17 year old girl arrested over 'offensive' Facebook comment

[wrighty]

Force is always threatened in making arrests. If it weren't, what's to stop people from simply refusing to be arrested? The threat of force. And all police powers are indeed predicated on the use of force, which the state claims a monopoly on.

 

I don't think that's right. In the UK (and by extension, here) the police operate by consent, i.e. the general public consents to be policed by them. I heard it on radio 4 so it must be true.

 

Link to a government statement on the subject here.

[Chinahand]

We live in a pluralistic society with lots of different roles and opinions.

 

The result is that people are going to disagree with where lines are drawn or what is allowed - whether it is drug taking, gambling or stopping people being gobby on the internet.

 

There seem to be at least two options - no controls, or arbitrary controls.

 

People are always going to be able to say the lines are arbitrary and should be drawn elsewhere. I agree that lines can be shifted and moved and there is a zeitgeist element to this - people can say some things now which were unacceptable in the past, and also can't say things now which were acceptable in the past. Why? Because society can influence the lines - they aren't quite as arbitrary as all that. My point of view is that people can make their case and try to change minds, and society does move where lines are drawn - maybe society will decide to be more relaxed attitude is needed!

 

I'm basically happy with having people enforce controls for me, I don't think I need to be trying to catch burglars or internet bullies - I've other things to do and will contract that job out to more professional people than me. I think my society is reasonably grown up, but is still trying to work out the consequences of speech on the internet.

 

I don't think the law, or social rules are bedded in yet over social media, but I am pretty sure I do want some mechanisms in place. Yes, self control and also a community monitoring itself are important, but just as a beat bobby playeds a role in policing boisterousness, I not against the police having a role and escalating their involvement depending upon the severity of the behaviour.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The issue of public consent to being governed as we are and by extension being policed is a tricky issue. There are a number of factors that results in that consent being manufactured and being given passively. The government (and partly the media) create an understanding that we live in a democracy and that the government and police are there to serve us and do good and in the latter case to protect us. This message is reinforced through repetition.

But we are also apathetic. We live in a society where consumer interests are paramount, where people are not educated to think about alternatives and we are have reached a stage where the State has taken over much that would foster social cohesion - society is more atomised that it has ever been over the past few centuries. All this results in a situation where people simply consent because they can't be arsed doing anything else or feel powerless to seek alternatives.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

People are always going to be able to say the lines are arbitrary and should be drawn elsewhere. I agree that lines can be shifted and moved and there is a zeitgeist element to this - people can say some things now which were unacceptable in the past, and also can't say things now which were acceptable in the past. Why? Because society can influence the lines - they aren't quite as arbitrary as all that. My point of view is that people can make their case and try to change minds, and society does move where lines are drawn - maybe society will decide to be more relaxed attitude is needed!

Though you aware that the State itself takes a very large role in shifting these lines of what is acceptable or not. I feel there is something vague and imprecise about referring to society itself shaping the lines.

I personally have a problem with the idea that the morality surrounding what should and should not be said is down to just what a society (whatever that might mean) thinks is acceptable at any time. What if that society doesn't include the victims of a particularly harmful form of language? Or what if society deems all language that could be construed as offensive as punishable? If there no moral thinking that can be applied to the issue of free speech outside of the whims of a society?

Only fifty years, racist language of the worst sort used to be openly spoken. But can we not look back to those times and agree that people were wrong to speak like that?

[Chinahand]

Not disagreeing with you that much LDV. It's a really difficult question to understand what is the right way to behave and to regulate behaviour.

 

Listen to as many voices as possible, try to be empathetic, be aware you are fallible, try to be fair to others.

 

But we've got the contingent complexity of society and its norms. No one knows what is the right thing to do ... but personally I do think society is basically learning and getting things better than it has previously. Though obviously progress isn't always constant, and reverses are perfectly possible.

 

I do wonder if people are really more disengaged now than in the past - when was the best time for political engagement in society? 1945, 1981? I'm not convinced. Society is far more complex nowadays - which results in far more fragmented voices. It makes mass movements more difficult, but the diversity is a sign of strength not weakness.

[Kopek]

 

It's good to see impartial moderators encouraging people to start debates. If you've got any rhetoric let's hear it.

What has my administrator status have to do with the fact that I think you're a gigantic arsehole? Unless you feel that I have in some way (ab)used my admin privileges in this thread, I don't really see what your point is?

 

When the facts come out about this specific case, I'll probably have a view on it. Please continue on posting your uninformed drivel though, it's what you're exceptionally good at. That and getting high.

Ans, because you are a moderator, all that you post could be interpreted as an administrator comment. Calling someone a 'gigantic ass hole' could be code for 'shut up'.

 

This may curtail your ability to post your personal opinion in your own words but like the Police, maybe you have to behave in manner above the behaviour of others?

[Matt Bawden]

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.

Equally though, those being offended could just merely ignore the offensive comment/s and disregard them as just being the words of an insignificant attention seeking idiot.

 

The act of causing offence should and must never be considered a criminal act, insensitive, distasteful, socially inept yes, but never criminal. If causing offence is considered a crime the world would be made I up of 99% mutes; people too scared to speak for fear of being arrested and stripped of their liberties by the thought police.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think the problem with Vulgarian's and possibly your view of speech and value of free speech is that it is viewed from a privileged position. By that, I mean that I get the feeling that you either haven't experience or don't understand the harm that is done by use of certain forms of language. This is why the issue of oppressive speech is singularly a big concern for me and why I am doubtful whether absolute speech is wise.

 

When it comes to the language used by people there is a normative discourse, as you may know. Those with privilege, i.e. those with power, who are either or all white, male and heterosexual are able to make use of language to effectively put those who aren't in these categories in a place. The language is used to shape an understanding of society - an understanding of what it means to be male or female, gay or straight, and black or white.

 

When someone refers to another person by reference to their race we both understand from a position of being white the power that has over the target. It's readily available to dismiss that person's entire character and individuality down to the colour of skin. But more importantly, it reinforces a demarcation between an 'in' group and 'out' group with a historical context that lets the victim know they are recognised and understood as being part of the 'out' group and being the lesser.

 

It's the same for sexuality.

 

I think it is arrogant and ignorant to refer to a meeting of collective minds to sort out the problem. As an example, when I was fifteen and simply waiting for a bus to school I remember a van drove slowly passed and adult men shouted 'faggot' and 'pufter' at me. What challenge could I have given to that? If I had some form of dialogue with these people, how could I effectively challenge them?

 

This is the problem because language of power is the language of the majority. Those who are victims of oppressive language cannot yield a language that carries an equal or greater power, as although the victim may have reason and more enlightened thinking on the side their language cannot be understood by those whose recourse is to the dominant discourse.

 

In the long term the dominant discourse can be challenged. I make sure nobody makes the mistake of assuming I am straight, that nobody refers to homosexuality in a jocular fashion without critical comment from me and try to make no attempt as passing as straight so that the heterosexual understanding behind the language is challenged in a very small way.

With people of other race, it's a different method that is employed to challenge normative values surrounding race.

But both take a long time to have an effect.

 

What about the here and now? If I do not have the power to challenge someone effectively, should society act on my behalf to directly challenge the person who uses oppressive speech against me or do I just have to rely on my own challenge to the sort of thinking behind it in a less directed manner?

[Vulgarian]

LDV, Moral positioning in society is doubtless very complex and is influenced very much by external factors; economic, political, social, etc. . But what effect does criminalisation of kinds of speech actually have on changing attitudes? Is this social engineering actually working to make people more tolerant, or is it merely suppressing the open expression of criminal speech? I am sure that law has a role to play in informing our thinking about morality. Criminality implies immorality, and this message is constantly reinforced by the state through communication and action - the arrest in the case in hand being an example of this.

 

But I think making criminals of people, with everything that entails, is too high a price to pay for steering opinion, and I am sure that these ends can be achieved without it.

 

Speech can be used to oppress, but it can also be used to empower. And let's remember that suppression of speech is also a form of oppression, and has historically been used in this way, such as in cases where the mention of certain names, singing of certain songs, or entire languages have been made illegal. By fencing off speech from interference by the state or others everyone's right to empower themselves through speech, whatever that means to them, is secured.

[Kopek]

 

 

.

There is the State, which has encouraged what is known as 'political correctness'. Also, you can educate but are we to rely on the State to do this? If not, then who?

 

The problem with oppressive speech is that there is definite harm in its use. Should it be ignored until people wise-up to better ways of being?

The problem with allowing the State to decide what is 'Politically Correct' is that sooner or later the State will decide that it is 'Politically INcorrect' to say that Politicians can be INcorrect. Allan Bell and 'Manx Crabs' comes to mind.

 

More succinctly, which areas of Political Correctness are to be left to evolve naturally and which require a little nudging? I would suggest Race and Colour bias should be encouraged to desist while calling a Welshman 'Taffy' should be left to Public acceptance?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I used to be of thinking that free speech means free speech. You either have it or you don't and we can't be free without free speech. But following from what I have posted above, the problem is that others free speech can prevent me from expressing myself.

 

If someone relies on the dominant, racist or heterosexist discourse, which is the one that has the power, then they are actively painting a picture of what they want society to be understood as.

 

I can't express myself and be understood by others as well as those who use privileged language if those who use the dominant discourse reduce me to nothing but my sexuality. And the same for someone of another colour skin. That speech strips me of a freedom that I could otherwise have and which the privileged have.

 

Absolute speech could very well lead to less freedoms for many people. If that's the case, absolute speech is such a great thing.

[Vulgarian]

I understand what you are saying about power and discourse well enough. I still ask you what the point of criminalising speech is, how effective this is in altering attitudes, and whether it should be done.

 

It doesn't shift in any way the power balance in discourse. I don't think it is going to help people understand the power relationships in discourse, and the harm that oppressive language can do. In fact, over-active policing of it may actually be antagonistic and worsen understanding.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

But I think making criminals of people, with everything that entails, is too high a price to pay for steering opinion, and I am sure that these ends can be achieved without it.

Yes, criminalisation for the goal of steering opinion would be incorrect, but what about when actual harm is done. Say when someone is called 'faggot' or 'nigger' or when 'gay' becomes commonly used as a disparaging remark which naturally has a negative effect on the understanding of homosexuality? There is clear harm done.

Speech can be used to oppress, but it can also be used to empower. And let's remember that suppression of speech is also a form of oppression, and has historically been used in this way, such as in cases where the mention of certain names, singing of certain songs, or entire languages have been made illegal. By fencing off speech from interference by the state or others everyone's right to empower themselves through speech, whatever that means to them, is secured.

I think what I have posted explains my point here. I am not sure whether you are recognising that different discourses carry a different degree of power. The right to empower oneself sounds great, but in practice it could potentially open the door to oppression by those who use a more powerful form of speech against those who can only use a weaker form. The victims of oppressive speech cannot empower themselves easily when there is a dominant and embedded understanding to challenge.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The above was actually posted before I had read your previous post. I understand what you are saying about power and discourse well enough. I still ask you what the point of criminalising speech is, how effective this is in altering attitudes, and whether it should be done.

 

I don't think it is going to help people understand the power relationships in discourse, and the harm that oppressive language can do. In fact, over-active policing of it may actually be antagonistic and worsen understanding.

Criminalising people doesn't help understanding. I am only thinking that it may be one of the ways to stop harm in the here and now. But it cannot be relied upon alone.

 

There has to be better education in schools and a better challenge of racism and homophobia (and sexism, etc.) in all areas and I do think that who are not white, homosexual, female, etc. ought to take up some responsibility in challenging it themselves for the sake of helping others.

I am also quite happy for the State or any authority to use its power to lend a helping hand to encourage alternative forms of language, as has been seen with the use of political correctness.

[Vulgarian]

I used to be of thinking that free speech means free speech. You either have it or you don't and we can't be free without free speech. But following from what I have posted above, the problem is that others free speech can prevent me from expressing myself.

 

No, others' free speech cannot prevent you from expressing yourself, but it can prevent you from being understood, or listened to. However, suppression of speech can prevent people from expressing themselves when the law is involved. Is this fair? Will it change attitudes?

 

Edit: You have said that you agree that criminalisation is a legitimate tool solely to prevent harm through speech (but not a long-term). If the sole purpose of this criminalisation is prevention of harm then do you agree that other kinds of speech that may cause harm, such as common abuse, can also be criminalised?