The Right to Not Be Offended?

[Castiel]

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

The wording is fine......it is just a minority of interpretations that are off-kilter. Deal with that, not the wording which would accomplish nothing because to insult is to offend.......

I keep saying this......common sense is all that is needed. You obviously do not arrest and charge someone for some offhand insult, and being critical is not necessarily being offensive even if the person thinks it is.....neither is comedy offensive if it isn't directed at someone specific and the context is clear......

Common sense people....common sense.

 

[estebanrey]

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

Sorry but that is clearly a loaded question.

You are making the presupposition that an 'insult' is an objective thing when it is subjective.

I could call one person fatty-boom-boom and they might not blink an eye lid. I might says to someone else they looked 'jolly' and they might break down crying because in theri mind only fat people are described as jolly.

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.

We are talking about the right not to be offended not how the other side should behave.

You can't tell a child the sticks and stones rule and then claim people have the right to be offended as they are polar opposites.

 

[The Halk]

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.

I disagree.

Harassment is the line. Insult? No. I'll choose to insult people if I want to, and it'll be for a reason.

For example if a charity mugger approaches me I'll tell them firmly to "**** off you parasite". That's not harassment, but it's certainly an insult. If a TV license debt collector comes to my door they'll get an earful - partly because they'd be breaking the law to do so. If I see a parent and their child is damaging something in a shop or the like I will have a go at the parent for it - I don't mean shouting, or swearing, but I do mean they'll feel insulted.

Chasing after those people, or following them or doing it in such a way as to cause them fear for their safety would have course be both unacceptable and harassment.

 

[paradisiac]

I disagree.

Harassment is the line. Insult? No. I'll choose to insult people if I want to, and it'll be for a reason.

For example if a charity mugger approaches me I'll tell them firmly to "**** off you parasite". That's not harassment, but it's certainly an insult. If a TV license debt collector comes to my door they'll get an earful - partly because they'd be breaking the law to do so. If I see a parent and their child is damaging something in a shop or the like I will have a go at the parent for it - I don't mean shouting, or swearing, but I do mean they'll feel insulted.

Chasing after those people, or following them or doing it in such a way as to cause them fear for their safety would have course be both unacceptable and harassment.

but when does this insult turn into abuse or offense? who gets to chose how to define what these mean, as they will be different for different people.

 

[Castiel]

Sorry but that is clearly a loaded question.

You are making the presupposition that an 'insult' is an objective thing when it is subjective.

I could call one person fatty-boom-boom and they might not blink an eye lid. I might says to someone else they looked 'jolly' and they might break down crying because in theri mind only fat people are described as jolly.

Context and Intent.....like I said, use some common sense. Just because someone is offended by something, doesn't meant that they actually were. However the laws are there to protect those that need it and removing them is total overkill when all that is needed is a common sense approach to the legislation and what people say to each other.

We are talking about the right not to be offended not how the other side should behave.

You can't tell a child the sticks and stones rule and then claim people have the right to be offended as they are polar opposites.

 

[The Halk]

but when does this insult turn into abuse or offense? who gets to chose how to define what these mean, as they will be different for different people.

When you say offense do you mean offended, or do you mean a criminal offence?

If you mean offended then I don't think it's relevant.

The abuse or harassment would come if I was to cause alarm, distress, to follow or harass you, to invade privacy, to prevent you going about your normal business. Anything along those lines.

What it wouldn't cover would be me standing with a sign saying "All religious people are deluding themselves. There is no God. You're all morons". However that could cause offence or insult. It wouldn't cover me standing with a sign saying "All those who insult Islam will be killed by Allah" - again though plenty of insult or offence. However if I was to do it and disturb people having a meal, or prevent them entering a shop or get in the way of a wedding then clearly that's when it's harassment.

 

[paradisiac]

When you say offense do you mean offended, or do you mean a criminal offence?

If you mean offended then I don't think it's relevant.

The abuse or harassment would come if I was to cause alarm, distress, to follow or harass you, to invade privacy, to prevent you going about your normal business. Anything along those lines.

What it wouldn't cover would be me standing with a sign saying "All religious people are deluding themselves. There is no God. You're all morons". However that could cause offence or insult. It wouldn't cover me standing with a sign saying "All those who insult Islam will be killed by Allah" - again though plenty of insult or offence. However if I was to do it and disturb people having a meal, or prevent them entering a shop or get in the way of a wedding then clearly that's when it's harassment.

but to some fickle (not sure if fickle is the right word, im reading up on contract law so not 100% focussed ) people, insulting them will cause alarm or distress. this is my point though, everyone has a different tollerance level before they get alarmed or distressed, so it has to have common sense applied, which i believe the current legislation is 99% of the time.
i also feel that if the quoted cases in the link you posted had the actual full events, including the tone of voice used, the manorisms etc then it might paint a different picture as to why the police detained them, but when further evidence came to light, or upon reflection it wasnt deemed worthy of prosecution.

 

[Castiel]

I disagree.

Harassment is the line. Insult? No. I'll choose to insult people if I want to, and it'll be for a reason.

For example if a charity mugger approaches me I'll tell them firmly to "**** off you parasite". That's not harassment, but it's certainly an insult.

And totally unnecessary. Simply say to the person collecting for charity, "No thank you, I am not interested" and carry on walking......

If a TV license debt collector comes to my door they'll get an earful - partly because they'd be breaking the law to do so. If I see a parent and their child is damaging something in a shop or the like I will have a go at the parent for it - I don't mean shouting, or swearing, but I do mean they'll feel insulted.

You just seem to be a rather rude person.....How is a TV licence person breaking the law by knocking on your door?...and even if they are, why do you not simply ask them to leave and call the Police to have them arrested......there is no need to be rude about it.

The same with the Child's Parents......I would simply and politely point out to the Parent what their child is doing....any decent parent will thank you and deal with their child.....

Frankly, if you came up to me with an insulting attitude about something like that I would knock you on your arse.....then go and deal with my child.

Manners cost nothing.

Chasing after those people, or following them or doing it in such a way as to cause them fear for their safety would have course be both unacceptable and harassment.

I think unnecessary rudeness, swearing, calling people names is simply not necessary most of the time and certainly not in any of the examples you have given.

I don't think the law generally punishes people for telling the Charity Collectors etc. to sod off either......

 

[The Halk]

but to some fickle (not sure if fickle is the right word, im reading up on contract law so not 100% focussed ) people, insulting them will cause alarm or distress. this is my point though, everyone has a different tollerance level before they get alarmed or distressed, so it has to have common sense applied, which i believe the current legislation is 99% of the time.

It's the behaviour being likely to cause alarm or distress. For example Burnsy said his latest arrest was for someone running up to people and swearing in their faces. That's pretty clearly going to cause alarm or distress.

If you're alarmed or distressed by someone else having an opinion then you need to write to /dev/null.

You could argue that someone being pregnant in public is going to cause alarm and distress to someone else who has miscarried - you would be right but it's not their fault. Likewise two homosexuals holding hands may cause a great deal of alarm or distress to someone, but it shouldn't be a crime.

It's only if the behaviour was likely to cause alarm or distress should it be a problem.

i also feel that if the quoted cases in the link you posted had the actual full events, including the tone of voice used, the manorisms etc then it might paint a different picture as to why the police detained them, but when further evidence came to light, or upon reflection it wasnt deemed worthy of prosecution.

Indeed, some of them may well turn out that way. If that's the case then the word insult wouldn't be needed in section 5 then.

 

[paradisiac]

It's the behaviour being likely to cause alarm or distress. For example Burnsy said his latest arrest was for someone running up to people and swearing in their faces. That's pretty clearly going to cause alarm or distress.

If you're alarmed or distressed by someone else having an opinion then you need to write to /dev/null.

You could argue that someone being pregnant in public is going to cause alarm and distress to someone else who has miscarried - you would be right but it's not their fault. Likewise two homosexuals holding hands may cause a great deal of alarm or distress to someone, but it shouldn't be a crime.

It's only if the behaviour was likely to cause alarm or distress should it be a problem.



Indeed, some of them may well turn out that way. If that's the case then the word insult wouldn't be needed in section 5 then.

but if you remove the word insult, then the police lose all power to enforce it. like i have said, just because its there does not mean the police enforce it 100% of the time. but removing it means they can enforce it 0% of the time. so if i was to stand in the street just swearing or insulting every passer by, with the intent to upset them, you are saying the police should just walk on by and completly ignore it?

 

[Castiel]

Indeed, some of them may well turn out that way. If that's the case then the word insult wouldn't be needed in section 5 then.

It is needed because you can insult someone in a manner that would cause distress.....Racial insults for example.

It is all about the context and intent of the insult, no the insult itself.........and that is what consitutes a crime...not the fact that you used an insulting word or phrase...but the context and intent you had when you did it.

People should have a reasonable expectation to be treated with respect and decorum in public....and that includes not making off the cuff remarks or unwelcome comments just because some people are intentionally ill mannered, but just because some people are ill mannered doesn't mean they should be arrested either, it is subjective and by and large the Law allows for that.

Also there is a difference between being critical of something and being offensive about something. Your example regarding your religious signs.....they are offensive, simply because you are not being critical, or are simply calling them names, you may as hold up a sign calling Black People monkeys or something......pointless and daft. Better to actually say something important if you are going to protest religion, or anything for that matter.

 

[The Halk]

And totally unnecessary. Simply say to the person collecting for charity, "No thank you, I am not interested" and carry on walking......

Because they prey on the vulnerable and use guilt to get people to part with money, much of which goes to the charity mugger. I've looked at a great number of people's bank accounts and it's pretty much par for the course that someone in financial distress has several direct debits going out for a fiver to these charities.

You just seem to be a rather rude person.....How is a TV licence person breaking the law by knocking on your door?...and even if they are, why do you not simply ask them to leave and call the Police to have them arrested......there is no need to be rude about it.

I've removed their implied right of access, and if any were to come to my door they would be breaking the law.

Additionally they too prey on the vulnerable, they target low income areas and they aren't ethical about the way they do things. They're employed by a company called Capita and a great deal about the way TV Licensing works is deceptive and nasty.

The same with the Child's Parents......I would simply and politely point out to the Parent what their child is doing....any decent parent will thank you and deal with their child.....

Frankly, if you came up to me with an insulting attitude about something like that I would knock you on your arse.....then go and deal with my child.

"Excuse me. Do you know that your kid is opening all those sweets there?" I've said that before, it would have been in a civil tone, although not friendly because they're literally standing there doing nothing while their kid destroys stuff in a shop. The response I got? "What? Mind your own business." I did mind my own business, I don't know if it was the right thing to do, I can't really think of a good outcome at that point. However what would have been wrong with saying "What kind of parent are you that stands and does nothing while your brat destroys things? I hope you're made to pay for all of this, shops end up charging all customers for shrinkage"

I think unnecessary rudeness, swearing, calling people names is simply not necessary most of the time and certainly not in any of the examples you have given.

But it's still illegal.

I don't think the law generally punishes people for telling the Charity Collectors etc. to sod off either......

But it's still illegal.

 

[paradisiac]

But it's still illegal.

i think the point you are missing is, remove insult from the law and the police have no power to prosecute anyone for it, so you basically now have the legal right to walk around insulting whoever you want without any consiquences. the word insult remains and the police have to power to enforce it WHEN they deem it applicable, not WHEN they hear someone doing it.

 

[deuse]

What happens when you're Offended? ...Oh wait..NOTHING..you're an adult grow up and deal with it

 

[paradisiac]

What happens when you're Offended? ...Oh wait..NOTHING..you're an adult grow up and deal with it

hmmm.............now where to begin

 

[The Halk]

i think the point you are missing is, remove insult from the law and the police have no power to prosecute anyone for it, so you basically now have the legal right to walk around insulting whoever you want without any consiquences. the word insult remains and the police have to power to enforce it WHEN they deem it applicable, not WHEN they hear someone doing it.

Whenever they want to. When they want to charge you with something and they have nothing to charge you with. When they don't like the look of you. When they've been a dick to you and you've given them a smart answer back.

Let us not live in a society where we have to be in fear of a policeman in a bad mood.

the legal right to walk around insulting whoever you want without any consiquences

The legal right to be a complete dick. Fine. We all have it. If you're getting in people's faces with it then it's a crime, even if insult is removed from the law. If you really do want to live your life casually calling everybody you meet a ******** and walking away then I don't see any reason for the police to be involved. Why on earth should it be a crime? Why do we need to protect people from that? Just form an immediate opinion that the person doing it is an idiot and they're not worth listening to.

 

[deuse]

hmmm.............now where to begin

Steve Hughes.

“I went to the comedy show and the comedian said something about the lord,
and I was offended, and when I woke up in the morning, I had leprosy."


"How do you make a law about offending people? How do you make it an offense to offend people? Being offended is subjective.
It has everything to do with you as an individual or a collective, or a group or a society or a community.
Your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs. What offends me may not offend you. And you want to make laws about this?
I’m offended when I see boy bands for god sake."

 

[paradisiac]

Whenever they want to. When they want to charge you with something and they have nothing to charge you with. When they don't like the look of you. When they've been a dick to you and you've given them a smart answer back.

Let us not live in a society where we have to be in fear of a policeman in a bad mood.

under what law? which law allows a police officer to arrest me for giving a smart answer back or being a dick?

 

[The Halk]

under what law? which law allows a police officer to arrest me for giving a smart answer back or being a dick?

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

 

[Castiel]

Because they prey on the vulnerable and use guilt to get people to part with money, much of which goes to the charity mugger. I've looked at a great number of people's bank accounts and it's pretty much par for the course that someone in financial distress has several direct debits going out for a fiver to these charities.

So what......just say no thanks and move on.

Being insulting and rude isn't necessary.

I've removed their implied right of access, and if any were to come to my door they would be breaking the law.

Additionally they too prey on the vulnerable, they target low income areas and they aren't ethical about the way they do things. They're employed by a company called Capita and a great deal about the way TV Licensing works is deceptive and nasty.

So what.....ask then to leave and if they don't then call the police....if they are breaking the law then they will be arrested.

Being insulting and rude isn't necessary.

"Excuse me. Do you know that your kid is opening all those sweets there?" I've said that before, it would have been in a civil tone, although not friendly because they're literally standing there doing nothing while their kid destroys stuff in a shop. The response I got? "What? Mind your own business." I did mind my own business, I don't know if it was the right thing to do, I can't really think of a good outcome at that point. However what would have been wrong with saying "What kind of parent are you that stands and does nothing while your brat destroys things? I hope you're made to pay for all of this, shops end up charging all customers for shrinkage"

"Civil tone, but not friendly!"

I suspect that your tone is why you got told to mind your business.

There is absolutely no reason why you cannot simply be polite and say "Excuse me do, your child seems to be doing something they shouldn't" in a friendly and polite manner.

That isn't too hard is it.....

If they are decent parents they will thank-you and deal with their child....if not then being rude to them will probably get you a thump or told to *******.

If you are automatically confrontational (civil or not) then it is no surprise that you got told to sod off.

But it's still illegal.

But it's still illegal.

That depends entirely on the context and intent and the application of the law.......Just because you are rude doesn't make it illegal.