Section 5 FREE SPEECH.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7086
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Section 5 FREE SPEECH.
What have we come to when the protection of the basic rights of free speech have to be promoted by comedians?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiqDZlAZygU
selection from the website.
http://reformsection5.org.uk
The Government Minister told the Committee in the House of Commons at the time: “Those who have campaigned for this change in the law feel that the word ‘insulting’ in Section 5 could discourage people from exercising their right to freedom of speech.”
He said he strongly agreed with the view that “people should be able to, for example, express their religious views in the normal course of activities without feeling they are likely to be arrested for that”.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.
Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986
A section 5 offence comprises two elements:
A person must:
(a) use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting; and
The words or behaviour, or writing, sign of other visible representation must be within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
I strongly agree with the campaign to reform section 5 with respect to the word "insulting" and with respect to the phrase "likely to be caused alarm or distress". I can't see how anybody who believes in the general principle of free speech could disagree on that. But I think some believers in free speech would extend the objection to the whole section. I think some would say that absolutely all speech, even direct threats, should not be illegal. I wouldn't agree with them. But then, of course, there are sometimes problems defining a precise, reasonably objective difference between "threat", "abuse" and "insult".
Another point: There are some privately owned/administered but publicly accessible forums, like this one, that have their own rules as to what constitutes acceptable speech. If a person or group who is not the government sets up a place like this, should they be legally allowed to apply any rules that they wish? This relates to the "cancel culture" debate.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7086
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.
Yet he thrives, though with some restrictions.Steve3007 wrote: ↑September 25th, 2020, 6:44 am If the right to exercise free speech by insulting people is going to be defended by a any particular group, then it seems reasonable that it would be comedians. Frankie Boyle, for one, would be out of a job if section 5 was fully enforced in that form.
Whilst Roy Chubby Brown and the likes of Bernard Manning are anathematised.
I saw Frankie Boyle and the Brighton Dome about 10 years ago. I'd always loved his contribution on Have I Got News for You, but we left the theatre disappointed. We ended up with swear-word fatigue.
Since almost every sentence seemed to have at least one F9ck in it, or some other swear word, he just ended up sounding juvenile.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.
I guess it's about fashion and packaging. The likes of Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr are un-PC in a relatively modern seeming way. The likes of Roy Chubby Brown and Bernard Manning are un-PC in the old 1970's, fat northern bloke leaning on his mic-stand, smoking a fag and talking about the mother-in-law way. For me, the comedian who has best bridged the gap between that kind of old fashioned stand-up and modern stand-up is Peter Kay.Sculptor1 wrote:Yet he thrives, though with some restrictions.
Whilst Roy Chubby Brown and the likes of Bernard Manning are anathematised.
I haven't actually seen Frankie Boyle live, but I've seen 2 or 3 of his live shows on video. I've generally found him very funny, but I wouldn't want to sit in the front row! That thin line between being funny and being juvenile or gratuitously offensive is an interesting one. I think where Frankie Boyle is funniest is when his insults use imaginative imagery. The only one that springs immediately to mind is when he said that Uluru/Ayers Rock is a huge sheet with a big pile of dead aborigines under it. But there are better ones.I saw Frankie Boyle and the Brighton Dome about 10 years ago. I'd always loved his contribution on Have I Got News for You, but we left the theatre disappointed. We ended up with swear-word fatigue.
Since almost every sentence seemed to have at least one F9ck in it, or some other swear word, he just ended up sounding juvenile.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.
Yes, I'm one of them.
I would have a category of criminal threatening if I were king, but that's not at all defined solely or even necessarily by speech. It has to be a scenario where someone is under a direct "physical" threat of bodily harm, where they can't reasonably escape that physical threat, and where they believe that compliance with the threatening speech might alleviate the physical threat.
So, for example where someone is holding a gun on you and demanding your wallet and you'd not reasonably be able to evade or eliminate the threat of being shot.
-
- Posts: 31
- Joined: August 30th, 2020, 8:21 am
Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what about something more subtle? Like a gangster who says something along the line of, "I hear you're going to testify in a trial... Wow? Is this your family? They sure are a beautiful bunch. Nice house, too. Anyway, it's the strangest thing, but I forgot what I came here for. Isn't that crazy? You have a nice day."Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 25th, 2020, 10:25 am Yes, I'm one of them.
I would have a category of criminal threatening if I were king, but that's not at all defined solely or even necessarily by speech. It has to be a scenario where someone is under a direct "physical" threat of bodily harm, where they can't reasonably escape that physical threat, and where they believe that compliance with the threatening speech might alleviate the physical threat.
So, for example where someone is holding a gun on you and demanding your wallet and you'd not reasonably be able to evade or eliminate the threat of being shot.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7086
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.
Physical injury can be easier to deal with than mental injury. So I have to disagree with Steve's comments on threats.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 25th, 2020, 10:25 amYes, I'm one of them.
I would have a category of criminal threatening if I were king, but that's not at all defined solely or even necessarily by speech. It has to be a scenario where someone is under a direct "physical" threat of bodily harm, where they can't reasonably escape that physical threat, and where they believe that compliance with the threatening speech might alleviate the physical threat.
So, for example where someone is holding a gun on you and demanding your wallet and you'd not reasonably be able to evade or eliminate the threat of being shot.
If you'd ever been in a position where a person had made threat to put petrol in your letter box, you might feel differently.
Such a threat can do far more harm than a punch in the face which would attract GBH. Making threats can cause genuine worry and mental anguish far beyond simple violence.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.
I'd require there be a pretty direct physical threat for it to be criminal threatening.Tecolote wrote: ↑September 25th, 2020, 10:41 amNot that I'm disagreeing with you, but what about something more subtle? Like a gangster who says something along the line of, "I hear you're going to testify in a trial... Wow? Is this your family? They sure are a beautiful bunch. Nice house, too. Anyway, it's the strangest thing, but I forgot what I came here for. Isn't that crazy? You have a nice day."Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 25th, 2020, 10:25 am Yes, I'm one of them.
I would have a category of criminal threatening if I were king, but that's not at all defined solely or even necessarily by speech. It has to be a scenario where someone is under a direct "physical" threat of bodily harm, where they can't reasonably escape that physical threat, and where they believe that compliance with the threatening speech might alleviate the physical threat.
So, for example where someone is holding a gun on you and demanding your wallet and you'd not reasonably be able to evade or eliminate the threat of being shot.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.
If it's not a direct physical threat I can just tell the person to go jump in a lake/threaten them back, etc. "You're going to put petrol in my letter box? I'll put honey, peanut butter and chocolate in every nook and cranny of your house. Enjoy the critters that brings!" Etc.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 25th, 2020, 10:42 amPhysical injury can be easier to deal with than mental injury. So I have to disagree with Steve's comments on threats.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 25th, 2020, 10:25 am
Yes, I'm one of them.
I would have a category of criminal threatening if I were king, but that's not at all defined solely or even necessarily by speech. It has to be a scenario where someone is under a direct "physical" threat of bodily harm, where they can't reasonably escape that physical threat, and where they believe that compliance with the threatening speech might alleviate the physical threat.
So, for example where someone is holding a gun on you and demanding your wallet and you'd not reasonably be able to evade or eliminate the threat of being shot.
If you'd ever been in a position where a person had made threat to put petrol in your letter box, you might feel differently.
Such a threat can do far more harm than a punch in the face which would attract GBH. Making threats can cause genuine worry and mental anguish far beyond simple violence.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7086
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.
Use your imagination!Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 25th, 2020, 11:03 amIf it's not a direct physical threat I can just tell the person to go jump in a lake/threaten them back, etc. "You're going to put petrol in my letter box? I'll put honey, peanut butter and chocolate in every nook and cranny of your house. Enjoy the critters that brings!" Etc.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 25th, 2020, 10:42 am
Physical injury can be easier to deal with than mental injury. So I have to disagree with Steve's comments on threats.
If you'd ever been in a position where a person had made threat to put petrol in your letter box, you might feel differently.
Such a threat can do far more harm than a punch in the face which would attract GBH. Making threats can cause genuine worry and mental anguish far beyond simple violence.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.
Exactly . . . unless it's a direct physical threat, in which case I'll assess that and do what I can to get out of it or turn it around, I don't take any threat very seriously--I'd rather just give the same back to the person, but I'll one-up them. I can easily harass anyone more than they harass me (to a point where they'll choose to just not bother me any longer).Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 25th, 2020, 11:58 amUse your imagination!Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 25th, 2020, 11:03 am
If it's not a direct physical threat I can just tell the person to go jump in a lake/threaten them back, etc. "You're going to put petrol in my letter box? I'll put honey, peanut butter and chocolate in every nook and cranny of your house. Enjoy the critters that brings!" Etc.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.
The crime isn't the comment. It is the fact that a gangster saying that, is different than a nameless, faceless online coward typing the exact thing from the comfort of his mom's basement. The crime is that the gangster, having access to hitmen and professional arsonists can make real bad things happen. In the perfect world the gangster would have been put away and his hirelings would also be behind bars.Tecolote wrote: ↑September 25th, 2020, 10:41 amNot that I'm disagreeing with you, but what about something more subtle? Like a gangster who says something along the line of, "I hear you're going to testify in a trial... Wow? Is this your family? They sure are a beautiful bunch. Nice house, too. Anyway, it's the strangest thing, but I forgot what I came here for. Isn't that crazy? You have a nice day."Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 25th, 2020, 10:25 am Yes, I'm one of them.
I would have a category of criminal threatening if I were king, but that's not at all defined solely or even necessarily by speech. It has to be a scenario where someone is under a direct "physical" threat of bodily harm, where they can't reasonably escape that physical threat, and where they believe that compliance with the threatening speech might alleviate the physical threat.
So, for example where someone is holding a gun on you and demanding your wallet and you'd not reasonably be able to evade or eliminate the threat of being shot.
-
- Posts: 31
- Joined: August 30th, 2020, 8:21 am
Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.
Yes, I understand this, which is why I painted the scenario. I was interested in what Terrapin would reply.LuckyR wrote: ↑September 25th, 2020, 1:02 pmThe crime isn't the comment. It is the fact that a gangster saying that, is different than a nameless, faceless online coward typing the exact thing from the comfort of his mom's basement. The crime is that the gangster, having access to hitmen and professional arsonists can make real bad things happen. In the perfect world the gangster would have been put away and his hirelings would also be behind bars.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Section 5 FREE SPEECH.
Steve3007 is this a U.S. Federal statute? I can't tell.Steve3007 wrote: ↑September 25th, 2020, 6:23 am So, as I understand it, this is the section in question:
Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986
A section 5 offence comprises two elements:
A person must:
(a) use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting; and
The words or behaviour, or writing, sign of other visible representation must be within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
I strongly agree with the campaign to reform section 5 with respect to the word "insulting" and with respect to the phrase "likely to be caused alarm or distress". I can't see how anybody who believes in the general principle of free speech could disagree on that. But I think some believers in free speech would extend the objection to the whole section. I think some would say that absolutely all speech, even direct threats, should not be illegal. I wouldn't agree with them. But then, of course, there are sometimes problems defining a precise, reasonably objective difference between "threat", "abuse" and "insult".
Another point: There are some privately owned/administered but publicly accessible forums, like this one, that have their own rules as to what constitutes acceptable speech. If a person or group who is not the government sets up a place like this, should they be legally allowed to apply any rules that they wish? This relates to the "cancel culture" debate.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023