flamingjimmy Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Free speech doesn't include the right to offend Yes it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 When the Racial Discrimination Act was amended in the mid-1990s to include racial vilification, the legislation was controversial and the government had trouble getting it through -- hence, no criminal penalties, and exemptions that you can drive a truck through. The Act makes it unlawful for a person to "do an act" in public that is likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people" on the basis of their race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 When the Racial Discrimination Act was amended in the mid-1990s to include racial vilification, the legislation was controversial and the government had trouble getting it through -- hence, no criminal penalties, and exemptions that you can drive a truck through. The Act makes it unlawful for a person to "do an act" in public that is likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people" on the basis of their race. So, free speech does include the right to offend then, there are just a couple of special exemptions (which are totally illiberal and rarely enforced), fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 When the Racial Discrimination Act was amended in the mid-1990s to include racial vilification, the legislation was controversial and the government had trouble getting it through -- hence, no criminal penalties, and exemptions that you can drive a truck through. The Act makes it unlawful for a person to "do an act" in public that is likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people" on the basis of their race. What's "doing an act in public? The denial of right to freely express an opinion? So long as there are no threats of violence to and denial of rights based on a person's sexual, religious or racial background then that should be sufficient thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 What's "doing an act in public? The denial of right to freely express an opinion? So long as there are no threats of violence to and denial of rights based on a person's sexual, religious or racial background then that should be sufficient thereof. You can express an opinion. The act would make screaming in a street "All muslims are thieves" illegal, for good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 He doesn't even look like Hitler, his uniform is a shocking replica, and therefore since he was at a fancy dress he shouldn't had been diciplined, it was just abit of harmless fun. To be honest i'm sure if he really wanted to dress as Hitler he would had put more effort into it. How about this example of a politician who shares videos like “Why the world cannot forget Adolf Hitler” and Wermacht songs on his facebook account? Is that harmless fun too? http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/1726/He's-a-skinhead,-fascist,-rape-joking-tattooed-racist-and-he-wants-your-vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Take js20212's post above where he labels any average muslim intolerant. This is plainly prejudiced. Had he said "I've met three muslims and they were all intolerant" that would be fine, based on his experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 You can express an opinion. The act would make screaming in a street "All muslims are thieves" illegal, for good reason. Shouldn't be, anymore than screaming things about anything else. It should be a person's right but of course if a Muslim decides to give him a knuckle sandwich then that goes with the territory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 So, free speech does include the right to offend then, there are just a couple of special exemptions (which are totally illiberal and rarely enforced), fair enough. The public order act can also be used where it is judged to be incitement, as it was against Nick Griffin when he published a SS praising special of the BNP magazine the Rune. Other restrictions on freedom of speech include libel, copyright laws, and official and business secrets. Knowledge and ideas have been a commodity and subject to property rights for some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 The public order act can also be used where it is judged to be incitement, as it was against Nick Griffin when he published a SS praising special of the BNP magazine the Rune.I'm not arguing against the part about incitement to hatred or violence, absolutely not. Nor am I saying that you should have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre. It's the part about offence that concerns me. Other restrictions on freedom of speech include libel, copyright laws, and official and business secrets. Knowledge and ideas have been a commodity and subject to property rights for some time. ok.... but yet again, it's the part about offence that I don't like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.