Anyone seen woman arrested for saying f****t in a private text message?

Back to that 6th form common room with you then, my dear old chap!

Bored, not hurt.

Why are you pretending that we’ve never been able to understand what a threat is?

You think Piers Morgan is extremely right wing? Examples? Unless the meaning of the word changed recently?

I hope I haven't upset or offended you. You sound hurt by my words.

I just think we have gone down the road of criminalising people simply because someone was offended. Even if a reasonable person would not have been offended. And I think that's a dangerous path. Particularly as you may get a government which doesn't like people of a particular political persuasion and decides that anyone supporting that side of an argument is upsetting or offensive to some people and therfore that person should be criminalised. Its a slippery slope.

Nope.

Whatever I say you'll just twist or deliberately misunderstand.

You're not worth the effort

You "try again". Its not my fault that you aren't making your point sufficiently clearly.

Someone feeling 'fear' your criterion is subjective. You may receive a number of messages that make you fear that someone may assault you. If they haven't, why should your 'fear' be valid.

Maybe you want to go back to the good old days when women called the police to deal with abusive exes to be told to "call back when he actually lifts a finger against you"

That's not what I said at all. Try again

The word "reasonable " is an objective assessment in law. So that's the criteria that I think should be applied.

So you are suggesting that Labour supporters dont care about free speech? Only Conservatives.

I think plenty of left wing people are just as concerned about loss of free speech. After all, it affects us all and the definition of criminal words can change with any government.

Assaults include subjective assessment.

Since that Tory councillors wife was jailed for her racist tweet there has been a push from the right to try to make out that malicious communication should be allowed.

I'm surprised you've not seen that. Or are you just ignoring it?

Why a "political agenda"? Which side, left or right wing doesn't believe in free speech?

She was charged under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 (UK). In that act a person potentially commits an offence if they send a message that includes any of the following:

1 Threats

A message containing a threat of violence or harm.

2 Indecent or grossly offensive material

Something so offensive that it meets a criminal threshold (not just rude or insulting).

3 False information intended to cause distress or anxiety

For example, sending someone a knowingly false claim that a family member has been hurt.

4 Anything sent with the purpose of causing distress or anxiety

The intent matters. Even if the message is short, vague, or not overtly threatening, it can still be an offence if the sender intended to upset the recipient.

It's not about the use of specific words. People trying to move the conversation to that are just trying to distract from what actually happened. They are a distraction with a political agenda.

editted to remove some odd formatting

You can assess that using objective criteria. Like any assault.

I didn’t know the F word (the slur the woman used) was a homophobic slur until my early 20s. It was used very liberally at my school to describe someone who was a bit of a wimp, not gay. I never used it being myself a bit of a wimp.

I watched a stand up comedian explain the origin story of the word and it’s quite horrifying.
But if I hadn’t watched that (it was Louis CK) I possibly could still be completely ignorant to its meaning.

Quite a few racist and ableist words were used and one particular racist word our science teacher used when explaining male anatomy so I was shocked when I found out that it was a racist term, not an actual word.

Language can be so confusing. My gay friend told me he was called a sissy for being gay in the 80s, when I was at school sissy was used to describe men who hit women. Maybe I’m making excuses for this woman but people use words of a horrible nature without realising it’s true meaning often.

But if you accept that 'sometimes' people shouldn't be allowed to send abusive messages, then you still have to define when that is. Your apparent criterion of 'fear of physical imminent harm' is no less subjective than other criteria you reject. You also have no idea if the victim in this case did in fact fear physical harm. None of us do.

Of course. Because theres no law against someone being offended. Or there used not to be. "Hate" speech is subjective. So instead the test should be whether the person was in reasonable fear of imminent physical harm.

You're asking my view. Rather than how the
law is being poorly applied at the moment.

Would someone be able to describe themselves using the "n" word?

Yes. Im afraid so. It should be socially unacceptable but not criminalised. It depends on what they say and who they are to. In this case I understand that it didnt make the recipient feel in fear of physical imminent harm.

Good thing that's not the criteria for the offence to be made out so

@MoFadaCromulent

Report them for harrassment?

If you criminalise a word, you cross a red line. Because one day other words will be potentially criminalised that you might use. And you might find something like making political statements become "offensive" to other people.

Im not saying the n word is acceptable. It is socially unacceptable. But it should not be criminalised.