ChatterBank1 min ago
Should we retain the right to insult others?
40 Answers
http://
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.
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.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The statements written by sp are very different. And for everyone else to be wearing 'PC' glasses, 'PC' would have to be a real thing and not a nebulous vaguely-defined tabloid bogey man.
As to the actual question - yes, I think we should retain the right to insult others. Sometimes, I think it's entirely appropriate to be rude, childish and insulting to someone. Why? Because some people deserve it. Part of what's beautiful and versatile about English (or any language, really) is that it grants you the power to do that if you want to. And that is what's important - power. Personally, I'm very uncomfortable with people having their access to the power of the English language "regulated" unless there is a damn good reason for it - and I can't think of one good enough to warrant censorship of insults.
As to the actual question - yes, I think we should retain the right to insult others. Sometimes, I think it's entirely appropriate to be rude, childish and insulting to someone. Why? Because some people deserve it. Part of what's beautiful and versatile about English (or any language, really) is that it grants you the power to do that if you want to. And that is what's important - power. Personally, I'm very uncomfortable with people having their access to the power of the English language "regulated" unless there is a damn good reason for it - and I can't think of one good enough to warrant censorship of insults.
SP's examples are good.
Believe me, I'd like nothing more than to make the whole of Frankie Boyle's act illegal, but it wouldn't be right. There shouldn't be a law against being obnoxious. It should be something we avoid doing through choice.
Secondly, as kromo said, sometimes insulting people is entirely appropriate. If they're horrible people doing horrible things, others should be able to make that clear to them in no uncertain terms, even though it's just an opinion.
Thirdly, who defines what an insult is? Certain religious groups would like to define any criticism of their faith (however innocuous or justified) as insulting and outlaw it. I don't think that would be a good thing.
Believe me, I'd like nothing more than to make the whole of Frankie Boyle's act illegal, but it wouldn't be right. There shouldn't be a law against being obnoxious. It should be something we avoid doing through choice.
Secondly, as kromo said, sometimes insulting people is entirely appropriate. If they're horrible people doing horrible things, others should be able to make that clear to them in no uncertain terms, even though it's just an opinion.
Thirdly, who defines what an insult is? Certain religious groups would like to define any criticism of their faith (however innocuous or justified) as insulting and outlaw it. I don't think that would be a good thing.
AOG
You wrote:
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.
That's an unfair characterisation, and it's not true.
You assume that I agree with all of Peter Tatchell's views because he's gay.
Simply, that isn't true. I don't agree with a number of his views, and to assume that I do because he's gay is no better than assuming that all gay people are exactly alike, with the same political and social outlook.
That is not true.
And with regard to Lord Carey, I don't think he's actually said anything controversial on the matter yet. It's not like that Australian MP who said that equal marriage would lead us down the path to bestiality.
Now, THAT is controversial.
You wrote:
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.
That's an unfair characterisation, and it's not true.
You assume that I agree with all of Peter Tatchell's views because he's gay.
Simply, that isn't true. I don't agree with a number of his views, and to assume that I do because he's gay is no better than assuming that all gay people are exactly alike, with the same political and social outlook.
That is not true.
And with regard to Lord Carey, I don't think he's actually said anything controversial on the matter yet. It's not like that Australian MP who said that equal marriage would lead us down the path to bestiality.
Now, THAT is controversial.
AOG
Do you see the difference in meaning between the two statements I posted at 15:35?
Both can be considered offensive, but only one (the latter) could be an actual offence (as it is a specific encouragement to attack).
I'm not convinced by your later comparison 'British soldiers go to hell'.
In fact, if I were a betting man, I would lay money on the idea that the Muslim extremists who wrote those placards took legal advice beforehand. There's a very thin line between protest and incitement, and they were right at the edge (IMO).
Do you see the difference in meaning between the two statements I posted at 15:35?
Both can be considered offensive, but only one (the latter) could be an actual offence (as it is a specific encouragement to attack).
I'm not convinced by your later comparison 'British soldiers go to hell'.
In fact, if I were a betting man, I would lay money on the idea that the Muslim extremists who wrote those placards took legal advice beforehand. There's a very thin line between protest and incitement, and they were right at the edge (IMO).
It is very worrying for free speech that recent contributors to Facebook have received prison sentences not for insulting others directly but putting a general self held point of view. Everyone has their own views on matters and if they not to hold the established view we are all prisoners of the system and edging towards communist China or Russia.
sp1814 , the first example that you gave :
"all homosexuals are sinners who will burn in hell"
You've concentrated solely on the form of words used and not the context in which they are used or who they are said to . If this was said in a speech , fair enough (though not very nice ) . However , if somebody went up to a homosexual ,knowing that he was homosexual and said it repeatedly "in his face" then that is provoking violence . They would be asking for a punch on the nose and it would be entirely their fault .
Similarly with the burning of poppies , if a group said "we are going to burn poppies in the park in protest at war " ,fair enough . But if a group turn up at remembrance day and start burning poppies "in the face of " people who they know may have just recently lost a family member then that , for me , is just too provocative .
In this respect I think that I am a shade closer to AOG's position than yours .
"all homosexuals are sinners who will burn in hell"
You've concentrated solely on the form of words used and not the context in which they are used or who they are said to . If this was said in a speech , fair enough (though not very nice ) . However , if somebody went up to a homosexual ,knowing that he was homosexual and said it repeatedly "in his face" then that is provoking violence . They would be asking for a punch on the nose and it would be entirely their fault .
Similarly with the burning of poppies , if a group said "we are going to burn poppies in the park in protest at war " ,fair enough . But if a group turn up at remembrance day and start burning poppies "in the face of " people who they know may have just recently lost a family member then that , for me , is just too provocative .
In this respect I think that I am a shade closer to AOG's position than yours .
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.