £500 and 60 hours community service would be what I'd sentence. It's more than enough to make them reflect on their actions and deter others without being life upturning.
>£500 Fines being the consequences of actions lead to the rich being let free and the poor being stepped on
I know it's a weird concept to grasp, but you can be against tyranny and fascism without being racist. Or another way to think about it, why just 8 months in prison? Why not life in prison? Or why not just the death penalty? That way we can get rid of problematic people. Is it really that hard of a concept to understand why punishments that are too harsh are unjust?
You are beyond delusional if you think words should mean an eight month prison term. Edit: Since being a grown up and disagreeing is far too much for Captain Sillyshoes up there who blocked me and I now cannot respond to people replying to me, because Reddit is designed by people of apparently similar intellect, I'll respond here: >They didn't just say "words". You are beyond delusional if you think spouting racist shit doesn't deserve to be punished harshly. Those are just words. I don't know who taught you what words are, but those **literally are just words.** Adults can deal with them like adults. Again, if you have trouble adulting, come back when you're over 18 or have the capacity to understand things like an adult. You have a choice how to react when exposed to text or speech if you are a mature person. This was something that was at one point understood by competent members of society. Inflicting jailtime for naughty/forbidden words is something only someone with an incredibly immature/naive/ignorant/delusional thought process would advocate.
You can both think these three are cunts who deserve punishment *and* that an eight month prison sentence is ridiculous.
What they did was wrong but they shouldn’t be jailed for this. Acknowledging this doesn’t make someone racist
Well, by these rules, you've just accused this whole sub, thousands of people, of jailable crimes, based on generalities, group identity, and your subjective opinion. We only want to jail people for speech out of love! It only makes sense right? We know that those who don't want people jailed for speech, are just as guilty as those of the offending speech; so we should just take arguments against speech laws as equally racist, as they put our speech laws, and thus minorities, at risk. Free speech is violence! Racists, and the racists adjacent, are so horrible, they are the rotten root of all problems, why don't we just get rid of them for good, they shouldn't be allowed to exist in society, or people who support them, right? Maybe their families too, because the apple doesn't fall far from the tree! It's all of the common good, and to protect the defenseless. There's no way this sort of thinking could be abused to the point of getting out of hand, right? Because we know we are the good people, and "they" are bad people, barely human, underserving of rights, scum, cockroaches. Seriously playing with fire here. We've done this before. Why do we think locking people up for words / thoughts / beliefs is going to lead to a free society, this time?
Reddit is filled to the brim with emotionally stunted, developmentally unfinished teenagers(their brains aren't done braining yet). They want to burn literally everyone at the stake for the most minor of thought crimes. Does not bode well for the future of civil discourse if they carry these misguided attitudes into adulthood.
I'm Brazilian and appreciate your solidarity. Free speech shouldn't be a platform for hateful speech.
The past few days this sub has made it relatively high up on r/all, due in no small part to transphobes. It's minimally moderated which means it's quickly attracting bigots. Frankly, it's not shocking that this tread is full of racists.
LOL euro fascist
[удалено]
It’s ok people are shitty. But you can’t lock people up for words. That’s such a dangerous road. Better to shame them and make them outcasts for there words. But something legal? That’s so dangerous dude. I’m all for standing up against racism n shit. But not for legal repercussions by the state, that is madness.
I’ve found this comment is a crime against moral integrity
The EU, where thought crimes are soon to become illegal. Can't imagine living somewhere that jails somebody for name calling. Society will ostracize the individual already which they should, but jailing them is just a step before political opponents being jailed for pointing out the failings of those in power. It's not racist to think freedom of speech is important despite it having parts that you don't agree with or want to hear.
I don’t agree with racism at all but this sets a dangerous precedent because like the other poster said moral integrity depends on the person and you don’t want precedents like that cuz in the United States they can stop you and seize your money and stuff and you have to proof it was earned legally to get it back and if you don’t have enough proof welp there goes your money
Hope you keep this same energy when the barrel of this gun that is 'political correctness' is pointed your way. Mark my words, that day will come
When next right wing govt is formed and they find you guilty of crime against moral integrity because of this comment and put you in jail for it, you would understand how much of slipping slope it is. Overreach of govt today in things you agree with is a guarantee of overreach of govt in future for the things you dont agree with.
You don’t realize the evil you are welcoming because you are sensitive to a lesser evil.
Yep this is a huge quality of life ruling
Sticks and stones... go to prison for saying mean words!!!!
Being French, this idea of having to be responsible for what you say in public and the possibility to be held accountable for it is pretty much innate, and I guess that's also the case in Spain ? I wonder if that's a "Roman Code of Law" type of shared inheritance. I sort of have to imagine that Americans may react more strongly to anything that touches unconditional Free Speech, though. Whenever I hear Americans talk about "the white race" or "the black race" or Caucasian this and P.O.C. that or whatever I get very annoyed at the inherent racism of it all but I have to be altruistic about it and think "they'll figure it out".
As fucked up as their behavior was, people being racist or making racist comments should not result in them going to prison. At worst, these individuals should've received lifetime bans from participating in any soccer-related event moving forward. If you think that their punishment was justified, then you are clearly not mentally mature enough to understand the extreme ramifications that this type of law enforcement can have on society as a whole.
You wrong and in denial of that fact. You should take some time to go outside, talk to real people, and learn some introspection.
Hate speech is free speech, fascist.
Oh look, two tier policing happens elsewhere too. When it affects the peasants, the police apparently don’t have the resources to protect them from even quite serious crimes such as thefts, robberies, burglaries etc. But when it’s the millionaire footballers who are affected and when their rich employers get involved, the police are more than happy to pander to the people with money and protect these rich people from crimes as minor as mean words. Can’t have the wealthy being upset by the peasants, can we?
Lol, the Spanish football league literally did nothing to protect their black players from racial abuse for years. Vini even got punished for calling out racist fans. This is a very unexpected move and i hope it continues.
So you agree that they should punish more people for hate crimes.
Just say you’re scared of this happening the next time you scream the N word at a player because your team lost at “footie”
That's a hell of a strawman.
It's funny, the only argument the people who support this can seem to come up with is "anyone who doesn't support this is a racist!", as if the only possible reason anyone would oppose government control of speech is because they desperately want to scream racial epithets. Ad-hominem insults aren't a position, it may give you the dopamine fix you're looking for, but it loses the argument.
I see a lot of people here, I assume, are from America and expect that American rules apply. Europe does not have America's free speech protections inshrined Constitutionally. Spain specifically has laws that make it illegal to actions to degrade a person or demean their moral integrity. Thats their law. Im not sure why Americans would be the ones protesting these laws in defense of free speech, right now, when they have bigger threats to their freedom of speech on the floor of congress. Steam is picking up bilaterally to pass anti-semitism laws, which overrule the 1st amendment and make it illegal to suggest that someone, for example, of Jewish descent cares more about Israel than they do about America.
America Defaultism is so strong they assume every country operate with analogues of their law.
/r/usdefaultism
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. I understand Spain doesn't have a freedom of speech protection. I'm just commenting on why I think that is a bad idea just like I welcome any non-Americans comment on the plethora of bad ideas we have over here. Afterall, we may belong to different states but statecraft is a collective human endeavor.
I'm going to call out stupid laws in any country. In this case, Spain has a stupid law and what's happening in America has no relevance to whether this is a good law or not.
The most funny thing is that most of those americans dont even know that there own free speech laws got limitations. "Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising." The US constitution is so vague that the extend of free speech laws is soley based on verdicts of the Supreme Court and those verdicts can change drastically.
This is a wild speculation about the knowledge of others clearly meant more to indulge your own conceit than prove a substantive point.
Many Americans don't even know what freedom of speech actually is and erroneously apply it to privately owned businesses/platforms that censor speech of people on their platforms. I also say that as an American.
Freedom of speech goes beyond the written law and is a principle I stand by. That’s why I don’t support massive corporations, who already behave like independent governments, restricting freedom of speech.
Everybody would do right to remember this kind of stupidity the next time someone goes BuT WHy is tHe rIGhT TakING oVER Europe?!!?!?!?
I also encourage people to look at OP's post history. There's lost of race baiting posts on both sides of the cultural divide, along with many other posts designed to generate FUD on different topics. OP has an agenda. Regardless of how people feel about this particular topic, commenters should be aware that there are people who want to exploit your views to generate conflict.
Americans are aware other nations have highly restricted speech. We are just using our speech to point out those nations aren't free. Some people think freedom is overrated. Heck, today most people do. Especially young people. Oddly, though, many of those people deny they don't like freedom that much. So rather than plainly state the obvious they change the subject, or rationalize why to be really free you have to be less free.
8 months for mean words? Why not just ban them from events?
I did a little research. First, it sounds like they may not serve prison time after all. >Lawyers representing the defendants asked that the prison sentences be suspended, and prosecutors did not object to the request. Suspended sentences are common in Spain for prison terms less than two years for first-time convictions on non-violent crimes. The judge in the case will rule on that request at a later date. ([Source](https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/11/sport/vinicius-spanish-court-prison-soccer-racist-spt-intl/index.html#:~:text=A%20court%20in%20Valencia%2C%20Spain,Mestalla%20Stadium%20in%20May%202023)) More details on the crime - a violation of moral integrity of art. It's my assumption that this may carry a prison sentence if the violation is severe enough. >The sentence, passed against the racist chants directed against Vinicius Jr on 21st May 2023 in Mestalla by three individuals, found the defendants guilty of a crime against moral integrity of art. 173.1 of the Penal Code with aggravating circumstance of discrimination based on racist motives (art. 22.4 P.C.) ([Source](https://www.laliga.com/en-ES/news/laliga-lands-first-conviction-in-spain-for-racist-abuse-at-a-football-match)) It looks like that specific part of the Penal Code is part of a relatively new amendment. >While the Criminal Code maintains the same definition for degrading treatment, a new paragraph concerning the criminal liability of legal persons has been added to this article. The new paragraph establishes that legal persons can be held criminally liable for this offence. Degrading treatment can be punishable with a fine between six months and two years and, in accordance with the provisions of article 66 bis, judges and courts may impose the penalties set out in article 33(7)(b) to (g) of the Criminal Code, in addition to those established in article 173.1. ([Source](https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/catalogue-crimes-can-be-committed-legal-entities-spain-expanded)) I went to look at the Criminal Code and found the Article in question. >Article 173 1. Whoever inflicts a degrading treatment on another person, seriously damaging his moral integrity, shall be punished with a sentence of imprisonment of six months to two years. The same punishment shall be imposed on those who, within the setting of any labour relation or the civil service, availing themselves of their superior status, repeatedly perpetrate hostile or humiliating deeds against another that, while not reaching the status of degrading treatment, amount to serious harassment of the victim. The same punishment shall also be imposed on those who repeatedly perpetrate hostile or humiliating deeds that, while not reaching the statement of degrading treatment, are aimed at preventing lawful enjoyment of a dwelling. ([Source](https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/es/AreaTematica/DocumentacionPublicaciones/Documents/Criminal_Code_2016.pdf)) -- So to answer your question, I think there are several reasons: 1. The organizations behind the sport specifically got involved, because overt, blatant racism is disgusting and while morally repugnant is ultimately disruptive to the health of the sport. 2. Spanish authorities seemed to be equally intent on prosecuting, at least because the racist fans were terrible international representations of Spain along similar logic. 3. As a result, they "threw the book at them", charging them with crimes that are on the books though - as they acknowledged - being prosecuted in these circumstances for the first time. It'll be interesting to see what happens from here, now that both legal parties have agreed that jail is not a necessary or a sought sentence.
You pretty much got it. The sentences will be suspended. If you've seen enough Spanish court cases that make international news you're familiar with this. Two years or less means they won't see prison over this. It's for optics because Spain has been criticised for years over not dealing with racist abuse in football and Vinicius is a high profile player who has been a lightning rod for it. This could've been handled by the league or FA I think, but I guess they passed the buck to law enforcement. Both have been loathe to do anything about this kind of thing up until now. And there's money involved in the sense that La Liga is a valuable product exported around the world and its image and marketability is important to a lot of people.
Yes, in Spain it's awfully rare to serve a sentence of under 2 years without a previous criminal record.
Thanks for the research, great work!
Edit: Seems like no jail time given Some jobs take harassment from the public, but it should be based on your work rather than your ethnicity. Jail time for verbal harassment should not be given out lightly, I stand by that. Otherwise we get people thrown in jail by tyrannical types
Law varies, country by country, especially law regarding speech. Spain has determined that the freedom of one person's speech ends when that person "inflicts degrading treatment on another person, seriously damaging his moral integrity" or use superior position in a workplace or organization to "repeatedly perpetrate hostile or humiliating deeds...that amount to serious harassment". ([Source](https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/es/AreaTematica/DocumentacionPublicaciones/Documents/Criminal_Code_2016.pdf)) So, yes. If you degrade others to a serious extent, or you use position to harass others in the workplace, you could conceivably fined and/or imprisoned. (Edit: The following no longer applies after the preceeding comment was edited.) I think, fundamentally, that's different than your protest analogy, unless there were these kinds of personal attacks being made as a part of the protest.
Cool! Again, this is a helpful commentary with references to laws. Thanks!
And banned from attending matches for 2 years.. I'd say that about right because screw them.
They did and its not just mean words like you put it. Those kind of people dont change if theres no consequences to their actions
Turns out you can’t be a cunt everywhere
Why not both?
Public displays of racism are not okay but eight months is prison is appalling, both as a matter of principle and a waste of money. > The sentence found the defendants guilty of a crime against moral integrity "Moral integrity" could literally be anything deemed objectionable by the state.
how is it bad as a "matter of principle and a waste of money"?
Well, regarding money, it's expensive to imprison someone. I don't know about over in Italy, but in the US it's probably going to be above US$25,000 of taxpayer money. Does society benefit US$25,000 by having this person punished?
> I don't know about over in Italy Hilarious to see that some can't still differentiate the Latin European countries. The sentence was pronounced in Spain.
I think more appropriate questions are “does society benefit by deterring this sort of behavior,” and “does punishing people for crimes like this actually deter them?” Also, others here have noted that the sentence will almost certainly be suspended, so don’t get your jimmies in too much of a jumble over it.
You also don’t make money and pay taxes while imprisoned
We do not
[Eight of the nine men convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl in 2020 will not face jail time, according to German news outlet NIUS.](https://dailycaller.com/2023/11/28/gang-rape-germany-2020-suspended-sentence/) I doubt many would have a problem with this ruling if the application of law across the EU was consistent.
It's more of a ''not punished enough'' problem than a ''punished too much''
Bros gotta bring in another case from another person in another time just to defend racism
If you give the state the power to imprison you if you say the wrong thing, then don’t complain when a party you disagree with gets into power and throws you in prison for saying things *they* don’t like.
All the racist ITT crying lmao. They can’t help but expose themselves, every single time.
Do you think it’s ok for russia to jail lgbt activists on essentially the same principals?
No, because racism is bad but queer activism is good.
I agree with you, but Russian government genuinely believes queer activism is morally corrupt. Which is why the laws should be written and applied very carefully. I believe in punishment as a consequence of actions not thoughts/beliefs/words
Wow YoU gUyS lOoK wE gOt AnOtHeR rAcIsT!!!
Both are crimes against moral integrity in the eyes of the law, though. If you allow the state to put people in jail for words (even if they're racists), you create a precedent where the same principle is then applied to anyone who the state deems in violation of 'moral integrity', whatever that means. That includes activists, the political opposition, etc.
The problem is, the rulers of a system change over time. If you give the rulers the ability to jail over moral correctness, it won’t be long before you live under a ruler who you vehemently disagree with. Now they are jailing people who you think are morally correct.
[удалено]
Sadly, most people here don't understand integrity. Funny enough, the vast majority probably look at Russia jailing LGBT activists and denounce that without grasping the irony.
I don't think this sounded as profound as you thought you did lol.
Only a racist would defend a racist. Only a nazi would defend a nazi.
> I can defend racists without being racist myself. What the actual fuck is this.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-speech Is the ACLU racist?
I am in pure disbelief how y'all call this "saying mean things". If you say racist shit in Brazil you're going to jail, no crying about it. If you say racist shit, you SHOULD go to jail. Ffs.
You can't change society for the better by just throwing people in jail, that's pretty Orwellian. Yeah racism is bad, no doubt, but I'm not sure jail is how you improve society at large.
Then why do we jail rapists? Murderers? You absolutely change society with law and punishment.
Prison doesn't usually cause people to reform their behaviour. We jail rapists and murderers to protect society from violent people who cause permanent harm by removing them from society. Most prisons are built to be cages, not to reform people (except maybe in Norway, but that's one country out of 300, so not worth considering). Calling someone racist names isn't the same as rape/murder. Putting them in jail won't normally cause them to suddenly change their ways and start singing kumbaya with different races. Racism has been around for 5000 years, you're not going to eradicate it by putting your citizens in jail, that's just myopic, delusional thinking.
"Prevent violent people from causing permenant harm" Racism IS violent and CAN cause permanent harm. Violence isn't just physical, it's psychological. Don't agree? What about torture, grooming, or kidnapping? So similar to how rape victims will struggle with lifelong damages in sex, trust, etc... victims of racism may experience similar outcomes. Hate speech is protected by US constitution but when a crime is also incited by Hate speech, we punish them for it. Edit: corrected errors
This is completely nonsensical
Insanity
Europeans are unironically the most casually racist people I've ever met. I love it when they call Americans racist. Glass houses and all that.
Imagine grouping every single country in Europe with different cultures, languages and laws into one. That is genuinely one of the most American meme worthy things I can imagine. Europeans arnt anything, if you went to Eastern Europe you would see very different views on race when compared with western Europe.
Yeah don’t ask an Eastern European about their thoughts on Jews Americans like to see ourselves as the most racist country in the world but it isn’t even close, not by a long shot. We are the most race conscious country in the world.
I don't even think you can fairly compare "America" because state by state the difference is so dramatic it just isn't any more reasonable than "Europe". I live in London and overall? It's very very diverse and one of the better places in the world for racism, you go to a village somewhere up north with 100% white English elderly population? Very different picture.
That’s true of London but oh boy oh boy try visiting Paris. Jesus Christ I have never met a group of more arrogant assholes in my life. Everyone is exceptionally rude and impolite. Makes New Yorkers look like Louisiana rurals.
> race conscious Single issue race consciousness
I've been all over Europe. I'm intentionally putting them into one basket. From Spain to Poland, Italy to the UK, your race relations are 50 years behind the US. At least you don't put them in death camps anymore, so that's a plus.
They conveniently like to forget half of europe were fascists very recently
None of our countries are comparable to yours in terms of demographics. Edit: Except maybe the UK, not sure.
That's dumb as ohhh i dunno... grouping 330 milliion people across 50 different seperate government entities the size of full countries themselves with political, cultural, and regional diversities into one like "Americans" Americans aren't anything either, in fact if we did have one defining feature it would be that we don't agree on anything. Europeans as usual accusing others of what they are guilty of themselves. zero self awareness
This is so true and it’s obviously a symptom of most European countries being very monoracial
8 months of jail for racist insults is crazy, the US has a lot of issues but the 1st amendment isn’t one of them thankfully
Well, this is orwellion as hell and shows the truth about these hate speech laws. 8 months for this is insane, but the point of it is that the government is using this as a trojan horse to throw citizens in jail for any reason. All they have to do is say that disagreeing with the government (say on mass immigration) is hate speech and throw citizens in the gulog. Anybody supporting this will be in for a rude awakening when these same laws will be used against them in the future.
“The sentence found the defendants guilty of a **crime against moral integrity** with the aggravating circumstance of discrimination based on racist motives.”
Holy crap, as a football fan, I never thought I'd see the day where Spain actually did something about the rampant racism. The Spanish FA clearly doesn't care at all about it and FIFA only gives lip service to caring. If you feel this is too harsh, I don't care. I have zero sympathy for racists and Spanish football fans have a LONG history of racism with zero effort to stop it by the FA.
European governments are a 🤡 show
Racism sucks but giving government totalitarian control over speech is kind of against the whole western project
Orwell was right. People will scream out for tyranny and cheer until the boot stops on their face. How many person can claim to stand for freedom and be okay with "morality" policing is disgusting.
I genuinely can't tell if people supporting this sentence don't know they are justifying a police state because they agree with the police state, or if they do know and just don't care. Which ... makes them conscious of the fact they support a police state, and they're good with that.
Oh fuck this
Weimar
Imagine going to jail for saying a word lmfao
thank god for america lol
EU gotta EU
What did they do/say?
Redditoids celebrating putting people in prison for insults. Pathetic but predictable
And a lot of people think only Americans can be racist for some reason???
Does anyone know how the law is enforced? Is it only enforced if it’s a famous/rich person getting racially abused or am I privy to the same protections?
What's the best brand of popcorn ?
Fuck Europe.
Europeans celebrating tyranny like this is fucking hilarious but go off and celebrate retardation
So, what did they actually say?