The Right to Not Be Offended?

paradisiac said:
but not everyone is as strong willed as you, if they were then bullying wouldnt lead to suicide etc, so a complete blanket statement that no harm is done is just wrong. in your opinion then yeh, maybe the entire population should just man up, accept that everyone is different and no one is perfect and just laff off such insults, but they cant. if they did insults wouldnt exist, racism would not be an issue and well, the problems between religions would be gone.
Click to expand...

That's all very well, but having the word insult in this law doesn't help the problem. If it was helping the problem then it'd make this argument difficult.
 
paradisiac said:
but is having the word insult in the law causing any of these problems? or any other problem?
Click to expand...

The website in the very first post says it is. You could also say that Pakistan having nuclear weapons isn't a problem because they haven't used them, but I'm not happy about living in a world where a shaky state has them. Just as I'm not happy with the police having powers they shouldn't, even if they don't appear to misuse them much. I don't like an atmosphere of fear around the police and laws like this which give them wide latitude to find fault in someone when there reasonably should be none aren't good.

Edit : Off to watch a film. Thanks for an interesting debate folks!
 
Last edited:
The Halk said:
The website in the very first post says it is. You could also say that Pakistan having nuclear weapons isn't a problem because they haven't used them, but I'm not happy about living in a world where a shaky state has them. Just as I'm not happy with the police having powers they shouldn't, even if they don't appear to misuse them much. I don't like an atmosphere of fear around the police and laws like this which give them wide latitude to find fault in someone when there reasonably should be none aren't good.
Click to expand...

but what in that site, can you deem to be insulting. a man making a barking noise to a dog, how is that insulting in any way? someone telling someone their horse is gay makes them homophobic? howso? someone holding a sign dissing scientology, i dont see anything insulting about it at all. i think you would find it hard to deem any of them were arrested for insulting someone/something. yes they were all arrested under section 5, but i cant see anything that causes a direct relation to the fact the word insult is in there.
again, this isnt anything personal, im reading (wish i wasnt) so not putting my full attention into this, so if i missed something i appoligise :)
 
The Halk said:
I knew there was a wonderful quote like that. And now I know who said it. :)
Click to expand...

Aye....and it supports the argument against you.....The law isn't there to protect people from good people...it is there to protect them from those who are the contrary.

Good people generally don't go around doing the things that would contravene section 5 anyway.
 
Last edited:
The Halk said:
That's all very well, but having the word insult in this law doesn't help the problem. If it was helping the problem then it'd make this argument difficult.
Click to expand...

Problem is that the use of insulting words and behaviour is a primary way that someone uses to harrass and discriminate against someone.

That is why it is there and why it is necessary.

I agree with what some of the commentators such as Peter Tatchell have said to some degree, although I note that they do say the law is being abused rather than it is unnecessary and thusly my opinion remains that the only thing that needs to be looked at is the minority of inappropiate applications of section 5....similarly with other laws, they simply need clarifying, nothing more. The problem is that people, including those commenting on the reform-section 5 site is that insults can be more than 'mere insult', they can also be discriminatory, bullying, inciteful, abusive and so on......to remove any power that the courts or Police have in controlling such behaviour would be detrimental to what many of these people have fought for most of their lives, and that is equality and the right to be who you are without fear of discrimination, hatred, abuse, violence and so on. No one should be arrested for 'merely' insulting someone, however the law must retain the authority to act if that 'mere' insult is part of, or a precursor to a larger discrimination or inequality the intent and context of any insult should be the foremost consideration in deciding whether to arrest, charge or prosecute, and in this the Police, CPS and Courts need to use discretion. Peter Tatchell has spent his life fighting against the percieved acceptance that it is somehow ok to discriminate against someone simply because of their sexual orientation.....he must realise that the acceptance of insults based on that sexuality is merely another form of discrimination, likewise with other insults based on various traits, appearances and personal beliefs etc......being critical doesn't require insults, insults do not always need to be dealt with by the law...but if the law did not exist then the rights of vulnerable people could well be at risk.

Again, I cannot stress enough, the law simply needs to be treated with common sense and clarification.....deal with the overzealous interpreation of the law, not the law itself.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
I don't think it should be illegal to swear, unless you are using it in a harassing or abusive way......

What I am taking about is things like someone walking down the street minding their own business when someone decides it might be funny to insult them because they may be overweight or disabled or dressed funny or simply different.......that sort of insult is what the legislation should combat, not the calling someone a knobhead because they spilt theircoffee on your suit.....
Click to expand...

I disagree with this on 3 points:-

#1 - I don't particularly think people randoming insulting each other in the street warrants police involvement. I'll agree that is undesirable, but the wasted time, effort, and money isn't validated because someone got their knickers in a twist over an insult. As I said, if they won't let you walk away from the situation, we have an issue, otherwise sticks and stones.

#2 - Celine's Third Law.

"Celine argues that creating more laws simply creates more criminals. Laws inherently restrict individual freedom, and the explosive rate at which laws are being created means that every citizen in the course of his daily life does not have the research capacity to not violate at least one of the plethora of laws."

Further to that point, almost all leslisation has undesirable effects, whether it be making insulting people "cool" because it is now prohibited, or the consistent abuse we see, especially concerning modern laws (section 44, for example).

#3 - I honestly don't believe the problem is a big issue in reality, and those who feel it is, almost certaintly have a broader spectrum of what they consider unreasonable. You can shout me down for aslippery slope fallacy, but I honestly feel this will be just yet another step in the wrong direction.

Castiel said:
The legislation is by and large a good thing.......just a modicum of common sense and I see no issue with it.

I do see an issue with diluting it just because some people in the justice system can't apply a little good judgement.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem.

We live in a country where some people feel they have the right and a moral obligation to tell others what they can and cannot do. Recent examples of drug policy being at odds with the Governments own scientific experts is a prime example of this.

Whatever they do, they're going to **** it up, make it worse, and any semblance of common sense is out the window with our current system of inmates running the asylum.
 
Last edited:
I think some people simply want to see the end to these laws so they can go around saying whatever they like to whoever they like without recrimination or responsibility.....the Racists want to see it end so they can call Blacks *******, the anti-religion brigade want to see them gone so they can call Muslims and Catholics ********, and the Religious zealots want to see the end of them so they can go around calling homosexuals ********.....and everyone else just wants to be able to call ugly people ******, obese people *****, disabled people *******, people that disagree with them ******...and so on.....and hell, why not, Freedom of Speech has no inherent responsibility after all......or does it?

I think all removing insulting behaviour from S5 will do is put forward the message that it is acceptable. And frankly, I don't think it is. I simply think that the law needs clarifying to limit the abuses highlighted.


Maybe the Mods could suspend the 'no personal attack' rules for a week, and tell everyone that insulting behaviour is just you exercising your right to freedom of speech and each of you can choose to retort or walk away.....just to see what happens. :)
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
I think some people simply want to see the end to these laws so they can go around saying whatever they like to whoever they like without recrimination or responsibility.....the Racists want to see it end so they can call Blacks *******, the anti-religion brigade want to see them gone so they can call Muslims and Catholics ********, and the Religious zealots want to see the end of them so they can go around calling homosexuals ********.....and everyone else just wants to be able to call ugly people ******, obese people *****, didabled people *******....and hell, why not, Freedom of Speech has no inherent responsibility after all......or does it?
Click to expand...

That makes no more sense than the religious argument that if people didn't believe in a divine judge we'd all go around raping and murdering people.
 
estebanrey said:
That makes no more sense than the religious argument that if people didn't believe in a divine judge we'd all go around raping and murdering people.
Click to expand...

Really......you obviously not reading it right then, as it has absolutely nothing to do with absolute eventualities, but the agendas of SOME people.....
 
Do you really think that the reason people interact amicably is that they're afraid of legal repercussions of not doing so? :o

But it's the 'some' that freedom of speech exists for. If we say that the only people that are free to speak as they please are those with uncontroversial, mainstream things to say, freedom of speech doesn't mean anything.
 
Naffa said:
Do you really think that the reason people interact amicably is that they're afraid of legal repercussions of not doing so? :o
Click to expand...

Some do....and this is the point......Good people don't need rules to moderate their behaviour, however the world isn't full of good, moderate people......
 
ok, am i the only one that sees a bit of an issue here. we are 'debating' subsection 5, but does some of it not contradict
Your human rights are:


•the right to life
•freedom from torture and degrading treatment
•freedom from slavery and forced labour
•the right to liberty
•the right to a fair trial
•the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
•the right to respect for private and family life
•freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
•freedom of expression
•freedom of assembly and association
•the right to marry and to start a family
•the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
•the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
•the right to an education
•the right to participate in free elections
•the right not to be subjected to the death penalty

If any of these rights and freedoms are breached, you have a right to an effective solution in law, even if the breach was by someone in authority, such as, for example, a police officer.
Click to expand...

so, just pulling the 'freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs' part, does that not mean if i believe that anyone that believes in god is naive, i have the right to express this thought.
but subsection 5 is (if you go by the scientology example) saying that if i express this opinion i am breaking the law. so, i then have a defence to get me off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom