• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Pig In A Wig

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Living in Kaliforniastan, if you have a lawn,
you're wasting water & destroying the environment.
And why you need to get off so the land can absorb every last drop of rain water or can. Now scram before I do whatever it is old people do to whippersnappers on their lawn.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
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.
To even tie up a court system with this ridiculous nonsense.

People ought to be polite, but at the same time others need to grow up and put on some teflon.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
We yell.
Watch Grand Torino for some coaching.
I'm glad I don't do PC so I could enjoy that movie. I don't see a white savior, I don't see dated stereotypes, I see a grumpy *** old war veteran coming to terms with how his military career warped his views, and while he didn't give his life to save his platoon, he did sacrifice himself for a community he vehemently despised, protecting them a "big enemy requiring a big take down."
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Who’s the most offensive RF poster?

Ladies, ladies you’re all pretty
 

PureX

Veteran Member
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.
I think the issue would be if there was any actual damage done by the 'free speech', and proof of intent to cause such damage. Without that, I can't see any cause for civil action.
 
Top