Free Speech (in the UK) an Oxymoron?
Discussion
I was thinking of getting a (French Connection UK) F.C.U.K tha Police T-shirt made up and wearing it to the Carnival but didnt get round to doing it. Maybe its not a very bright idea afterall.
For them to have arrested him for wearing that T-shirt, one thing that is no longer in doubt is who the pigs are.
For them to have arrested him for wearing that T-shirt, one thing that is no longer in doubt is who the pigs are.
10 Pence Short said:
I don't think the sensible discussion should be about the level of punishment. The sensible discussion should ask if wearing the T shirt he did should be considered a criminal act in the first place.
Personally I think it's bonkers to prosecute someone for displaying the opinion as he did. Society should be perfectly capable of making their own judgement on his opinions whilst respecting his right to hold and display them.
On that principle his previous offending is irrelevant.
I guess it depends on what his previous offences were. Certainly the t-shirt is in bad taste, and may have caused offence to some. If that offence had spilled over into something like the riots we saw last year, would that have made his actions any worse? Personally I think it's bonkers to prosecute someone for displaying the opinion as he did. Society should be perfectly capable of making their own judgement on his opinions whilst respecting his right to hold and display them.
On that principle his previous offending is irrelevant.
Personally I wouldn't have given two hoots is someone bigger than him had taken him somewhere out of town and given him a good old kicking.
daz3210 said:
I guess it depends on what his previous offences were. Certainly the t-shirt is in bad taste, and may have caused offence to some. If that offence had spilled over into something like the riots we saw last year, would that have made his actions any worse?
Personally I wouldn't have given two hoots is someone bigger than him had taken him somewhere out of town and given him a good old kicking.
If I wore a shirt with text that read ''one less frizzy haired dictator - Justice'' the day after Gadaffi was was killed. would I have been arrested? Bear in mind that there are many people who supported him and may have found offence with me wearing such a T-shirt.Personally I wouldn't have given two hoots is someone bigger than him had taken him somewhere out of town and given him a good old kicking.
If a nutter went out an stabbed Anjem Chowdary or Abu Qatada to death and the day after I was to wear a T-shirt that read ''one less bearded jihadist pig - Justice'' would I be arrested and prosecuted for this? Both men have never been charged with any crime in this country but many do not like them because of the kind of things they say. They do have their supporters so wouldnt I be causing offense to their supporters?
The BNP/EDL and their militant muslim opponents say nasty things/ carry nasty placards about themselves at their rallies and I have never heard anyone on eityher side getting arrested or charged for saying these things/ carrying these placards. What is special about April Jones and those 2 women in Manchester?
FunkDokta said:
If I wore a shirt with text that read ''one less frizzy haired dictator - Justice'' the day after Gadaffi was was killed. would I have been arrested? Bear in mind that there are many people who supported him and may have found offence with me wearing such a T-shirt.
Would you have done it in an area where his supporters were known to have been, or in the immediate vicinity of his family? If you did, would you expect them to sit idly by and mutter, 'well fella you are perfectly entitled to your opinion'?FunkDokta said:
If a nutter went out an stabbed Anjem Chowdary(sic) or Abu Qatada to death and the day after I was to wear a T-shirt that read ''one less bearded jihadist pig - Justice'' would I be arrested and prosecuted for this? Both men have never been charged with any crime in this country but many do not like them because of the kind of things they say. They do have their supporters so wouldn't I be causing offense to their supporters?
Abu Quatada has previously been charged, but the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence. I was of the understanding that the Home Secretary had indicated that he is considered a threat to the country. In any event surely if a country takes a dislike to a person, they should be entitled to say so and either ask them to leave, or if they refuse force them to.As for Anjem Choudary, in 2002 he attended a banned march, and was later summonsed to Bow Street magistrates as a result. So, to say either man has never been charged with any crime is slightly incorrect
Again, I would ask you the question, in the circumstances you describe, would you do this in the close proximity to either supporters, friends or family of these men? If you are entitled to do as you wish, you should hold no fear of doing so surely.
FunkDokta said:
The BNP/EDL and their militant muslim opponents say nasty things/ carry nasty placards about themselves at their rallies and I have never heard anyone on either side getting arrested or charged for saying these things/ carrying these placards. What is special about April Jones and those 2 women in Manchester?
I cannot see how you link the BNP/EDL and militant muslims with either April Jones or the two Manchester officers. Neither April, or the two officers have done anything (at least to my knowledge) to cause offence to anyone. April is a five year old child for Lords sake, in easy terms she is a child that is innocent of all things bad in the world. She has a family that are undoubtedly in grief, and to wear anything offensive about her disappearance is plainly not in good taste and patently wrong. As for the two Police officers, we all have instances where we think of them badly, but at the end of the day they are doing a job of work. It surely is their right to expect to go home safely to their loved ones at the end of their working shift. There may well be nothing 'special' about them, except for the fact that they chose a vocation that many would chose not to, but then again, they have not done anything that would similarly cause offence to anyone else.Your attempt to make them out as no different to Gaddafi, Qatada and Choudary is somewhat unpalatable to say the least.
I meant to say convicted not charged.
You said the officers havent offended anyone in this country. So as I personally have been wrongfully arrested, are you implying it would be okay for me to wear this t-shirt. Would it have been okay if Jean Charles de Menezes' brother was the one wearing that T-shirt?
What we are both in agreement is that the jokes about April and the pig t-shirt were in bad taste and that is where it ends. I am not comparing Gaddaffi, Choudary or Qatada to April or the women in Manchester. All I am saying is that different people will find different things offensive and you cant cherry pick people to arrest and convict people.
I hate the police and feel no sympathy for them. I am not offended by that guys t-shirt. However I am offended by the Chief Cunstable calling Jean Charles a terrorist and lying about him. There were many of us offended by this but the cunstable was never charged for offending us.
You said the officers havent offended anyone in this country. So as I personally have been wrongfully arrested, are you implying it would be okay for me to wear this t-shirt. Would it have been okay if Jean Charles de Menezes' brother was the one wearing that T-shirt?
What we are both in agreement is that the jokes about April and the pig t-shirt were in bad taste and that is where it ends. I am not comparing Gaddaffi, Choudary or Qatada to April or the women in Manchester. All I am saying is that different people will find different things offensive and you cant cherry pick people to arrest and convict people.
I hate the police and feel no sympathy for them. I am not offended by that guys t-shirt. However I am offended by the Chief Cunstable calling Jean Charles a terrorist and lying about him. There were many of us offended by this but the cunstable was never charged for offending us.
FunkDokta said:
I meant to say convicted not charged.
You said the officers havent offended anyone in this country. So as I personally have been wrongfully arrested, are you implying it would be okay for me to wear this t-shirt. Would it have been okay if Jean Charles de Menezes' brother was the one wearing that T-shirt?
What we are both in agreement is that the jokes about April and the pig t-shirt were in bad taste and that is where it ends. I am not comparing Gaddaffi, Choudary or Qatada to April or the women in Manchester. All I am saying is that different people will find different things offensive and you cant cherry pick people to arrest and convict people.
I hate the police and feel no sympathy for them. I am not offended by that guys t-shirt. However I am offended by the Chief Cunstable calling Jean Charles a terrorist and lying about him. There were many of us offended by this but the cunstable was never charged for offending us.
You're wrong though.You said the officers havent offended anyone in this country. So as I personally have been wrongfully arrested, are you implying it would be okay for me to wear this t-shirt. Would it have been okay if Jean Charles de Menezes' brother was the one wearing that T-shirt?
What we are both in agreement is that the jokes about April and the pig t-shirt were in bad taste and that is where it ends. I am not comparing Gaddaffi, Choudary or Qatada to April or the women in Manchester. All I am saying is that different people will find different things offensive and you cant cherry pick people to arrest and convict people.
I hate the police and feel no sympathy for them. I am not offended by that guys t-shirt. However I am offended by the Chief Cunstable calling Jean Charles a terrorist and lying about him. There were many of us offended by this but the cunstable was never charged for offending us.
The offence depends upon the audience ( or likely audience) who are likely to be caused harassment alarm or distress, which is what the man admitted.
Breadvan72 said:
Indeed; what is the impact you refer to? People will be upset, but that's the end of it.
The emotional trauma caused to those currently grieving. It's very much akin to the American cult who protest at solider's funerals. I for one am glad this man is not free to behave as he has.If I theaten you or your family with a gun/knife or whatever is that okay because you'd just be a bit upset?
Milky Joe said:
...If I theaten you or your family with a gun/knife or whatever is that okay because you'd just be a bit upset?
You are conflating something not being "okay" with being criminal. We don't criminalise all behaviour that we don't think is okay.The criminal element of threatening people is not that they may be upset but that they are put in fear for their safety.
Celebrating the deaths of police officers, no matter how abhorrent should not be criminal.
Inciting people to kill police officers, if taken seriously, should be.
Zeeky said:
You are conflating something not being "okay" with being criminal. We don't criminalise all behaviour that we don't think is okay.
The criminal element of threatening people is not that they may be upset but that they are put in fear for their safety.
Celebrating the deaths of police officers, no matter how abhorrent should not be criminal.
Inciting people to kill police officers, if taken seriously, should be.
You'd repeal Section 5 of the Public Order Act then? That is what we are talking about after all.The criminal element of threatening people is not that they may be upset but that they are put in fear for their safety.
Celebrating the deaths of police officers, no matter how abhorrent should not be criminal.
Inciting people to kill police officers, if taken seriously, should be.
Amended rather than repealed. Its too wide in its present form. Public order is about keeping the peace protecting people from being intimidated or put in fear for their safety in public. There is some scope for decency when it comes to what children can be exposed (I for one would not want my child reading this) but criminalising people simply for expressing extreme views in public, no matter how unpleasant, is not appropriate and risky in terms of protecting freedom of expression.
It's not about expressing views. It is about how you choose to go about expressing them and where. If you think that it is OK to allow people to cause harassment alarm and distress to others then I don't want to be around in that society. It is selfishness, of the 'me me me and to hell with everyone else' variety.
At the end of the day the yob admitted that he had committed an offence, I am sure he was legally represented ( at our expense) so I see no need to feel sorry for him.
At the end of the day the yob admitted that he had committed an offence, I am sure he was legally represented ( at our expense) so I see no need to feel sorry for him.
Two men kissing in public might cause some people to be harassed, alarmed or distressed. This legislation can be used to criminalise indecent behaviour, the level of decency being set by the opinion of the Court.
How much something disgusts you or anyone else should not be the test for a crime. The guilty plea is either a concession to the abuse of the legislation by 'decent' people or more to do with the incitement to kill than him rejoicing in the deaths.
I don't feel sorry for this individual. I worry about the abuse of the criminal law. The fact the victim of the abuse is someone public consensus abhors and this is used as a justification also worries me.
How much something disgusts you or anyone else should not be the test for a crime. The guilty plea is either a concession to the abuse of the legislation by 'decent' people or more to do with the incitement to kill than him rejoicing in the deaths.
I don't feel sorry for this individual. I worry about the abuse of the criminal law. The fact the victim of the abuse is someone public consensus abhors and this is used as a justification also worries me.
XCP said:
It's not about expressing views. It is about how you choose to go about expressing them and where. If you think that it is OK to allow people to cause harassment alarm and distress to others then I don't want to be around in that society. It is selfishness, of the 'me me me and to hell with everyone else' variety. .
But then who decides? You? How arrogant do you have to be to believe you have the right to do so? Perhaps if it helps you, I am alarmed and distressed that you hold a view that a person can not express their views "where" they like. Shoul you be jailed? If not, why not?
Jasandjules said:
But then who decides? You? How arrogant do you have to be to believe you have the right to do so?
Perhaps if it helps you, I am alarmed and distressed that you hold a view that a person can not express their views "where" they like. Shoul you be jailed? If not, why not?
Courts decide whether the law has been broken. That is their function.Perhaps if it helps you, I am alarmed and distressed that you hold a view that a person can not express their views "where" they like. Shoul you be jailed? If not, why not?
As for your second point, there is no intent. I'll take my chances at court
Zeeky said:
Two men kissing in public might cause some people to be harassed, alarmed or distressed. This legislation can be used to criminalise indecent behaviour, the level of decency being set by the opinion of the Court.
How much something disgusts you or anyone else should not be the test for a crime. The guilty plea is either a concession to the abuse of the legislation by 'decent' people or more to do with the incitement to kill than him rejoicing in the deaths.
I don't feel sorry for this individual. I worry about the abuse of the criminal law. The fact the victim of the abuse is someone public consensus abhors and this is used as a justification also worries me.
There has to be intent to cause harassment alarm or distress. You seem to be conveniently overlooking that fact.How much something disgusts you or anyone else should not be the test for a crime. The guilty plea is either a concession to the abuse of the legislation by 'decent' people or more to do with the incitement to kill than him rejoicing in the deaths.
I don't feel sorry for this individual. I worry about the abuse of the criminal law. The fact the victim of the abuse is someone public consensus abhors and this is used as a justification also worries me.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff