Lonan3 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I appreciate what you're saying, Vulgarian and, to a large degree, I agree with it. Certainly, if we're talking about something along the lines of the example you suggested - "I'm glad he's dead lol" - then I'd probably be in for a whole life term for the way I greeted the news of Thatcher's demise! However, the truth is that we really don't know - and we need to accept that there are degrees of offensiveness. What if, for example, the girl's 'comment' had been in the form of an untruth that amounted to character assassination? It might not matter to the victim - but to his parents and family? I agree with the basic sentiment of your post - but until I know exactly what form the comment took that it caused someone to complain, I'm not in any position to condemn the actions of the authorities, and neither is anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 It's a difficult balance. On the one hand you should be allowed to freely voice your opinion, on the other there should be a basic expectation on every member of society to not be a complete jockstrap. And how do we determine where that balance lies? Up until very recently, I was very much of the thinking that we should have free speech, i.e. freedom to say whatever we like without a society admonishing the speaker. Now I am not sure when I think of the problem of racism, heterosexism, and sexism. Therein lies the difficulty. And the answer is: I don't know. I have a level of concern about the Police/Government not understanding the nature of the internet. On a forum I frequent with users from all around the world, where nobody really knows who anyone else is in real life, there are insults thrown around all the time. And nobody takes offense, because that's just how it is. And I believe that's fine. When it crosses into real-life via the medium of a non-anonymous platform like Facebook, it's a much larger problem. And I believe it becomes not okay at that point. But do we trust the Government to understand the difference between those two scenarios? I'm not sure I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Re: The causing offence discussion in the last few posts, it comes down to intent for me. If you offend someone with your viewpoint, that's okay. If you offend someone because you say something horrible and unjustified about their dead relative, that's not okay. But again huge numbers of borderline cases which you could argue either way until the end of time. By far the best solution would be if we didn't need to worry about it because people just took on some social responsibility and didn't act like asses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted April 14, 2014 Author Share Posted April 14, 2014 I don't think offence should be criminalised. I'm with you on that one. But the problem is encountered with speech that is considered oppression. Absolute free speech could be argued to lead to a society where those who are the targets of oppressive speech are less free than those who use it. Hateful speech can become a problem, but in a society such as ours which desires to reduce hateful speech, where the general consensus is that it is bad, this situation is less likely to occur anyway. A society which does not desire to reduce it, where people don't challenge or speak against it, has wider problems. We have other means of challenging and discouraging oppressive speech besides criminalisation. Back to the case in hand, if the girl said something really offensive people should challenge her, explain why her comments have been so hurtful, declaim and decry her utterances. These are powerful social means of tackling problems like this. The police and state do not need to be involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 If you offend someone with your viewpoint, that's okay. If you offend someone because you say something horrible and unjustified about their dead relative, that's not okay. It may not be 'okay' but does that mean it should be criminal? I could call you a horrible name that you find offensive, but should society or the State respond to this by punishing me? Why should being offended lead to punishment? What's so bad about being offended? On a very different matter, what about where the important issue is not about offence, but about the use of language to oppress and marginalise people, such as use of racist language? Is it right to punish? I think issues of speech and punishment are very difficult to moralise over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 It is entirely possible for 'speech' to go beyond offence and into the realms of genuine hurt. An example would, perhaps, be the effect nasty words about their dead child could have on parents. Make no mistake, if that was done deliberately, it is every bit an act of violence as a punch would be and probably even more painful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 If you offend someone with your viewpoint, that's okay. If you offend someone because you say something horrible and unjustified about their dead relative, that's not okay. It may not be 'okay' but does that mean it should be criminal? I could call you a horrible name that you find offensive, but should society or the State respond to this by punishing me? Why should being offended lead to punishment? What's so bad about being offended? On a very different matter, what about where the important issue is not about offence, but about the use of language to oppress and marginalise people, such as use of racist language? Is it right to punish? I think issues of speech and punishment are very difficult to moralise over. I think we both agree that it's almost impossible to rule on. Especially when there's no universal measurement for how offensive something is. I believe you're referring to hate-speech in your comment with racism as an example? I believe hate-speech should be punished, yes. But again it depends on context. If a religious bloke is asked about homosexuality and says "Well, I believe that gays are going to hell, as it says in [my interpretation of] the Bible", I'm okay with him saying that. If he says "Gays SHOULD go to hell because they're immoral and disgusting", that's not okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chutney Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 How on earth is arresting someone anything to do with violence ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcousticallyChallenged Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I think we both agree that it's almost impossible to rule on. Especially when there's no universal measurement for how offensive something is. I believe you're referring to hate-speech in your comment with racism as an example? I believe hate-speech should be punished, yes. But again it depends on context. If a religious bloke is asked about homosexuality and says "Well, I believe that gays are going to hell, as it says in [my interpretation of] the Bible", I'm okay with him saying that. If he says "Gays SHOULD go to hell because they're immoral and disgusting", that's not okay. It also depends how people act on those thoughts/beliefs. i.e in your example, if said bloke is turning up at the various pride rallies and protesting or being generally unpleasant then yes, he has gone too far, whereas if he's at home talking to like-minded friends and saying "I think x group of people should not be here because of y reason" that's his views expressed privately without the motivation to offend. I think the same goes for a lot of radical believers, if they keep themselves to themselves, and aren't trying to indoctrinate youths or vulnerable people, it's a lot more acceptable than someone going around dressed in a manner to provoke and/or offend, spreading messages of hate in order to provoke, offend or indoctrinate. If someone goes onto Facebook or any website for the purpose of causing grief, and upset to others, then I'm sure most would agree, they are doing something wrong/malicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 ...Arresting someone means using violence against them... ...It is firstly the use of force against innocent people (as they must be considered until they have been proven otherwise)... What you seem to be saying here is that nobody should ever be arrested because it's a violent act against innocent people. Which is nonsense. Arrest is a violent act against innocent people, but I didn't say that it should never be used. I said that it "should only happen when absolutely necessary; to protect people from violence, theft, and other very serious crimes". Not used as it is now, as a casual tool to punish minor transgressions in speech. Define "violent". Define "innocent". Define "absolutely necessary". Define "very serious". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 How on earth is arresting someone anything to do with violence ? Sometimes shit happens.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chutney Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 The arrest is a use of words to tell someone that their liberty has been taken from them until such time as they are released, sometimes, and only sometimes force is used. Generally in cases such as this one people are invited to the Police Station and formally arrested in the foyer, not even a touch passes between them. Really violent that ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 These sort of cases would never go to a jury, for most of them they are summary only which means magistrates, 3 lay people or a stipendiary magistrate (in Manx terms a High Bailiff) It's all a matter of degree isn't it. A part of me thinks we should trust Juries in this. They are made up of ordinary people and they can decide if what has been done is grossly offensive or not. Yeah they can be led, and it still involves people being pulled up by the police etc. but the ultimate issue is that prosecutors won't gain anything if they push cases where juries won't convict, and so ultimately juries will proscribe prosecutors veal. I feel the legal principle that a jury of ordinary people should decide for itself what is grossly offensive etc is really important, and I do not like the recent changes to reduce Jury Trials. We don't know the circumstances and details of this case. I'm not such a libertarian to think that people should be left entirely free to say and do whatever they think on the internet. Words and images have power and can and do have consequences. Therefore the state does need powers to intervene if people go too far, and how should that be decided, by 12 ordinary people viewing the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Ans, really. /shakes head and gives that disappointed mother look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 at what point can you say potentially offensive things about someone??? going by sickipedia there should be a lot of people arrested based on their peaches geldoff 'jokes'. and Imagine a lot of politicians should be arrested over their joy at the deaths of gadaffi and hussain?? one rule for one etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.