OK so not being specific about it removes the fact you said you feel some people disagree with you because they're racist, etc. The point is still valid, regardless of whether or not you had the gonads to be specific.
It matter not whether they disagree with me or not...all I was stating is that some people will have specific agendas for wanting the removal of the legislation....that is not accusing anyone of anything at all, it is merely an observation, one which was actually largely rhetorical and was asking a question....which you ignored to make accusations based on your assumptions of my intent instead.
You can imply my intentions were otherwise all you like, it doesn't make it true.
Anyway, this is going around in circles and getting us nowhere fast, so time to move on from what you think I was implying and what I know my intent was.
I care about what the law says, you care about what the law implies. I believe implied laws are dangerous, and gave a perfectly legitimate example of section 44 being used for reasons other than it's implied designation.
Wrong again......I care how the law is applied, not implied. You appear to care that there is any laws at all.
Common sense born from years abuse by lying police officers who get their jollies from detaining and fondling people.
I see. You have issue with authority in general, or you really think that the UK is effectively a Police State?
Or do you actually believe that the majority of Police Officers are lying scumbags that are out to arrest and sexually abuse you?
As above, you clearly stated you feel some people disagree with you because " ... ". It's basically just a sneaky way of attempting to brand everyone who disagrees with you as one, otherwise you had no call to write it.
Wrong.....
I clearly stated that some people have specific agendas according to a particular bias they may have.....it has nothing to do with whether they agree or disagree with me personally.......is nothing to do with anyone personally.
The point was being made rhetorically to ask the question related to Freedom of Speech being absolute in any case.......
Anyway, like I said......it is pointless to keep belabouring the point as whatever it you are accusing me off wasn't my intention anyway.
Damn right it's an opinion, thats all we're doing here. Stating that my points are opinions. Me saying the law inteperation is vague, and you saying my opinion is an opinion isn't a comparable argument.
Actually you seemingly were stating it was invalid because it is opinion....Laws are based on opinion so I fail to see the relevance of you bringing it up.
I disagree. We should always be working towards bettering such a system, and we are able to do so. Whilst there is a huge grey area over what I may, or may not call you, you'd be hard pressed to use the same argument against something like murder.
You disagree that the world is not black and white?.....you think that it is?
And whether a killing is adjudged a murder is as subjective as whether someone insulted someone....this is why we have Courts and a Judge and Jury system to decide whether the evidence supports Murder or some other definition......killing someone doesn't necessarily mean you have murdered them, equally, insulting someone doesn't necessarily mean you have committed an offence....The law is an organic thing, it is built on legislation and subsequent case law interpreted from that legislation.
Just because a law has been used erroneously doesn't mean it should automatically be repealed. I have already conceded that it should be looked at critically and potentially reformed if necessary.
Yeah, you did...
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.
We believe differently, I believe that an elected Government's first priority is to the well-being of its people, and this means enforcing policies and laws that to the benefit of it's people.....you seem to be implying that the Government, any Government cannot be trusted to this and so the people should be largely self-Governing with respect to what the individual considers valid......I thing that would be great, however I do not think that society is mature enough to actually do that.
However, I do not see what that has to do with the specific question relating to whether S5 should be reformed or not.
We disagree on this point. I feel you advocate too much, you feel that I desire too little. I'm sure we both agree that we're both entitled to our opinions, at least.
Indeed. I just think you are implying things that I haven't stated.
I feel I appropriately articulated why those topics linked back to my opinions based on a common theme throughout the thread. People who want to limit threads to discuss the issue at hand, without consider idealogical view points, aren't really discussing the issue. This is not comparable to you extrapolating that because I want less Government, I automatically want no Government.
I do not think that discussing the relevant pros and cons of various forms of Government really has any bearing on the question of whether section 5 should have the word Insult in it or not.....
I also didn't say you wanted no Government, I was saying that the effects of a lack of effective Governance and legal enforcement can soon have the opposite effect to what you are describing, especially in societies where there are clear divisions....that is not to say that ours is like that, only that as you broached the subject regarding various forms of Governance, including authoritarian ones, it was pertinent to show what happens at the other end of the scale.....
But legislation dealing with minorities is discriminatory, no matter which way you spin it. Unless you start advocating you can no call me a sweaty sock, jock, scot, or any other slang word you have to describe the folks north of the border, then you have no equality.
Granted.
The major difference is when you call us a sweaty sock, we generally don't play the victim, couldn't care less, and our majority English based society aren't up in arms about it. For the most part we're just not overly sensitive to a couple of words.
The difference is not that you don't play the victim.....it is that you have no need to play the victim because you do not have the historical and discrimination inherent in the banter you have given......also that kind of insult is not illegal anyway.
It is not the words by what they imply and the intent in which they are given that is important in assessing whether an insult should be deemed legally culpable or not......like I said as this moves into the realms of abusive behaviour I now see no reason to not exclude the wording form the legislation as the individual who is subjected to verbal abuse is still protected.
It's not to say I support being racist, racism is stupid. I just believe we should ideally remove such legislation once it is no longer required for society to behave themselves, and I feel we should be at that point, or close to it, now.
This I agree with......where I disagree is that our society is anywhere near that kind of maturity. Some of us may be, but you only have to look at some of the threads in GD from time to time to realise that not everyone is capable of reasonable behaviour.
I also have concerns that the very legislation is dangerous as a Self-fulfilling prophecy; those words will always carry a great deal of negative weight because we legislated them away, and if we were to do the same with sweaty sock, we'd be up in arms over being called that all the same in a few generations time.
I can see that point also.....but again, I am not sure that we are ready to assume people will adhere to the same set of standards as we would.
Maybe, but I hope you're just stuck in the past personally.
Far from it......I just think that you may be a little isolated from the wider world and are basing your opinion on what you see in your own community rather than the country as a whole.
Education would do a better job, especially so as being forbidden often popularises, or exacerbates problems.
I think we still need both....one to educate and one to enforce...hopefully education will eventually negate the other.
I'd agree with that. The majority of laws are subjective, and poorly thought out, and fairly outdated. Many of them are completly ignored, or enforced to the detriment of society. Some laws are awesome.
In the UK as a rule, the law is not a static thing.....it is pretty organic as it is based on precedence and case law. I don't necessarily disagree that some laws are pointless and archaic, but I don't agree that the legislation relating to what we ave discussed is part of that...at least not yet.
I don't particularly think the word insult matters, and the entire policy is broken.
I disagree. I think the legislation is generally good, it simply needs tinkering with a bit.
Well thats a shame for you, but if the law had offered you protection, they'd only do it where they can't resonably be caught.
It would have given me some basis to combat it besides the route I ultimate took.....it would at the very least given me support in dealing with it, instead of being told that it was normal to be treated that way.
You can assume that, but you're basically admitting to doing it yourself.
I have attempted to be fairly objective....hence why I have changed my opinion during the course of the thread.
There is a difference between acceptable, and legal. I'd be more than happy to have protected free speech, if only to make it easier to identify nut jobs. I honestly feel theres better solutions though.
You do have a protected right to Free Speech....just with certain exceptions where exercising Free Speech violates someone else's personal freedoms.....was that not the basis of your argument earlier?
It has everything to do with those issues, and rather than deflecting the issue it serves to explain and further a view point that Governments are generally detrimental to society, particularly so when they're trying to be a force for good via legislation. As I've already pointed out, Celine's Third Law and Celine's Second Law are very apt to this debate, and helps explain why we don't need more crappy laws.
Well Celine was a fictional anarchist which is why they would have that implication.
The issue is for me at least, not one of whether our Government is moving into authoritarianism or not, that is a wider discussion not relevant to the topic of the thread.
I think it is simply extending the discussion too far from the topic at hand.
If I run up to your face, and scream profanity at you, then run away, what do you feel is the apt punishment? Obviously I think it's a waste of police time, which is why this law is ****, but how about you?
I think that you should be stopped from doing it.....either by myself if I am able, or by someone that is.....that is invariably the Police as they have the authority....as to the punishment, that would depend entirely on the circumstances, intent and context and whether you would accede simply to apologising and stopping it, which would be sufficient in most cases...
You're not paranoid if they're really out to get you!
If you met me you would realise that I am probably the most suspicious and paranoid person you know.....I simply don't fear it particularly, I have learned to live with it.
This is the exact point I was making. If someone abuses you, I don't agree with Castiel that your life will now be ruined and you must break down and cry. If you're not in the mood, you walk away, or even say leave me alone. If they don't I'm all for the bobby on the beat hitting them with their stick.
That is all I am for effectively.....only the local Bobby has to have the authority to clip them around the ear......for that he needs the backing of legislation.
An anti-harrasment law is all that we need, because everyone would resonably be free to go about their buisness by simply saying "**** off".
Maybe.....but some people are unable to effectively defend themselves or would feel intimidated by such actions....for that we need the Police to have the authority to protect these people.
