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

[Whywhywhyyyy]

This is completely bizarre. The news is thin on the ground so to see it I would have to link the mail or other obscure sites; but they are talking about this on Sky News abroad so assume it’s legit.

Apparently woman was arrested by 10 officers and dragged naked from a bath tub because she called a person who hospitalised her from assault a faggot in a message ranting to a supposed friend who reported her for using that word.

What is going on in this country?!

Yes sure that’s unpleasant. But is that really illegal? And if she has been hospitalised by this person then do I really care if someone uses bad words - even if they are hateful.

YABU - that’s a perfectly appropriate use of the law
YANBU - WTF is going on in this country!

Can you link that? I hope she has some decent legal representation given she immediately explained her interpretation of the term. The content of the other messages matter.

It's literally in every report already linked in this thread. Did you read any of them or are you a 'just read the headline and go off on one' kinda gal?

I read about that today, disgusting treatment of that poor nurse. I'm very angry about it.

But is it malicious? I am not sure it is.

What you are sure of is irrelevant. The victim reported it and then Kinney pleaded guilty. You're making a whole lot of other stuff up apparently, like others, to justify sending people abusive messages.

It wasn’t the press, it was a quote from the police.

If you Google Elizabeth Kinney arrest, you know what you see? Posts from Facebook, x, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit... All of which are not credible sources, they're just people talking...
And then the only things that look like they could have had any so called credibility to them include times of India, the sun and daily mail. (Both the daily Mail and the Sun are known to be a tabloid newspaper that focus on celebrity news, human interest and sensational stories known for mass appeal and right-wing stance.
This is not my personal opinion, this is an AI overview if you Google these publications)

I'm not saying that this didn't happen, I'm saying that there is obviously way more to the story than what is being presented. Anybody can take ANY event, leave out 90% of it, only tell from one side of the story and make themselves sound like the absolute victim. This is done as clickbait. To get you to click on the story to get you outraged to get you talking about it to get you sharing it. Whenever you click on these types of stories, you are just feeding into the tabloid. I do not believe for a minute that this is the whole story. Just because something is publicized does not make it true.

"Free speech doesn’t mean you get to call someone really grotesques names."

Free speech means exactly that.

Depends on the facts. But not if the texts simply offended the recipient.

Thats insanity. How far we have fallen in this country.

So sometimes people should be allowed to send abusive messages and sometimes they shouldn't. Is that your position?

@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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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?

Assaults include subjective assessment.

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.

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