Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/11/16 09:44:58
Subject: Poppy Burning and the criminalisation of causing ‘offence’.
I assume that many of you will have read the story of the silly sod who has now been nicked for posting an image of a burning poppy of Facebook, not even a poppy he burned I may add but a pictures that available anywhere with a quick Google search. Now this has been the latest in a series of incidents where people have been arrested for saying ‘grossly offensive’ or malicious things.
Other high profile incidents have been.
A man being jailed for making distasteful jokes on-line about a missing child.
There are others as well, but those are the ones that leap to mind.
Now, I’m going to stick my head above the parapets here and say that I’m really annoyed that such behavior is deemed worthy of being any business of the police. Not that I wish to defend the behavior of any one of the people above, they are morons and their behavior should rightly considered offensive by sensible people. My point is being offensive should not be against the law.
The idea that anyone has anyone has any right to go through life no seeing or hearing anything that man offend them is politically correct nonsense and I think it’s high time it was challenged.
Just wondering what other thought about this?
"And if we've learnt anything over the past 1000 mile retreat it's that Russian agriculture is in dire need of mechanisation!"
2012/11/16 09:56:07
Subject: Re:Poppy Burning and the criminalisation of causing ‘offence’.
Soon enough we'll have people pressing charges on someone else on the basis of "He looked funny at me, and it must because I'm not of his skin colour/religious creed/football team/political party". You'll see.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/16 10:47:55
Poppy because it has strong association with the First World War, where it was the first thing to grow over the craters and mud of the trenches. Hence why it's worn around November 11 - armistice day, end of WWI.
DC:80SG+M+B+I+Pw40k97#+D+A++/wWD190R++T(S)DM+
htj wrote:You can always trust a man who quotes himself in his signature.
2012/11/16 11:23:08
Subject: Poppy Burning and the criminalisation of causing ‘offence’.
I assume that many of you will have read the story of the silly sod who has now been nicked for posting an image of a burning poppy of Facebook, not even a poppy he burned I may add but a pictures that available anywhere with a quick Google search. Now this has been the latest in a series of incidents where people have been arrested for saying ‘grossly offensive’ or malicious things.
Other high profile incidents have been.
A man being jailed for making distasteful jokes on-line about a missing child.
There are others as well, but those are the ones that leap to mind.
Now, I’m going to stick my head above the parapets here and say that I’m really annoyed that such behavior is deemed worthy of being any business of the police. Not that I wish to defend the behavior of any one of the people above, they are morons and their behavior should rightly considered offensive by sensible people. My point is being offensive should not be against the law.
The idea that anyone has anyone has any right to go through life no seeing or hearing anything that man offend them is politically correct nonsense and I think it’s high time it was challenged.
Just wondering what other thought about this?
This is what happens when you don't have the First Amendment and a brutal ACLU to defend. Don't worry though, we seem to be following you down the rathole.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2012/11/16 12:09:05
Subject: Poppy Burning and the criminalisation of causing ‘offence’.
nomsheep wrote: A couple of lads were arrested for making riot-related jokes during the London riots last year.
Assuming you’re referring to the people arrested for organizing a riot on Facebook then I'm not sure if that quite qualifies as those statements where incitement to commit a violent crime, so not just in realm of causing offense.
"And if we've learnt anything over the past 1000 mile retreat it's that Russian agriculture is in dire need of mechanisation!"
2012/11/16 12:10:52
Subject: Poppy Burning and the criminalisation of causing ‘offence’.
You, sir, have offended me with your post. How dare you make such comments about someone being cleared when he himself wished to bomb an airport.
I shall see you in court!
Mandorallen turned back toward the insolently sneering baron. 'My Lord,' The great knight said distantly, 'I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possibly that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?' - Mimbrate Knight Protector Mandorallen.
Excerpt from "Seeress of Kell", Book Five of The Malloreon series by David Eddings.
"You need not fear us, unless you are a dark heart, a vile one who preys on the innocent; I promise, you can’t hide forever in the empty darkness, for we will hunt you down like the animals you are, and pull you into the very bowels of hell." Iron - Within Temptation
2012/11/16 12:22:32
Subject: Poppy Burning and the criminalisation of causing ‘offence’.
Avatar 720 wrote: You, sir, have offended me with your post. How dare you make such comments about someone being cleared when he himself wished to bomb an airport.
I shall see you in court!
I'm offended by you being offended by a post about people being offended
nomsheep wrote: A couple of lads were arrested for making riot-related jokes during the London riots last year.
Assuming you’re referring to the people arrested for organizing a riot on Facebook then I'm not sure if that quite qualifies as those statements where incitement to commit a violent crime, so not just in realm of causing offense.
I heard the story differently.
2012/11/16 13:09:26
Subject: Poppy Burning and the criminalisation of causing ‘offence’.
Avatar 720 wrote: You, sir, have offended me with your post. How dare you make such comments about someone being cleared when he himself wished to bomb an airport.
I shall see you in court!
I'm offended by you being offended by a post about people being offended
How dare you stick your tongue out at me! This is assault! Assault, I say!
Mandorallen turned back toward the insolently sneering baron. 'My Lord,' The great knight said distantly, 'I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possibly that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?' - Mimbrate Knight Protector Mandorallen.
Excerpt from "Seeress of Kell", Book Five of The Malloreon series by David Eddings.
"You need not fear us, unless you are a dark heart, a vile one who preys on the innocent; I promise, you can’t hide forever in the empty darkness, for we will hunt you down like the animals you are, and pull you into the very bowels of hell." Iron - Within Temptation
2012/11/16 14:08:05
Subject: Poppy Burning and the criminalisation of causing ‘offence’.
I think it was eleanor roosevelt who once said that only YOU have the power to be offended...i am very glad we have the first amendment around to theoretically protect us, though as another pointed out, the supreme court is beginning to take certain approaches to cases that deem certain things are not "protected speech" which i find ludicrous.
2012/11/16 17:52:32
Subject: Poppy Burning and the criminalisation of causing ‘offence’.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:I think it was eleanor roosevelt who once said that only YOU have the power to be offended...i am very glad we have the first amendment around to theoretically protect us, though as another pointed out, the supreme court is beginning to take certain approaches to cases that deem certain things are not "protected speech" which i find ludicrous.
Well, there's a legitimate, foreseeable threat of harm in shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, or inciting violence through hatespeech, versus merely making a statement that someone vehemently diasgrees with and lacks the mental constituion to process in a reasonable, adult manner.
2012/11/16 18:15:45
Subject: Poppy Burning and the criminalisation of causing ‘offence’.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:I think it was eleanor roosevelt who once said that only YOU have the power to be offended...i am very glad we have the first amendment around to theoretically protect us, though as another pointed out, the supreme court is beginning to take certain approaches to cases that deem certain things are not "protected speech" which i find ludicrous.
Well, there's a legitimate, foreseeable threat of harm in shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, or inciting violence through hatespeech, versus merely making a statement that someone vehemently diasgrees with and lacks the mental constituion to process in a reasonable, adult manner.
And that speech, shouting a fire, and what not is NOT protected speech under our first amendment already because you're infringing on the rights of others. That's the limits of rights in a free society, the law and whether or not you're infringing on other people's safe and normal conduct of their day. That speech is also clearly dangerous, not just offensive. There's a pretty significant difference here. You sir are free to call me all sorts of offensive terms and language all you wish, I am free to respond in kind and thanks to fighting words laws, I can probably belt you one if you really keep at it. Hate speech becomes a problem when you begin to incite people to round up and hang all the filthy micks, or you discriminate against people in some manner, but if you're a racist bellend in the privacy of your own home and manage to not let it color your public dealings by all means carry on.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
This is nothing new, and there is certainly not a current 'trend in criminilization of offence'. Our canadian and british legal systems would appear to us to be incredibly touchy if it were to be applied in full force.
Ya'll would be doing upward of 10 years for pornography, for example. Owning a slightly gory horror movie could land you easily 3-5 years if you only go by the article of law. Being 'offensive' certainly could get you in jail, depending of the context (if children are involved you are toast).
Of course, except in the States, where you are considered backwards for not allowing Nazis to parade where holocaust survivors reside.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
2012/11/16 21:48:52
Subject: Poppy Burning and the criminalisation of causing ‘offence’.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Of course, except in the States, where you are considered backwards for not allowing Nazis to parade where holocaust survivors reside.
I don't have any memory of anything like that happening, but there are instances of members of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting soldier's funerals. In response, people from that city and even a special group go and block out the church members. Free speech fighting free speech.
GW Rules Interpretation Syndrom. GWRIS. Causes people to second guess a rule in a book because that's what they would have had to do in a GW system.
SilverMK2 wrote: "Well, I have epilepsy and was holding a knife when I had a seizure... I couldn't help it! I was just trying to chop the vegetables for dinner!"
2012/11/16 21:51:54
Subject: Poppy Burning and the criminalisation of causing ‘offence’.
Europe has a number of laws restricting free speech to provoke racial violence, or to persecute individuals.
The question is where and how those laws are applied to people doing twits and so on.
The ability to say stupid and offensive things to millions of people instantly did not exist 10 years ago. Society and the law is coming to grips with it. This kind of case lies in a grey area.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Of course, except in the States, where you are considered backwards for not allowing Nazis to parade where holocaust survivors reside.
I don't have any memory of anything like that happening, but there are instances of members of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting soldier's funerals. In response, people from that city and even a special group go and block out the church members. Free speech fighting free speech.
Look up Skokie, Illinois.
2012/11/17 00:19:16
Subject: Poppy Burning and the criminalisation of causing ‘offence’.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Of course, except in the States, where you are considered backwards for not allowing Nazis to parade where holocaust survivors reside.
I don't have any memory of anything like that happening, but there are instances of members of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting soldier's funerals. In response, people from that city and even a special group go and block out the church members. Free speech fighting free speech.
Look up Skokie, Illinois.
Interesting. However that's the price of free speech. You may not like everything you hear.
GW Rules Interpretation Syndrom. GWRIS. Causes people to second guess a rule in a book because that's what they would have had to do in a GW system.
SilverMK2 wrote: "Well, I have epilepsy and was holding a knife when I had a seizure... I couldn't help it! I was just trying to chop the vegetables for dinner!"
2012/11/17 03:38:24
Subject: Poppy Burning and the criminalisation of causing ‘offence’.
Most of the OP's examples are due to people posting things on social media. As it stands the legal system takes a very harsh line on this, it is basically treated as though whatever someone postes on their facebook pages had been printed in a newspaper.
This will change, IIRC it is being looked at now, its just that the legal system takes a long time to adapt to the times.
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
2012/11/17 22:35:49
Subject: Poppy Burning and the criminalisation of causing ‘offence’.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Of course, except in the States, where you are considered backwards for not allowing Nazis to parade where holocaust survivors reside.
I don't have any memory of anything like that happening, but there are instances of members of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting soldier's funerals. In response, people from that city and even a special group go and block out the church members. Free speech fighting free speech.
Look up Skokie, Illinois.
Interesting. However that's the price of free speech. You may not like everything you hear.
Not really. Most other places in the world are confident they can maintain the right to free speech while still allowing judges to restrict it in cases where harm can be caused. That's the stupid thing a lot of people don't realize, pronoucing words are actions, and they can be aimed at hurting intensively individuals that have been weakened by circumstances.
That cops had to spend their day defending Neo-Nazis from potential harm from holocaust survivors or their family, is to me a sympton, not an indication of social health and freedom.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palindrome wrote: Most of the OP's examples are due to people posting things on social media. As it stands the legal system takes a very harsh line on this, it is basically treated as though whatever someone postes on their facebook pages had been printed in a newspaper.
This will change, IIRC it is being looked at now, its just that the legal system takes a long time to adapt to the times.
If you publish a closed run pamphlet or journal or newspaper, and commit hate crimes (like inciting to violence), is it permissible because strictly speaking it's not a public media? I would think so, and the situation is pretty similar to Facebooking.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/17 22:44:46
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
2012/11/17 22:59:00
Subject: Poppy Burning and the criminalisation of causing ‘offence’.
Kovnik Obama wrote:That's the stupid thing a lot of people don't realize, pronoucing words are actions, and they can be aimed at hurting intensively individuals that have been weakened by circumstances.
Ah, but therein you stumble across the problem:
eggshell skull principle + "pronouncing words are actions" = no freedom of speech.
Rule 332: If it exists, someone is offended by it.
2012/11/17 23:37:29
Subject: Poppy Burning and the criminalisation of causing ‘offence’.
Kovnik Obama wrote:That's the stupid thing a lot of people don't realize, pronoucing words are actions, and they can be aimed at hurting intensively individuals that have been weakened by circumstances.
Ah, but therein you stumble across the problem:
eggshell skull principle + "pronouncing words are actions" = no freedom of speech.
Rule 332: If it exists, someone is offended by it.
Well, that's why we have a principle of reasonability in Common Law, and a metric crapload of codifications in French civil law.
I think that what really bothers People On The Net is that there's a new brand of dark humour that's risen out of the 80s and 90s, and that judges, like a lot of older people, who do not find ridiculous dead baby jokes funny, will certainly not see any humour in claiming horrible things for the sake of claiming horrible things.
Personnaly I see no problems in punishing people who failed to understand that 4Chan should and must remain an anonymous community where people go to be horribly silly, and decided that they would start acting this way in reality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/17 23:40:47
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
2012/11/17 23:47:37
Subject: Poppy Burning and the criminalisation of causing ‘offence’.
Kovnik Obama wrote:That's the stupid thing a lot of people don't realize, pronoucing words are actions, and they can be aimed at hurting intensively individuals that have been weakened by circumstances.
Ah, but therein you stumble across the problem:
eggshell skull principle + "pronouncing words are actions" = no freedom of speech.
Rule 332: If it exists, someone is offended by it.
Well, that's why we have a principle of reasonability in Common Law, and a metric crapload of codifications in French civil law.
But therein lies the problem... the reasonability test applies to the action, the eggshell skull principle applies to the consequence. However, the reasonable person test does not apply in the sense of "would a reasonable person have told a dead baby joke". It applies as "would a reasonable person tell a joke"; it does not bring up matters of taste. Whereas, the eggshell skull principle applies as "intent doesn't matter, that fragile snowflake was offended".
As a result, either the eggshell skull principle must cease to exist in tort law (a bad idea), or else intangible harm (such as being offended) must cease to.
5000 pts +/-
6000pts +/-
