(I don't care about the "oh fuck off" bit because it's clear you weren't directing it at the person.)
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;
This is why people are being maliciously arrested for being mean on Twitter.
In all seriousness though, I can not control what some are grossly offended by. I consider someone's offence at anything I do or say to be their problem, one they can solve by not listening to me because we live in a fairly free society.
Of course at work, that's a different matter in a different environment subject to different rules.
Would you consider personal insults to be the recipient's problem too? They're offended by it, but they could just not listen to it.
I'm guessing much of insults also isn't in the message itself, but in the publicity of the message. You thinking that I'm an idiot is one thing, you telling me in private that you do is another, and you telling everyone that you think I'm an idiot is another one.
If I am not emotionally well equipped enough to say "I don't care what that person thinks" then that's also my problem.
Really, if someone calls me an idiot that statement says more about them than me.
Now if someone says i'm a murderer without evidence, that's another matter altogether. But I may, in fact, be an idiot.
Yeah, most people can take being told they're an idiot by a person or a few. Social media on the other hand allows some coincidence or celebrity to make you basically front page news, and get you called an idiot by hundreds of thousands of people.
I think very few people are equipped to deal with something like that.
The core problem is critical thinking and emotional literacy education at large, not a need to curtail free speech to avoid offense.
Yeah no. People are responsible for the consequences of their actions. Being abusive to others does not liberate you from that.
Sure, there are nuances (you're not necessarily solely responsible for consequences), but these nuance the stance, not remove your responsibility.
How I resolve those hurt feelings is a choice for me.
Two of the most serious cases I can think of this, is hate speech arrests of teenagers for sharing rap lyrics with 'nigga' in them, and the slew of "harmful speech" arrests over criticizing the crown around the queen's funeral.
I will note that I don't think freedom of speech extends to the anonymous. If you say you want to rape my child, you best put your name to it.
If your name is by your speech, then say it and own your vile.
-- yours, sirsinsalot, anon internet commenter.
I think it's the same for lots of things. People get "offended" not so much because some opinion offends them, but because they don't want it to spread or be normalized. Like nipples on TV offending some demographic, even though they could just close their eyes. It's other people seeing the nipples that they don't like.
This attitude that "I feel offended" therefore what I'm offended by must be stopped because it _must_ be offensive to everyone because I _must_ be representative of everyone because I'm a prototype of good taste and humanity.
Free the nipple, don't free the nipple, I'll concentrate on surrounding myself with nipple liberationists and we can share our nipples not caring about the rest of those narrow minded nipple prudes.
> https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...
"The centrepiece of the video consisted of the appellant repeating the phrase “gas the Jews” as a command to the dog, to which the dog then reacted. The video also showed the dog responding to the exclamation “Sieg Heil” (hail victory), by raising its right paw whilst watching a recording of the Nuremberg rally.
This was interspersed with flashing images of Hitler and swastikas, accompanied by strident music.
The sheriff analysed the law under section 127 of the 2003 Act by considering the dicta in DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 (at paras 7-12 and 21-22) to the effect that whether a message was grossly offensive was a question of fact. The sheriff found in fact that the video was grossly offensive and would be found to be so by a reasonable person. The repeated use of “gas the Jews” and similar phrases had a menacing character and reasonably caused apprehension within the Jewish community. The appellant had known that the video would be likely to be regarded as grossly offensive and menacing to Jewish people, or at least recognised the risk that it would be taken as such. The offence was aggravated by both racism and religious prejudice."
I would like to reiterate the legal ruling that "whether a message was grossly offensive was a question of fact".
Is it funny? I've heard funnier Holocaust jokes. Is it offensive? To some, surely. But I don't want anyone who's unfamiliar with the case to read your comment and get the wrong idea about the video's nature.
Speech laws so restrictive that animals can break them invite open mockery, particularly from people who recoil at the very concept of an "illegal gesture".
That's not the real problem. We deal with this problem every time in our legal system and we've developed the so called "prima facie" evidence or rulings, that seek to minimize immediate harm.
If a policeman sees a guy wielding an axe chasing someone and shouting "Come here you mother fucker!", the policeman can't just go on his way saying <<Well, a crime was not yet committed and "Come Here" is not really a threat>>. There is prima facie evidence of an aggression and he has immediate authority to arrest the assailant for a limited time, and then justice can run its course.
What the law does here is to reassert the content moderators' authority to recognize and act on prima facie illegal speech. We can debate on far that authority should go and the specifics, but there is nothing wrong in principle with this approach to law making, and it's used in many other fields.