Should we retain the right to insult others?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....-words-behaviour.html

Well such controversial people as Peter Tatcell also thinks so, do they realise the can of worms they may be opening?

/// Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 is a menace to free speech and the right to protest. It has been repeatedly abused by over-zealous police and prosecutors, to variously arrest gay rights campaigners, Christian street preachers, critics of Scientology and even students making jokes. ///

Because lets face it, it could work both ways.

[andrew1707]

Not on AB or Ed will get you!!

[ludwig]

Yes.

[2sp_]

We should retain the right to insult others, but good manners should prevent you from exercising that right.

[sp1814]

AOG

Peter Tatchell? Controversial? Really?

Anyway, back to the question - if the law if repealed, then we have to all forms of protest from 'NO GAY ZONE' stickers, street preachers and their 'books of Revelations' to the burning of poppies.

I believe that anyting that encourages violence and attacks should remain illegal...but as for insults - not sure. Not sure at all.

[friedgreentomato]

Why would you want to insult people?

[LazyGun]

I think the redline here is where there is a clear incitement to violence. Otherwise, I would broadly agree with the need for reform or repeal of Section 5 of the public order act.

[jomifl]

We will just have to be a bit more subtle, unfortunately some people are too stupid to realise that they are being insulted, amusing but not satisfying. There is always ambiguity of course.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// I believe that anyting that encourages violence and attacks should remain illegal...but as for insults - not sure. Not sure at
all. ///

But isn't it insults that can encourage "violence and attacks"?

/// Peter Tatchell? Controversial? Really? ///

Are you being sarcastic or do you really believe that he is not controversial?

[Bazile]

Oh dear , this sarcasm issue is really causing problems , isn't it ?

I've got an idea for the Ed - a symbol denoting when a question or answer is sarcastic - what do you all think ?

[LazyGun]

I was brought up to be polite, and in general I attempt to do just that - but as I get older, I am starting to feel that life is too short.

People are all different and will have differing thresholds as to what constitutes offence. That is the problem with the law as it currently stands - it forces the law to intervene.

We should not be banning the expression of free speech, even direct insult, however offensive, unless it is clearly in breach of the laws of equality or is clearly an incitement to violence.

[youngmafbog]

Yes we should.

I believe the problem is more people taking offence on behalf of others. You're average lefty liberal loves this and it causes more problems and this sort of law than the real problem of offence.

Of course if you are a heterosexual, middle aged, white, middle class Englishman then apparently there is no such thing as something offensive to you

[sp1814]

AOG

But isn't it insults that can encourage "violence and attacks"?

I should explain what I mean. This is an insult:

"All homosexuals are sinners who will burn in hell"

Where this is a call to attack:

"Kill homosexuals and let them rot in hell".

One is offensive, whereas the other is an encouragement to commit an offence.

[sp1814]

Re: Peter Tatchell

No...I really don't think of him as controversial. He's mellowed with age. He's a brave man who has a set of principles which he stands by. He hasn't said or done anything truly outrageous for years.

Therefore, I question whether he can really be described as 'controversial'.

[LazyGun]

@SP

Always good to use a real world example in these discussions :)

I would argue that the first sentiment expressed should be allowed, the second should not.

[sp1814]

youngmafbog

I see the lefty liberals have now stopped 'hand-wringing'.

[sp1814]

LazyGun.

Yes - that's where I think the line should be drawn.

Unfortunately, it means that Muslim extremists will be allowed to scream 'British soldiers - go to hell', because this isn't an incitement to violence...

Neither is poppy burning.

Extremely offensive, but it falls under the all encompassing flag of freedom of speech.

[LazyGun]

@Sp yes, that is exactly it.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// No...I really don't think of him as controversial. He's mellowed with age. He's a brave man who has a set of principles which he stands by. He hasn't said or done anything truly outrageous for years. ///

One would expect this answer coming from a homosexual, because whatever he is being controversial about, it will be sure to fit in with the Gay agenda.

/// Therefore, I question whether he can really be described as 'controversial'. ///

Would you then describe the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, on his stance on Gay Marriages, as 'not controversial'?

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// Where this is a call to attack:

"Kill homosexuals and let them rot in hell" ///

Methinks you talk with forked tongue.

"British soldiers - go to hell" is no different to "Kill homosexuals and let them rot in hell"

Because one has to be dead to go to hell, ie Kill British soldiers and send them to hell" so that is little different to "Kill Homosexuals and let them rot in hell".

[LazyGun]

@AoG if you cannot see the difference, it is your vision at fault, not the statement.