"Being offensive is an offence"

Watch
Final Fantasy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 week ago
#41
(Original post by QE2)
Yes, because it is again comparing dissimilar things.
Is it considered a hate crime?
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 week ago
#42
(Original post by Final Fantasy)
Is it considered a hate crime?
Is what considered a hate crime?
0
reply
Final Fantasy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#43
Report 1 week ago
#43
(Original post by QE2)
Is what considered a hate crime?
Speaking up against religions.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 week ago
#44
(Original post by Final Fantasy)
Speaking up against religions.
No.
However, attacking someone simply because of their religion would be.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 week ago
#45
(Original post by QE2)
Poor analogy. "Free" and "hate" speech are subjective concepts. The laws of physics are observable and testable through repeatable experiment.
Hope this helped.
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.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#46
Report 1 week ago
#46
(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".
Last edited by QE2; 1 week ago
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#47
Report 1 week ago
#47
(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? 🤣🤣🤣
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#48
Report 1 week ago
#48
(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.
0
reply
Megacent
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#49
Report 1 week ago
#49
(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".
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#50
Report 1 week ago
#50
(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

(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.
0
reply
Megacent
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#51
Report 1 week ago
#51
(Original post by DiddyDec)
It doesn't work like that. You can read the actual law below with links to the full statutes
What stops people just saying they were grossly offended to shut down someone they don't agree with?
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#52
Report 1 week ago
#52
(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.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#53
Report 1 week ago
#53
(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.
0
reply
Megacent
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#54
Report 1 week ago
#54
(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?
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#55
Report 1 week ago
#55
(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.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#56
Report 1 week ago
#56
(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?)
Last edited by Starship Trooper; 1 week ago
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#57
Report 1 week ago
#57
(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.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#58
Report 1 week ago
#58
(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.
Last edited by QE2; 1 week ago
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#59
Report 1 week ago
#59
(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?
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#60
Report 1 week ago
#60
(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.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Which of these would you use to help with making uni decisions?

Webinars (57)
13.9%
Virtual campus tours/open days (95)
23.17%
Live streaming events (38)
9.27%
Online AMAs/guest lectures (39)
9.51%
A uni comparison tool (92)
22.44%
An in-person event when available (89)
21.71%

Watched Threads

View All