Discussion
Can't see any more of it on Katy Hopkins page on the Mail. Any link?
Some Gump, I'm not making him a poster boy. It's about free speech and a principle of justice that we should at least be able to find out the nature of what he said that was criminal. Or do we just take the police's word for it that he said bad stuff?
It's a really nasty piece of legislation to start with IMO, and this sounds like a bad use of it.
Some Gump, I'm not making him a poster boy. It's about free speech and a principle of justice that we should at least be able to find out the nature of what he said that was criminal. Or do we just take the police's word for it that he said bad stuff?
It's a really nasty piece of legislation to start with IMO, and this sounds like a bad use of it.
AJS- said:
The legislation is clearly written enough (though horrible in it's own right IMO), but it doesn't say which part of it he broke or show how. It doesn't even say the nature of it. Did he make a direct threat or accusation against someone?
I dont know what he said, sorry.Out of interest what is horrible about the legislation?
Some Gump said:
If the legislation is clearly written, then you know what he said: Something in the "verboten" category...
It's clearly enough written but quite broad and open to interpretation(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
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
From here
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/sectio...
What constitutes grossly offensive?
AJS- said:
It's clearly enough written but quite broad and open to interpretation
(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
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
From here
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/sectio...
What constitutes grossly offensive?
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_sent_via_social_media/#a09(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
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
From here
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/sectio...
What constitutes grossly offensive?
there is a strong argument that to prosecute isn't in the public interest, other than in THE most serious of cases.
Interesting case.
Whilst I don't know any more details, I suspect grossly offensive takes it's natural meaning, but there will always be an element of subjectivity. Courts tend to use purposivism when interpreting law, so it's not necessary to focus on the strict words of the law, but the intention of the law.
Another interesting point is the Judge calling this "racial hatred". Being anti Muslim/Islam is not racism according to some on PH. Whilst strictly perhaps correct (racism is a sub set of bigotry), the Judge appears to disagree with those people.
Whilst I don't know any more details, I suspect grossly offensive takes it's natural meaning, but there will always be an element of subjectivity. Courts tend to use purposivism when interpreting law, so it's not necessary to focus on the strict words of the law, but the intention of the law.
Another interesting point is the Judge calling this "racial hatred". Being anti Muslim/Islam is not racism according to some on PH. Whilst strictly perhaps correct (racism is a sub set of bigotry), the Judge appears to disagree with those people.
radambc said:
It seems that if you offend muslim sensibilities, you end up in court.
If you offend Christian sensibilites, no one gives two hoots.
In effect the ultimate goal of global jihad (worldwide imposition of sharia) is being enacted by our own police and judiciary.
Feel free to post an example of the statement in bold. Preferably one where the police/cps refused to take action about something posted online.If you offend Christian sensibilites, no one gives two hoots.
In effect the ultimate goal of global jihad (worldwide imposition of sharia) is being enacted by our own police and judiciary.
Loving the paranoia in the last line of your post..
AJS- said:
desolate said:
Out of interest what is horrible about the legislation?
It seems very open and subjective. What constitutes grossly offensive? Can someone just claim what he said was grossly offensive? 
, is that grossly offensive? boxxob said:
Some on PH--including yourself--keep up the passive-aggressive target-marking with laments such as: 'some of PH...PH is so this, so that...those PH'ers....those people'. That's when people are being not "lumped together" in generalisations that fit with their oppression hierarchy bingo sheet (e.g. it is sanctioned, even demanded somewhat, by the PC angels that they must generalise and denigrate Brexit voters).
So what does it mean to be anti-western, anti-liberal -progressive and -secular? The very nature of defining 'hatred' and 'offensiveness' like this shows that special privileges have been made. The idea that 'hurt feelings' should be a matter for the courts, whether the criticism is crude and bigotted, is an utter nonsense. We have become conditioned to accepting the outrageous, hateful, prejudicial and offensive aspects of scriptures, or the practices of so-called 'multiculturism', and any response other than submission (hah!) or deference is now a 'phobia' or 'hatred'. This tolerance demanded on 'non-believers' (both of religion or the multicultural program) is not reciprocated, not at all, it is just exploited to gain blasphemy-type strictures and immunity from challenge and change.
In terms of your last point: I am an atheist and have had no trouble discussing my atheism and there are numerous high profile atheists who regularly discuss their atheism without any issues. I don't feel oppressed in anyway.So what does it mean to be anti-western, anti-liberal -progressive and -secular? The very nature of defining 'hatred' and 'offensiveness' like this shows that special privileges have been made. The idea that 'hurt feelings' should be a matter for the courts, whether the criticism is crude and bigotted, is an utter nonsense. We have become conditioned to accepting the outrageous, hateful, prejudicial and offensive aspects of scriptures, or the practices of so-called 'multiculturism', and any response other than submission (hah!) or deference is now a 'phobia' or 'hatred'. This tolerance demanded on 'non-believers' (both of religion or the multicultural program) is not reciprocated, not at all, it is just exploited to gain blasphemy-type strictures and immunity from challenge and change.
boxxob said:
If I understand your point fully (correct me if I am reading it as nothing but a 'clever' reversal), it is not the answer to the point I was making about tolerance:
This may help: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov...
Besides, atheism is nothing like a religion...not even if you were now to tell me that you regularly study 'atheistic theology'
My point was I don't feel as if I am not tolerated. This may help: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov...
Besides, atheism is nothing like a religion...not even if you were now to tell me that you regularly study 'atheistic theology'
Yes there are plenty of intolerant religious bellends but as a whole I think society lets people crack on and organise themselves as they see fit.
A gree with this from the article you linked:
I have no idea whether traditional liberal principles will help slow the wave of religious violence. For now, it seems as if nothing will. But I do know that if we don’t stick by them we will end up with an even more unjust society than we already have.
Sorry if I have missed your point.
boxxob said:
Some on PH--including yourself--keep up the passive-aggressive target-marking with laments such as: 'some of PH...PH is so this, so that...those PH'ers....those people'. That's when people are being not "lumped together" in generalisations that fit with their oppression hierarchy bingo sheet (e.g. it is sanctioned, even demanded somewhat, by the PC angels that they must generalise and denigrate Brexit voters).
So what does it mean to be anti-western, anti-liberal -progressive and -secular? The very nature of defining 'hatred' and 'offensiveness' like this shows that special privileges have been made. The idea that 'hurt feelings' should be a matter for the courts, whether the criticism is crude and bigotted, is an utter nonsense. We have become conditioned to accepting the outrageous, hateful, prejudicial and offensive aspects of scriptures, or the practices of so-called 'multiculturism', and any response other than submission (hah!) or deference is now a 'phobia' or 'hatred'. This tolerance demanded on 'non-believers' (both of religion or the multicultural program) is not reciprocated, not at all, it is just exploited to gain blasphemy-type strictures and immunity from challenge and change.
I think you're missing some sub text. AJS would understand the last point I made. It's particularly relevant to him and a recent thread So what does it mean to be anti-western, anti-liberal -progressive and -secular? The very nature of defining 'hatred' and 'offensiveness' like this shows that special privileges have been made. The idea that 'hurt feelings' should be a matter for the courts, whether the criticism is crude and bigotted, is an utter nonsense. We have become conditioned to accepting the outrageous, hateful, prejudicial and offensive aspects of scriptures, or the practices of so-called 'multiculturism', and any response other than submission (hah!) or deference is now a 'phobia' or 'hatred'. This tolerance demanded on 'non-believers' (both of religion or the multicultural program) is not reciprocated, not at all, it is just exploited to gain blasphemy-type strictures and immunity from challenge and change.
. Calling someone a is more likely to fall under indecent or abusive I would think.
It's not too hard to imagine that "grossly offensive to Muslims" in this case might be something like pointing out the parts of Islam which some argue condone rape and sexual abuse, or suggesting that such behaviour is endemic in some Muslim communities. This would also explain the reluctance to even repeat it. Had he simply called someone a then it would be easy enough to say hewas abusive and indecent.
NB I don't think this is the thread to discuss whether or not this is the case. Plenty of other threads cover these things.
The point I am interested in is how we decide something is so grossly offensive that it cannot even be repeated, and whether or not this is compatible with a free society. It certainly doesn't seem it to me.
is more likely to fall under indecent or abusive I would think.It's not too hard to imagine that "grossly offensive to Muslims" in this case might be something like pointing out the parts of Islam which some argue condone rape and sexual abuse, or suggesting that such behaviour is endemic in some Muslim communities. This would also explain the reluctance to even repeat it. Had he simply called someone a
then it would be easy enough to say hewas abusive and indecent. NB I don't think this is the thread to discuss whether or not this is the case. Plenty of other threads cover these things.
The point I am interested in is how we decide something is so grossly offensive that it cannot even be repeated, and whether or not this is compatible with a free society. It certainly doesn't seem it to me.
AJS- said:
Calling someone a is more likely to fall under indecent or abusive I would think.
It's not too hard to imagine that "grossly offensive to Muslims" in this case might be something like pointing out the parts of Islam which some argue condone rape and sexual abuse, or suggesting that such behaviour is endemic in some Muslim communities. This would also explain the reluctance to even repeat it. Had he simply called someone a then it would be easy enough to say hewas abusive and indecent.
NB I don't think this is the thread to discuss whether or not this is the case. Plenty of other threads cover these things.
The point I am interested in is how we decide something is so grossly offensive that it cannot even be repeated, and whether or not this is compatible with a free society. It certainly doesn't seem it to me.
You don't have to decide something is so grossly offensive that it can't be repeated. Grossly offensive is sufficient. Whether it's repeated or not has no bearing on guilt. And like most law, it will find its natural boundaries as case law develops. Also what's grossly offensive in one era is not in another (see the Sainsbury thread), so a level of fluidity is required. is more likely to fall under indecent or abusive I would think.It's not too hard to imagine that "grossly offensive to Muslims" in this case might be something like pointing out the parts of Islam which some argue condone rape and sexual abuse, or suggesting that such behaviour is endemic in some Muslim communities. This would also explain the reluctance to even repeat it. Had he simply called someone a
then it would be easy enough to say hewas abusive and indecent. NB I don't think this is the thread to discuss whether or not this is the case. Plenty of other threads cover these things.
The point I am interested in is how we decide something is so grossly offensive that it cannot even be repeated, and whether or not this is compatible with a free society. It certainly doesn't seem it to me.
With free speech comes responsibility. I'm sure we can both agree that we don't want Anjem Choudary preaching his hate without some responsibility, which if breached should result in him found guilty in Court. Or are you advocating free speech no matter what's said? Ie, is your point qualitative or quantitative?
Grossly offensive to who? Anyone? I'm grossly offended by weather forecasts, pre-empting the actions of God.
I believe the whole point of free speech is that it isn't subject to the whims of current trends.
And yes, I am absolutist about free speech, including for Anjem Choudary.
Incitement should be very clearly "go and kill X."
Indecency should also be easy enough - "X is a fking " in an inappropriate forum.
Regarding the racial hatred element, I understand this wasn't actually the offence but the judge's summary that he was "‘running the risk of stirring up racial hatred in the present climate’, was ‘very serious’ describing it as ‘conduct capable of playing into the hands of the enemies of this country’."
This is very open ended. Did he attack all brown people? All Asians? Or perhaps again he just pointed out certain aspects of Islam which some people would rather were not discussed.
ETA - The judge's comments seem to fit best with the notion that Islam is a race therefore criticism of it is linked with racism, and with the idea that criticism of Islam (if that is what he posted) was somehow "helping the enemies of this country" - which could mean likely to radicalise Muslims.
If that is the case then I think it is an awful, political trial.
I believe the whole point of free speech is that it isn't subject to the whims of current trends.
And yes, I am absolutist about free speech, including for Anjem Choudary.
Incitement should be very clearly "go and kill X."
Indecency should also be easy enough - "X is a f
king " in an inappropriate forum.Regarding the racial hatred element, I understand this wasn't actually the offence but the judge's summary that he was "‘running the risk of stirring up racial hatred in the present climate’, was ‘very serious’ describing it as ‘conduct capable of playing into the hands of the enemies of this country’."
This is very open ended. Did he attack all brown people? All Asians? Or perhaps again he just pointed out certain aspects of Islam which some people would rather were not discussed.
ETA - The judge's comments seem to fit best with the notion that Islam is a race therefore criticism of it is linked with racism, and with the idea that criticism of Islam (if that is what he posted) was somehow "helping the enemies of this country" - which could mean likely to radicalise Muslims.
If that is the case then I think it is an awful, political trial.
Edited by AJS- on Friday 12th August 13:01
AJS- said:
Or perhaps again he just pointed out certain aspects of Islam which some people would rather were not discussed.
If he did that then I doubt very much it would lead to a conviction.And if it did it would be very very wrong.
As his solicitor didn't seem too dismayed with the outcome, I very much doubt it was that.
AJS- said:
Grossly offensive to who? Anyone? I'm grossly offended by weather forecasts, pre-empting the actions of God.
I believe the whole point of free speech is that it isn't subject to the whims of current trends.
And yes, I am absolutist about free speech, including for Anjem Choudary.
Incitement should be very clearly "go and kill X."
Indecency should also be easy enough - "X is a fking " in an inappropriate forum.
Regarding the racial hatred element, I understand this wasn't actually the offence but the judge's summary that he was "‘running the risk of stirring up racial hatred in the present climate’, was ‘very serious’ describing it as ‘conduct capable of playing into the hands of the enemies of this country’."
This is very open ended. Did he attack all brown people? All Asians? Or perhaps again he just pointed out certain aspects of Islam which some people would rather were not discussed.
As I've said, grossly offensive is subjective. Perhaps read the history and drafts of the relevant law to see how Parliament meant it to be interpreted. Absent that, if enough people complain about something being grossly offensive, the CPS (I assume) think there's a case, and the judge thinks it's grossly offensive with regard to both the specific piece of law, the purposive interpretation of that law, and with reference perhaps to other law which has the same wording, it'll be legally grossly offensive. I believe the whole point of free speech is that it isn't subject to the whims of current trends.
And yes, I am absolutist about free speech, including for Anjem Choudary.
Incitement should be very clearly "go and kill X."
Indecency should also be easy enough - "X is a f
king " in an inappropriate forum.Regarding the racial hatred element, I understand this wasn't actually the offence but the judge's summary that he was "‘running the risk of stirring up racial hatred in the present climate’, was ‘very serious’ describing it as ‘conduct capable of playing into the hands of the enemies of this country’."
This is very open ended. Did he attack all brown people? All Asians? Or perhaps again he just pointed out certain aspects of Islam which some people would rather were not discussed.
I think most people on an 80:20 basis know grossly offensive when they see it.
And I doubt it's the CPS and judge in collusion, pandering to Islam.
I've just found these guidelines for you. I'm sure you could do a Google of cases brought under the 2 relevant sections to establish what "grossly offensive" means.
The guidelines below confirm that it takes its ordinary English meaning and is time specific (contemporary is the word used).
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_...
The guidelines below confirm that it takes its ordinary English meaning and is time specific (contemporary is the word used).
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_...
Connolly vs DPP 2007
The defendant’s right to express her views did not justify the distress and anxiety that she intended to cause.
http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/law-rep...
The defendant’s right to express her views did not justify the distress and anxiety that she intended to cause.
http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/law-rep...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff