Does this mean i can online abuse @Mr Pigeon from my safe haven in Denmark and compare him to a fat bald bird that's eats shit off the pavement but if he strikes back and calls me fat bald gerbil then he'll go to jail for 7 years?https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/contents
I think this is it,
4Offences of stirring up hatred
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)the person—
(i)behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or
(ii)communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and
(b)either—
(i)in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or
(ii)a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pick the bones out of that.
lawyers are going to love this.
Ha jokes on you, I wax my carrot whenever someone insults me.Does this mean i can online abuse @Mr Pigeon from my safe haven in Denmark and compare him to a fat bald bird that's eats shit off the pavement but if he strikes back and calls me fat bald gerbil then he'll go to jail for 7 years?
Agreed,The issue comes with including the word insulting. Because an individual or group feeling insulted should be irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Obviously.
And the police have had no training on what is meant by "insulting" or what constitutes a "reasonable person".
This is an expansion of the Public Order Act 1986, so your best bet would probably be to look at how Scotland has treated racial hatred in particular for the last 40 years, and extrapolate from there.Agreed,
We can pretend that the police will judge this impartially and only in an extreme case prosecute but how realistic is that pretense? The police are an arm of government and will try to enforce the wishes of the govt which means the people the government doesn't like saying things they don't agree with and so undermining their authority will be prosecuted while those doing their bidding even in exactly reciprocally the same terms will get a pass.
Then try to second guess what the government will prosecute so self sensor to the safest factor and welcome to the SNP created autocracy.
It is sad and bad and destined to failure, I think.
2,This Bill is no worse than the anti protest legislation coming from the UK Parliament, or even the way anti terror laws can be applied, or even the 1986 Public Order Act. Or even the new proposed anti homeless Bill.
1,
I think you are wrong as this law is obviously greater in scope as it encompasses private conversations and all public declarations whether in a protest or in your own home or on social media.
Anyway I hope J K Rowling's outburst is ignored and she is left screaming into the void created by Elon Musk.
The political mandate to do that is what ? Who, if we are honest voted for/wanted this?This is an expansion of the Public Order Act 1986, so your best bet would probably be to look at how Scotland has treated racial hatred in particular for the last 40 years, and extrapolate from there.
The same as any other thing voted on, but that wasn't the topic. You talked about autocracy and wondered how the police will treat this, and the answer is that you have 40 years of history to look back on to give an idea. For instance:The political mandate to do that is what ? Who, if we are honest voted for/wanted this?
How many times has this happened since 1987?Meanwhile some poor bugger is going to have their life trashed because some echo chambered wanker can't take a joke and millions will be spent going through the politically motivated referee playing bullshit of the extremists on both side of the political divide.
Indeed, and seems to use similar language to that original with regards to 'insulting', 'threatening' and 'abusive'.This is an expansion of the Public Order Act 1986, so your best bet would probably be to look at how Scotland has treated racial hatred in particular for the last 40 years, and extrapolate from there.
The law is always open to interpretation. From insult and even physical alterations could at some lesser extent be in a gray area.The issue comes with including the word insulting. Because an individual or group feeling insulted should be irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Obviously.
And the police have had no training on what is meant by "insulting" or what constitutes a "reasonable person".
Bindel is at least consistent.
Yeah, feck giving LGBQT+, old and disabled people protections, who the feck wants them to have that anyway? Goddamn tyrannical SNP with their laws meant to protect minorities.The political mandate to do that is what ? Who, if we are honest voted for/wanted this?
Increasing censorship and the powers of the police always works out well for minorities....Yeah, feck giving LGBQT+, old and disabled people protections, who the feck wants them to have that anyway? Goddamn tyrannical SNP with their laws meant to protect minorities.
What censorship? What specifically is now being censored?Increasing censorship and the powers of the police always works out well for minorities....
I hope they've had the training, the term reasonable person has been used In law since the 1900sThe issue comes with including the word insulting. Because an individual or group feeling insulted should be irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Obviously.
And the police have had no training on what is meant by "insulting" or what constitutes a "reasonable person".
But has anyone defined reasonable person in the context of demented people who live on twitter.I hope they've had the training, the term reasonable person has been used In law since the 1900s
From my time on the internet it seems that what people consider reasonable is very subjective up to a point at least.But has anyone defined reasonable person in the context of demented people who live on twitter.
Cnuts, I believe is the correct terminologyBut has anyone defined reasonable person in the context of demented people who live on twitter.
Chatgpu... The world is ending and you're wrong, in law, a reasonable person is quite simple and your AI has over complicated it so what. When I started studying law the first lesson was to never use Google to answer a legal question, I now see why.From my time on the internet it seems that what people consider reasonable is very subjective up to a point at least.
ChatGPT
What is deemed a reasonable person in law in Scotland in 2024?
ChatGPT
As of my last update in January 2022, the concept of the "reasonable person" in law is a common one across legal systems, including in Scotland. The reasonable person standard is used to evaluate the behavior or actions of individuals in various legal contexts, such as negligence, contract law, and criminal law.
In Scotland, as in other jurisdictions, the reasonable person is typically understood to be an objective standard. It refers to how a hypothetical average person would behave or react in a given situation. The standard takes into account the circumstances surrounding a particular case but does not consider the specific characteristics or subjective beliefs of the individual involved.
The exact definition and application of the reasonable person standard may vary depending on the specific legal context and the facts of the case at hand. Courts in Scotland would assess whether the actions or conduct of an individual meet the standard of what a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances. This assessment helps determine issues such as liability, fault, or culpability.
For the most accurate and up-to-date information on the concept of the reasonable person in Scottish law in 2024, it would be advisable to consult legal resources or experts familiar with recent developments in Scottish jurisprudence.
You
Is what is considered reasonable highly subjective in a modern multicultural progressive society?
ChatGPT
The concept of what is considered reasonable can indeed be influenced by cultural, social, and progressive factors in a modern multicultural society. Different cultural backgrounds, social norms, and evolving societal values can shape individuals' perceptions of what constitutes reasonable behavior.
In a multicultural society, there may be diverse perspectives on what is acceptable or appropriate conduct in various situations. What one group or individual considers reasonable behavior may differ from another's perspective. This diversity of viewpoints can sometimes lead to challenges in legal contexts where the reasonable person standard is applied.
Moreover, as societies progress and evolve, societal norms and values can shift over time. What was considered reasonable behavior in the past may no longer be viewed as such in a more progressive society. This evolution can influence legal interpretations and judgments regarding what constitutes reasonable conduct.
In light of these factors, legal systems must often adapt to reflect the changing societal landscape. Courts may consider a broader range of perspectives and cultural factors when applying the reasonable person standard. Additionally, legal frameworks may incorporate principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion to ensure that judgments reflect the values and norms of a multicultural society.
Ultimately, while the concept of reasonableness may have some subjective elements influenced by cultural and societal factors, legal systems aim to apply the standard in a fair and objective manner, taking into account the context and circumstances of each case.
You
Is the subjectivity of what is reasonable and insulting problematic in new hate speech laws in scotland?
ChatGPT
The subjectivity inherent in determining what is considered reasonable or insulting can indeed pose challenges in the context of hate speech laws in Scotland, as in any jurisdiction. Hate speech laws aim to protect individuals and groups from targeted discrimination, harassment, or violence based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
However, the interpretation of what constitutes hate speech often involves assessing whether certain speech or expression crosses the line from legitimate discourse into harmful or discriminatory behavior. This assessment may involve subjective judgments about the intent, impact, and context of the speech in question.
In Scotland, as in many other countries, hate speech laws must strike a delicate balance between protecting individuals' rights to freedom of expression and safeguarding vulnerable groups from harm. The subjectivity inherent in determining what speech is reasonable or insulting can complicate this balancing act.
Critics of hate speech laws sometimes argue that subjective interpretations of what constitutes hate speech may lead to censorship or the stifling of legitimate debate and expression. They may also express concerns about the potential for selective enforcement or chilling effects on free speech.
Supporters of hate speech laws, on the other hand, argue that such laws are necessary to combat discrimination, promote social cohesion, and protect marginalized groups from harm. They may emphasize the importance of addressing the broader societal context of discrimination and inequality when evaluating the impact of hate speech.
In navigating these complexities, legal systems often provide guidelines, principles, and precedents to help courts and law enforcement officials apply hate speech laws in a manner consistent with legal standards and human rights principles. Additionally, ongoing dialogue, education, and engagement with affected communities can help inform the development and implementation of hate speech laws in a way that respects both freedom of expression and the rights of marginalized groups.
You
Is it hatefull to say that Men cannot become Women and vice versa?
ChatGPT
The statement "Men cannot become Women and vice versa" can be seen as contentious and potentially hurtful to transgender individuals. It's important to understand that gender identity is a deeply personal and complex aspect of an individual's identity.
Transgender people identify with a gender that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. For example, a transgender woman is someone who identifies and lives as a woman but was assigned male at birth. Similarly, a transgender man is someone who identifies and lives as a man but was assigned female at birth.
When someone asserts that "Men cannot become Women and vice versa," they are disregarding the validity of transgender people's gender identities and experiences. This assertion can contribute to the stigmatization and marginalization of transgender individuals, which can have harmful consequences for their mental health, well-being, and social acceptance.
It's essential to approach discussions about gender identity with empathy, respect, and an understanding of the diversity of human experiences. Using language that affirms transgender people's identities and respects their dignity is crucial in fostering a more inclusive and compassionate society.
You
You assigned male or female as birth as ifs subjective, why do you do that? You are born male or female?
ChatGPT
I apologize for any confusion. When I mentioned "assigned male or female at birth," I was referring to the sex assigned to individuals based on physical characteristics such as genitalia. This assignment is typically made by medical professionals shortly after birth and is based on observable biological traits.
However, it's important to recognize that biological sex is not always a straightforward binary concept. Intersex individuals are born with variations in sex characteristics that do not fit typical definitions of male or female. Additionally, gender identity, which is a deeply felt sense of being male, female, or something else, may not necessarily align with the sex assigned at birth.
Transgender individuals may undergo a process of gender transition to align their outward appearance and social roles with their gender identity. This process may involve medical interventions, such as hormone therapy or surgery, as well as changes in personal and social identity.
So while individuals are typically assigned a sex at birth based on physical characteristics, it's essential to recognize the complexities of sex and gender and to approach discussions about gender identity with sensitivity and respect for individual experiences.
You
Could the new hate speech law in Scotland be weaponized against individuals who dont believe in gender fluidity?
ChatGPT
The implementation of hate speech laws, including those related to gender identity, is a complex and sensitive issue. It's crucial for such laws to balance protecting marginalized groups from harm while also safeguarding freedom of expression and ensuring that legitimate debate and dissent can occur without fear of censorship.
In the context of Scotland's hate speech laws, which aim to protect individuals from discrimination and harassment based on characteristics such as gender identity, there may be concerns about the potential for misuse or abuse. It's possible that individuals who express skepticism or disagreement with concepts such as gender fluidity could face accusations of hate speech under certain interpretations of the law.
However, it's important to note that hate speech laws typically include safeguards to protect freedom of expression and require a careful assessment of the context, intent, and impact of the speech in question. Mere disagreement or skepticism about certain concepts, including gender fluidity, would not typically qualify as hate speech unless it incites violence, promotes discrimination, or constitutes harassment against individuals based on their gender identity.
Moreover, legal systems often rely on principles of proportionality and reasonableness in interpreting and applying hate speech laws. This means that expressions of dissent or differing opinions should generally be protected unless they cross the threshold into harmful or discriminatory behavior.
It's also essential for lawmakers, legal authorities, and civil society to engage in ongoing dialogue and education about the interpretation and application of hate speech laws. Transparency, clarity, and accountability in the enforcement of these laws can help mitigate concerns about potential misuse or censorship while upholding the rights and dignity of marginalized groups.
I wasnt using the ChatGPT for a definite answer, I was curious about what answer it might give from the perspective of using it as a bit of humour.Chatgpu... The world is ending and you're wrong, in law, a reasonable person is quite simple and your AI has over complicated it so what. When I started studying law the first lesson was to never use Google to answer a legal question, I now see why.
Okay, fair play.I wasnt using the ChatGPT for a definite answer, I was curious about what answer it might give from the perspective of using it as a bit of humour.
More people.What censorship? What specifically is now being censored?
That can’t be an actual thing, surely? The opposite, definitely. But why on earth would someone who is not gay feel pressured to deny their heterosexuality?My experience working in children’s social care sector is that, while there will be people who genuinely feel that they are the opposite gender, there will be many more where it is just mental health and cries for help. And many more regret it than not. Same for people who feel pressure to be gay but are not. And then do things that they are later affected by
There needs to be a way to warn against it without immediately being labelled TERF or whatever other word stupid people say
The issue comes with including the word insulting. Because an individual or group feeling insulted should be irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Obviously.
And the police have had no training on what is meant by "insulting" or what constitutes a "reasonable person".
I hope they've had the training, the term reasonable person has been used In law since the 1900s
It’s not up to the police to define anything. Not now, not previously. That’s for the courts to decide. And the concept of what is and isn’t reasonable as a legal definition has been around for decades and societal norms have changed a lot over that time.But has anyone defined reasonable person in the context of demented people who live on twitter.
But its up to the police to make the judgement call to arrest someone or not. And even if you are aquitted it doesn't look good for you career if you have been arrested on charge on hate speech because you said something someone from a protected group found insulting or offensive.It’s not up to the police to define anything. Not now, not previously. That’s for the courts to decide. And the concept of what is and isn’t reasonable as a legal definition has been around for decades and societal norms have changed a lot over that time.
Many reasons.That can’t be an actual thing, surely? The opposite, definitely. But why on earth would someone who is not gay feel pressured to deny their heterosexuality?
You can’t even say you’re straight these days.That can’t be an actual thing, surely? The opposite, definitely. But why on earth would someone who is not gay feel pressured to deny their heterosexuality?
Norms have changed but Lord Devlins definition and Vaughn v. Menlove are still the reference points used today. It's the courts 'job' to interpret the intention of Parliament when considering legislation but the Police/CPS are required to understand what would be considered a reasonable person.It’s not up to the police to define anything. Not now, not previously. That’s for the courts to decide. And the concept of what is and isn’t reasonable as a legal definition has been around for decades and societal norms have changed a lot over that time.
If you said that you as masquerading as gay in a gay club but admit you're actually straight but you said it to blend in, they'll put you in jail.You can’t even say you’re straight these days.
There’s a world of difference between people being too quick to label someone homophobic/transphobic (which I agree probably is a thing nowadays) and what you said above, which is pressure for straight people to actually be gay. Pressure to be an ally, sure, but I refuse to believe any straight male is sucking cock because of peer pressure.Many reasons.
I myself when I was in college decided against going to a gay club (which becomes a fad amongst straight people, for whatever reason, to seem Worldly I guess) - no hate, just know if I were gay I wouldn’t want gay clubs overrun with straight people. The response to my “nah that’s okay” was being hatefully called a homophobe and all sorts. I was then excluded from things for a while.
Also get many situations amongst younger people where if you aren’t gay or actively banging the drum, you’ll get effectively cancelled.
This is the world out there and one I’ve seen. It’s mental but it happens
Ok, fair enough. But that requirement to understand a loose definition of what is/isn’t “reasonable” hasn’t changed with this new law?Norms have changed but Lord Devlins definition and Vaughn v. Menlove are still the reference points used today. It's the courts 'job' to interpret the intention of Parliament when considering legislation but the Police/CPS are required to understand what would be considered a reasonable person.
But in practice with a law like this obviously the police will be the ones making all the judgements. And then whether or not their interpretations are backed up by sheriffs.It’s not up to the police to define anything. Not now, not previously. That’s for the courts to decide. And the concept of what is and isn’t reasonable as a legal definition has been around for decades and societal norms have changed a lot over that time.
Disbelieve what you like. I’ve had cases where (usually girls) partake in acts and misdefine who they are due to pressure. Usually due to not wanting to be excluded from peer groups.There’s a world of difference between people being too quick to label someone homophobic/transphobic (which I agree probably is a thing nowadays) and what you said above, which is pressure for straight people to actually be gay. Pressure to be an ally, sure, but I refuse to believe any straight male is sucking cock because of peer pressure.
Not true at all. It will always be interpreted in the context of the societal norms at the time.But in practice with a law like this obviously the police will be the ones making all the judgements. And then whether or not their interpretations are backed up by sheriffs.
The definition of reasonable has not kept up with societal ‘norms’, that’s the point. It’s an antiquated term with antiquated meaning.
Fair enough. I’ll concede to your experience here. Seems mad to me but I guess I’m not as exposed to any of this as you are.Disbelieve what you like. I’ve had cases where (usually girls) partake in acts and misdefine who they are due to pressure. Usually due to not wanting to be excluded from peer groups.
This veering off topic but isn't it girls passing off as bisexual to turn on the boys?Disbelieve what you like. I’ve had cases where (usually girls) partake in acts and misdefine who they are due to pressure. Usually due to not wanting to be excluded from peer groups.
