Pig In A Wig

[Rival]

This month, a British court overturned a case wherein a woman was convicted of hate speech after having a row with someone on (you guessed it) Twitter, in which she called the person a 'pig in a wig'. The recipient was a trans-woman who took, in my view, too much offence at this and went to the police.

This is what the Judgement had to say in the end after the appeal, from the article,

“In short, I do not consider that under s 127(2)(c) there is an offence of posting annoying tweets. I would reach that conclusion as a matter of domestic statutory interpretation without reference to the Human Rights Act, but once one takes Article 10 into account the position is even clearer.”

Article 10 of Britain’s Human Rights Act states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

Dismissing the original judge’s interpretation of the law, the appeal court ruled:

"This is an unstructured approach that lacks the appropriate rigour. The Crown evidently did not appreciate the need to justify the prosecution, but saw it as the defendant’s task to press the free speech argument.

The prosecution argument failed entirely to acknowledge the well-established proposition that free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another.

The Judge appears to have considered that a criminal conviction was merited for acts of unkindness, and calling others names, and that such acts could only be justified if they made a contribution to a “proper debate”."

Judges Back 'Freedom to Offend' in Transgender "Pig in a Wig" Name-Calling Case (thenationalpulse.com)

I back this ruling. You haven't the right not to be offended.

 

[Lyndon]

how offensive!!

 

[exchemist]

This month, a British court overturned a case wherein a woman was convicted of hate speech after having a row with someone over (you guessed it) Twitter, wherein she called the person a 'pig in a wig'. The recipient was a trans-woman who took, in my view, too much offence at this and went to the police.

This is what the Judgement had to say in the end after the appeal, from the article,

“In short, I do not consider that under s 127(2)(c) there is an offence of posting annoying tweets. I would reach that conclusion as a matter of domestic statutory interpretation without reference to the Human Rights Act, but once one takes Article 10 into account the position is even clearer.”

Article 10 of Britain’s Human Rights Act states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

Dismissing the original judge’s interpretation of the law, the appeal court ruled:

"This is an unstructured approach that lacks the appropriate rigour. The Crown evidently did not appreciate the need to justify the prosecution, but saw it as the defendant’s task to press the free speech argument.

The prosecution argument failed entirely to acknowledge the well-established proposition that free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another.

The Judge appears to have considered that a criminal conviction was merited for acts of unkindness, and calling others names, and that such acts could only be justified if they made a contribution to a “proper debate”."

Judges Back 'Freedom to Offend' in Transgender "Pig in a Wig" Name-Calling Case (thenationalpulse.com)

I back this ruling. You don't have the right not to be offended.

I agree.

By the way the title of the thread reminded me of an unkind caricature of Handel, who was notorious for his gluttony:

Here he is, playing the organ, with game birds and hams dangling from it and an unmistakably porcine snout protruding from the curls of his wig. The title is "The Charming Brute". It seem the cartoonist, Goupy, was friends with Handel but they fell out and this was his revenge........

Handel, however, was not trans, though he never married.

 

[sun rise]

You haven't the right not to be offended.

Except on RF, of course, where there can be an assertion of a Rule 1 violation.

 

[Stevicus]

I see nothing wrong or offensive about a pig in a wig.

In fact, I think that pig looks pretty cool.

 

[McBell]

Except on RF, of course, where there can be an assertion of a Rule 1 violation.

You are free to offend whomever you like on RF so long as it not a personal attack.

I had much success with just that when introducing the currently banned Divine Bowel Movement Theory.

 

[Rival]

I do think there's not really any need to call someone names like this, not as an adult, and I do think it's needless, but certainly not illegal.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This month, a British court overturned a case wherein a woman was convicted of hate speech after having a row with someone on (you guessed it) Twitter, wherein she called the person a 'pig in a wig'. The recipient was a trans-woman who took, in my view, too much offence at this and went to the police.

This is what the Judgement had to say in the end after the appeal, from the article,

“In short, I do not consider that under s 127(2)(c) there is an offence of posting annoying tweets. I would reach that conclusion as a matter of domestic statutory interpretation without reference to the Human Rights Act, but once one takes Article 10 into account the position is even clearer.”

Article 10 of Britain’s Human Rights Act states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

Dismissing the original judge’s interpretation of the law, the appeal court ruled:

"This is an unstructured approach that lacks the appropriate rigour. The Crown evidently did not appreciate the need to justify the prosecution, but saw it as the defendant’s task to press the free speech argument.

The prosecution argument failed entirely to acknowledge the well-established proposition that free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another.

The Judge appears to have considered that a criminal conviction was merited for acts of unkindness, and calling others names, and that such acts could only be justified if they made a contribution to a “proper debate”."

Judges Back 'Freedom to Offend' in Transgender "Pig in a Wig" Name-Calling Case (thenationalpulse.com)

I back this ruling. You haven't the right not to be offended.

Just as long as whoever takes it when I call her odiferous twat smegma (thats the real test because often times they expect us to take it but will not take it when returned).

 

[Rival]

Just as long as whoever takes it when I call her odiferous twat smegma (thats the real test because often times they expect us to take it but will not take it when returned).

Right. This is the point, really. Allow people to throw insults at each other all they want and let them deal with it like adults. It's called life, not a crime, imo.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Right. This is the point, really. Allow people to throw insults at each other all they want and let them deal with it like adults. It's called life, not a crime, imo.

True. My issue is more with (as juvenile as this sounds) those who started it, because so often they'll stoke the fire but cry fowl when you throw kerosene on their face. They didn't do anything wrong, minorities just need to learn our place.

 

[Laika]

I see nothing wrong or offensive about a pig in a wig.

In fact, I think that pig looks pretty cool.

That's some glamorous gammon you've got there...

 

[Secret Chief]

This month, a British court overturned a case wherein a woman was convicted of hate speech after having a row with someone on (you guessed it) Twitter, in which she called the person a 'pig in a wig'. The recipient was a trans-woman who took, in my view, too much offence at this and went to the police.

This is what the Judgement had to say in the end after the appeal, from the article,

“In short, I do not consider that under s 127(2)(c) there is an offence of posting annoying tweets. I would reach that conclusion as a matter of domestic statutory interpretation without reference to the Human Rights Act, but once one takes Article 10 into account the position is even clearer.”

Article 10 of Britain’s Human Rights Act states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

Dismissing the original judge’s interpretation of the law, the appeal court ruled:

"This is an unstructured approach that lacks the appropriate rigour. The Crown evidently did not appreciate the need to justify the prosecution, but saw it as the defendant’s task to press the free speech argument.

The prosecution argument failed entirely to acknowledge the well-established proposition that free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another.

The Judge appears to have considered that a criminal conviction was merited for acts of unkindness, and calling others names, and that such acts could only be justified if they made a contribution to a “proper debate”."

Judges Back 'Freedom to Offend' in Transgender "Pig in a Wig" Name-Calling Case (thenationalpulse.com)

I back this ruling. You haven't the right not to be offended.

You're full of ****.
PS Happy new year!

 

[Rival]

You're full of ****.
PS Happy new year!

The New Year was forever ago...

 

[Brickjectivity]

I do think there's not really any need to call someone names like this, not as an adult, and I do think it's needless, but certainly not illegal.

It could be a basis for a civil not a criminal suit. Not every offense should be considered a criminal offense.

 

[Secret Chief]

I see nothing wrong or offensive about a pig in a wig.

In fact, I think that pig looks pretty cool.

I'd say hot

 

[Rival]

It could be a basis for a civil not a criminal suit. Not every offense should be considered a criminal offense.

I don't even think it's that; I think it's just a childish insult that requires some thick skin and growing up from both sides.

 

[Sunstone]

@Rival, it seems to me that you are hewing close to John Stuart Mill's "Harm Principle", which he first articulated in On Liberty (1859): "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." It has been ever since the mid-1800s the departure point in the English-speaking world (and plenty of other places) for laws and regulations governing free speech.

It's a little hard today for most of us to appreciate Mill's prominence in society and his influence back in the mid-1800s. He was, of course, primarily a philosopher and logician. We just don't today associate those occupations with 'influence'. But this was a different time and place. Think of something akin to today's most popular celebrities -- a combination Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, and Stephen Colbert rolled into one, perhaps. When he published his "Harm Principle", it swept the British Empire and beyond almost overnight.

And it lasted without almost any serious challenge until the American legal philosopher Joel Feinberg came along in the 1980s to assert that "societies and individuals feel disgust, revulsion, shock, shame and embarrassment when they hear views that don’t physically harm them", and that these feelings can at least at times be just as harmful to individuals -- or even more harmful -- than physical harm. Hence, Feinberg argued that Mill's "Harm Principle" should be replaced by an "Offense Principle", which would provide moral and philosophical grounds to prohibit such things as "hate speech" and so forth.

A difference in temperament between Mill and Feinberg was that Mill instinctively sought to expand human liberties as much and as far as he could while still allowing the state barely enough power to hold society together, while Feinberg was mildly authoritarian in his instincts and naturally a bit more inclined than Mill to give the state a larger role in human affairs. In this case, by granting the state the right to police speech to a significantly greater extent than Mill would grant it.

So here we are today. I'm routing for Mill to prevail in the end against the insufferable upstart Feinberg, by the way. To be honest, though, Feinberg's arguments do have some merit, which is precisely what makes them so dangerous.

 

[Rival]

@Rival, it seems to me that you are hewing close to John Stuart Mill's "Harm Principle", which he first articulated in On Liberty (1859): "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." It has been almost ever since the departure point in the English-speaking world (and plenty of other places) for laws and regulations governing free speech.

It's a little hard today for most of us to appreciate Mill's prominence in society and his influence back in the mid-1800s. He was, of course, primarily a philosopher and logician. We just don't today associate those occupations with 'influence'. But this was a different time and place. Think of something akin to today's most popular celebrities -- a combination Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, and Stephen Colbert rolled into one, perhaps. When he published his "Harm Principle", it swept the British Empire and beyond almost overnight.

And it lasted without almost any serious challenge until the American legal philosopher Joel Feinberg came along in the 1980s to assert that "societies and individuals feel disgust, revulsion, shock, shame and embarrassment when they hear views that don’t physically harm them", hence Mill's "Harm Principle" should be replaced by his (Feinberg's) "Offense Principle", which would provide moral and philosophical grounds to prohibit such things as "hate speech" and so forth.

So here we are today, witnesses to a battle of ideas that essentially boils down to the works of two philosophers -- Mill and Feinberg -- who lived more than 100 years apart.

"The pen is mighty", and all that, I guess.

We studied On Liberty in my Philosophy classes. I am largely in agreement with Mill over Feinberg, obviously with some modern nuance to take into account things like the internet.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't even think it's that; I think it's just a childish insult that requires some thick skin and growing up from both sides.

Definitely not criminal. Criminalization is just too much.

 

[Sunstone]

We studied On Liberty in my Philosophy classes. I was largely in agreement with Mill over Feinberg, obviously with some modern nuance to take into account things like the internet.

Agreed. The internet presents a special case that must be dealt with in some ways separately from, say, the print and broadcast media. Very good observation, Rival.