The Right to Not Be Offended?

[paradisiac]

Steve Hughes.

“I went to the comedy show and the comedian said something about the lord,
and I was offended, and when I woke up in the morning, I had leprosy."


"How do you make a law about offending people? How do you make it an offense to offend people? Being offended is subjective.
It has everything to do with you as an individual or a collective, or a group or a society or a community.
Your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs. What offends me may not offend you. And you want to make laws about this?
I’m offended when I see boy bands for god sake."

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.

 

[paradisiac]

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

but do you not want to remove the aspects of this that would allow them to enforce this law? if insult is removed, they couldnt arrest me for calling them a 'pig' as that is nothing more than an insult, so my smart comments would not be reason to arrest

 

[estebanrey]

under what law? which law allows a police officer to arrest me for giving a smart answer back or being a dick?

Strictly none, but they'll think of one. When it comes to it, a court will always take the police officers account of events over yours, they'll just say you swore at them.

For example, a police officer has no automatic right to search your car if he pulls you over. However he can if he has 'reasonable suspicion' that you have something to hide. All the copper has to say is 'I smell marajuana' and bingo, he can search your car. Whether he can or not is ultimately irrelevant because you'll never prove he was lying.

I was watching one of the Police, Camera Action programmes the other day and a guy who'd just got out of a car was taking something from a skip. Now this is technically illegal so the policeman went for word with him. The guy had a thick Irish accent and slurred his words and was giving the copper some lip. The policemen in question said "I smell alcohol on your breath" and used that reason to breathalyse him.

It turned out the reading was zero so obviously the policemen didn't smell alcohol he was just taking a punt based on prejudice.

 

[The Halk]

You're jumping to conclusions Castiel. Just because I want to be able to insult someone if I choose to does not mean I go about doing it. I have very good manners, I'll help anyone if I can. I cannot remember a time where I insulted anyone in a public space other than charity muggers.

As for the incident in Asda.... this is a more detailed explanation. I was pushing my trolley around the aisles. I came into the confectionery isle and a woman was standing, using her phone. Her child was opening packs of sweets. I don't mean he was looking inside or eating them, he was just opening one after another. The woman could not be oblivious to this, regardless I pointed it out to her so that she had to do something about it. I was civil, I was probably not friendly - but who would be in the circumstances? I was not unfriendly, or confrontational as you maintain... regardless though she took offence to what I said. Decent parents would not have been in that position. If it was possible the parent didn't know what was going on then I'd have approached it differently.

Even if I had said what I was thinking "Oi, Waynetta Slob, your brat is wasting all those sweets. Get your fat face out of your phone and sort it out." it wouldn't have been cause to physically assault me - although it would have been comical.

 

[paradisiac]

Strictly none, but they'll think of one. When it comes to it, a court will always take the police officers account of events over yours, they'll just say you swore at them.

For example, a police officer has no automatic right to search your car if he pulls you over. However he can if he has 'reasonable suspicion' that you have something to hide. All the copper has to say is 'I smell marajuana' and bingo, he can search your car. Whether he can or not is ultimately irrelevant because you'll never prove he was lying.

I was watching one of the Police, Camera Action programmes the other day and a guy who'd just got out of a car was taking something from a skip. Now this is technically illegal so the policeman went for word with him. The guy had a thick Irish accent and slurred his words and was giving the copper some lip. The policemen in question said "I smell alcohol on your breath" and used that reason to breathalyse him.

It turned out the reading was zero so obviously the policemen didn't smell alcohol he was just taking a punt based on prejudice.

yes i saw that too, he hadnt had a drink in years. but i must admit, he did see, shady. and it wasnt a skip, it was outside some flats i think you will find
my point is, and always has been, 99% of the police will only enforce it IF they feel they have to as it is far too much paperwork to just do it for fun. if you remove the part of the law that allows them to stop extreme behaviour, then you are asking for trouble, hence why they use their discretion.
also, your comment with the judge siding with the police. if this is true, how come most of the examples given were dismissed and no charges carried forward? i fear your argument is flawed in many ways.

 

[The Halk]

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.

As for the poor old lady it's harassment, and it wouldn't matter if it was insulting or not. In fact by your reasoning if it was them saying "Have a nice day" and intimidating her with that then the police would have nothing to go on. That isn't the case. Everybody has protection from harassment and it should remain the case.

 

[The Halk]

but do you not want to remove the aspects of this that would allow them to enforce this law? if insult is removed, they couldnt arrest me for calling them a 'pig' as that is nothing more than an insult, so my smart comments would not be reason to arrest

I'm not sure what your point is... it should not be a crime to call a police officer a pig. It is of course an act of abject stupidity. You might as well say "Hang on officer, are you sure you can't think of anything I'm doing wrong?". But a crime in itself? It should not be.

 

[aln]

It is needed because you can insult someone in a manner that would cause distress.....Racial insults for example.

You know what causes distress? People acting outrageously victimised for silly reasons.

People will be offended for almost any reason, and differentiating a subset of things you're allowed to get upset over is harmful. Specifically, you're essentially promoting state sponsored violence for the use of words. Why do you feel it's appropriate to esculate such issues?

It is all about the context and intent of the insult, no the insult itself.........

The context and intent of an insult, or indeed any words, is never worth fighting over. Indeed if the Government should be of any use to us at all, it should be in protecting our persons, not our fragile minds.

People should have a reasonable expectation to be treated with respect and decorum in public....and that includes not making off the cuff remarks or unwelcome comments just because some people are rude.

Are you trying to make the point that you feel being rude should be a criminal offense?

Heres one, people should be free to converse and convay their opinions without the fear of physical retribution. I think we should lock you up now in case someone bruises your military service sponsored ego.

 

[estebanrey]

your comment with the judge siding with the police. if this is true, how come most of the examples given were dismissed and no charges carried forward? i fear your argument is flawed in many ways.

Because I have first hand experience. I was caught speeding by police who were breaking every ACPO guideline in the book so I took it to court. The policeman was called and he claimed that I said "Sorry officer I thought this was a 40 zone" when I never said anything of the sort!

I was so angry when it happened, it's the one and only time I've been to court and not knowing the protocol I nearly stood and shouted "Objection your honour!"

 

[paradisiac]

You're jumping to conclusions Castiel. Just because I want to be able to insult someone if I choose to does not mean I go about doing it. I have very good manners, I'll help anyone if I can. I cannot remember a time where I insulted anyone in a public space other than charity muggers.

but you remove the law and it means people can, and will, insult anybody whenever they feel the need.

As for the incident in Asda.... this is a more detailed explanation. I was pushing my trolley around the aisles. I came into the confectionery isle and a woman was standing, using her phone. Her child was opening packs of sweets. I don't mean he was looking inside or eating them, he was just opening one after another. The woman could not be oblivious to this, regardless I pointed it out to her so that she had to do something about it. I was civil, I was probably not friendly - but who would be in the circumstances? I was not unfriendly, or confrontational as you maintain... regardless though she took offence to what I said. Decent parents would not have been in that position. If it was possible the parent didn't know what was going on then I'd have approached it differently.

Even if I had said what I was thinking "Oi, Waynetta Slob, your brat is wasting all those sweets. Get your fat face out of your phone and sort it out." it wouldn't have been cause to physically assault me - although it would have been comical.

again, im 99% sure that if an on duty police officer had been walking by, he would have carried on walking, not whipped out his cuffs and carted you off.
but, remove the law, swap you for someone with no manners, and the said situation was more along the lines of 'oi you ******* ****, look what the **** your brat of a kid is doing! you aint fit to be a ******* parent, you council estate chavy reject'
would you be happy for a police officer to just smile and walk on by as he would be powerless to intervene?

 

[paradisiac]

I'm not sure what your point is... it should not be a crime to call a police officer a pig. It is of course an act of abject stupidity. You might as well say "Hang on officer, are you sure you can't think of anything I'm doing wrong?". But a crime in itself? It should not be.

my point was, a police officer does not on the whole just go around making up reasons to arrest people, if they did they wouldnt remain on the force for long as all their arrests would be disreguarded by the courts and it wouldnt look good on their record. the only reason people tend to get arrested is down to them mouthing off for no reason, when a simple, straight forward reply to an officers questioning would have seen them go merrily on their way.

and like i keep stating, just because they can arrest you for it, they dont have to. the law does not state that every case of insult will result in an arrest, it is just in the legislation to allow the on duty officer to remove a problem from a situation to stop it escaliting into something that cant be easily controlled.

 

[The Halk]

but you remove the law and it means people can, and will, insult anybody whenever they feel the need.

Ok. As long as it's not harassment it's fine.

again, im 99% sure that if an on duty police officer had been walking by, he would have carried on walking, not whipped out his cuffs and carted you off.
but, remove the law, swap you for someone with no manners, and the said situation was more along the lines of 'oi you ******* ****, look what the **** your brat of a kid is doing! you aint fit to be a ******* parent, you council estate chavy reject'
would you be happy for a police officer to just smile and walk on by as he would be powerless to intervene?

It'd be breach of the peace in Scotland, where I am. I'd expect an on duty police officer (I don't know if it's fair to expect the police to have to get involved if they are off duty.. let them have their time off) to cool the situation down and then focus on the mother not looking after her brat. In my limited experience of the police they're quite tactful and smart at defusing situations fast. However that doesn't mean they need to be able to charge someone with insulting someone else.

 

[Castiel]

You know what causes distress? People acting outrageously victimised for silly reasons.

People will be offended for almost any reason, and differentiating a subset of things you're allowed to get upset over is harmful. Specifically, you're essentially promoting state sponsored violence for the use of words. Why do you feel it's appropriate to esculate such issues?

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.

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.

The context and intent of an insult, or indeed any words, is never worth fighting over. Indeed if the Government should be of any use to us at all, it should be in protecting our persons, not our fragile minds.

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

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

Are you trying to make the point that you feel being rude should be a criminal offense?

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

Heres one, people should be free to converse and convay their opinions without the fear of physical retribution. I think we should lock you up now in case someone bruises your military service sponsored ego.

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.

 

[paradisiac]

It'd be breach of the peace in Scotland, where I am. I'd expect an on duty police officer (I don't know if it's fair to expect the police to have to get involved if they are off duty.. let them have their time off) to cool the situation down and then focus on the mother not looking after her brat. In my limited experience of the police they're quite tactful and smart at defusing situations fast. However that doesn't mean they need to be able to charge someone with insulting someone else.

but just because its there doesnt mean they have to enforce it. but if you take it out, they have no way of enforcing it.
say he didnt calm down, and just sat there dishing out more insults to anyone passing by. now thats not harassment, its just a bloke insulting people.
in england and wales, im pretty sure the BoP wouldnt cover this, so without there being the word 'insult' in section 5, he could happily do this all day, as often as he wanted, to as many people as he wanted.

im not sure about you, but if i had say 10 people do this to me a day, every day, not harassment mind as its different people, just saying random insults, i would feel pretty down after a week or so of it.

 

[The Halk]

Castiel, what you're defending against there is harassment though, not insult.

 

[KatanaDV20]

that is crazy, arrested for making a barking sound at a dog do the police really have that much time on their hands?

I was living in San Francisco when this actually happened. It was all over the local news.

A cop car was stuck in traffic (a K-9 Unit) and in the back was the police German sheperd with head out of window barking happily and wagging tail. This dude walking passed made a barking noise back. Was promptly arrested on the spot for animal "harassment" & "causing distress". I forgot what happened to the case.

But now I see this has reached us in the UK.

 

[andi]

If I remember rightly, for the purposes of the public order act, a police officer can't be harassed alarmed or destressed, you need a bystander, who could be harassed, alarmed or destressed, so calling a cop a pig and swearing in his face is fine, as long as no one else can hear it.


Now that, is wrong

 

[The Halk]

but just because its there doesnt mean they have to enforce it. but if you take it out, they have no way of enforcing it.
say he didnt calm down, and just sat there dishing out more insults to anyone passing by. now thats not harassment, its just a bloke insulting people.
in england and wales, im pretty sure the BoP wouldnt cover this, so without there being the word 'insult' in section 5, he could happily do this all day, as often as he wanted, to as many people as he wanted.

im not sure about you, but if i had say 10 people do this to me a day, every day, not harassment mind as its different people, just saying random insults, i would feel pretty down after a week or so of it.

Assuming he was calm while doing it... then it's a strange one. I don't know what the laws in England and Wales would do about it without section 5. In Scotland as I said it's BoP and that's what nuisance drunks are charged with. Could it be said that the idiot should just be ignored? As long as it wasn't done in a threatening manner, or causing a disturbance then just let it go?

If you had 10 people doing it to you every day then so would everybody else, so I don't think it'd bother you.

 

[paradisiac]

Castiel, what you're defending against there is harassment though, not insult.

so when does insulting someone turn into harassment? this is where im unclear on you stance.

ha·rass/həˈras/
Verb:
1.Subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation.
2.Make repeated small-scale attacks on (an enemy).

going back to my comment about the old lady. now these youths only did it once, and only 1 insult was thrown by each individual. so individually, its not repeated, so its not technically harassment, but she still suffers the same effects of being scared.

 

[badcompany]

Reform Section 5.

It's seriously important that this happens, otherwise literally anything you say can be a crime.

Have a look at section 5 for some mental things that have been tried by the police and others against people.

next will be thought crimes.