3 ms·

I take your point, but would suggest that the stop was motivated by legitimate Police concern over public decency rather than political content (“Fuck” is quite

I take your point, but would suggest that the stop was motivated by legitimate Police concern over public decency rather than political content (“Fuck” is quite offensive) and I believe that the Officers concerned probably wouldn’t have arrested her if she had refused to cover up. If an aggrieved third party had been present, and her refusal to cover up created a likelihood of imminent breach of the peace then - perhaps - a temporary arrest might be justified, would you accept? My point is our freedom of expression laws are aimed at creating an atmosphere where people don’t feel violence is necessary to defend their position or sensibility - it’s where we happen to draw the line in the paradox of tolerance.

Talanes 6y ago
It sounds like you're saying that if someone wants to fight me over what I'm wearing, that I should be arrested. That feels backwards, and I don't think the specifics of the article of clothing change that.
- amaccuish 6y ago
  The article of clothing was not called into question. The language "fuck" in terms of public decency, was. That is I believe a misreading of the OPs comment.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    I was referring to the third party example, where there is an "imminent breach to the peace." The point about indecency can stand as it is: not how I'd order a society, but I get it. However, I should not suddenly be in MORE trouble for wearing an indecent shirt because it made someone standing around me angry enough to get rowdy.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    Public decency is not addressed by Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which was the act the police officer cited.
vidarh 6y ago
"Fuck" in the context of "Fuck <name>" is really not particularly offensive in the UK. Furthermore, merely being offensive is insufficient under the law. Section 5 of the Public Order Act requires: > "(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he/she: > (a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or > (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive], > within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby." One might conceivably argue that these are "abusive" words. But case law also suggests that prosecuting merely on the behaviour of speech is only justified if it serves a need to maintain public order, so let's deal with your hypothetical: > If an aggrieved third party had been present, and her refusal to cover up created a likelihood of imminent breach of the peace then - perhaps - a temporary arrest might be justified, would you accept? In principle, if the language had been bad enough, yes. In this case? No, I would not. It's not nearly offensive enough language that you won't hear far worse on a regular basis. If someone can't handle seeing a t-shirt like that, they would not last long in London. Here she'd be more likely to cause offence people by wearing a "Boris is great" t-shirt. Personally I'd find that horribly offensive (I'm not being facetious - the guy is a threat to life and liberty), but I wouldn't argue for it to be banned, because it's nowhere near bad enough for a reasonable person to disturb public order over. [This is especially true because Boris is a politician, and people need to expect coarser language used to express frustration] If an actual aggrieved party had been present and reported her, then they would have had a reason to intervene to at least consider the issue. But that aggrieved party is and was entirely hypothetical.

Talanes 6y ago

It sounds like you're saying that if someone wants to fight me over what I'm wearing, that I should be arrested. That feels backwards, and I don't think the specifics of the article of clothing change that.

amaccuish 6y ago
The article of clothing was not called into question. The language "fuck" in terms of public decency, was. That is I believe a misreading of the OPs comment.
- Talanes 6y ago
  I was referring to the third party example, where there is an "imminent breach to the peace." The point about indecency can stand as it is: not how I'd order a society, but I get it. However, I should not suddenly be in MORE trouble for wearing an indecent shirt because it made someone standing around me angry enough to get rowdy.
- vidarh 6y ago
  Public decency is not addressed by Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which was the act the police officer cited.

vidarh 6y ago

"Fuck" in the context of "Fuck <name>" is really not particularly offensive in the UK. Furthermore, merely being offensive is insufficient under the law. Section 5 of the Public Order Act requires: > "(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he/she: > (a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or > (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive], > within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby." One might conceivably argue that these are "abusive" words. But case law also suggests that prosecuting merely on the behaviour of speech is only justified if it serves a need to maintain public order, so let's deal with your hypothetical: > If an aggrieved third party had been present, and her refusal to cover up created a likelihood of imminent breach of the peace then - perhaps - a temporary arrest might be justified, would you accept? In principle, if the language had been bad enough, yes. In this case? No, I would not. It's not nearly offensive enough language that you won't hear far worse on a regular basis. If someone can't handle seeing a t-shirt like that, they would not last long in London. Here she'd be more likely to cause offence people by wearing a "Boris is great" t-shirt. Personally I'd find that horribly offensive (I'm not being facetious - the guy is a threat to life and liberty), but I wouldn't argue for it to be banned, because it's nowhere near bad enough for a reasonable person to disturb public order over. [This is especially true because Boris is a politician, and people need to expect coarser language used to express frustration] If an actual aggrieved party had been present and reported her, then they would have had a reason to intervene to at least consider the issue. But that aggrieved party is and was entirely hypothetical.