this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
11 points (92.3% liked)
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
756 readers
1 users here now
For the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales) and Northern Ireland; News, Politics, Economics, Society, Business, Culture, discussion and anything else UK related.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think there is a "right not be offended" and i also don't think there should be. if only for the fact that offense is entirely subjective.
I didn't say anything about offense...
You can't call someone a racial slur and claim it was free speech, for example.
Edit
Is it really that controversial that hate speech isn't the same as free speech? Really?
if calling someone a racial slur is not about offense then what is it about?
Maybe you should look up the definition of hate speech.
I'm not saying it's what happened here, but the idea it's about "offense" is something worthy of the Daily Mail. The law doesn't deal with opinion in reality, only headlines.
maybe you should look up the definition of free speech.
Free speech and hate speech laws are not compatible
Yes... That's exactly what I've been saying, your right to free speech ends when it becomes hate speech. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.
if i am not free to speak hate then i do not have free speech
your argument can be turned around, your "right" not to be offended ends where it infringes on my right to free speech.
What is considered "Hate" speech is essentially a line arbitrarily drawn in the sand
Hahahaha
Alrighty then. We shall agree to disagree. Good thing the law is on the side of sense, and not your fixation on offense (which, again, is nothing to do with it).
If you're not willing to talk about offense then why are you commenting on an article about someone arrested "on suspicion of using a public communication network to send offensive messages"
Because "offensive messages" defined in law is not the same as "being offended". But like I said, I'm tired of dealing with edgy teenagers today so I'm not going to try and explain to you further, I lack the crayons. Laters.
If something is to be considered offensive then it must by definition cause offense to someone. otherwise how do you tell if something is offensive?
Seriously, do you understand words or not?
Connotative meaning and denotative meaning of words are why the language used in laws is so specific. If you knew anything about the law or how it works, you'd know that.
Any more questions you want answered I'd suggest either Google or your teacher.
What has the difference between connotative and denotative meanings go to do with the word "offensive" in "offensive messages". used in that context "offensive" requires someone to be offended, that is its main meaning... otherwise it has no meaning.
Anyway i thought you were checking out like three messages ago, why are you still here trying (and failing) to guess my age?
Since you've already asked and had this one answered, I'll just copy/paste it for you, but I'd again suggest you look up the meaning of the terms:
You asked a question, I answered. It's only polite after all. With each comment you make, you're only making your ignorance of law more clear to those who actually understand what you're talking about. If you're not a teenager, well, you have some learning to do I guess.
E: it's kind of sweet you're going back just to downvote my comments. I like that you're dedicating so much time to me <3
if you are not free to speak certain things then by definition you do not have free speech.