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.

A relative of mine who suffers from a quite sever mental illness was subject to psychological abuse by her flatmate to such a degree that she lost all of her hair, I am yet to learn if it grew back and how the situation was resolved.

 Albatross wrote:
The difference between 'hurt feelings' due to offence and the fear felt as a result of a verbal threat is, in very basic terms, a semantic difference. Both are 'just words'. However, civilised societies recognise that words can be damaging, both to individuals and to society as a whole, so steps are taken to control what people say in very specific circumstances - getting the balance right in order to keep pace with the times is a constant process. The USA is not exempt from this process, despite what some Americans like to pretend to themselves.

Over to you.

Thats an amazinlgy incorrect statement. its not about whether the "words can be damaging." Its about, and I am quoting the English common law definition here Brit-the person is put in "imminent fear of harmful or offensive touching." Its not whether it makes them feel bad. Its whether they think you're going to physically hurt them.

"Offensive Touching" sounds like poking someone then shouting "Neener neener!" at them.

 Albatross wrote:
Over to you.

Sure. You're wrong.

True threats are offenses under American law largely because there's a public interest in preventing the heralded act of violence from occurring. It's not about preventing hurt fee-fees, as seems to be the goal of much of British law, it's about protecting the victim from the harm that could reasonably be said to follow from the declaration of intent.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
"Offensive Touching" sounds like poking someone then shouting "Neener neener!" at them.

Sounds like a football penalty.

"There was a flag on the play. Offensive touching by the offense. 10 yards, repeat first down."

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Over to you.

Sure. You're wrong.

True threats are offenses under American law largely because there's a public interest in preventing the heralded act of violence from occurring. It's not about preventing hurt fee-fees, as seems to be the goal of much of British law, it's about protecting the victim from the harm that could reasonably be said to follow from the declaration of intent.

(US, law) Oral or written speech that creates, or is intended to create, a fear of physical harm

Can become Malicious Harrasment or disorderly Conduct or verbal Assault . You can also have threats to well being that don't include threats to physical violence.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
The difference between 'hurt feelings' due to offence and the fear felt as a result of a verbal threat is, in very basic terms, a semantic difference. Both are 'just words'. However, civilised societies recognise that words can be damaging, both to individuals and to society as a whole, so steps are taken to control what people say in very specific circumstances - getting the balance right in order to keep pace with the times is a constant process. The USA is not exempt from this process, despite what some Americans like to pretend to themselves.

Over to you.

Thats an amazinlgy incorrect statement. its not about whether the "words can be damaging." Its about, and I am quoting the English common law definition here Brit-the person is put in "imminent fear of harmful or offensive touching." Its not whether it makes them feel bad. Its whether they think you're going to physically hurt them.

Which makes them feel bad. What's more, if there is no follow-through into physical violence, then that is literally all that happens - someone makes you think they're going to hurt you, and you feel bad, but you remain physically unmolested.

It is not a complicated thing that I am saying.

 Albatross wrote:
It is not a complicated thing that I am saying.

It's not, no.

It's just incorrect.

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Over to you.

Sure. You're wrong.

No, you just don't, can't, or won't understand what I'm saying.

True threats are offenses under American law largely because there's a public interest in preventing the heralded act of violence from occurring.

Retrospective punishment of threats of violence where no violence occurs prevents acts of violence. Gotcha.

It's not about preventing hurt fee-fees, as seems to be the goal of much of British law

See, now we're getting to what this is really about: insulting the British and portraying them as less manly as Americans. You're an absolute child.

Did an English bloke steal your girlfriend or something? Is that what this is about? Just get over it, you're making yourself look an ass with all this macho posturing and juvenile baby-talk. Grow up, man.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
It is not a complicated thing that I am saying.

It's not, no.

It's just incorrect.

If you'd care to explain yourself instead of just going 'nuh-uh', you'd find that I am incredibly open to changing my opinion on virtually any topic, professor.

 Albatross wrote:
No, you just don't, can't, or won't understand what I'm saying.

I understand what you're saying. That it does not fall into line with reality is unfortunate, but not necessarily my fault.

Retrospective punishment of threats of violence where no violence occurs prevents acts of violence. Gotcha.

So if I threaten to kill someone and do not immediately do it upon conclusion of said threat, in your view it's reasonable to presume that I simply never will?

See, now we're getting to what this is really about: insulting the British and portraying them as less manly as Americans. You're an absolute child.

"Manliness" has nothing to do with it. It's a freedom of speech issue. You take umbrage with the notion that preventing people from saying something at which others might take offense is not within the purview of government. That, unfortunately, boils down to arresting someone for hurting someone else's feelings. In an effort to try and make that position a little more credible - why exactly you care so much about the American opinion of British law baffles me, for the record, as I certainly couldn't give a fig for any other country's opinion of mine - you attempted to link this case to the same sort of wild governmental/judicial overreach, and it backfired on you.

Did an English bloke steal your girlfriend or something? Is that what this is about? Just get over it, you're making yourself look an ass with all this macho posturing and juvenile baby-talk. Grow up, man.

Maybe it's time to take a break and have a Coke or something. Calm down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:
If you'd care to explain yourself instead of just going 'nuh-uh', you'd find that I am incredibly open to changing my opinion on virtually any topic, professor.

I'm not sure I could find a way to explain why valid fear of imminent physical harm is different from being upset about the content of speech where absolutely no fear of physical harm exists to someone who does not already understand the difference.

 Albatross wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
The difference between 'hurt feelings' due to offence and the fear felt as a result of a verbal threat is, in very basic terms, a semantic difference. Both are 'just words'. However, civilised societies recognise that words can be damaging, both to individuals and to society as a whole, so steps are taken to control what people say in very specific circumstances - getting the balance right in order to keep pace with the times is a constant process. The USA is not exempt from this process, despite what some Americans like to pretend to themselves.

Over to you.

Thats an amazinlgy incorrect statement. its not about whether the "words can be damaging." Its about, and I am quoting the English common law definition here Brit-the person is put in "imminent fear of harmful or offensive touching." Its not whether it makes them feel bad. Its whether they think you're going to physically hurt them.

Which makes them feel bad. What's more, if there is no follow-through into physical violence, then that is literally all that happens - someone makes you think they're going to hurt you, and you feel bad, but you remain physically unmolested.

It is not a complicated thing that I am saying.

Its not a complicated thing. It is however, an incorrect thing.
The guys with the whigs and the jail hotel don't care if your feeling get hurt. They do care if you were afraid you we re going to get stabbed and die, and that that fear was reasonable.

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
No, you just don't, can't, or won't understand what I'm saying.

I understand what you're saying. That it does not fall into line with reality is unfortunate, but not necessarily my fault.

Please feel free to explain yourself.

Retrospective punishment of threats of violence where no violence occurs prevents acts of violence. Gotcha.

So if I threaten to kill someone and do not immediately do it upon conclusion of said threat, in your view it's reasonable to presume that I simply never will?

As with so much, it depends on the circumstances. As in, it's not black and white. Which is what I've been pretty much what I've been saying from the beginning and you've been denying.

See, now we're getting to what this is really about: insulting the British and portraying them as less manly as Americans. You're an absolute child.

"Manliness" has nothing to do with it. It's a freedom of speech issue.

Of course it is. It has nothing to do with your personal inadequacies whatsoever.

See, I care about freedom of speech too, I just don't talk about it like some sort of mouth-breathing jock in the playground. All this 'hurt fee-fees' nonsense is basically just a way for you to portray yourself as a tough-guy. Well, I'm not buying it.

You take umbrage with the notion that preventing people from saying something at which others might take offense is not within the purview of government.

Do I? Erm, no. No I don't. That's an assumption you're making.

That, unfortunately, boils down to arresting someone for hurting someone else's feelings.

Yes, it does. But then so do a fair amount of things you arrest people for over there, which is why it's unseemly for you personally to behave the way you do regarding this issue. Not to mention that fact that you're a grown man.

In an effort to try and make that position a little more credible - why exactly you care so much about the American opinion of British law baffles me, for the record, as I certainly couldn't give a fig for any other country's opinion of mine - you attempted to link this case to the same sort of wild governmental/judicial overreach, and it backfired on you.

Backfired on me? I was teasing because I saw the OP and thought it somewhat ironic. That's just lead to a wider discussion, that's all. The guy DID get arrested as a result of the video of him mocking the girl, though, right?

Did an English bloke steal your girlfriend or something? Is that what this is about? Just get over it, you're making yourself look an ass with all this macho posturing and juvenile baby-talk. Grow up, man.

Maybe it's time to take a break and have a Coke or something. Calm down.

I literally couldn't be calmer!

I don't post on here when I'm in a bad mood. Arguing is something I do for fun. Anyone who knows me on here knows that, whilst I can be vicious (over the top, even), I rarely get angry. If you get angry you lose.

 Albatross wrote:
If you'd care to explain yourself instead of just going 'nuh-uh', you'd find that I am incredibly open to changing my opinion on virtually any topic, professor.

I'm not sure I could find a way to explain why valid fear of imminent physical harm is different from being upset about the content of speech where absolutely no fear of physical harm exists to someone who does not already understand the difference.

You're being reductive there. Of course there is a functional difference. Structurally, however, it boils down to 'someone said something to me which caused me distress'. To apply it to this particular incident, are we really suggesting that the guy was actually going to come back and strangle the girl with a chain, or was it more about the distress caused by the threat? Indeed, how often do you think distress caused by verbal threats is taken into consideration when prosecuting someone for making threats? Often, I'd say. Look at the example Jean Baudrillard (sorry folks...) uses when discussing simulation: If you threaten someone with a replica weapon, should they be punished under the law? If so, why? If not, why?

 Albatross wrote:
Of course it is. It has nothing to do with your personal inadequacies whatsoever.

You are of course welcome to think that if you like, and if it makes the conversation easier, go right ahead.

See, I care about freedom of speech too, I just don't talk about it like some sort of mouth-breathing jock in the playground. All this 'hurt fee-fees' nonsense is basically just a way for you to portray yourself as a tough-guy. Well, I'm not buying it.

Sure, if you say so. I view it as my complete and utter disdain for a legal system that criminalizes jokes made in poor taste, but again, if it makes comprehension easier, go nuts.

Do I? Erm, no. No I don't. That's an assumption you're making.

It is, yes, based on your frequent and frequently offended posting during the thread about the Facebook jailing.

That, unfortunately, boils down to arresting someone for hurting someone else's feelings.

Yes, it does. But then so do a fair amount of things you arrest people for over there, which is why it's unseemly for you personally to behave the way you do regarding this issue.

Could you provide some examples to back up this claim? Because this case isn't one of them, as we've gone over many times.

Backfired on me? I was teasing because I saw the OP and thought it somewhat ironic. That's just lead to a wider discussion, that's all. The guy DID get arrested as a result of the video of him mocking the girl, though, right?

He did get arrested, yes. Not for causing offense, though. If that were grounds for arrest, the Klan would have long ago all gotten arrested. As would a boatload of comedians and other private citizens.

You're being reductive there. Of course there is a functional difference. Structurally, however, it boils down to 'someone said something to me which caused me distress'. To apply it to this particular incident, are we really suggesting that the guy was actually going to come back and strangle the girl with a chain, or was it more about the distress caused by the threat? Indeed, how often do you think distress caused by verbal threats is taken into consideration when prosecuting someone for making threats? Often, I'd say. Look at the example Jean Baudrillard (sorry folks...) uses when discussing simulation: If you threaten someone with a replica weapon, should they be punished under the law? If so, why? If not, why?

Again, no. Merely causing someone distress is not grounds for arresting them over here. Causing fear of physical harm by threat of violence is something you can indeed be arrested for, because it is entirely possible that you will follow through with that threat. Summarizing 'fear' as 'distress' in an effort to link it to 'moral offense' is, at best, disingenuous, and I think you know that.

 Seaward wrote:

Again, no. Merely causing someone distress is not grounds for arresting them over here. Causing fear of physical harm by threat of violence is something you can indeed be arrested for, because it is entirely possible that you will follow through with that threat. Summarizing 'fear' as 'distress' in an effort to link it to 'moral offense' is, at best, disingenuous, and I think you know that.

Again, you are wrong Seaward. You can be arrested in the states for malicious harassment, disorderly conduct and heap of other crimes relating to 'hurt fee fees'.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Again, you are wrong Seaward. You can be arrested in the states for malicious harassment, disorderly conduct and heap of other crimes relating to 'hurt fee fees'.

Malicious harassment statutes are on the books, but I'll believe that they can be successfully used to prosecute someone for hurting someone else's feelings when you can show me it's been done. People have tried it, usually in relation to hate crimes (idiots shouting racial epithets), but they usually get thrown out on - drumroll - First Amendment grounds.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Again, no. Merely causing someone distress is not grounds for arresting them over here. Causing fear of physical harm by threat of violence is something you can indeed be arrested for, because it is entirely possible that you will follow through with that threat. Summarizing 'fear' as 'distress' in an effort to link it to 'moral offense' is, at best, disingenuous, and I think you know that.

Again, you are wrong Seaward. You can be arrested in the states for malicious harassment, disorderly conduct and heap of other crimes relating to 'hurt fee fees'.

You might want to look up the details of those crimes, notably that while people can be arrested for these crimes the percentage of successful prosecutions isn't going to be that high unless there are other circumstances in play where someone pleads to a lesser offense.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Again, no. Merely causing someone distress is not grounds for arresting them over here. Causing fear of physical harm by threat of violence is something you can indeed be arrested for, because it is entirely possible that you will follow through with that threat. Summarizing 'fear' as 'distress' in an effort to link it to 'moral offense' is, at best, disingenuous, and I think you know that.

Again, you are wrong Seaward. You can be arrested in the states for malicious harassment, disorderly conduct and heap of other crimes relating to 'hurt fee fees'.

I think we're getting things mixed up here...

You can be arrested for just about anything...

Being prosecuted, is an entirely different thing.

Damned, ninja'ed by Seward and Kanluwen.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Relapse wrote:
One of my happiest moments was kicking the living gak out of a jackass like that.

That's nothing, I did the exact same thing except there was 100 of them and my limbs were tied together.

I once rode a Mastadon down mainstreet naked. Yea I said it.

The thing is tough guys aren't really tough because it's what's expected of men to be, the man who dresses up in a skirt with makeup and high heels has more balls than the dude in the plaid shirt with rolled up sleeves talking about chicks, beer, hunting and automobiles.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Relapse wrote:
One of my happiest moments was kicking the living gak out of a jackass like that.

That's nothing, I did the exact same thing except there was 100 of them and my limbs were tied together.

I once rode a Mastadon down mainstreet naked. Yea I said it.

The thing is tough guys aren't really tough because it's what's expected of men to be, the man who dresses up in a skirt with makeup and high heels has more balls than the dude in the plaid shirt with rolled up sleeves talking about chicks, beer, hunting and automobiles.

Depends where you're at doesn't it?

Yeah you're right in a survival situation, I'd rather be hanging around the guy with the plaid shirt who likes hunting than a male transvestite. But in urban society the guy who dresses women's clothing, will have to put up with more gak than a more typical looking person.

 Seaward wrote:

See, I care about freedom of speech too, I just don't talk about it like some sort of mouth-breathing jock in the playground. All this 'hurt fee-fees' nonsense is basically just a way for you to portray yourself as a tough-guy. Well, I'm not buying it.

Sure, if you say so. I view it as my complete and utter disdain for a legal system that criminalizes jokes made in poor taste...

Except it doesn't. Or at least, not necessarily. The concept of joking is highly subjective, also. Once again, if I pull out a replica firearm and say I'm going to shoot you, and you pee your pants, would I be be charged with a crime in the US? What about if I said I was only joking?

Do I? Erm, no. No I don't. That's an assumption you're making.

It is, yes, based on your frequent and frequently offended posting during the thread about the Facebook jailing.

Um, I'm pretty sure I said that the incident was stupid, the judge was stupid, the defendant was stupid, and that I didn't agree with jailing him at all. Pretty sure I said that. I also recall saying that despite this, I can understand why it happens, and that we shouldn't take moronic and reductive views on things like free speech, because it's never as cut-and-dried as 'hurr, people get jailed in the UK for hurt fee-fees!'. This is because that's an abstraction you've drawn from a situation involving words that cause distress. My point is that, structurally, ALL crimes in which the verbal component and the mental distress are the key components in the actual commitment of a criminal act can be reduced down to 'words that cause hurt feelings', should one be juvenile enough, so it's probably best not to use such broad strokes if you want to appear considered and intelligent. 'Hurt feelings' and 'distress' are just arbitrary word choices, loaded with ideology. As we've seen.

That, unfortunately, boils down to arresting someone for hurting someone else's feelings.

Yes, it does. But then so do a fair amount of things you arrest people for over there, which is why it's unseemly for you personally to behave the way you do regarding this issue.

Could you provide some examples to back up this claim? Because this case isn't one of them, as we've gone over many times.

No-one's ever held up a 7-11 with an unloaded or replica weapon? Because in that instant, the robbery is real but threat is not. That person would probably still go to jail for armed robbery. Why? 'Hurt feelings'.

Backfired on me? I was teasing because I saw the OP and thought it somewhat ironic. That's just lead to a wider discussion, that's all. The guy DID get arrested as a result of the video of him mocking the girl, though, right?

He did get arrested, yes. Not for causing offense, though. If that were grounds for arrest, the Klan would have long ago all gotten arrested. As would a boatload of comedians and other private citizens.

You have had obscenity trials. You have obscenity laws. What are they for?

You're being reductive there. Of course there is a functional difference. Structurally, however, it boils down to 'someone said something to me which caused me distress'. To apply it to this particular incident, are we really suggesting that the guy was actually going to come back and strangle the girl with a chain, or was it more about the distress caused by the threat? Indeed, how often do you think distress caused by verbal threats is taken into consideration when prosecuting someone for making threats? Often, I'd say. Look at the example Jean Baudrillard (sorry folks...) uses when discussing simulation: If you threaten someone with a replica weapon, should they be punished under the law? If so, why? If not, why?

Again, no. Merely causing someone distress is not grounds for arresting them over here. Causing fear of physical harm by threat of violence is something you can indeed be arrested for, because it is entirely possible that you will follow through with that threat. Summarizing 'fear' as 'distress' in an effort to link it to 'moral offense' is, at best, disingenuous, and I think you know that.

No, the difference is just a semantic one. They have meanings in law, but those meanings happen to be arbitrary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Yeah you're right in a survival situation, I'd rather be hanging around the guy with the plaid shirt who likes hunting than a male transvestite.

I dunno, if this is the UK we're talking about, the guy in the dress is probably a Royal Marine out on the town with the lads, and the dude in the plaid shirt is probably a lesbian.


I love Manchester!