The Right to Not Be Offended?
- Thread starter The Halk
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I would argue the type of person that goes around shouting the N word at black people and homophobic insults at gay people is also the type of person that doesn't care about the law and thinks it's 'cool' to break it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 7,754
- Location
- Cornwall
although i disagree in most with your view on this, i do not agree in any way with the suggestion your intentions are to give you powers to be a dick in public. that is such a sweeping comment from castiel that really wasnt called for.
So you want to restrict the freedom of the good, to prevent the actions of the bad. I get your point, but I simply don't agree with you. It reminds me of the post-9/11 debate on balancing security and liberty, with things like the the Terrorism Act (2006) and the Patriot Act (2001)...
People need to be free to say things that others will be offended by, but that does not mean that those who utter supposedly 'offensive' things intend for them to be interpreted as such.
With great liberty comes great responsibility.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 7,754
- Location
- Cornwall
agreed, but......would they stop if the law wasnt in place because it would no longer be 'cool'? if your answer is no, then surely the fact there is the chance of prosection, will put some people of repeatidly carrying out these insults.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
I think that is actually a good idea.
Wouldn't impact me much at all i try to keep social interaction to a absolute minimum.
If you wonder why, ask yourself why you dont talk to rats? And if you have a pet rat you talk too, then ********** **********
Nonsense, that is just an excuse so that people can say anything they like without recrimination or responsibility.
You can be controversial, polemic, contrary, or whatever without resorting to insults and malicious behaviour.......resorting to malicious insult simply shows a lack of ability to get your opinion across objectively.
Freedom of Speech is not absolute.....
Lord Dear:
Note the word moderately expressed.
Then you can't read.
So you advocate total freedom of expression....no matter what?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 7,754
- Location
- Cornwall
i agree, i cannot think of one instance where you cannot exercise your right to freedom of speach, where you were have to resort to a personal insult.
So you can't read either?
SOME PEOPLE
Not all people, not anyone in particular......but some people will have an agenda, to think otherwise is naive.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I don't like the way super injunctions are used to hide extra marital affairs.
Would you accuse me of using an excuse because in reality I'd love rape victims to named in the papers (i.e it's intended purpose)?
Just because you have an issue with how an law is interpreted it doesn't mean you dislike the spirit in which it was created.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 7,754
- Location
- Cornwall
in that instance then, i believe some people would like to see section 5 remain as it is, so they can play the insult victim card for either attention, sympathy or any other reason. or some people will want it to remain, as they are power hungry and want a good old reason to just get people locked up.
Precisely, however many others are advocating just that, particularly at the moment when it comes to religion, I expect that will change when it all becomes too unpalatable for the mainstream, and some other group will take their place, leaving religion for the extremists to continue getting bolshy about.
All it is a movement from one acceptable group to attack to another....30 years ago it was homosexuals, 60 years ago it was Black People, 150 years ago it was the Jews, 400 years ago the Huguenots and so on.....each generation seems to have it's pet group......
I simply cannot understand this preoccupation with associating objective criticism with the acceptance of insults.....it makes no sense to me as it merely undermines any relevance to a persons argument the moment they resort to malicious behaviour.
Well, 'no matter what' can mean practically an infinite number of eventualities, which I concede I haven't considered.
But here is my position, black and white:
People should be free to say anything they like, without fear of reprisal due to somebody feeling 'offended' by what has been said. The exception to this almost universal rule would be any incitements to violence, or anything that was said with the express intention to harm in that way.
If you believe in freedom of speech, as an idea, you have to, by definition, support the right of individuals to offend other individuals. If the only people that have freedom of speech are those who adhere to consensus, those who are mainstream with nothing controversial to say, then freedom of speech does not exist.
And yes, that means I support the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to go and picket funerals of dead soldiers and I support the right of David Irving to deny the Holocaust. But I also support the right of Denmark not to have its embassies burned, its economy sabotaged and its leaders threatened, because its prime minister declined to break his country's law, and censor the Danish press. I support other people's right to offend me, because who knows, one day I will be the one with an extreme view that will be considered cooky by everyone else.
Where would we be now if Charles Darwin had not offended the sensibilities of the country? The same could be said for Newton, or for Kepler. Offense needs to be caused to keep people awake, to stop them from sleep walking into oppression, and to force the truth on them, especially when it's uncomfortable. I know that these scientists had the truth on the side of their claims, but that was not known to all at the time, and it was by fighting this offense that was being felt by so many, that we have evolved to where we are today. Who is to say that the same thing will not happen again in the next few decades? That's why it's so important to protect the individual's right to offend.
Which what I have been stating all along.....the law is fine, simply deal with the way it is interpreted and clarify the law.
You are confusing malicious offence and intentional insult with objective disagreement and simply causing an annoyance....neither of the latter should be or are legislated against.
It is easy to say 'except where it is incitement to violence or the express intention to cause harm" who defines this, is the burning of the Quran an act that is effectively an incitement to violence, is calling the overweight kid in the street a 'fat ****' not an express intention to cause harm?
Is the only harm you can do physical?, is the only incitement the express statement to cause violence?
Also, just because someone may be offended by something doesn't mean it is offensive......this is why, and I keep repeating myself.....you apply a modicum of common sense to any given situation.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 7,754
- Location
- Cornwall
and now you have wondered into something completly different (which i partially wondered into ealirer but the halk quickly guided me right again) offending people is not covered in section 5, insulting, harassing.....is. you can offend someone without doing any of these
I was simply answering a question put to me.and now you have wondered into something completly different (which i partially wondered into ealirer but the halk quickly guided me right again) offending people is not covered in section 5, insulting, harassing.....is. you can offend someone without doing any of these
I hope I didn't offend anyone.
