Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul M
Objectionable in whose opinion ?
|
Well, it could be anybody who is sent or comes across the material.
---------- Post added at 18:21 ---------- Previous post was at 18:17 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone
A former chief prosecutors view.
|
Apparently, they are currently being dealt with under a law more serious than section 5 of the Public Order Act because Theresa May changed it. Until she did this, it was possible to prosecute somebody who would have been offended by something if they had of been there at the time it took place (but were not).
---------- Post added at 18:24 ---------- Previous post was at 18:21 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
once you go down this road, it's a hand cart to hell.
You make offending someone a criminal act.
In regards to this particular stunt, did I find it funny....no, did I think it in poor taste....yes. Was I offended by it........NO.
If I had friends or relatives die in that tower of course I would think differently.......but it's still subjective.
to use the Malicious Communications Act is tenuous and I don't think it was written for this type of incident.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1
it's more to do with a directed attack on an individual, not something that is broadcast. |
The law is supposed to protect everyone, not just things that affect us personally.
---------- Post added at 18:28 ---------- Previous post was at 18:24 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
And up to 10 years ago, there wasn’t the instant connectivity/escalation/viral explosions of stuff like this, due to social media and click bait headlines in the online media, and the need to fill the 24x7 news cycle.
|
The internet is a major part of the issue itself. If someone says something verbally offensive or sends them something offensive in the post that's one thing, but to effectively do it in front of potentially millions of other people makes it a whole different ball game.
It's much more serious and evidence is easier to obtain.
---------- Post added at 18:34 ---------- Previous post was at 18:28 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
"Objectionable" is subjective and just an opinion. And just because someone considers an action to be objectionable does not automatically mean anything needs to be done about it.
IMO there are far too many "I don't like it so I want it banned" types out there. Don't get me wrong, there does need to be regulation on what is broadcasted/transmitted etc.
There are plenty of things I've seen/read/heard online that have offended me. Unless it has broken the law my default reaction is to switch off, leave the website, look elsewhere etc. The world does not revolve around what I like or dislike.
The Grenfell bonfire idiots - should they be prosecuted? I'm not sure which law they've broken, Not 100% certain a Public Order charge will stick. Were they stupid to do it and do they deserve the wrath of the public? I'd say hell-to-the-yeah. Should they have been stopped from uploading that video of them doing what they did? I disagree. Sure it must have been upsetting for the relatives of the victims but if someone wants to show footage of how stupid they are then I say go right ahead.
|
Objectional is subjective I agree e.g. a vegan may find footage of the slaughter of animals offensive, whilst many will not.
To deal with this, i'm assuming that the UK will take on a large number of properly trained moderators and have transparent policies, guidelines etc that can be appealed against, so that the new initiative to deal with online offences won't become too burdensome on the police or judicial system.