The Right to Not Be Offended?

[paradisiac]

I was simply answering a question put to me.

I hope I didn't offend anyone.

lol ok, fair enough.
but, you agree, you can still have freedom of speech and keep section 5 as it is?

 

[Naffa]

lol ok, fair enough.
but, you agree, you can still have freedom of speech and keep section 5 as it is?

No, I absolutely don't agree, and I thought it would be obvious from what my definition of freedom of speech is.

It's simply due to the use of the word, 'insulting'. So I can't say anything that might insult someone... I won't reiterate how ridiculous I think that is, as I have already said it several times. But that, plus the fact that Section 5, as far as I can see, requires no proof of intent before one can be prosecuted under it.

Anyone that thinks such a law is compatible with true freedom of speech either simply doesn't understand one, or both of the aforementioned items.

 

[Castiel]

No, I absolutely don't agree, and I thought it would be obvious from what my definition of freedom of speech is.

It's simply due to the use of the word, 'insulting'. So I can't say anything that might insult someone... I won't reiterate how ridiculous I think that is, as I have already said it several times. But that, plus the fact that Section 5, as far as I can see, requires no proof of intent before one can be prosecuted under it.

Anyone that thinks such a law is compatible with true freedom of speech either simply doesn't understand one, or both of the aforementioned items.

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."


You can't be arrested or convicted simply for being insulting.......it must also cause harassment alarm or distress......

In addition there are statutory defences:

This offence has the following statutory defences:

(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.

(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.

(c) The conduct was reasonable.


This is about unreasonable insulting behaviour and the rights of people to not be subjected to it....it shouldn't impinge on your right to freedom of speech moderately.

 

[paradisiac]

No, I absolutely don't agree, and I thought it would be obvious from what my definition of freedom of speech is.

It's simply due to the use of the word, 'insulting'. So I can't say anything that might insult someone... I won't reiterate how ridiculous I think that is, as I have already said it several times. But that, plus the fact that Section 5, as far as I can see, requires no proof of intent before one can be prosecuted under it.

Anyone that thinks such a law is compatible with true freedom of speech either simply doesn't understand one, or both of the aforementioned items.

so you cannot make a point without using 'insulting' words? not offensive, thats not covered, just insulting.
if so, can you please give an example, as i believe there is no reason, to use insults to express your opinion.

 

[Naffa]

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."


You can't be arrested or convicted simply for being insulting.......it must also cause harassment alarm or distress......

We must have different understandings of the word 'or'.

In addition there are statutory defences:

This offence has the following statutory defences:

(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.

(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.

(c) The conduct was reasonable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1

Was this sign holding teenager acting 'unreasonably'? What is 'reasonable conduct' when you are being prosecuted for expressing an opinion that some people feel offended or insulted by?

so you cannot make a point without using 'insulting' words? not offensive, thats not covered, just insulting.
if so, can you please give an example, as i believe there is no reason, to use insults to express your opinion.

Haven't I been doing just that? I don't advocate being rude to people for the sake of it, but the fact of the matter is that some people will feel insulted just from hearing me express my opinion. If a Muslim hears me saying what I think of their religion, the chances are that they will feel insulted, despite the fact I would have had no intention of making them feel so.

 

[paradisiac]

Haven't I been doing just that? I don't advocate being rude to people for the sake of it, but the fact of the matter is that some people will feel insulted just from hearing me express my opinion. If a Muslim hears me saying what I think of their religion, the chances are that they will feel insulted, despite the fact I would have had no intention of making them feel so.

im not sure i guess we have different ideas on what insult means. i could express my views on religion i believe without the need to resort to using insults.

 

[Naffa]

im not sure i guess we have different ideas on what insult means. i could express my views on religion i believe without the need to resort to using insults.

You don't understand the point I am making. I would never say something with the intent of insulting someone, but that does not mean that they would not feel insulted or harassed by what I say.

EDIT: Also Castiel, please forgive my incorrect reading of the first part of Section 5 that you posted.

 

[paradisiac]

You don't understand the point I am making. I would never say something with the intent of insulting someone, but that does not mean that they would not feel insulted or harassed by what I say.

but that therefore would be excluded from section 5

uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour

as what you were saying were not abusive or insulting words or behaviour, someone just took 'offense' to what you happened to say. this is where i think our reading of it differs.
i get 'offended' when people assume im cornish, i do not however feel they are using 'insulting' words to describe me.

 

[Castiel]

We must have different understandings of the word 'or'.

I don't think you are reading it right if you think that 'or' separates the insulting part of the statement from the part I highlighted....or from the statutory defences thereof.

Edit: just read your edit...lol

Was this sign holding teenager acting 'unreasonably'? What is 'reasonable conduct' when you are being prosecuted for expressing an opinion that some people feel offended or insulted by?

Is he being prosecuted?.....seems that he was summonsed and the CPS has yet to rule on whether to proceed. Also, was he arrested for what was written on the placard or his behaviour at the protest?.....

And even if he was acting reasonably, then his counsel will certainly point that out if it gets into a courtroom....

Also, do we remove a law because sometimes it is interpreted or applied wrongly?......

Haven't I been doing just that? I don't advocate being rude to people for the sake of it, but the fact of the matter is that some people will feel insulted just from hearing me express my opinion. If a Muslim hears me saying what I think of their religion, the chances are that they will feel insulted, despite the fact I would have had no intention of making them feel so.

They may be insulted, that doesn't mean they are being insulted and ias long as you are acting reasonably then the law doesn't apply to you.

I think we differ on our relative definition of what constitutes an insult and how the law should be applied, rather than anything else.

 

[Angilion]

A point I've also missed that is rather important here: S5 has loads of case law to what is and is not acceptable. Just because you have a sign with insulting words isn't enough to complete the offence, you also need harassment, alarm or distress which a reasonable person test is applied to.

Just because someone is offended by something someone said doesn't mean S5 is applicable.

They want to amend the law to stop making it a criminal offence to insult someone. Just an insult, without any harassment, etc. They're not calling for the whole section to be removed, just the bit that makes an insult a criminal offence by itself.

So if what you've just written is true, you have no grounds for objecting to the reform - by your account, the reform would make no difference to the law.

My take on it is this:

It's a bad law and should be rewritten in the way that the campaigners are calling for. The fact that the police rarely apply it in the way that it's written because with rare exceptions they're not fools or tyrants doesn't stop it being bad law. An insult should not be illegal purely because it's insulting. There are other parts of that law (and other laws) that cover speech that should be illegal, such as threats and slander. There's no need to make all insults illegal and rely on that law never being applied unreasonably. You may as well make everything illegal by default and rely on that never being applied unreasonably. That's not entirely hyperbole - the police would probably manage to implement that legal system well enough most of the time too.

 

[Naffa]

but that therefore would be excluded from section 5

as what you were saying were not abusive or insulting words or behaviour, someone just took 'offense' to what you happened to say. this is where i think our reading of it differs.
i get 'offended' when people assume im cornish, i do not however feel they are using 'insulting' words to describe me.

Well that's great, I wish everyone that I ever have a disagreement with was like you.

If I am correct in my reading, there is no mention of intent in the law, meaning that you could be prosecuted without having intended to be insulting. That's the crux that my objection rests on. If I was deliberately just being insulting for the sake of it, then fair enough... But if, however, I made a legitimate criticism of (just for the sake of it) religion, that someone feels insulted by, then that's just too bad, and it should be nobody's business legally. But with this, it is.

 

[paradisiac]

Well that's great, I wish everyone that I ever have a disagreement with was like you.

If I am correct in my reading, there is no mention of intent in the law, meaning that you could be prosecuted without having intended to be insulting. That's the crux that my objection rests on. If I was deliberately just being insulting for the sake of it, then fair enough... But if, however, I made a legitimate criticism of (just for the sake of it) religion, that someone feels insulted by, then that's just too bad, and it should be nobody's business legally. But with this, it is.

and this i agree with whole heartedly. but i still fail to see where it states its illegal if someone feels insulted by your comments, it clearly states

uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour

using insulting words. so if you call someone from a certain religion a derogitory name, then yes, you break the law. if you however make a passing comment that they feel insulted by, but have not used any insulting words, then no law is broken.

E: this is why the guy with the sign was asked by the police to stop. the word 'cult' is seen as an insulting word. and from my reading he was asked to leave without any action, read him section 5 but he refused and got his summons.

"'Within five minutes of arriving I was told by a member of the police that I was not allowed to use that word, and that the final decision would be made by the inspector."

A policewoman later read him section five of the Public Order Act and "strongly advised" him to remove the sign. The section prohibits signs which have representations or words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.

The teenager refused to back down, quoting a 1984 high court ruling from Mr Justice Latey, in which he described the Church of Scientology as a "cult" which was "corrupt, sinister and dangerous".

After the exchange, a policewoman handed him a court summons and removed his sign.

they did not however see the word 'cult' run over to him and stick him in a van and cart him off to the station. he got the summons for his behaviour along with the sign.

PS. i like to believe im fairly reasonable and take everything on board. i would never take insult in anything said in a debate/discussion unless insults were made, i may however take offense. which i cannot see is part of section 5, so i cannot sue anyone for my pain

 

[Castiel]

They want to amend the law to stop making it a criminal offence to insult someone. Just an insult, without any harassment, etc. They're not calling for the whole section to be removed, just the bit that makes an insult a criminal offence by itself.

So if what you've just written is true, you have no grounds for objecting to the reform - by your account, the reform would make no difference to the law.

My take on it is this:

It's a bad law and should be rewritten in the way that the campaigners are calling for. The fact that the police rarely apply it in the way that it's written because with rare exceptions they're not fools or tyrants doesn't stop it being bad law. An insult should not be illegal purely because it's insulting. There are other parts of that law (and other laws) that cover speech that should be illegal, such as threats and slander. There's no need to make all insults illegal and rely on that law never being applied unreasonably. You may as well make everything illegal by default and rely on that never being applied unreasonably. That's not entirely hyperbole - the police would probably manage to implement that legal system well enough most of the time too.

Given the wording of S5, I don't think it does imply that an insult is illegal purely because it is an insult......

It clearly states that it also must fit the criteria that it is/was likely to have caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. There are also statutory defences including the one whereby the defendent was acting reasonably, which would negate much of the argument people have with that particular part of S5.

It isn't the law that is the issue, it is simply a minority of poor judgements that need to be addressed.

Anyhoo peeps, I must get a few hours shut eye, up at 5am, early flight, and another 11pm flight home again......

 

[Angilion]

Given the wording of S5, I don't think it does imply that an insult is illegal purely because it is an insult......

It clearly states that it also must fit the criteria that it is/was likely to have caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

Any insult could be said to cause distress, so I don't think that the distinction you make actually exists in the law as written.

Anyhoo peeps, I must get a few hours shut eye, up at 5am, early flight, and another 11pm flight home again......

indeed.

 

[aln]

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?

Yet, you feel it is apt to insult pretty much everyone (or maybe just some people) who doesn't agree with you. Funny that.

I can justify my view point pretty easily; Your personal freedom trumps the freedom of others. So rather than true freedom resulting in anarchy, it should result in a logical hierarchy. Example:-

• You'd like to hurt me, but my freedom over my own person trumps your desire to assert any control over myself. - We cover violence, etc.
• You'd like to call me names, but I have the freedom not to listen. If you remove my right not to listen, which you have no right to do, then you no longer have the right to insult me if I don't like you to. - We cover harrasment.
• You'd like my stuff, but my personal rights trump yours. - You can't steal from me.

My personal freedom should always trump yours, which means I should be allowed to make crappy decisions such as being racist, being a bad person, abusing myself, because this is my one life and I should have freedom over my own destiny. Luckily, you will have the freedom to view all of those as negative things, as I'm sure both of us currently do.

For the record though, my opinion is that the next step in equality is to bring down the affirmative action barriers, starting with killing positive discrimination and ignroing the outrage machine. I'm sure at least one person will tar me as a racist for this, but here are a few negatives that I feel are likely to lead in an uptake of extreme right wing / nazi parties.

• I can't insult a black guy whilst using his colour as an expletive, but he can call me a "white so and so". First of all, refering to someones colour as an insult is moronic. Accepting such terms as insult is also moronic, and the same goes for many of the slang words. Once we get past this stupidity, the words will no longer be used negativly because they're not accepted with negative connotations.
• Most of the world has already accepted woman are equal to men. This doesn't mean that woman are the same as men, and sometimes this may mean woman, or men, are not sutible to do a certian professions (though it should be judged on the individual not the gender). For example it's unacceptable to lower our standards to recruit more woman firefighters, and woman who leave employment to have kids, shouldn't be suprised when they earn less than their male counterparts.
• Our media is running scared from Islam. You can criticise Christianity, you can have a go at the atheists, you can call Buddah fat. You can't draw Muhammad because it's insulting or something (which is very on topic).

Personally I feel each of these rules, or guidelines, are a negative point in our history. If anything, it's like we're publically admitting that some people are inferior to the average white male (because you're free to abuse him), and the quicker we defeat this ******** and treat everyone equally, fairly, and based on merit, is when we're finally enlightened to the fact that it's just untrue. You can go right ahead and assume thats because I want to be a racist chauvinistic anti-Isalmic zealot, but that would both be insulting to me (zomg you completely distressed me!), and completely opposite to reality.

Mind you thats not to say racism laws weren't warrented, they were at the time, I just feel the tide has changed and they do more harm than good, because the vast majority of the younger generations aren't inherently racist, and will only become frustrated by being treated unequally.

If it were up to me, I'd start to drop these laws, quietly, with the possible exception of the employment laws as I'd like to see how the first step would pan out first. (We can all get it wrong, afterall)

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.

No, it won't. Being a **** isn't acceptable, and never will be acceptable in society, nor should it ever be. Where we differ is you seem feel it is the Governments role to define, or legislation society, whilst I believe Government needs to stay the hell away, because they only serve to make things worse, even with the best of intentions.

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.

For one week, you may have a couple of kids who decide it's the perfect time to start being ****heads. Permanently, it wouldn't be much different from now. This rest of the Internet isn't 4chan, and even then you can be a pain in the arse without breaking any particular rules.

Whats interesting to me is who do you feel such a policy protects? The vast majority of people would get over being abused in public fairly quickly. The exceptions are possibly the elderly, or the hanicapped, and I can understand the latter. Ny sister is mentally hanicapped due to a car accident, and if someone were to insult her, I'd probably want smash their teeth in, but alas it's just words and I've never met a single person who'd do such a thing.

Now someone who'd take advantage of her complete lack of understand of the world, that's perfectly legal, but call her a mongo and you're in serious trouble! That just doesn't compute to me.

 

[paradisiac]

Any insult could be said to cause distress, so I don't think that the distinction you make actually exists in the law as written.

this therefore leaves all of everyone arguments invalid and pointless. if you remove the word insult from the law, which is all you want, then fine. but if like you say any insuly could be said to cause distress, then you would be charged under the offence of causing distress/harassing and not using an insulting word, so either way the same means to an end.

 

[Castiel]

Yet, you feel it is apt to insult pretty much everyone (or many just some people) who doesn't agree with you. Funny that.

I haven't insulted anyone....even if you fall into any of the groups mentioned, all I have done is questioned their respective agendas....that is not insulting, that is being critical. If I had called the all various names or attacked someone personally, or even made any specific accusation toward someone then you might have a point...however what I said wasn't aimed at anyone particularly and neither did it include and derogatory remarks about each group....it only addressed my opinion on there respective and potential agendas.

I can justify my view point pretty easily; Your personal freedom trumps the freedom of others.

And of it is my personal freedom to take your stuff, or hurt you, or call you names?....... What if not everyone is as reasonable as you are.....what do you do if you cannot defend your personal freedoms from those who would ignore them?

And who decides and enforces these arbitrary structures anyway?......or is it just the strongest survives?

No, it won't. Being a dick isn't acceptable, and never will be acceptable in society, nor should it ever be. Where we differ is you seem feel it is the Governments role to define, or legislation society, whilst I believe Government needs to stay the hell away, because they only serve to make things worse, even with the best of intentions.

It is Governments role to Govern......the secret is in the title.

For one week, you may have a couple of kids who decide it's the perfect time to start being dickheads. Permanently, it wouldn't be much different from now. This rest of the Internet isn't 4chan, and even then you can be a pain in the arse without breaking any particular rules.

I think you will find that a whole range of frustrated people will surface very quickly, and those who sail pretty close to the wind now, will simply run right over it......

Whats interesting to me is who do you feel such a policy protects? The vast majority of people would get over being abused in public fairly quickly. The exceptions are possibly the elderly, or the hanicapped, and I can understand the latter. Ny sister is mentally hanicapped due to a car accident, and if someone were to insult her, I'd probably want smash their teeth in, but alas it's just words and I've never met a single person who'd do such a thing.

It protects those who are unable to protect themselves, the minorities, the weak, the kid getting verbally bullied every day, those simply unable to defend themselves.

You and I can shrug off the odd insult here and there, the vulnerable who are subjected to it regularly cannot.

 

[aln]

I haven't insulted anyone....even if you fall into any of the groups mentioned, all I have done is questioned their respective agendas....that is not insulting, that is being critical. If I had called the all various names or attacked someone personally, or even made any specific accusation toward someone then you might have a point...however what I said wasn't aimed at anyone particularly and neither did it include and derogatory remarks about each group....it only addressed my opinion on there respective and potential agendas.

You don't need to call someone a name to insult them. If I insinuate you're racist, it's fairly insulting, whether I do it with a smile or dance around the issue with maybes, or vagueness, it's still insulting.. It's a massive act of direspect to assume people have ulterior motives based on a legitimate difference of opinion, you didn't specify who you are refering to, but whoever it was has a right to be insulted, but of course you'd rather they had the right not to be.

And of it is my personal freedom to take your stuff, or hurt you, or call you names?....... What if not everyone is as reasonable as you are.....what do you do if you cannot defend your personal freedoms from those who would ignore them?

Again, logically it's consistant. You would have those rights, as long as you you're weren't trampling on another persons right, but this is not possible which is where the validation of limiting your rights come in.

And who decides and enforces these arbitrary structures anyway?......or is it just the strongest survives?

A Government based on a strong constitution and definition of it's citizens rights. I stated that Governments should limited, not that it shouldn't exist. Utopia doesn't exist, thus the a Government is still required where necessary and I'd argue it should also take action when there is a net benefit to society.

Everyone knows Government is a massive wastage machine, so limiting it down to bear minimun is in the net benifit to its citizens, as it should result in a lesser tax burden. I'm not one of those right-wing fanatics who thinks privatising a monopolised industry is a good idea, I'm a lefty at heart, but that doesn't mean I can't accept Government has vested interests contrary to that of its citizens.

Oh, and the idea that you're free to do anything besides deny someone else their rights is less arbitrary than what we have right now I'd say, which is more a case of you're free to do whatever you like, as long as we don't mind you doing it, it doesn't upset the general public, and we can't get any more votes from banning it.

It is Governments role to Govern......the secret is in the title.

Given that logic, the only feasible end points for a Government is Totalitarianism, Stalinism, Facism, or some other terrible-ism. Government is a construct of the people, it has no business controlling, only serving. Since the best form of Government we have is mob rule, it furthers the view point that Government itself is an undesirable lesser-evil that should be limited only to where the interests of society necessitates involvement.

A couple of examples where there was no need for Government, but they decided to butt in anyway:-

Chemical castration of homosexuals - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
War on drugs - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/9035508/Sir-Richard-Branson-war-on-drugs-has-failed.html
Olympics - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6391075.stm

A Government that wastes huge resources and commits atrocities can **** right off. Thats not to say we're the same as we were then, we aren't, but on a current issue:- Why does our Government need to have an opinion on same-sex marriage? Why shouldn't it be up to the individual?

I think you will find that a whole range of frustrated people will surface very quickly, and those who sail pretty close to the wind now, will simply run right over it......

I honestly don't. People sail close to the wind because they're worried about public acceptance as opposed to prosecution. That doesn't mean there aren't frustrated people, there are many of them, it's just that Government policy is a major motivating factor for that frustration. It'd be hard to be frustrated in a fair and equal society.

It protects those who are unable to protect themselves, the minorities, the weak, the kid getting verbally bullied every day, those simply unable to defend themselves.

I find the entire premiss of minorities harmful to our society. We are all human, and we are all equal, there are no minorities, and any thoughts of the contrary are a relic of failed Government policy. The idea that someone is weaker than another because they're darker skinned is something I can't really get behind.

Kids (or anyone for that matter) being constantly bullied is harrasment, and I've always agreed with you I'm happy for an harrasment law.

You and I can shrug off the odd insult here and there, the vulnerable who are subjected to it regularly cannot.

Then as a compromise, why not limit the law to such people? Pretty simple, you can't insult a mentally deficient person because a constant stream of insults would be damaging so such a person.

Of course, there aren't enough people who'd do such a thing for it to become a regular thing, and if one person did it regularly, that'd be harassment, but you seem to be ignoring those points.

 

[badcompany]

personally couldn't careless what people say to me. I am not a child and have enough self worth not to be offended.

 

[estebanrey]

Let's cut the bull, these laws are there to protect minorities not the majority.
"
It's pointless bringing up example of being called "fatty" because nothing would actually happen if you made a complaint.

If a rotund white fella walked into a Police station and said "Some kid down the road just called me a fat bas****", this is the reaction you would get...

...however if a black guy walked into the same station and told he'd just been called a ***n, they'd have a unit out there faster than you could say 'section 5'.

To prove my point just look at Alf Garnet and Al Murray the Pub Landlord. They are effectively the same character, only Alf is no longer considered appropriate for British TV whereas Al Murray is. Why? Because Alf's jokes centered on making fun of black and Asian people whereas Murray only picks on the French and Germans.