The Right to Not Be Offended?

[aln]

Just because someone may say they are offended doesn't mean that was the intent of the person accused.....again I have to say this.

Drawing from a previous responce, just because I say I didn't know better, doesn't mean I don't know calling you "Jolly" would be insulting to you. The same reversed is true, just because you think I should know better doesn't mean that I do, or was particularly thinking about what I'd said.

See I know you're probably talking about "swear words", but you're totally negating whole demographics within our country where there is a culture of insulting each other, and using less then desirable language as a sign of affection.

The fact it is all relative, makes the idea bat**** insane, but those middle class and above might find that point difficult to parse.

It is not the offense/insult or words, but the context and intent that makes something illegal....and the law should protect people from being unduely insulted, verbally abused and offended.

Honestly no. I don't partilcularly agree with people being rude, but their freedom from tyranny trumps my need for protection against the harsh relaties of the real world.

Now I can agree that once you cross the line into harassment, you're overstepping your bounds on personal freedom. Making frequent attempts of forcing someone to listen to you is where I draw the line at, regardless of whether you're being particularly rude or not. You should have all the freedom in the world to speak, but no gurauntee that anyone needs to hear what you're saying.

So you don't think that verbal bullying is worth dealing with then?

Once you using the word bullying, you're treading into the world of harassment, or at the very least something that isn't the same as insulting someone.

It is fine to verbally assault anyone about anything because it isn't a physical assault?

Fine, no. It's not desirable, and I feel you should have the right to walk away, or the freedom to retort.

If someone was to verbally insult me, I'd verbally insult them right back. Chances are, given my northern underclass background, they'd be more insulted than I am.

Nope, only that people should have a reasonable expectation to not be verbally assaulted or treated with disrespect.

I agree, but I see it as a cultural problem, not a legislative one. I'd like to direct you to Celine's Third Law for the rest of my answer.

If the intent and context of any rudeness is of such a level as to cause the person undue distress then, yes...the police should have the power to intervene.

I'm not totally disagreeing, I'm just arguing that there needs to be a reasonable expectation of the actions causing distress. As I stated before, people are "unduly distressed" (according to them) because a black man sits next to them on a bus. Honestly, I don't feel our society should levy a couple of insults (or even a tirade of them in one instant) as anything near distress.

If a police officer should happen to witness such a thing, then it would only be common sense for them to attempt to diffuse the situation, but that shouldn't particularly mean they have the right to arrest either party unless the altercation esculates.

Pfft......People already have the right to convey there opinons without fear of physical retribution.......but if you want to be allowed to go around verbally assaulting people as you like, then you should also be expected to deal with the consequences.

And the consequences should be you doing it better than me, not punching me in the face you bad man! As it would happen, I wouldn't particularly be up for pressing charges if I got a slap I deserved, either.

 

[estebanrey]

This is why we have courts and the CPS........All it needs is guidelines on how it should be applied, which I think is actually the case anyway.

We have guidelines for police, they are called ACPO guidelines

 

[paradisiac]

That wasn't the example...

As for that, I don't know what to say. ASBO, if that's what they make a habit of doing? Certainly section 5 isn't the right way to handle that.

no it wasnt THE example but you stated

If it's not a racial thing then it's not a problem, so I wouldn't want it covered.

implying only racial insults should be covered it was more in jest than seriousness as i totally see your point. i just fear that removing something that on the whole does no harm, can only lead to more un needed legisaltion to get around it, or a world where insults are thrown around needlessly.

 

[badcompany]

great this generation of imbeciles seem to get offended at everything now so this is typical bs for the spoon fed, nannied drips I see moping about.

 

[The Halk]

What if it was a disabled person being insulted because of there disability, or an overweight person insulted because of there appearance, or an elderly person being insulted because they are old or slow, and so on.......

It isn't the insult that is important, which is why I added the third example...it is the intent and context of the insult that defines it.

Can you not see why the word 'insult' is in the legislation. Just because it sometimes gets used incorrectly is no reason to remove it and thus risk the protections of people who need it.

I don't think that criminal law should be what stops those. It's not stopping it happening now, all that we have now is part of a law that's almost never used because it's disproportionate.

I don't know how to make people be nice to each other, but requiring it by law isn't the way. Really it's up to the rest of society to make sure that the kind of thing you've described doesn't happen.

 

[Scougar]

The problem isn't really the law, it's the spirit in which it is used. Much like the guy that got arrested under anti-terrorism law's for heckling at a party conference (I believe it was a party conference).

The 'law' has gone totally over the top nowadays.. and so many laws we just don't need, that could have been achieved by amending what we already had (in part).

 

[Scougar]

great this generation of imbeciles seem to get offended at everything now so this is typical bs for the spoon fed, nannied drips I see moping about.

That is what happens when you let advertising make the individual the most important thing there is. Why? Because it means more sales.

 

[The Halk]

The problem isn't really the law, it's the spirit in which it is used. Much like the guy that got arrested under anti-terrorism law's for heckling at a party conference (I believe it was a party conference).

The 'law' has gone totally over the top nowadays.. and so many laws we just don't need, that could have been achieved by amending what we already had (in part).

Indeed. The heckling law is an example of the problems of a bad law. Just because the police are sharp enough not to use it doesn't mean it should remain.

 

[Castiel]

Drawing from a previous responce, just because I say I didn't know better, doesn't mean I don't know calling you "Jolly" would be insulting to you. The same reversed is true, just because you think I should know better doesn't mean that I do, or was particularly thinking about what I'd said.

See I know you're probably talking about "swear words", but you're totally negating whole demographics within our country where there is a culture of insulting each other, and using less then desirable language as a sign of affection.

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.....

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.

 

[The Halk]

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.....

I don't in any way advocate calling people fat etc, that's of course a dick move. However I don't think criminal law is the right way to handle it.

As an aside I feel ambivalent to someone who walks up to a fashion victim and tells them they look absurd. I'm not going to do it myself, but I don't see it as a harmful activity.

 

[Castiel]

I don't think that criminal law should be what stops those. It's not stopping it happening now, all that we have now is part of a law that's almost never used because it's disproportionate.

I don't know how to make people be nice to each other, but requiring it by law isn't the way. Really it's up to the rest of society to make sure that the kind of thing you've described doesn't happen.

There we disagree......people should have protection under the law from what amounts to bullying.....and calling the overweight kid walking down the street 'fatty' or similar is exactly that...bullying.

Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right, it is a right to be exercised with the responsibility it deserves and that includes not demeaning it by trying to defend intentionally insulting behaviour as exercising your Freedom of Speech.

 

[The Halk]

What amounts to bullying also amounts to harassment.

 

[paradisiac]

I don't in any way advocate calling people fat etc, that's of course a dick move. However I don't think criminal law is the right way to handle it.

As an aside I feel ambivalent to someone who walks up to a fashion victim and tells them they look absurd. I'm not going to do it myself, but I don't see it as a harmful activity.

you are swaying me more to your ideas damn you. i agree, it does seem like a complete waste of police time and tax payers money, to, in the case i refer to a lot, arrest someone for saying 'woof' to a dog, or telling a policeman their horse is 'gay'.
but i think these are examples taken way out of context, and i cant for the life of me see how they have any relevance to the word 'insult' being in the legislation.

What amounts to bullying also amounts to harassment.

and this is where just removing the word insult would still allow for prosection of such offences. but it is hard to distinguish between bullying, harassment and just plain insults as people will have different tolerences.

 

[Castiel]

I don't in any way advocate calling people fat etc, that's of course a dick move. However I don't think criminal law is the right way to handle it.

What is the right way?

As an aside I feel ambivalent to someone who walks up to a fashion victim and tells them they look absurd. I'm not going to do it myself, but I don't see it as a harmful activity.

I just see it as being unnecessarily rude.......it could also be described as harassment to some degree. You simply don't walk up to people and insult them simply for being different.......

 

[Castiel]

What amounts to bullying also amounts to harassment.

And equally a simple insult can amount to harassment.....thus the inclusion of the term 'Insulting behaviour' in the legislation.

 

[deuse]

ok, so, a group of youths stand outside an old ladies house shouting insults at her when she walks by. she is intimidated by them, and she then gets nervous about leaving her house because of it. now, other than being in a group, which is not illegal, and shouting insults, which you dont want to be illegal, then they havent actually done anything wrong. so by your reasoning in the 'What happens when you're Offended? ...Oh wait..NOTHING..you're an adult grow up and deal with it' comment, she is a grown women, she should stop being such a fool and just ignore it?
insults can have consiquences, there are people that get easily offended when people put them down, this can lead to suicide and other stuff. so for this reason, i fail to agree with your nothing happens argument.

I am many others on this forum are either deaf or hard of hearing.
We have all had abusive insults from the time we go to school we just deal with it.
We even leave the house not knowing if a person is about to hit us from behind because we can't hear them.
As for myself when I see people say "you deaf mate" or people push by me in a shop then turn around and say "didn't you hear me are you deaf or something"
I have put up with it for 50 Years and I just laugh because they are dicks

 

[The Halk]

What is the right way?

I'm not entirely sure. Certainly the law isn't being used just now to protect people. If you're fat then people will tell you that you're fat, the law isn't stopping them. What's more likely to stop it is peer pressure. It's really all we have. If you have the solution to humankind being nasty to each other then please come forward with it!

I just see it as being unnecessarily rude.......it could also be described as harassment to some degree. You simply don't walk up to people and insult them simply for being different.......

I don't advocate it, but I don't find I can be annoyed about it. If it was harassing someone then no I would say it was wrong.

 

[The Halk]

I am many others on this forum are either deaf or hard of hearing.
We have all had abusive insults from the time we go to school we just deal with it.
We even leave the house not knowing if a person is about to hit us from behind because we can't hear them.
As for myself when I see people say "you deaf mate" or people push by me in a shop then turn around and say "didn't you hear me are you deaf or something"
I have put up with it for 50 Years and I just laugh because they are dicks

Nice. Do you take a bit of pleasure when someone says
"Are you deaf or something mate?" replying with
"Yes, actually I have impaired hearing."

I love watching things like that happen.

 

[badcompany]

The problem isn't really the law, it's the spirit in which it is used. Much like the guy that got arrested under anti-terrorism law's for heckling at a party conference (I believe it was a party conference).

The 'law' has gone totally over the top nowadays.. and so many laws we just don't need, that could have been achieved by amending what we already had (in part).

I give you Plato.

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.
Plato

 

[paradisiac]

I am many others on this forum are either deaf or hard of hearing.
We have all had abusive insults from the time we go to school we just deal with it.
We even leave the house not knowing if a person is about to hit us from behind because we can't hear them.
As for myself when I see people say "you deaf mate" or people push by me in a shop then turn around and say "didn't you hear me are you deaf or something"
I have put up with it for 50 Years and I just laugh because they are dicks

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.