The Right to Not Be Offended?

[Castiel]

is that not what it says now though, with the inclusion of the words 'words' and 'behaviour' without these inclusions then yes i would agree your wording would be better, but as their are there it is quite clear, someone feeling insulted or offended is not an offence, someone using insulting words is.

quite.

It is the misconception of what people consider insulting words and/or behaviour that is the problem here.

I have been reading the Section 5 link and have also been listening to what some others have to say on the issue and I am slowly coming to the conclusion that maybe the law does need looking at.....not to remove the word insulting from the equation, but to make sure that the law recognises that it is the abusive or malicious intent of the insult that is the problem, not the insult itself.

I think that, as is evidenced in this thread, there is some confusion amongst lawmakers and the public what constitutes an insulting word or behaviour and that needs to be addressed.

 

[estebanrey]

but i could then argue that i found you calling me fatty for no reason in the street to be abusive behaviour, as it was unprovoked and uncalled for, therefore under section 5 for using abusive behaviour you will get punished

Which is exactly why I suggested the word change, so you couldn't do that.

 

[paradisiac]

Which is exactly why I suggested the word change, so you couldn't do that.

so i can be as abusive as i want to people, so long as its not prolonged?

 

[Castiel]

No because my wording wouldn't protect an over sensitive soul from being called fatty in the streets (unless one person was constantly calling it them in which case it just becomes bullying), the current one does.

You should not have the right to insult maliciously.....what right do you have to decide that someone is being over sensitive to your unnecessary abuisive insults.......you may of only done it casually....but then may be 20 other people have done the same that week to that person.....

Is that person being over sensitive?.....or are they being abused for no good reason.

 

[paradisiac]

I'll re-word it.

A person may not use any of the following terms in public (insert all common racial, homophobic and disability based slurs here). Anything else goes, unless you are clearly bullying someone with constant/prolonged harresment.

There....

also, quickly coming back to this, who is to determine what is covered. a lot of coloured rappers use the N word a lot, some kid or adult even, sings this song whilst walking down the street, the word is used in public, with no intent to cause offence or insult anyone, and not racist intentions at all. but under your wording, its illegal, they should be arrested.

 

[Naffa]

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.

I'm wondering whether you ever sleep. o.O

At the risk of repeating myself, I will try and say something different. Regarding your point as to whether we should repeal a law that is abused, I would say that when it's concerning a right as fundamental as that of free speech, yes. If I want to stand on a street corner and peacefully proclaim that scientology is a cult, or that people that believe Joseph Smith was a prophet are deluded or whatever I want, no police officer should have the power to tell me to stop.

Even if the teenager was inappropriately read section 5, his human rights were violated for pathetic reason, that should have no grounding in law. I don't want a police officer to be able to decide to what extent my freedom of speech is, that's something that exits at no individual's discretion, hence, it must be absolute.

I'll refer (again) to my favourite speech on the subject.

 

[estebanrey]

so i can be as abusive as i want to people, so long as its not prolonged?

Or based on racial, homophobic or disability insults.

You ask that question almost as if that's what you want to do.

My point is this, do I want to go around shouting "Oi Fatty" at overweight people, no. However, I shouldn't be at risk of prosecution if I quitely say to a friend "look at the size of him" and another fat person over hears and gets upset? I don't think I should.

The logical conclusion of the law as it currently stands and is being implemented/defended by peeps like Castiel is basically making it illegal to criticise someone. And as much as you pretend you don't ever judge people and have never made a sly comment to a friend when out and about, you know you do (or that most people do).

I'm for the law trying to prevent people being bullied. I''m for the law trying to prevent minorities suffering racist, homophobic and disability based slurs because like it or not we generally deem them more of a danger than critising people's weight or general appearance. I'm not for the law trying to create a false environment where people are all artificially nice to each other.

 

[paradisiac]

Or based on racial, homophobic or disability insults.

You ask that question almost as if that's what you want to do.

My point is this, do I want to go around shouting "Oi Fatty" at overweight people, no. However, I shouldn't be at risk of prosecution if I quitely say to a friend "look at the size of him" and another fat person over hears and gets upset? I don't think I should.

The logical conclusion of the law as it currently stands and is being implemented/defended by peeps like Castiel is basically making it illegal to criticise someone. And as much as you pretend you don't ever judge people and have never made a sly comment to a friend when out and about, you know you do (or that most people do).

I'm for the law trying to prevent people being bullied. I''m for the law trying to prevent minorities suffering racist, homophobic and disability based slurs because like it or not we generally deem them more of a danger than critising people's weight or general appearance. I'm not for the law trying to create a false environment where people are all artificially nice to each other.

explain to me in your said conversation with your friend where the insulting word is?

 

[Castiel]

I'm wondering whether you ever sleep. o.O

At the risk of repeating myself, I will try and say something different. Regarding your point as to whether we should repeal a law that is abused, I would say that when it's concerning a right as fundamental as that of free speech, yes. If I want to stand on a street corner and peacefully proclaim that scientology is a cult, or that people that believe Joseph Smith was a prophet are deluded or whatever I want, no police officer should have the power to tell me to stop.

I certainly do not think that the law should be repealed....that removes protections to many in our society that have been fought for by people for generations.....

I am however, coming to the conclusion that reform is a good idea and that the terminology inherent in the use of the word "Insulting" without clear clarification is detrimental to the intent of the legislation and is open to abuse in itself.

I do not think however that the fat kid wandering down the street minding his own business should shoulder the responsibility for absolute free speech however....he should be as entitled to go about his business free from casual insulting behaviour as much as we have the right to hold up placards calling Scientology a cult.

Therefore I feel that the law needs clarification, if that mean removing the word term insulting words or behaviour and replacing them with a more clear wording as to the intent and context of the insulting words or behaviour then that is what is needed, but having been a victim of casual socially acceptable insulting behaviour when I was growing up, I cannot condone the inherent acceptance of it simply in the name of free speech......

Even if the teenager was inappropriately read section 5, his human rights were violated for pathetic reason, that should have no grounding in law. I don't want a police officer to be able to decide to what extent my freedom of speech is, that's something that exits at no individual's discretion, hence, it must be absolute.

The right to Free Speech is not absolute and neither should it be.....for it to absolute you just also allow Free Speech to allow libel, slander, incitement, and obscenity and so on......everyone should have the right to express their Freedom of Speech moderately.....their are limitations on that right for good reason.

And the Police Officer shouldn't (and doesn't) decide...society does through it's elected representatives......

And I don't need Hitchens to tell me what to think either...

 

[Castiel]

The logical conclusion of the law as it currently stands and is being implemented/defended by peeps like Castiel is basically making it illegal to criticise someone..

No it doesn't. You do not have to use malicious insult to be critical. and it is not illegal to be critical either.

 

[estebanrey]

explain to me in your said conversation with your friend where the insulting word is?

So it's not offensive unless I specifically use a slur? The context of the sentence would probably be insulting to a fat person.

So are you saying I could go out in the street and shout "All black people are lazy and spend all day eating fried chicken and watermelons with their big lips and fuzzy hair"; but not get arrested because I didn't use the N word?

If that's the case then the law is even more stupid than I thought it was and definitely needs re-wording.

P.S. Admin and black people, I apologise for using such a crass sentence but hopefully you can see the point I'm making here.

 

[paradisiac]

So it's not offensive unless I specifically use a slur? The context of the sentence would probably be insulting to a fat person.

So are you saying I could go out in the street and shout "All black people are lazy and spend all day eating fried chicken and watermelons with their big lips and fuzzy hair"; but not get arrested because I didn't use the N word?

If that's the case then the law is even more stupid than I thought it was and definately needs re-wording.

P.S. Admin and black people, I apologise for using such a crass sentence but hopefully you can see the point I'm making here.

yes,that is what the law states, which is what i have been saying. the law under section 5 clearly reads using insulting words or behaviour it does not read saying something that someone might take insult or offence to this is where i am confused with everyones arguments, it is quite clear on the use of words and not the meaning of a sentance.

 

[Naffa]

And I don't need Hitchens to tell me what to think either...

Neither do I, but he's pretty damned convincing, no?

 

[Castiel]

Neither do I, but he's pretty damned convincing, no?

I don't always agree with Hitchens, I don't treat his opinion, or anyones for that matter with the same level of reverence as some (not saying that you do), and you know that I rarely watch posted videos in lieu of the persons opinion.....I would rather debate with the person themselves, rather than the video of others opinion.


EDIT: I did sleep....but overslept and missed my flight...so it is all postponed until tomorrow. (I sleep 5 hours every day....I don't need any more than that...but I find it hard to function on less)

 

[estebanrey]

yes,that is what the law states, which is what i have been saying. the law under section 5 clearly reads using insulting words or behaviour it does not read saying something that someone might take insult or offence to this is where i am confused with everyones arguments, it is quite clear on the use of words and not the meaning of a sentance.

Right OK, so John Terry's up and coming case is because he allegedly used the word Bar**** is it?

I would presume footballers call each other that all the time so why he's been singled out? By your logic the law doesn't cover the preceding 'Black' bit as that isn't by itself a slur.

 

[Naffa]

I don't always agree with Hitchens, I don't treat him, or anyone for that matter with the same level of reverence as some (not saying that you do), and you know that I rarely watch posted videos in lieu of the persons opinion.....I would rather debate with the person themselves, rather than the video of others opinion.

Oh, I am guilty of reverence, no point in denying that. I really do hope that you aren't criticising me of posting said video in order to shed the burden of arguing for myself. I figured that we had both made our points, and the debate was about to start going around in circles.

 

[paradisiac]

Right OK, so John Terry's up and coming case is because he allegedly used the word Bar**** is it?

I would presume footballers call each other that all the time so why he's been singled out? By your logic the law doesn't cover the preceding 'Black' bit as that isn't by itself a slur.

so he is only going to court over section 5 of the law? im sorry, i dont know much about this case.
and was he using his words in a threatening manner, or was he being abusive? context is just as important as content. the tone and manorisms fall into the behaviour section, so no, black might not be an insulting word, but screaming in someones face with intent to upset or aggrivate would, in my mind, fall under abusive or insutling behaviour. whereas a quiet comment as you suggest is nothing more than an observation shared.

E: a quick google search shows john terry was charged for racial abuse

"threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress which was racially aggravated in accordance with section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998".

not section 5

 

[Castiel]

Oh, I am guilty of reverence, no point in denying that.

You are young...you will grow to be as cynical and bull headed as me eventually.

I really do hope that you aren't criticising me of posting said video in order to shed the burden of arguing for myself. I figured that we had both made our points, and the debate was about to start going around in circles.

Not at all, simply explaining why I rarely watch posted videos.

You may have noticed (or not) that I have actually changed my stance over the course of the debate somewhat anyway.......

 

[Haggisman]

Yet no-one has acted unreasonably toward you, or subjected you to any insulting words or behaviour likely to amount to harassment, alarm or distress.....you have just admitted yourself that you are entirely capable of dealing with the perceive insult yourself, thus you are not in distress or subject to harassment or in a state of alarm......

Being condescending is not against the law......

Being prosecuted for calling someone a numpty would be pretty distressing!

but you missed out 'within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby'. i cannot see, how as a complete statement it is threatening in any way whatsoever just because you feel threatened by the fact your right to hurl abuse/insults at people is taken away, does not mean someone is using abusive, insulting or threatening words or behaviour towards you?!?

The very fact I can read it on a publicly available forum means it is within my sight, nowhere in the law does it state it needs to be directed towards me?

i cannot see how it can be worded any differently. it clearly states, as i have said USING insulting words or behaviour, not saying something someone might feel insulted or offended by. and in none of the examples given in the website first linked, can i see that anyone was arrested for 'someone feeling a bit insulted'

And who defines what exactly constitutes an insulting word?

 

[Castiel]

Being prosecuted for calling someone a numpty would be pretty distressing!

Agreed.....I doubt that you could be prosecuted for calling someone a numpty however.