The Right to Not Be Offended?

The Halk said:
Ok. As long as it's not harassment it's fine
Click to expand...

define harassment.

Do you not think castigating someone in public is not harassment?

The point is that in the examples you gave, there was no reason to be insulting to anyone....if the woman in the store was rude to you equally that is not acceptable and it is fine to tell her that.....like I said context and intent.

The law is there to protect those who cannot protect themselves......that it occasionally gets misused is no reason to remove it.

I would like to know when our society decided it was ok to be routinely rude to people just because you feel like anyway. Not that I haven't been rude in my time, but that doesn't mean I should have been.......(sometimes it does though.....context and intent again)
 
I nearly got done by the police for having a penis drawn on my window in fake snow. Someone reported it for being offensive. I felt it was just festively appropriate.
 
Last edited:
The Halk said:
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.
Click to expand...

dunno, im sure i have many reasons for insults to be thrown at me :p

i see your side, i really do. but i feel that removing the right to enforce it would just either cause a lot of unwanted problems, or another piece of legislation being passed to cover it.
 
reflux said:
I nearly got done by the police for having a penis drawn on my window in fake snow. Someone reported it for being offensive. I felt it was simply festively appropriate.
Click to expand...

i would say they had grounds to report it. although it may seem funny to you, what about the children that walk past your car?
 
paradisiac said:
i would say they had grounds to report it. although it may seem funny to you, what about the children that walk past your car?
Click to expand...

It was my bedroom window, and the drawing skills were up to that of a child, so they would probably have lolled at it too.
 
Castiel said:
define harassment.

Do you not think castigating someone in public is not harassment?
Click to expand...
It depends on context really. It certainly could very easily be.

Castiel said:
The point is that in the examples you gave, there was no reason to be insulting to anyone....if the woman in the store was rude to you equally that is not acceptable and it is fine to tell her that.....like I said context and intent.
Click to expand...
There is reason to insult charity muggers. What they're doing may not be illegal, but it's morally wrong and that's how society works, we express our disapproval of bad behaviour. It's not a crime to be a poor parent, but society will try to let you know if you are. It's not a crime to cheat on your wife, but society will make you feel bad about it etc.[/QUOTE]

Castiel said:
The law is there to protect those who cannot protect themselves......that it occasionally gets misused is no reason to remove it.
Click to expand...
I'm only after the insult part, I'm not convinced there's a good use for it.

Castiel said:
I would like to know when our society decided it was ok to be routinely rude to people just because you feel like anyway. Not that I haven't been rude in my time, but that doesn't mean I should have been.......(sometimes it does though.....context and intent again)
Click to expand...
I don't think society ever thought it was ok. However just because it's not ok doesn't mean it should be a criminal offence. Lots of things aren't ok but aren't crimes.
 
paradisiac said:
dunno, im sure i have many reasons for insults to be thrown at me :p

i see your side, i really do. but i feel that removing the right to enforce it would just either cause a lot of unwanted problems, or another piece of legislation being passed to cover it.
Click to expand...

Well, I think you appear to be thoughtful and caring - or at least that's how you come across in this thread. Perhaps that'll cancel out one of the insults from today :)

I disagree though, I think the word insult being removed would leave the power of enforcement just fine with what was left.
 
estebanrey said:
It 'offends' me, isn't that grounds enough [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(c)that his conduct was reasonable.
(4)A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—
(a)he engages in offensive conduct which [F1a] constable warns him to stop, and
(b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.
(5)In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.
(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
Click to expand...

explain how you taking offence to a pronunciacion of a word is covered in that ;)
 
The Halk said:
Castiel, what you're defending against there is harassment though, not insult.
Click to expand...

It is all about the context and the intent of the insult.....calling someone a (1) dick (or stronger) because they cut you up or something is not an issue, neither is it likely to get you arrested......calling a (2) black chap a ****** however is an issue, it is still only an insult, but the context and intent is different.....calling your (3) black mate a ****** in a jokey way however is not an issue, again, context and intent.....

The law exists to deal with examples like number (2)......it shouldn't be applied to (1) and (3).......

Like I said over and over......you don't remove the protection from (2) because a minority of cases have affected (1) and (2).... You overturn the minority that shouldn't have been applied and issue guidelines to clarify the legislation.

Common sense.
 
Castiel said:
It is all about the context and the intent of the insult.....calling someone a (1) dick (or stronger) because they cut you up or something is not an issue, neither is it likely to get you arrested......calling a (2) black chap a ****** however is an issue, it is still only an insult, but the context and intent is different.....calling your (3) black mate a ****** in a jokey way however is not an issue, again, context and intent.....

The law exists to deal with examples like number (2)......it shouldn't be applied to (1) and (3).......

Like I said over and over......you don't remove the protection from (2) because a minority of cases have affected (1) and (2).... You overturn the minority that shouldn't have been applied and issue guidelines to clarify the legislation.

Common sense.
Click to expand...

I'm not wanting the protection for 2 removed. I want the law that makes 1 and 3 illegal but most police officers will ignore it removed.
 
Castiel said:
It is all about the context and the intent of the insult.....calling someone a (1) dick (or stronger) because they cut you up or something is not an issue, neither is it likely to get you arrested......calling a (2) black chap a ****** however is an issue, it is still only an insult, but the context and intent is different.....calling your (3) black mate a ****** in a jokey way however is not an issue, again, context and intent.....

The law exists to deal with examples like number (2)......it shouldn't be applied to (1) and (3).......

Like I said over and over......you don't remove the protection from (2) because a minority of cases have affected (1) and (2).... You overturn the minority that shouldn't have been applied and issue guidelines to clarify the legislation.

Common sense.
Click to expand...

this has been my argument, remove 'insult' and you then open yourself up to other issues, although your example is flawed as it would fall under some racism act i think.
 
The Halk said:
I'm not wanting the protection for 2 removed. I want the law that makes 1 and 3 illegal but most police officers will ignore it removed.
Click to expand...

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.

As will almost all legislation and case law, subjective terminology is open to interpretation, and what constitutes an insult is subjective, you can't effectively legislate for that, all you can do is issue guidelines on what the intent of the law is and how it should be applied.
 
The Halk said:
If it's not a racial thing then it's not a problem, so I wouldn't want it covered.
Click to expand...

really?
someone is in the street minding their own business in a wheelchair, or has downsyndrome or something, someone shouts out some insulting comment due to their disability, that is in someway less insulting than someone shouting out a racial insult?
 
paradisiac said:
really?
someone is in the street minding their own business in a wheelchair, or has downsyndrome or something, someone shouts out some insulting comment due to their disability, that is in someway less insulting than someone shouting out a racial insult?
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Halk said:
If it's not a racial thing then it's not a problem, so I wouldn't want it covered.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom