"Being offensive is an offence"

Watch
jackmarshal757
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#61
Report 1 week ago
#61
(Original post by glassalice)
No captions is needed to describe how ****ed this is.Attachment 1002590

News article attached, as requested .
I see where you are coming from, but a hate crime is an offense, being offensive on its own is not an offense
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#62
Report 1 week ago
#62
You are allowed an opinion in this country now only if it is approved by the left wing minority. That is how ****ed up this is. That is what it says. Like North Korea.
0
reply
-Eirlys-
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#63
Report 1 week ago
#63
But when does being offensive cross over into a hate crime?

It can be a grey area for many who don't know where to draw the line and/or actively search for someone to attack. That's why they're trying to stop it before it's even begun, by suggesting people think again before being offensive towards someone online before they cross over into illegal territory. Obviously the police shouldn't be sharing technically false information, but surely you can appreciate what they're trying to get across. :dontknow:
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#64
Report 1 week ago
#64
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
You are allowed an opinion in this country now only if it is approved by the left wing minority. That is how ****ed up this is. That is what it says. Like North Korea.
Yet nobody stopped you having this opinion... :holmes:
1
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#65
Report 1 week ago
#65
(Original post by 04MR17)
Yet nobody stopped you having this opinion... :holmes:
I have reported him to my local thought police, they should be rolling up in their snatch vans anytime now to take him to the gulag.
1
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#66
Report 1 week ago
#66
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Espionage Act of 1917 and the case following it Schenck v. United States. Which was then followed by Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Hmm thanks for that. It's definitely a interesting subject.

I think it's reasonable for do e civil liberties to be curtailed during war time.

I'm not sure if I agree that encouraging violence should be forbidden as it's pretty vague and open to interpretation.

Eg if I send emails to Person X saying I'm going to kill him or if I'm messaging people to arrange murdering Person X then that seems like a reasonable case for intervention.

It's gets into murky water if you say 'I hate person X' or 'I really hope somebody shoots person X'

By the incitement of hatred / violence clause lots of politicians on the left and right could be seen as guilty of this.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#67
Report 1 week ago
#67
(Original post by 04MR17)
Yet nobody stopped you having this opinion... :holmes:
I’m offended.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#68
Report 1 week ago
#68
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
I’m offended.
I'm very sorry about that, feel free to report my post and explain why it is offensive to you - since it's against TSR community guidelines to be treating other users in an offensive manner.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#69
Report 1 week ago
#69
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Hmm thanks for that. It's definitely a interesting subject.

I think it's reasonable for do e civil liberties to be curtailed during war time.

I'm not sure if I agree that encouraging violence should be forbidden as it's pretty vague and open to interpretation.

Eg if I send emails to Person X saying I'm going to kill him or if I'm messaging people to arrange murdering Person X then that seems like a reasonable case for intervention.

It's gets into murky water if you say 'I hate person X' or 'I really hope somebody shoots person X'

By the incitement of hatred / violence clause lots of politicians on the left and right could be seen as guilty of this.
Law is typically open to interpretation it is why we have judges, lawyers, etc.

The point is that even the US version of free speech is limited because in order to have a civilised society discourse must be moderated. The same could be said of forums, without moderators they would be filled with spammers and trolls. Nothing productive would ever occur.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#70
Report 1 week ago
#70
(Original post by 04MR17)
I'm very sorry about that, feel free to report my post and explain why it is offensive to you - since it's against TSR community guidelines to be treating other users in an offensive manner.
I’m only offended that you’re not offended that I am offended because you’re not offended.
0
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#71
Report 1 week ago
#71
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
I’m only offended that you’re not offended that I am offended because you’re not offended.
Put like that I’m offended too
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#72
Report 1 week ago
#72
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
I’m only offended that you’re not offended that I am offended because you’re not offended.
I'm sure you can explain that in your post report or in the Ask the Community Staff Forum. :ta:
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#73
Report 1 week ago
#73
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Law is typically open to interpretation it is why we have judges, lawyers, etc.

The point is that even the US version of free speech is limited because in order to have a civilised society discourse must be moderated. The same could be said of forums, without moderators they would be filled with spammers and trolls. Nothing productive would ever occur.
Sure but obviously we can agree that the US has more free speech than say North Korea and I personally think that the less restrictions on speech within sensible parameters is best.

I do not agree that the UK is enforcing sensible parameters at present and seemingly the public and government agree with me.
1
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#74
Report 1 week ago
#74
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Sure but obviously we can agree that the US has more free speech than say North Korea and I personally think that the less restrictions on speech within sensible parameters is best.

I do not agree that the UK is enforcing sensible parameters at present and seemingly the public and government agree with me.
That is a pointless argument.

You seemed to be suggesting earlier that if you supported restrictions then you did not support free speech, do you stand by that?
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#75
Report 1 week ago
#75
(Original post by 04MR17)
Yet nobody stopped you having this opinion... :holmes:
Conservative voices are being silenced!
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#76
Report 1 week ago
#76
(Original post by DiddyDec)
You seemed to be suggesting earlier that if you supported restrictions then you did not support free speech, do you stand by that?
Yes, I think those who wish to add extra restrictions (about what can be said to be hate speech) clearly do not support free speech.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#77
Report 1 week ago
#77
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Yes, I think those who wish to add extra restrictions (about what can be said to be hate speech) clearly do not support free speech.
Extra restrictions from what?
At what point do restrictions become "extra"?
Are there restrictions that aren't "extra"?
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#78
Report 1 week ago
#78
(Original post by 04MR17)
Extra restrictions from what?
At what point do restrictions become "extra"?
Are there restrictions that aren't "extra"?
Additional restrictions on free speech from today's legal standard which I already think goes too far.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-55046068

I want people like this as far away from power as possible.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#79
Report 1 week ago
#79
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Additional restrictions on free speech from today's legal standard which I already think goes too far.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-55046068

I want people like this as far away from power as possible.
So what you actually mean by your grand statement is that you believe those supporting a particular bill are a hindrance to the concept of free speech?

Luckily we live in a democracy (and I assume you do too) where you are able to act on that desire.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#80
Report 1 week ago
#80
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Yes, I think those who wish to add extra restrictions (about what can be said to be hate speech) clearly do not support free speech.
Given that you support restrictions such as those in wartime am I to believe that you don't support free speech?
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