3 ms·
Calling someone an idiot would very rarely be considered "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character;". Some words or actions are menac
by 7952 4y ago
Calling someone an idiot would very rarely be considered "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character;". Some words or actions are menacing, for example if someone said they wanted to rape your child. And some behaviour is inextricably linked with violence such as racism. Obviously there is nuance and context here, and the police don't always get it right. But threatening language absolutely does exist. Sometimes I think we need to be more explicit about what that context actually is and social networks tend to have a wide audience with different expectations.
- sirsinsalot 4y agoI'm sure it does, but i'd rather 100 idiots said they wanted to rape my child than one person's offensive but valid speech gets censored. I will note that I don't think freedom of speech extends to the anonymous. If you say you want to rape my child, you best put your name to it. If your name is by your speech, then say it and own your vile. -- yours, sirsinsalot, anon internet commenter.
- DoItToMe81 4y agoIn the UK, it not only can be, it is. If you look, you'll find a case of it, eventually, because the UK brings in almost 200 people a month over internet charges that are considered mildly offensive but legal and benign in the rest of Europe. Two of the most serious cases I can think of this, is hate speech arrests of teenagers for sharing rap lyrics with 'nigga' in them, and the slew of "harmful speech" arrests over criticizing the crown around the queen's funeral.