The Right to Not Be Offended?

[King Damager]

I remember reading a poster in a school once which said, 'something is racist if the person who it is said to or any person witnessing it, believes it to be'.

I thought that was ridiculous.

Whoever is thinking of enforcing this needs to watch the above.

kd

 

[Von Smallhausen]

police will love this, just gives them more power to detain people

?

Police have had powers under the Public Order Act since 1986.

 

[paradisiac]

sorry to bring this up again, but the more i read it the more confused i am.

Kyle Little was arrested and prosecuted under Section 5 for what was described as a “daft little growl” and a “woof” aimed at two Labrador dogs. Although the dog owner did not want a prosecution, Mr Little was arrested and detained for five hours and then prosecuted, at a cost of £8,000 to the taxpayer. Newcastle Crown Court acquitted Little of the charge.

what part of section 5 ws broken? and if the owner didnt want to press charges, was there a police officer just walking passed and decided to detain him?

also

An Oxford student was arrested under Section 5 for saying to a policeman: “Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?” A spokesman for the Thames Valley Police said: “He made homophobic comments that were deemed offensive to people passing by.” Eventually prosecutors said there was not enough evidence and decided to discontinue the case.

how is that homophobic. if i was to say for instance 'did you realise graham norton is gay?' would that make me homophobic?

as i have said, being used out of context like this makes them seem laughable, so surely there was more to it?

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Really? So if I stand outside a church with a sign saying "Catholic Church protected paedophiles" then point 3a won't.

Yes it will. If defendant is making a protest, and he is stating fact (in light of fairly recent news.. some catholic priests have protected child molesters), then he cannot cause offence. Case closed.

 

[estebanrey]

That's actually a really good example of why discretion is a good thing! A camera has no discretion, if you exceed it's pre-programmed speed, you're prosecuted. A traffic officer with a speed gun does have discretion, and can consider the circumstances and use common sense to make a decision.

If he'd been caught by a real live policeman with the ability to use discretion, the result may (or may not) have been different.

Discretion is such a vital tool for a police officer.

Take s12 of the Licensing Act 1872 for example, if you take away discretion, that one would make custody busy on a Friday night, but it wouldn't do anything other than upset the public!

Sorry but police still have discretion after a speed camera has caught you, they still have to decide whether to charge you or not. It's not a case that what the speed camera says goes.

In the link I posted the ambulance service were allowed to put forward their case as to why this man was speeding (he was delivering an organ for transplant) and the police still decided to go forward with prosecution.

 

[paradisiac]

Sorry but police still have discretion after a speed camera has caught you, they still have to decide whether to charge you or not. It's not a case that what the speed camera says goes.

In the link I posted the ambulance service were allowed to put forward their case as to why this man was speeding (he was delivering an organ for transplant) and the police still decided to go forward with prosecution.

this is true, which leads me back to my post about media portraying it the way they want. for the police to ignore that, there is probably more to it than what was written.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

I think it's far too powerful for the police to have. An insult being illegal is not right - even if the majority of the police in the majority of times are smart enough not to apply it, it still exists and any police officer could use it when they don't have another law to use.

Where would it end ? Take away sec 5 and you may as well take away common law breach of the peace.

Sec 5 is a good piece of legislation but it has been used in questionable circumstances, gay police horse being an example.

 

[RomanNose]

Where would it end ?.

Taking away the word insult.
That's it!
We wouldn't have to worry about when it is used, as it wouldn't be legal to use it!

 

[estebanrey]

this is true, which leads me back to my post about media portraying it the way they want. for the police to ignore that, there is probably more to it than what was written.

I think in the case I posted the bone of contention was the speed he was doing which was 112MPH. The police's argument I think was that there is a point at which your speed creates a bigger danger than the good you are doing & that had he traveled at say 80mph there would have been no effect in terms of the outcome (bear in mind people wait weeks for transfers so can you really justify saving 10 mins).

 

[Castiel]

Yes it should go.
What does insult actually mean? It's too subjective.

Is it, by that logic, so is abusive language...what constitutes the difference between insulting or abusive.....

Do I not have the right to go about my business without fear of being insulted by someone? Is it acceptable to be minding your own business walking down the street and have some stranger come up to you and say "Oi fatty" or some other kind of insult? Should I not have the right to be free from that kind of insult?

And where does it stop, does it stop at being called a name like fatty, or a insult accorded to your skin colour, religion or physical trait or injury?

The law is not the problem here, it is the interpretation of it by some judges. You do not remove legal protections just because some judgements are questionable or downright daft, what you do it issue guidelines to clarify the context and correct use of the legislation.

All that needs to be done is inject some common sense into the judiciary (which by and large is just fine).

Also with regard some peoples ideas that is should be acceptable to insult people simply because of their beliefs, I think that some people cannot seem to differentiate between being objectively critical about something or someone and being offensive about something or someone...and that applies to both sides of the line.

Yeah, everyone is insulting to someone at some time, and no, it is not always illegal to do so, nor should it be...it just requires a bit of common-sense and a little old fashioned manners and there shouldn't be any problem with criticising someone's ideas, politics, beliefs or whatever....

Alternatively you could always go back to the Good Old Days, and if someone comes up to you and calls you a name or says something you find offensive or insulting, you give them a bloody good hiding and be done with it.

 

[Castiel]

Where would it end ? Take away sec 5 and you may as well take away common law breach of the peace.

Sec 5 is a good piece of legislation but it has been used in questionable circumstances, gay police horse being an example.

+1.

The legislation is just fine. All that is needed is a few common sense guidelines to reduce the daft judgements and unnecessary arrests.

 

[RomanNose]

Snip

If you look at other countries that allow people to swear or insult, it doesn't seem to be a problem and I haven't heard of it ever being one.
I just feel that cases of terrible harassment is so rare that it's not worth the risk of having a law that can be misused easily.

 

[paradisiac]

If you look at other countries that allow people to swear or insult, it doesn't seem to be a problem and I haven't heard of it ever being one.
I just feel that cases of terrible harassment is so rare that it's not worth the risk of having a law that can be misused easily.

but its an old law that has rarely been misuesd, and a lot of the stuff has been taken out of context and not been entertained by a judge.

 

[estebanrey]

Do I not have the right to go about my business without fear of being insulted by someone? Is it acceptable to be minding your own business walking down the street and have some stranger come up to you and say "Oi fatty" or some other kind of insult? Should I not have the right to be free from that kind of insult?

No, you shouldn't expect it but that doesn't mean you should have a legal right to be protected from it either.

I know it's comedy but the guy in the Youtube video posted above makes a very good point. When a child says "that boy called me names" the first thing we teach them is the "sticks and stones" rule, we teach them to ignore it and rise above it.

So why does that whole mentality go out the window with adults?

 

[Castiel]

If you look at other countries that allow people to swear or insult, it doesn't seem to be a problem and I haven't heard of it ever being one.
I just feel that cases of terrible harassment is so rare that it's not worth the risk of having a law that can be misused easily.

I beg to differ.....Having been victim as a youngster to some pretty nasty harassment and abuse simply because of my heritage, which was seen as perfectly acceptable at the time....I can see the point of the laws entirely.

I suspect that any person of colour, a significant proportion of the LGBT population and some people of certain faiths, amongst others, might just disagree with you concerning how prevalent being insulted or harassed is.

You do not remove legal protections just because of a minority of daft judgements...what you do is overturn the daft judgements and issue guidelines to support the correct use of the legislation.

 

[swillsy]

Fully back the campaign (like on Facebook) I think it's very dangerous handing out criminal records for people being offended.

 

[The Halk]

Where would it end ? Take away sec 5 and you may as well take away common law breach of the peace.

Sec 5 is a good piece of legislation but it has been used in questionable circumstances, gay police horse being an example.

I don't think anyone is asking for section 5 to go. It's to remove the insult from section 5.

 

[paradisiac]

Fully back the campaign (like on Facebook) I think it's very dangerous handing out criminal records for people being offended.

this does not happen. have you read most of the stuff, they did not get criminal records as the cases were dismissed.
just because a law is in place DOES NOT mean every police officer is walking around listening into every conversation hoping to hear an insult so they can rush in with their cuffs out and arrest people, it just doesnt happen that way.
so many people seem to be swayed by such one sided arguments. how bout you go out on a friday night when pubs/clubs kick out and listen to some of the filth coming out of peoples mouths, and then watch the reaction of the poilce. unless its very severe, they will ask them to move on and no further action is taken.

I don't think anyone is asking for section 5 to go. It's to remove the insult from section 5.

where do you differentiate abussive and insulting?

 

[RomanNose]

I beg to differ.....Having been victim as a youngster to some pretty nasty harassment and abuse simply because of my heritage, which was seen as perfectly acceptable at the time....I can see the point of the laws entirely.

I suspect that any person of colour, a significant proportion of the LGBT population and some people of certain faiths, amongst others, might just disagree with you concerning how prevalent being insulted or harassed is.

You do not remove legal protections just because of a minority of daft judgements...what you do is overturn the daft judgements and issue guidelines to support the correct use of the legislation.

Wouldn't it just be easier to change the wording to "serious offense", wouldn't it be less open to abuse then?

 

[Castiel]

No, you shouldn't expect it but that doesn't mean you should have a legal right to be protected from it either.

So it should be perfectly acceptable from a legal point of view to go around insulting people because of their appearance?

I know it's comedy but the guy in the Youtube video posted above makes a very good point. When a child says "that boy called me names" the first thing we teach them is the "sticks and stones" rule, we teach them to ignore it and rise above it.

So why does that whole mentality go out the window with adults?

It doesn't.....it is about context. Do you not tell the child that calling someone names is wrong? and is there not punishment/discipline if they do not?

The same in the Adult world....only difference is that as an adult you should know better and the discipline comes from the State.

Everyone should have the right to be free from harassment, insult and abuse in their everyday lives, and the law should give them that protection.

All that is needed is a common sense approach to enforcement.