The Right to Not Be Offended?

estebanrey · 17 May 2012 at 10:52

paradisiac said:
context is just as important as content.

But now you are flip flopping ,a minute ago you said you had to use insulting words but now you are saying the context of the sentence can also apply. So my "look at the size of him" comment could be said in an insulting context then?

On JT, here are the actual words from the CPS...

The details of the charge are:

On 23 October 2011 at Loftus Road Stadium, London W12, you used 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.
Contrary to section 31 (1) (c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Haggisman · 17 May 2012 at 10:53

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

You may doubt it, but it's still an offence. There. I admitted it, I'm a criminal - might as well lock me up and throw away the key!

Actually, may as well do the same to the whole population at birth. There are so many stupid laws it's impossible not to break at least one in your life. :rolleyes:

(rolleyes directed at stupid laws rather than Castiel

)

Castiel · 17 May 2012 at 10:56

Haggisman said:
You may doubt it, but it's still an offence. There. I admitted it, I'm a criminal - might as well lock me up and throw away the key!

Actually, may as well do the same to the whole population at birth. There are so many stupid laws it's impossible not to break at least one in your life. (rolleyes directed at stupid laws rather than Castiel )

I don't think that it is against the law......I think you may be interpreting that way, but I doubt that is actually the case.

It is not illegal to call somebody stupid.

paradisiac · 17 May 2012 at 10:57

estebanrey said:
But now you are flip flopping ,a minute ago you said you had to use insulting words but now you are saying the context of the sentence can also apply. So my "look at the size of him" comment could be said in an insulting context then?

i am not flip flopping, as i stated insulting words and behaviour are used. so the conetext in what the content is used can determine the behaviour used. in your example the context was nothing more than a passing comment on an observation, therefore not insulting behaviour.
shouting the same content at someone in the steet however, i would argue constituted insulting behaviour.

as for the JT example, i cannot see, as i have stated and so have you, how it relates to section 5 which is where my arguement has been aimed, its a bout a racial section of the law.

estebanrey · 17 May 2012 at 11:00

But there's more than just section 5 that covers this type of thing. Why only look at one part of the law when there are a billion other sections which effectively create the same scenario.

paradisiac · 17 May 2012 at 11:10

estebanrey said:
But there's more than just section 5 that covers this type of thing. Why only look at one part of the law when there are a billion other sections which effectively create the same scenario.

because it is the section that the OP wanted the word insult removed from (i say OP i mean the campaign)

if we were to start going over every other law, which alothough may have simularites to this one, or indeed in every post we quoted things that were similar but had no direct link to what the OP suggested (which in this cas is amendments to section 5 not the entire legal system) then the debates would be too expansive and nothing would actually flow.

if however the post had be a generalisation of law and its implementation of the ability to stop us using certain words or whatever, then yes, cases from other areas would be debatable and relevent. in this instance i feel it would take too long and not affect in any way how section 5's amendments should be

Haggisman · 17 May 2012 at 12:04

Castiel said:
I don't think that it is against the law......I think you may be interpreting that way, but I doubt that is actually the case.

It is not illegal to call somebody stupid.

And therein lies the problem - reading it literally word for word, it can be interpreted in that way, and judging from some of the replies in this thread I'm not the only one doing so.

I'm not suggesting the law is repealed completely, but, as I previously said, it's ambiguous enough that it has resulted in several stupid arrests (yes they weren't prosecuted in the end, but what a waste of time/money?!) and so should be reworded for clarity. Lets face it, many laws aren't perfect, and isn't it better to admit that and review them when this is highlighted, rather than sticking our heads in the sand and pretending it's not a problem?

paradisiac · 17 May 2012 at 12:19

Haggisman said:
And therein lies the problem - reading it literally word for word, it can be interpreted in that way, and judging from some of the replies in this thread I'm not the only one doing so.

I'm not suggesting the law is repealed completely, but, as I previously said, it's ambiguous enough that it has resulted in several stupid arrests (yes they weren't prosecuted in the end, but what a waste of time/money?!) and so should be reworded for clarity. Lets face it, many laws aren't perfect, and isn't it better to admit that and review them when this is highlighted, rather than sticking our heads in the sand and pretending it's not a problem?

so you are saying the law should list every possible word that is considered to be insulting?

estebanrey · 17 May 2012 at 12:33

How about this, why not put a clarification in there about insults regarding things people can or can't help?

Ergo, racial, sexuality, gender or disability based insults aren't allowed, Ones based on religion or being fat are.

paradisiac · 17 May 2012 at 12:35

estebanrey said:
How about this, why not put a clarification in there about insults regarding things people can or can't help?

Ergo, racial, sexuality, gender or disability based insults aren't allowed, Ones based on religion or being fat are.

i believe these are all covered by different laws though in some respect. section 5 is just there for other eventualities that may arrise.

estebanrey · 17 May 2012 at 12:42

paradisiac said:
i believe these are all covered by different laws though in some respect. section 5 is just there for other eventualities that may arrise.

If that is case I'm for the full repealing of Section 5.

paradisiac · 17 May 2012 at 12:46

estebanrey said:
If that is case I'm for the full repealing of Section 5.

and i would take that as a valid argument indeed. i have not got any objections for this, my objections have always been about people not reading the actual law and making up their own versions. ie, the law states use of words and behaviour, not how someone might feel/react to a statement. that has been my point, i am undecided on whether we need the actual law itself, but i am completly againt the need to remove the word insult from it, on the basis most people have been using, someone felt insulted/offended by the comment.

estebanrey · 17 May 2012 at 12:53

Yeah apologies for initially being under the false impression this thread was about general "free speech". Now I've actually followed the link in your OP and read about that particular section of law I'm for a full repeal.

However, some of the examples on there IMO should have been treated by these other laws you mention (if they exist) for example the guy who put a sign up saying 'homosexual conduct was immoral'.

paradisiac · 17 May 2012 at 13:04

estebanrey said:
Yeah apologies for initially being under the false impression this thread was about general "free speech". Now I've actually followed the link in your OP and read about that particular section of law I'm for a full repeal.

However, some of the examples on there IMO should have been treated by these other laws you mention (if they exist) for example the guy who put a sign up saying 'homosexual conduct was immoral'.

this is where i am unclear, as far as im aware there is only a Discrimination Due to Sexual Orientation part in the law relating to in the workplace.
i do not see how it does, insult anyone though, so i cannot see which part of the law they broke (unless there is something that carrying out the actions with intent to provoke).

Castiel · 17 May 2012 at 13:09

estebanrey said:
How about this, why not put a clarification in there about insults regarding things people can or can't help?

Ergo, racial, sexuality, gender or disability based insults aren't allowed, Ones based on religion or being fat are.

Why should it be acceptable to be maliciously insulting and/or abusive about someones appearance or beliefs?

How is insulting the overweight kid any different from insulting the homosexual kid?

It seems that you want to rewrite the law so that it doesn't apply to those things you want to insult with impunity.

estebanrey · 17 May 2012 at 13:13

paradisiac said:
this is where i am unclear, as far as im aware there is only a Discrimination Due to Sexual Orientation part in the law relating to in the workplace.
i do not see how it does, insult anyone though, so i cannot see which part of the law they broke (unless there is something that carrying out the actions with intent to provoke).

Going back to John Terry and seeing what the CPS are doing him under (Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Section 31) it seems that only covers race and religion which is a bit weird.

I think the act above should be updated to include homophobic and disability based verbal attacks too, then repeal Section 5.

I'm not for preventing people from holding homophobic or racist views, or expressing them in private amongst friends. But I guarantee if I put a sign up in my window saying "Being Black is just plain wrong" I'd be done under section 31 of the aforementioned CADA 1998 so I think the same should apply to sexuality, gender and disability too.

Haggisman · 17 May 2012 at 13:14

paradisiac said:
so you are saying the law should list every possible word that is considered to be insulting?

No, because in the wrong/right context, to the wrong/right person, virtually any word or phrase could be considered insulting - this is the key issue here.

estebanrey said:
How about this, why not put a clarification in there about insults regarding things people can or can't help?

Ergo, racial, sexuality, gender or disability based insults aren't allowed, Ones based on religion or being fat are.

Exactly, this would be a much better way of doing it. The only problem of course being when new words evolve to have connotations based on those subjects.

paradisiac said:
and i would take that as a valid argument indeed. i have not got any objections for this, my objections have always been about people not reading the actual law and making up their own versions. ie, the law states use of words and behaviour, not how someone might feel/react to a statement. that has been my point, i am undecided on whether we need the actual law itself, but i am completly againt the need to remove the word insult from it, on the basis most people have been using, someone felt insulted/offended by the comment.

Surely if someone felt insulted/offended by a comment, then it is by default insulting/offensive?

Conversely, if I called a friend a copulating ladypart as a joke and he wasn't insulted, then is it really an insult?

What if I were to call you a fluffy badger, with the intention of it being insulting/offensive?
Would you be insulted/offended? - If not, would I still be committing an offence?
What if you were insulted/offended by it? Who's to say whether "fluffy badger" is insulting or offensive?

estebanrey · 17 May 2012 at 13:16

Castiel said:
Why should it be acceptable to be maliciously insulting and/or abusive about someones appearance or beliefs?

Why is calling an Asian person a p*ki deemed worse by society than calling a fat person a lard ar*e?

If you can answer that (which anyone with half a brain should be able to) you've answered your question.

Castiel · 17 May 2012 at 13:21

The fact appears (after reading section 4 etc as well) that even if the word 'Insulting' was removed it wouldn't make any significant difference......effectively you still wouldn't be able to call the overweight kid a fatty as that could be deemed abusive, equally you could still be guilty of an offence if you hold up a placard calling Christians morons......as that is also abusive.

So, on reflection, remove the word 'insulting', it's nothing more than a cosmetically superficial thing anyway.

Castiel · 17 May 2012 at 13:22

estebanrey said:
Why is calling an Asian person a p*ki deemed worse by society than calling a fat person a lard ar*e?

If you can answer that (which anyone with half a brain should be able to) you've answered your question.

I don't think it is.......both are unnecessarily abusive. You just think it is acceptable to pick on one group over another....I don't.