Be very careful who you offend

[motorbiking]

Yes.

No

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidan...es-involving-communications-sent-social-media

 

[SammyInnit]

No

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidan...es-involving-communications-sent-social-media

Guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media

I'm not sure where a Charlie Hebdo publication and social media cross paths.

Also you, the same as noseall are ignoring the fact that offense is subjective.

If I feel offended you nor the CPS can tell me I'm really not.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It didn't need to be seen as a hate crime..

Right. Are we just conflating two separate issues in thes two threads?

A judge has just deemed the video "grossly offensive" so that's it.
Still rather subjective but I suppose that's how it works.

 

[vinty]

It is not only physical crimes against a person that are crimes against a person. There are other crimes that are not against a person that are also crimes.
There are crimes that are considered against a person but a victim is not necessarily required.
Are you still confused?

Yes but thankfully not as confused as you obviously are

 

[motorbiking]

I'm not sure where a Charlie Hebdo publication and social media cross paths.

Also you, the same as noseall are ignoring the fact that offense is subjective.

If I feel offended you nor the CPS can tell me I'm really not.

Sorry the link wasn't clear.. there is reference to guidance / decided cases...

The High Threshold at the Evidential Stage
There is a high threshold that must be met before the evidential stage in the Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code) will be met. Furthermore, even if the high evidential threshold is met, in many cases a prosecution is unlikely to be required in the public interest. See further the sections below on The Public Interest and Article 10 ECHR.

In Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157 (Admin), the Lord Chief Justice made it clear that:

"Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by [section 127 of the Communications Act 2003]."
Prosecutors are reminded that what is prohibited under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 is the sending of a communication that is grossly offensive. A communication sent has to be more than simply offensive to be contrary to the criminal law. Just because the content expressed in the communication is in bad taste, controversial or unpopular, and may cause offence to individuals or a specific community, this is not in itself sufficient reason to engage the criminal law. As Lord Bingham made clear in DPP v Collins:

• "There can be no yardstick of gross offensiveness otherwise than by the application of reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the particular message sent in its particular context. The test is whether a message is couched in terms liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates."
• "The Justices must apply the standards of an open and just multi-racial society".
• "The question is whether ... [the defendant] used language which is beyond the pale of what is tolerable in our society".
• "[Is there anything] in the content or tenor of [the] messages to soften or mitigate the effect of [the] language in any way"?

Right. Are we just conflating two separate issues in thes two threads?

A judge has just deemed the video "grossly offensive" so that's it.
Still rather subjective but I suppose that's how it works.

Pretty much, but see above for guidance on the subjective part. His downfall was filming it, publishing it and telling the court that he liked grossly offensive humour

 

[vinty]

Just been reading that Jewish comedians have come out in support of the bloke and his dog, David Baddiel who is Jewish has said fellow comedians like Sasha Baron Cohen regularly make jokes about Jews shape shifting and turning into cockroaches and no one complains.
He also said everyone has the right not to be taken seriously, as has been pointed out what is offensive and what isn't is subjective, it all depends on intent, if this bloke was exhorting people to gas Jews then he should be prosecuted but if his intent was to be funny and offensive then he is guilty of bad taste and bad judgement.

 

[Ian H]

**** me, you lot are boring.

No offence

 

[noseall]

Also you, the same as noseall are ignoring the fact that offense is subjective.

The irony is that you don't understand 'subjective'. You seem to be under the impression that people think exactly like you do.