7 ms·
It is a sad state of affairs when we're litigating offending tweets.
by ratsmack 5y ago
It is a sad state of affairs when we're litigating offending tweets.
- duxup 5y agoI think a threat of violence or something could be worthwhile. But “grossly offensive”, man that’s absurd.
- capableweb 5y agoAbsolutely, we should not hold back in punishing people who are threatening violence against others, or otherwise try to get other people to commit acts of violence. But that someone tweeting “the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella buuuuurn” is guilty of anything besides being lame, is beyond what I can understand. It seems like this is about something more than just being "grossly offensive", did this somehow make someone in the military upset or something? Surely it can't be illegal to be offensive now can it? > The 72-year-old [Janet Hunter Jess], whose family served in the armed forces, said: “To see someone wishing British soldiers dead, it still hurts me. It still hurts me that anybody would disrespect someone that had given their live for the country.” > Ms Jeffrey, 51, stated: “First of all, the gentleman in question had done so much to raise awareness and funds for the NHS in England and became a bit of a national hero at the time, but then the fact it referred to British soldiers as well. It seems indeed this is more about that people in the military, or related to those with people in the military, was offended by the tweet. I wonder if the irony around that this fellow fought in the second world war for freedom of speech for everyone is hitting any of these people offended at the tweet.
- version_five 5y agoThe judges explanation makes the ruling sound even more ridiculous This is a man who had become known as a national hero, who stood for the resilience of the people of a country struggling with a pandemic and the services trying to protect them.
- jackvalentine 5y ago> I wonder if the irony around that this fellow fought in the second world war for freedom of speech for everyone is hitting any of these people offended at the tweet. I'm not aware of WW2 being about freedom of speech.
- mlyle 5y ago> I'm not aware of WW2 being about freedom of speech. I'm pretty sure if Britain had ended up being occupied, they'd have had less freedom of speech than they enjoy today.
- jackvalentine 5y agoI expected this reply. It doesn’t make the war about freedom of speech, it makes the war about resisting invasion (for Britain). The Britain of the time had a tremendous desire to censor things they deemed unseemly which lasted long past the end of the war - see for example various obscenity trials regarding the publication of books in the 60s and 70s.
- mlyle 5y ago> It doesn’t make the war about freedom of speech, it makes the war about resisting invasion (for Britain). Yah, but fighting to resist invasion also means fighting to preserve values and legal protections. [which may not have been the best in the world then, or interpreted as we'd interpret those values now, but still were better than the alternative].
- jackvalentine 5y agoYes, values and legal protections which didn’t include freedom of speech.
- tsimionescu 5y ago> Yah, but fighting to resist invasion also means fighting to preserve values and legal protections. An invasion is the same whether you are being invaded by people who believe in free speech or by people who don't. WWII was in no way about free speech. Germany was invading other countries not to impose their values and compelled speech, but to create "living space" and take their resources for the "German people". People war opposing this because they didn't want to be killed, nor did they want to serve the "German people" nor did they want their resources to belong to Germany. Nothing much would have changed in the opposition to German occupation if Germany had been a democracy with equality for all and deep protection for free speech, but still hell bent on conquering and controlling all of Europe.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago> "To see someone wishing British/Russian/Chinese soldiers dead, it still hurts me. It still hurts me that anybody would disrespect someone that had given their live for the country.” Given that soldiers typically kill people, it seems inevitable that someone will hate them, whether justified or not. If you look at countries that demand unconditional patriotism, they are usually flirting with dictatorship or outright fashism. It's not something a free society should emulate.
- racl101 5y agoAgreed. On a side note, Ari Shaffir better clean up his act. He said some bad shit about Kobe after he died.
- djbusby 5y agoStraight to jail, right?
- commandlinefan 5y ago> litigating offending tweets The standard for “offending” will continue to encompass more and more speech, too.
- bufferoverflow 5y agoBut only certain kinds of offensive speech that the government considers offensive. If an atheist is offended by Islamic texts, that doesn't count somehow.
- ninjin 5y agoSadly, this kind of behaviour is on brand when it comes to the UK state. It is less than ten years since Section 5 [1] was reformed to remove the display of “insulting” words and writing in public as an offence (Rowan Atkinson made an excellent speech on the matter back then [2]). However, the overall mentality and other laws are still very much at large. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_5_of_the_Public_Order_Act_1986 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_5_of_the_Public_Order_... [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqDZlAZygU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqDZlAZygU While I still do not claim to fully comprehend British culture, there is always an odd undercurrent of authoritarianism whose chill I can feel now and then – it is worth noting that it bridges the political divide. I have talked about this with my British colleagues and heard numerous explanations, but none that I feel satisfactory. At times when I feel particularly dark I joke about this with said colleagues and say: “You say that you went to war with the Germans on behalf of the free world. But at times I wonder: Was it not that they in a way were outdoing you and you were feeling a bit envious?” Now, clearly this is intended to be offensive and not something that I genuinely believe, but like many jokes, it somewhat works because there is some kernel of truth at its core.
- lupire 5y agoYou don't see a difference in authoritarianism of British "banning the public wishing of mass death" and Nazi "requiring the public wishing of mass death? "
- throwawayboise 5y agoThe equivalancy drawn in the joke is part of what makes it funny.