The idea that the EU is a monolith where people all share the same culture and attitudes is simply false.
That may be so in relation to individual countries, but the EU itself doesn't have any tendency to categorise only islamic incidents as terrorism - it's not long ago in this thread there was some discussion of the Europol reports that demonstrate this.
Unless a terrorist organization takes credit for it, or the police charge the offender with a terrorism related charge, responsible media will not label it a terrorist attack.
This is to prevent libel and to make sure the accused gets a fair trial.
Unless a terrorist organization takes credit for it, or the police charge the offender with a terrorism related charge, responsible media will not label it a terrorist attack.
This is to prevent libel and to make sure the accused gets a fair trial.
I agree with that sentiment, but to not even mention a suspect in any of the headlines, or even an ALLEGED suspect (which would be the responsible qualifier)??
Was the murder of the MP Jo Cox during Brexit reported as a terrorist attack?
In line with @deltago's explanation above the media did not immediately state this was a terrorist attack - no group claimed responsibility and the perpetrator made no statement at the time to explain his motivations. However, during the investigation it became clear that he had far right views and he was convicted of a terrorist attack. I think there was a bit of debate in the media about whether it really was terrorism, but most sources accepted the government's view on that was correct.
Unless a terrorist organization takes credit for it, or the police charge the offender with a terrorism related charge, responsible media will not label it a terrorist attack.
This is to prevent libel and to make sure the accused gets a fair trial.
The wording used (by the BBC for example) is "the police are treating it as a terrorist incident".
It's likely the perpetrator will be charged under the prevention of terrorism act.
Also "a white man aged 48 has been arrested on suspicion of attemted murder" - BBC
Also "it is the fourth terror attack in the UK in four months" - BBC
It is certainly nice to see that Britain still honors the actual definition of the word. This would never happen in America.
Case in point is the Bundy Boys in Oregon. They staged an armed takeover of federal land for strictly political purposes, and were called terrorists by no one. Government, media, etc. They were, in fact, simply allowed to do it for over a month. If a group of Muslims or African-Americans had done the same thing, they would have been shot dead within hours.
Unless a terrorist organization takes credit for it, or the police charge the offender with a terrorism related charge, responsible media will not label it a terrorist attack.
This is to prevent libel and to make sure the accused gets a fair trial.
I agree with that sentiment, but to not even mention a suspect in any of the headlines, or even an ALLEGED suspect (which would be the responsible qualifier)??
You should never see a headline that says "Muslim drives car into pedestrians killing three" as you are never for certain sure that the person is a muslim? You may get "Middle Eastern man drives..." but once again, you are never certain that is the case.
It should also be rare for a story to lead with one ethnic background such as "A black middle aged man opened fire in a crowded shopping centre..." as it is considered racist.
You will also notice, when talking about an alleged crime, the name of those accused are usually buried in the last paragraph of the story.
The classification of terrorist or not is academic imo. Like today, another truck attack on a police officer in Champs-Elysees the same location that some pro ISIS guy shot a police officer. Nearly every week we see this. Does the classification of terrorism make it worse, or is it the act itself?
The fact is Europe has imported an insane number of terrorists who have murdered there way across Europe in 2016 to either silence or appeasement and the violence is only going to get worse, from all sides, because of the environment that's been created. It's just the reality we are now faced with due to the incompetence of Merkel and the EU in general.
Unless a terrorist organization takes credit for it, or the police charge the offender with a terrorism related charge, responsible media will not label it a terrorist attack.
This is to prevent libel and to make sure the accused gets a fair trial.
I agree with that sentiment, but to not even mention a suspect in any of the headlines, or even an ALLEGED suspect (which would be the responsible qualifier)??
You should never see a headline that says "Muslim drives car into pedestrians killing three" as you are never for certain sure that the person is a muslim? You may get "Middle Eastern man drives..." but once again, you are never certain that is the case.
It should also be rare for a story to lead with one ethnic background such as "A black middle aged man opened fire in a crowded shopping centre..." as it is considered racist.
You will also notice, when talking about an alleged crime, the name of those accused are usually buried in the last paragraph of the story.
All this is responsible journalism.
I'm not calling for the ethnicity of the suspect to be blasted on the front page, I'm saying they could have acknowledged that there was, in fact, a suspect who did this. According to those headlines, one would surmise that a van became sentient and started running over people.
@Fardragon: I doubt it would be slower. In order for it to be slower, people would have to mention a white person's color earlier than they would mention a non-white person's color.
But if somebody is white, people don't mention their ethnicity in the first place. Not quickly, not slowly; not at all.
Personally, I don't see the need to mention it. I can understand posting a photo, which would incidentally show skin color, but who cares what ethnicity they are? A terrorist is a terrorist regardless of their color.
I'm not calling for the ethnicity of the suspect to be blasted on the front page, I'm saying they could have acknowledged that there was, in fact, a suspect who did this. According to those headlines, one would surmise that a van became sentient and started running over people.
All the headlines you refer to related to stories released very soon after the incident, i.e. before much at all was known beyond that a van had been driven into a crowd outside a mosque. Even so, while the headlines just refer to the incident itself, the stories behind some of them have already picked up that a man has been arrested. As the reporting is online it's entirely normal that stories are rewritten and expanded as more information becomes available and all the information I'm aware of now is covering the arrest of a suspected terrorist - I'm struggling to see what the concern is about the way this has been reported to be honest.
@Fardragon: I doubt it would be slower. In order for it to be slower, people would have to mention a white person's color earlier than they would mention a non-white person's color.
But if somebody is white, people don't mention their ethnicity in the first place. Not quickly, not slowly; not at all.
Personally, I don't see the need to mention it. I can understand posting a photo, which would incidentally show skin color, but who cares what ethnicity they are? A terrorist is a terrorist regardless of their color.
Did you read the BBC quote I posted: "a 48 year old WHITE man has been arrested"!? I even incuded a link.
Unless a terrorist organization takes credit for it, or the police charge the offender with a terrorism related charge, responsible media will not label it a terrorist attack.
This is to prevent libel and to make sure the accused gets a fair trial.
I agree with that sentiment, but to not even mention a suspect in any of the headlines, or even an ALLEGED suspect (which would be the responsible qualifier)??
You should never see a headline that says "Muslim drives car into pedestrians killing three" as you are never for certain sure that the person is a muslim? You may get "Middle Eastern man drives..." but once again, you are never certain that is the case.
It should also be rare for a story to lead with one ethnic background such as "A black middle aged man opened fire in a crowded shopping centre..." as it is considered racist.
You will also notice, when talking about an alleged crime, the name of those accused are usually buried in the last paragraph of the story.
All this is responsible journalism.
I'm not calling for the ethnicity of the suspect to be blasted on the front page, I'm saying they could have acknowledged that there was, in fact, a suspect who did this. According to those headlines, one would surmise that a van became sentient and started running over people.
What if he...
Lost control of the car? Swerved to avoid a head on collision? Fell asleep at the wheel? Had a seizure behind the wheel? The steering mechanism alignment malfunctioned/broke? Someone else was driving that was being attacked by the accused which actually caused the car to go up on the sidewalk in the first place and the driver was still in the vehicle injured or dead?
When reporting on incidents like this, you can not assume anything regardless of how obvious it might be.
Stick with what is known. A van ploughed through a crowd of pedestrians as they were leaving a mosque after morning prayers.
Some people may not agree with this ruling but the Supreme Court is correct on this--offensive speech must be protected by the First Amendment. Now, this is not license to go out and be offensive on purpose but if you do say something offensive or you register a trademark which some may find offensive then the Court states that you may do so legally.
On a broader question, are some things offensive based only upon the person engaging in the speech? Consider Underdover Brother. Is this movie not offensive only because John Ridley wrote the screenplay, Malcolm D. Lee directed it, and Eddie Griffin starred in it? Quentin Tarantino peppers certain pejoratives into some of his movies, most notable Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight, but is he merely being "historically accurate" or does he just want to have his actors say it as many times as the script will allow?
Some people may not agree with this ruling but the Supreme Court is correct on this--offensive speech must be protected by the First Amendment. Now, this is not license to go out and be offensive on purpose but if you do say something offensive or you register a trademark which some may find offensive then the Court states that you may do so legally.
On a broader question, are some things offensive based only upon the person engaging in the speech? Consider Underdover Brother. Is this movie not offensive only because John Ridley wrote the screenplay, Malcolm D. Lee directed it, and Eddie Griffin starred in it? Quentin Tarantino peppers certain pejoratives into some of his movies, most notable Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight, but is he merely being "historically accurate" or does he just want to have his actors say it as many times as the script will allow?
This ties in with what I've said from the beginning. Despite what the Alt-right would have you believe, you can say anything you want, and no one is going to LEGALLY stop you. The only actual attempts at suppressing speech have been Republican State legislatures trying to make it illegal to protest.
What the First Amendment DOES NOT do is entitle you to a platform for your speech, or the financial security of your business. If other people want to try destroy your business because they disagree with you, that is not your rights being violated. It is other people using their own right of free speech as they see fit, to organize against you.
@Fardragon: I doubt it would be slower. In order for it to be slower, people would have to mention a white person's color earlier than they would mention a non-white person's color.
But if somebody is white, people don't mention their ethnicity in the first place. Not quickly, not slowly; not at all.
Personally, I don't see the need to mention it. I can understand posting a photo, which would incidentally show skin color, but who cares what ethnicity they are? A terrorist is a terrorist regardless of their color.
Did you read the BBC quote I posted: "a 48 year old WHITE man has been arrested"!? I even incuded a link.
Although it now turns out he is 47.
No, I was referring to all of the other articles I've ever read.
Was the murder of the MP Jo Cox during Brexit reported as a terrorist attack?
Yes.
He was however only charged for murder. This was only due to a lack of evidence on the terror charge. I only know this due to a recent documentary that was shown a year on from her death. You can watch it here...
This ties in with what I've said from the beginning. Despite what the Alt-right would have you believe, you can say anything you want, and no one is going to LEGALLY stop you. The only actual attempts at suppressing speech have been Republican State legislatures trying to make it illegal to protest.
In the interest of being equitable, we cannot forget the various instances of people being disinvited from speaking at college campuses because of student protests. Milo is a waste of time and space, certainly, but if he is invited as part of a forum then he should be allowed to speak.
Besides, if we don't let the nut-jobs speak their mind we will never be able to figure out who they are merely by looking at them.
This ties in with what I've said from the beginning. Despite what the Alt-right would have you believe, you can say anything you want, and no one is going to LEGALLY stop you. The only actual attempts at suppressing speech have been Republican State legislatures trying to make it illegal to protest.
In the interest of being equitable, we cannot forget the various instances of people being disinvited from speaking at college campuses because of student protests. Milo is a waste of time and space, certainly, but if he is invited as part of a forum then he should be allowed to speak.
Besides, if we don't let the nut-jobs speak their mind we will never be able to figure out who they are merely by looking at them.
This may be AN issue, but it is nowhere near the same thing as the government criminalizing or shutting down speech themselves through laws.
The decision finds that "the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment's Free Speech clause" and that "contrary to the government's contention, trademarks are private, not government speech".
This is a weakening of the governments power to control trademarks.
So going back to the Redskins example, the NFL could absolutely force the team to rename the Redskins. For example, if people boycott the NFL and the NFL could decide to force the Redskins to rename. That would be just fine with the Supreme Court. It's just not a government issue that the government could step in and force the team to rename. They took the literal definition thing there.
So if you or I could own a company called "(insert offensive terms here)" or something and that would be fine and dandy, it's not the governments place to stop you because we the people are consumers owned by private industry.
The decision finds that "the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment's Free Speech clause" and that "contrary to the government's contention, trademarks are private, not government speech".
This is a weakening of the governments power to control trademarks.
So going back to the Redskins example, the NFL could absolutely force the team to rename the Redskins. For example, if people boycott the NFL and the NFL could decide to force the Redskins to rename. That would be just fine with the Supreme Court. It's just not a government issue that the government could step in and force the team to rename. They took the literal definition thing there.
So if you or I could own a company called "(insert offensive terms here)" or something and that would be fine and dandy, it's not the governments place to stop you because we the people are consumers owned by private industry.
No its because the government (intentionally) has never had the right to censorship.
This ties in with what I've said from the beginning. Despite what the Alt-right would have you believe, you can say anything you want, and no one is going to LEGALLY stop you. The only actual attempts at suppressing speech have been Republican State legislatures trying to make it illegal to protest.
In the interest of being equitable, we cannot forget the various instances of people being disinvited from speaking at college campuses because of student protests. Milo is a waste of time and space, certainly, but if he is invited as part of a forum then he should be allowed to speak.
Besides, if we don't let the nut-jobs speak their mind we will never be able to figure out who they are merely by looking at them.
In the interest of being equitable, those protesting students are also practicing their right to free speech. If those protests result in an alt-right type (or literally anyone, actually, on any part of the political continuum) being disinvited from speaking at a university, that's fine. While the speakers are entitled to their freedom of speech, they're not entitled to have a venue in which to express it. There's nothing wrong with this, and it's not a bad thing. It's part of the overall process.
This is separate from people making threats to discourage speakers. Making threats goes beyond free speech, into the realm of "shouting fire in a crowded theater."
Comments
The idea that the EU is a monolith where people all share the same culture and attitudes is simply false.
Was the murder of the MP Jo Cox during Brexit reported as a terrorist attack?
This is to prevent libel and to make sure the accused gets a fair trial.
It's likely the perpetrator will be charged under the prevention of terrorism act.
Also "a white man aged 48 has been arrested on suspicion of attemted murder" - BBC
Also "it is the fourth terror attack in the UK in four months" - BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40322960
Case in point is the Bundy Boys in Oregon. They staged an armed takeover of federal land for strictly political purposes, and were called terrorists by no one. Government, media, etc. They were, in fact, simply allowed to do it for over a month. If a group of Muslims or African-Americans had done the same thing, they would have been shot dead within hours.
It should also be rare for a story to lead with one ethnic background such as "A black middle aged man opened fire in a crowded shopping centre..." as it is considered racist.
You will also notice, when talking about an alleged crime, the name of those accused are usually buried in the last paragraph of the story.
All this is responsible journalism.
The fact is Europe has imported an insane number of terrorists who have murdered there way across Europe in 2016 to either silence or appeasement and the violence is only going to get worse, from all sides, because of the environment that's been created. It's just the reality we are now faced with due to the incompetence of Merkel and the EU in general.
The Beeb are a lot slower to mention ethnicity if the suspect isn't white though.
But if somebody is white, people don't mention their ethnicity in the first place. Not quickly, not slowly; not at all.
Personally, I don't see the need to mention it. I can understand posting a photo, which would incidentally show skin color, but who cares what ethnicity they are? A terrorist is a terrorist regardless of their color.
Although it now turns out he is 47.
Lost control of the car?
Swerved to avoid a head on collision?
Fell asleep at the wheel?
Had a seizure behind the wheel?
The steering mechanism alignment malfunctioned/broke?
Someone else was driving that was being attacked by the accused which actually caused the car to go up on the sidewalk in the first place and the driver was still in the vehicle injured or dead?
When reporting on incidents like this, you can not assume anything regardless of how obvious it might be.
Stick with what is known. A van ploughed through a crowd of pedestrians as they were leaving a mosque after morning prayers.
Some people may not agree with this ruling but the Supreme Court is correct on this--offensive speech must be protected by the First Amendment. Now, this is not license to go out and be offensive on purpose but if you do say something offensive or you register a trademark which some may find offensive then the Court states that you may do so legally.
On a broader question, are some things offensive based only upon the person engaging in the speech? Consider Underdover Brother. Is this movie not offensive only because John Ridley wrote the screenplay, Malcolm D. Lee directed it, and Eddie Griffin starred in it? Quentin Tarantino peppers certain pejoratives into some of his movies, most notable Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight, but is he merely being "historically accurate" or does he just want to have his actors say it as many times as the script will allow?
What the First Amendment DOES NOT do is entitle you to a platform for your speech, or the financial security of your business. If other people want to try destroy your business because they disagree with you, that is not your rights being violated. It is other people using their own right of free speech as they see fit, to organize against you.
He was however only charged for murder. This was only due to a lack of evidence on the terror charge. I only know this due to a recent documentary that was shown a year on from her death. You can watch it here...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08v9vmc
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/23/thomas-mair-trial-and-the-question-of-terrorism-jo-cox
Besides, if we don't let the nut-jobs speak their mind we will never be able to figure out who they are merely by looking at them.
So going back to the Redskins example, the NFL could absolutely force the team to rename the Redskins. For example, if people boycott the NFL and the NFL could decide to force the Redskins to rename. That would be just fine with the Supreme Court. It's just not a government issue that the government could step in and force the team to rename. They took the literal definition thing there.
So if you or I could own a company called "(insert offensive terms here)" or something and that would be fine and dandy, it's not the governments place to stop you because we the people are consumers owned by private industry.
This is separate from people making threats to discourage speakers. Making threats goes beyond free speech, into the realm of "shouting fire in a crowded theater."