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.
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.
Re: your edit. Are you trying to say that hate speech should be allowed? I’m genuinely baffled.
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).
Re your edit: if you actually knew what hate speech is defined as in law, you’d know that’s not true.
It seems all the edgy teenagers are out in force today, so I’m outta here! Toodle-ooo!
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.
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.
Re: your edit. Are you trying to say that hate speech should be allowed? I’m genuinely baffled.
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).
Re your edit: if you actually knew what hate speech is defined as in law, you’d know that’s not true.
It seems all the edgy teenagers are out in force today, so I’m outta here! Toodle-ooo!
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.
deleted by creator
if you are not free to speak certain things then by definition you do not have free speech.