Go to first unread
Back
to top
"Being offensive is an offence"
Watch
Announcements
Report
#41
(Original post by QE2)
Yes, because it is again comparing dissimilar things.
Yes, because it is again comparing dissimilar things.
0
reply
Report
#42
(Original post by Final Fantasy)
Is it considered a hate crime?
Is it considered a hate crime?
0
reply
Report
#43
(Original post by QE2)
Is what considered a hate crime?
Is what considered a hate crime?
0
reply
Report
#44
(Original post by Final Fantasy)
Speaking up against religions.
Speaking up against religions.
However, attacking someone simply because of their religion would be.
0
reply
Report
#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.
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 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
Report
#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.
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.
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
Report
#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".
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".
How is your comparison not an opinion? 🤣🤣🤣
0
reply
Report
#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? 🤣🤣🤣
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? 🤣🤣🤣
"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
Report
#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".
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".
0
reply
Report
#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".
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".
(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.
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
Report
#51
(Original post by DiddyDec)
It doesn't work like that. You can read the actual law below with links to the full statutes
It doesn't work like that. You can read the actual law below with links to the full statutes
0
reply
Report
#52
(Original post by Megacent)
What stops people just saying they were grossly offended to shut down someone they don't agree with?
What stops people just saying they were grossly offended to shut down someone they don't agree with?
0
reply
Report
#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.
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.
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
Report
#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.
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
Report
#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.
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
Report
#56
(Original post by DiddyDec)
The US version still doesn't grant absolute freedom of speech, the state does control what can be said.
The US version still doesn't grant absolute freedom of speech, the state does control what can be said.
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
Report
#57
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Do you have an example of this please ?
Do you have an example of this please ?
0
reply
Report
#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.
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? 🤣🤣🤣
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
Report
#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".
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".
Do you have a problem with the police and courts making decisions about other issues relating to crime and the law?
0
reply
Report
#60
(Original post by Megacent)
What stops people just saying they were grossly offended to shut down someone they don't agree with?
What stops people just saying they were grossly offended to shut down someone they don't agree with?
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
