&amp;quot;Being offensive is an offence&amp;quot;

Original post by Starship Trooper

It's not comparing speech to physics...
it's making the point that hate speech is to free speech what gravity is to physics- an integral part. Whether it's subjective or not is irrelevant.

But it isn't. You are merely voicing an opinion. To others, hate speech is not a part of free speech.
A better comparison would be "hate speech is to free speech, what alchemy is to physics".

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 42

Starship Trooper

15

Original post by QE2

But it isn't. You are merely voicing an opinion. To others, hate speech is not a part of free speech.
A better comparison would be "hate speech is to free speech, what alchemy is to physics".

Hate Speech is a modern phenomenon and is not mentioned by the first amendment which is afaik the first legal document pertaining to what free speech is.

How is your comparison not an opinion? 🤣🤣🤣

Reply 43

Original post by Starship Trooper

Hate Speech is a modern phenomenon and is not mentioned by the first amendment which is afaik the first legal document pertaining to what free speech is.

How is your comparison not an opinion? 🤣🤣🤣

The first would probably be The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789 which was drawn up after the French Revolution, predating the US Bill of Rights by 2 years.

"Article X – No one may be disquieted for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by the law.

Article XI – The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, except to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law."

So the first legal document ever created pertaining to free speech did in fact limit it.

Reply 44

Megacent

13

Original post by QE2

But it isn't. You are merely voicing an opinion. To others, hate speech is not a part of free speech.
A better comparison would be "hate speech is to free speech, what alchemy is to physics".

The problem I have with outlawing hate speech is that there never seems to be a clear definition of what it actually is. It's just left up to the reader to decide if they were offended or not, and that lets people easily shut down anything they don't agree with with the magic words "I'm offended".

Reply 45

Original post by Megacent

The problem I have with outlawing hate speech is that there never seems to be a clear definition of what it actually is. It's just left up to the reader to decide if they were offended or not, and that lets people easily shut down anything they don't agree with with the magic words "I'm offended".

It doesn't work like that. You can read the actual law below with links to the full statutes :h:

Original post by DiddyDec

While the message is simplistic it isn't entirely wrong.

Section 127 of the Communication Act 2003
A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or...

Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, 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,thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986
A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F1or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F1or abusive],within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

Reply 46

Megacent

13

Original post by DiddyDec

It doesn't work like that. You can read the actual law below with links to the full statutes :h:

What stops people just saying they were grossly offended to shut down someone they don't agree with?

Reply 47

Original post by Megacent

What stops people just saying they were grossly offended to shut down someone they don't agree with?

Nothing, but that has nothing to do with law typically just internet discourse.

Reply 48

Starship Trooper

15

Original post by DiddyDec

The first would probably be The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789 which was drawn up after the French Revolution, predating the US Bill of Rights by 2 years.

"Article X – No one may be disquieted for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by the law.

Article XI – The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, except to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law."

So the first legal document ever created pertaining to free speech did in fact limit it.

Thanks for that 👍

I obviously prefer the US version.

As free speech is determined by the state in the French version then it pretty much loses any point or relevance. By the French version standard: all regimes practise free speech including totalitarian ones.

Reply 49

Megacent

13

Original post by Starship Trooper

As free speech is determined by the state in the French version then it pretty much loses any point or relevance. By the French version standard: all regimes practise free speech including totalitarian ones.

That's the problem I have with it. Unless it's specifically defined in law by a set criteria, what stops people just claiming anything they don't agree with is hate, and thus shut down any debate?

Reply 50

Original post by Starship Trooper

Thanks for that 👍

I obviously prefer the US version.

As free speech is determined by the state in the French version then it pretty much loses any point or relevance. By the French version standard: all regimes practise free speech including totalitarian ones.

The US version still doesn't grant absolute freedom of speech, the state does control what can be said.

Reply 51

Starship Trooper

15

Original post by DiddyDec

The US version still doesn't grant absolute freedom of speech, the state does control what can be said.

Do you have an example of this please ?

Obv think there are cases which people could see as restrictions on FS such as rape hoaxes or shouting fire in a crowded theatre but I think this is clearly different than the state or individuals taking offence to something (,how can you measure offence?)

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 52

Original post by Starship Trooper

Do you have an example of this please ?

Espionage Act of 1917 and the case following it Schenck v. United States. Which was then followed by Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Reply 53

Original post by Starship Trooper

Hate Speech is a modern phenomenon and is not mentioned by the first amendment which is afaik the first legal document pertaining to what free speech is.

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

How is your comparison not an opinion? 🤣🤣🤣

Where did I say it wasn't an opinion? Whatever position anyone has on what is acceptable as "free speech" is an opinion.
However, when it comes to physics it is based on evidence, not opinion.
Free speech - "my opinion is better than your opinion" = ok.
Physics - "my opinion is better than your fact" = not ok.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 54

Original post by Megacent

The problem I have with outlawing hate speech is that there never seems to be a clear definition of what it actually is. It's just left up to the reader to decide if they were offended or not, and that lets people easily shut down anything they don't agree with with the magic words "I'm offended".

It's actually up to the police & courts to decide, not the offended person.
Do you have a problem with the police and courts making decisions about other issues relating to crime and the law?

Reply 55

Original post by Megacent

What stops people just saying they were grossly offended to shut down someone they don't agree with?

Because the person making the initial statement does not have to stop unless the police/court rules that what they are saying goes beyond what is permitted.
Of course, if you have reduced an innocent family to tears and still insist on shouting insults at them, you'd be a bit of a ****, even if it wasn't judged to have been an actual offence.

Reply 56

jackmarshal757