Careful what you say...

[sobrique]

Two stories in the news in the last few days have concerned me slightly.
This one:
http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2012-10-11/man-jailed-for-offensive-t-shirt-after-officer-deaths/
Is about a guy who wore a T-shirt that was offensive, following the death of two police officers.
He's got 8 months in prison. (ALthough, I believe 4 months for the offence, and 4 for

And this one here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/08/april-jones-matthew-woods-jailed
He made an obnoxious offensive joke about the missing - presumed abducted and murdered - 5 year old, April Jones.

These worry me. I don't wish to defend what they said - it was obnoxious, tasteless, unpleasant and probably distressing.
No, what worries me is that I'm not sure it should be a crime to be an odious gobshite.

There's one simple reason - because when you have a law that makes it illegal to say certain things - things that are 'judged to cause offense' - then you have to have someone who makes the final decision - this joke is crass but ok. That one crosses the line. This point of view is impolite. That one is criminal.

And put very simply - I can think of no one I would trust to make that decision. If you do it via 'popular opinion' then you're at risk of minority oppression - how many people would find it 'ok' to make an unpleasant comment about Jimmy Savile at the moment? Now, same question, but aimed at transexuals perhaps? Do you see where I'm going with this? There will always be minorities that - by virtue of who they are - are more 'popularly acceptable' to be offensive about.

If you have some other group being the 'taste police' then you've got a bigger risk - that of appointing a group that has bias built in because of who they are - look if you will at the demographics of the current members of parliament. How many are white, middle class, middle aged, male, and from a public school background? Would you say that's more than average from the population?
How about the judiciary? Does that not have the same problem?

I'm worried that very simply you cannot truly appreciate something that is outside your realm of experience. You cannot understand what it is like to be bullied or abused for who you are, if it's never happened to you. If you've never been fat, female, gay, transsexual, black, disabled, ill, raped, abused as a child, mentally unwell... then how can you be someone who passes judgement on 'offensive'?

Comments

[syntheticbrain.livejournal.com]

I quite agree. I saw an interesting counterpoint about Justin Lee Collins and his recent abuse conviction, which was far less harshly punished: http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2012/10/done.html

[syntheticbrain.livejournal.com]

I've just seen a suggestion that the man in the first case had a son who died in police custody...

[(Anonymous)]

I think in both these cases it was about where the comments were directed. At the family and friends of the victim(s). If I call you a fat black queer knowing that its unlikely to offend you its very different from me saying that to someone who is black, fat or gay and feels offended by me saying that. If someone feels a comment is racist for instance thenthe police are obliged to treat it that way too even if you think it is an over reaction its about how the victim feels. Trouble is with Facebook etc you don't know how many potential victims you're reaching and offending!
CSI Ellie

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

I'm not trying to defend what they were saying. It _was_ incredibly offensive.
All I'm trying to say is that I simply don't think it should be a crime.

At the moment, Sir Jimmy Saville, the charity hero has some very nasty allegations being made about him. I mean - it is a fact that he has raised somewhere in the region of £40 million for charity. Perhaps that's his own penance, perhaps it was just a good opportunity. Whatever.
But he has had statues raised, streets and charities named after him. This too - is fact.

But the allegations against him are presumably going to be very distressing indeed for his family. I mean, he's not been convicted (well, not yet, and may never be because he's dead) and the allegations are still under investigation.

But regardless of whether they're true or not, everything good he ever did has been blown apart by the allegations.

And you know what? I'm really not sure what would be worse. On one hand - that for as much as 40 years, everyone who said anything was 'hushed up', and he was 'allowed' to continue.

Or that he never did anything, but because of the allegations - he will be remembered as a pedophile. The charity renamed, the street gone, the statue removed, and even the headstone of his grave broken up and sent to landfill.

But the point I'm trying to make is that either case is a tragedy for freedom of expression - because if he did it, and got away with it, it's because we were not open enough about being able to discuss things.

And if he didn't do it, there's people making incredibly offensive allegations, who presumably should be falling foul of the same laws that got the two people I mentioned sent to prison.

I agree

[angryangeltoo.livejournal.com]

As awful as these people are, this sets a dangerous precedent for freedom of expression.