- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,026
- Reaction score
- 2,577
- Country
Yeah I found it unnecessarily offensive and divisive. A lot of French people I know didn’t like the publication before.
Be careful who you offend
- Thread starter ^woody^
- Start date
Sponsored Links
You're still not getting it.
He was prosecuted under the Communications Act 2003. This Act replaced the previous Telecommunications Act to bring it in line with current social media and other communication methods.
It was always intended to deal solely with malicious and threatening direct communication where threats were made and harm implied or intended. This Act was used in several prosecutions of "joke" tweets and posts, and in 2011/12 the DPP issued clarification that it should only be used where there were actual and credible threats of violence or actual continuous harassment.
If as you claim there was offence of a Semitic nature, then there is specific law for that - The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.
But the whole point of this thread and the whole argument is that the law has now been applied to something it was not intended for. It's been applied to a non-specific and vague interpretation of "causing offence". Not directed to anyone specific, not threatening anyone specific, but just a general 'it might be offensive'.
There are several other laws that cover specific threats and malice to certain groups. But this particular video was not specific and was not threatening and was not offensive enough to be prosecuted under the Acts that were specifically designed to protect those certain people.
So they choose to use a lower threshold Act that is so general that they could claim a "threatening communication". They tried it and succeeded.
But what you fail to see is that no one was threatened with violence, no one was directly targeted or harassed. And yet the conviction was made.
As the law is based on precedent, this sets a dangerous precedent for what can be deemed offensive and for prosecutions to be made due to anyone who claims offence. Refer back to my OP and what the police actually state.
I know you will just gainsay this post, and I doubt I'll comment further. But the point is the police have stated specifically how they will act when someone is "offended". Not threatened with violence, not targeted because of their beliefs, preferences or condition, not discriminated against for being different, no just if someone gets "offended". The age of the snowflake indeed.
No arguments from me there.
Correct.
Some on here tried to claim it was for some hate crime then tried to package that as a deliberate stifling of their freedom of speech.
Daft RWR.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,026
- Reaction score
- 2,577
- Country
A couple of corrections:
grossly offensive is a bit more than causing offence
It doesn’t set a precedent for other judgements as it’s a lower court. It would need to go to appeal first
It might have been a hate crime too I don’t recall how much of the defence argument wasn’t believed.
if crime = yes and hate is motive then crime = hate crime. sentence takes account of aggravating factor
grossly offensive is a bit more than causing offence
It doesn’t set a precedent for other judgements as it’s a lower court. It would need to go to appeal first
It might have been a hate crime too I don’t recall how much of the defence argument wasn’t believed.
if crime = yes and hate is motive then crime = hate crime. sentence takes account of aggravating factor
Last edited:
S
sodthisforfun
I can see why people think this tho. The video was for sure insensitive but as already pointed out, it didn't threaten, hurt anyone physically, scare anyone, it didn't bully. It was poor taste by a dick head.
So peoples feelings are all that are left and I am a bit worried that people can get a criminal record for the possibility of hurt feelings. Offended is such a personal reaction and can differ hugely from one person to the next. How can we 'police' that differentiation in all fairness?
We have strange times ahead of us that is for sure. Perhaps it's needed with this new digital age and all.
Last edited by a moderator:
In a world where people can be reached anywhere anytime, peoples feelings are a worthwhile target. Especially to say radicals.
Would you would prefer to see relaxation of the laws?
S
sodthisforfun
Was this chap aiming at anyone for radicalisation? That I can understand being looked at more closely.
I would prefer common sense to prevail by the police and by those who think they are offended. We are repeatedly told that police are facing cut after cut, petty and not so petty crimes are being ignored. Why did the police spend the money on this chap? There must be people out there more deserving of police help who have actually been victims of something more tangible than bruised feelings.
No, but the law will catch a few morons when the net is cast.
Why do you lot keep harping on about these imaginary people?
He posted grossly offensive material online. No one complained. However, he broke the law.
Geddit?
Would you like to see a relaxation of the law?
S
sodthisforfun
Things are very black and white aren't they for you?
So how come the material is grossly offensive if nobody complained? To be offensive needs people to be offended surely?
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
As I said, I don't mind the law in place providing common sense is used. This guy didn't deserve a criminal record imo, certainly not compared to real criminals who seem to get away with it through lack of police funding. The guy was a tasteless idiot, but a criminal? If we start giving out criminal records to idiots there will be many.
So how come the material is grossly offensive if nobody complained? To be offensive needs people to be offended surely?
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
As I said, I don't mind the law in place providing common sense is used. This guy didn't deserve a criminal record imo, certainly not compared to real criminals who seem to get away with it through lack of police funding. The guy was a tasteless idiot, but a criminal? If we start giving out criminal records to idiots there will be many.
Because the judge judged it to be.
That's his job although he could be wrong, who is to judge?
Apparently the things he said are generally though to be offensive.
Prince Harry and Max Moseley got into trouble for dressing as people who might have said such things.
It's a pretty safe bet someone somewhere was.
Perhaps a policeman was offended.
No.
I could wander the streets at 3 am shouting eff off at the top of my voice, pi$$ up the local war memorial and be detained and charged by the police.
Without a tree in the forest ever hearing me.
I just understand why he was prosecuted whist you don't. He posted offensive material online. Geddit yet (sigh).
For some reason you lot are desperately trying to blame the reasons for prosecution on to people being offended and yourselves trying to be victims of some imaginary stifling of free speech harping on about why you cant do this or cant do that. Diddums.
Would you like to see a relaxation of the law?
Last edited:
S
sodthisforfun
Does asking the question 3 times help at all?
S
sodthisforfun
Ha, could you imagine any judge brave enough to give Harry a criminal record?!
Dunno, does it? Will you answer?
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
