The Right to Not Be Offended?

No1newts · 16 May 2012 at 14:56

cm1179 said:
people protest because they are offended, the protest offends people

......huh?

I'm offended by the people offended by offensive protestors who may or may not be being offensive... can I sue someone now? :confused:

Naffa · 16 May 2012 at 14:59

'Freedom is always the freedom of the one who thinks differently' - Rosa Luxemburg.

The right not to feel offended... What a completely stupid idea. Freedom of speech is only freedom for those that have something controversial to say. If we say that nobody is allowed to utter anything that may offend someone, or anything that could potentially offend someone, then freedom of speech doesn't exist.

EDIT: I completely agree with what David Davis said, in that short clip. Though, I would have been much more forthright, had it been me being asked.

Andy · 16 May 2012 at 15:04

People need to stop being so soft.

andi · 16 May 2012 at 15:11

The Halk said:
I see! In that case I misunderstand breach of the peace. I've just done a wikipedia check and it seems that there's significant difference between Scots and English law on it. In Scots law it's "conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community."

I was broadly aware of that (at least in the spirit it's written) and had wrongly assumed it existed in roughly the same form in England.

I hadn't noticed you were from Scotland, yes, the law up there is very different! Seems a lot more straightforward to be honest, from the few scottish cop shows I've seen everyone seems to get locked up for BoP!

Castiel · 16 May 2012 at 15:11

So I assume the OP thinks it is acceptable to go up to any random Black person and call them a ******?

Of course people have a right to go about their daily business without fear of being insulted, harassed or offended. Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right, and people should be protected under the law from racism, harassment and offensive behaviour.

It is simply about using common sense when applying that law.

No1newts · 16 May 2012 at 15:14

Castiel said:
So I assume the OP thinks it is acceptable to go up to any random Black person and call them a ******?

Of course people have a right to go about their daily business without fear of being insulted, harassed or offended. Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right, and people should be protected under the law from racism, harassment and offensive behaviour.

lol Cas

Did you follow the link?

OF course people should not have to offended in their daily life but there are plenty of ways this can be dealt with already through the police and courts rather than introducing something which goes against freedom of speech. This is a spit in the face of FoS in a system which already deals with situations in which FoS goes to far anyway.

The Halk · 16 May 2012 at 15:14

Castiel said:
So I assume the OP thinks it is acceptable to go up to any random Black person and call them a ******?

Er, no.

Castiel said:
Of course people have a right to go about their daily business without fear of being insulted, harassed or offended. Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right, and people should be protected under the law from racism, harassment and offensive behaviour.

Yep.

Burnsy2023 · 16 May 2012 at 15:14

paradisiac said:
isnt a lot of this down to the attending officer(s) to decide the best outcome. if they believe there is nothing gained by whacking a fine on them they will just politly ask them to move on?
from my understanding (and this is from roadwars and the likes) there is a lot of paperwork involved in handing out FPN and stuff, that the police wont just go round handing them out just because. although the legislation is there, i dont think that means it will be heavily enforced.
this however is just my opinion, which counts for nothing in terms of reality, so please dont moan at me.

Personally, if I can avoid paperwork I will with open arms. If you give me no other choice but to do some then I will, but it will be the last option.

Burnsy2023 · 16 May 2012 at 15:16

Castiel said:
So I assume the OP thinks it is acceptable to go up to any random Black person and call them a ******?

Of course people have a right to go about their daily business without fear of being insulted, harassed or offended. Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right, and people should be protected under the law from racism, harassment and offensive behaviour.

It is simply about using common sense when applying that law.

I completely agree with this. It's a good bit of legislation when used properly.

paradisiac · 16 May 2012 at 15:16

Castiel said:
So I assume the OP thinks it is acceptable to go up to any random Black person and call them a ******?

Of course people have a right to go about their daily business without fear of being insulted, harassed or offended. Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right, and people should be protected under the law from racism, harassment and offensive behaviour.

It is simply about using common sense when applying that law.

i think this is where things are taken out of context. everyone has the right to feel safe, but if you read the examples shown on the link in the OP, someone was arrested for going 'woof' at a dog, holding a sign up saying scientology was a cult.......petty things. but the site is just showing the extremes to make their point, as much as you are using your 'acceptable to go up to any random Black person and call them a ******?' as your extreme. everything should be looked at in context and the attending officers (which i believe is the case anyway) act accordingly.

Burnsy2023 · 16 May 2012 at 15:21

paradisiac said:
i think this is where things are taken out of context. everyone has the right to feel safe, but if you read the examples shown on the link in the OP, someone was arrested for going 'woof' at a dog, holding a sign up saying scientology was a cult.......petty things. but the site is just showing the extremes to make their point, as much as you are using your 'acceptable to go up to any random Black person and call them a ******?' as your extreme. everything should be looked at in context and the attending officers (which i believe is the case anyway) act accordingly.

Also note that prosecutions in the majority of the examples on the website weren't taken forward and indeed in some cases the Police force admitted they acted wrongly.

paradisiac · 16 May 2012 at 15:26

Burnsy2023 said:
Also note that prosecutions in the majority of the examples on the website weren't taken forward and indeed in some cases the Police force admitted they acted wrongly.

indeed, everything can get spun to get a point across. and like you rightly said in a previous post, police are just people and are prone to making mistakes too. and in the heat of the moment, if there are people there telling them this and that, they can only react on the information given to them at the time.

Burnsy2023 · 16 May 2012 at 15:29

paradisiac said:
indeed, everything can get spun to get a point across. and like you rightly said in a previous post, police are just people and are prone to making mistakes too. and in the heat of the moment, if there are people there telling them this and that, they can only react on the information given to them at the time.

There are times when you meet people who really push your buttons and it's really tempting to consider a S5. Most people will hang themselves if you give them enough rope though.

The Halk · 16 May 2012 at 15:30

Burnsy2023 said:
Also note that prosecutions in the majority of the examples on the website weren't taken forward and indeed in some cases the Police force admitted they acted wrongly.

It's no wonder though that mistakes are made when the wording is so broad. How can we expect the police to enforce a law properly if it could be argued that anything is offensive?

andi · 16 May 2012 at 15:32

No1newts said:
lol Cas

Did you follow the link?

OF course people should not have to offended in their daily life but there are plenty of ways this can be dealt with already through the police and courts rather than introducing something which goes against freedom of speech. This is a spit in the face of FoS in a system which already deals with situations in which FoS goes to far anyway.

The best way to deal with it is using a law that came in in 1986, which is section 5. It's not new.

Burnsy2023 · 16 May 2012 at 15:32

The Halk said:
It's no wonder though that mistakes are made when the wording is so broad. How can we expect the police to enforce a law properly if it could be argued that anything is offensive?

But considering how often the legislation is used, especially during the nighttime economy, there are relativity few mistakes.

andi · 16 May 2012 at 15:34

paradisiac said:
i think this is where things are taken out of context. everyone has the right to feel safe, but if you read the examples shown on the link in the OP, someone was arrested for going 'woof' at a dog, holding a sign up saying scientology was a cult.......petty things. but the site is just showing the extremes to make their point, as much as you are using your 'acceptable to go up to any random Black person and call them a ******?' as your extreme. everything should be looked at in context and the attending officers (which i believe is the case anyway) act accordingly.

I would suggest there was probably more to those stories than is being told, I can't imagine the bloke was just wandering down the road woofing at passing dogs when the police appeared and locked him up, for example.

paradisiac · 16 May 2012 at 15:34

Burnsy2023 said:
But considering how often the legislation is used, especially during the nighttime economy, there are relativity few mistakes.

isnt section 5 there more to give the police some power IF there is a need to take action, rather than something the police activily go around trying to enforce, such as the do with burglaries etc.

andi · 16 May 2012 at 15:35

The Halk said:
It's no wonder though that mistakes are made when the wording is so broad. How can we expect the police to enforce a law properly if it could be argued that anything is offensive?

Broad laws are good, they allow officers to use descretion and common sense in their application.

If s5 was as terrible as that website makes out, you'd have heard about it way before now.

The Halk · 16 May 2012 at 15:37

andi said:
Broad laws are good, they allow officers to use descretion and common sense in their application.

I'd say they were bad for the same reasons... I don't want police officers using their discretion in applying the law.