Well duh, if you wander around London with an obvious backpack bomb you will get arrested.
It wasn't actually a bomb isn't a good defence.
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
12 points (87.5% liked)
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
756 readers
1 users here now
For the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales) and Northern Ireland; News, Politics, Economics, Society, Business, Culture, discussion and anything else UK related.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This is the best summary I could come up with:
An arrest has been made following reports of a man seen on social media dressed as the Manchester Arena bomber.
North Yorkshire Police said it had "received complaints about a man wearing an offensive costume depicting murderer Salman Abedi".
The force said a man was arrested on 1 November on suspicion of using a public communication network to send offensive messages and other offences.
He has since been released on conditional police bail.
Abedi was responsible for the deaths of 22 people in the suicide attack at Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017.
Follow BBC Yorkshire on Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram.
The original article contains 109 words, the summary contains 103 words. Saved 6%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Imaging living in a country where you can be arrested for wearing an offensive costume...
oh wait, i do 🙄
The force said a man was arrested on 1 November on suspicion of using a public communication network to send offensive messages and other offences.
I think there may be more to this story than just "wearing an offensive costume", but without seeing what was said in the posts that's sheer conjecture.
Edit
Turns out there was more to the story! Whodathunkit!
using a public communication network to send offensive messages and other offences.
This is often used to prosecute "Offensive" social media posts. I think they got count dankula using something similar to that
People often forget that their right to free speech ends where it impacts the rights of others.
I don't think there is a "right not be offended" and i also don't think there should be. if only for the fact that offense is entirely subjective.
I didn't say anything about offense...
You can't call someone a racial slur and claim it was free speech, for example.
Edit
Is it really that controversial that hate speech isn't the same as free speech? Really?
if calling someone a racial slur is not about offense then what is it about?
Maybe you should look up the definition of hate speech.
I'm not saying it's what happened here, but the idea it's about "offense" is something worthy of the Daily Mail. The law doesn't deal with opinion in reality, only headlines.
maybe you should look up the definition of free speech.
Free speech and hate speech laws are not compatible
Yes... That's exactly what I've been saying, your right to free speech ends when it becomes hate speech. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.
Re: your edit. Are you trying to say that hate speech should be allowed? I'm genuinely baffled.
if i am not free to speak hate then i do not have free speech
your argument can be turned around, your "right" not to be offended ends where it infringes on my right to free speech.
What is considered "Hate" speech is essentially a line arbitrarily drawn in the sand
Hahahaha
Alrighty then. We shall agree to disagree. Good thing the law is on the side of sense, and not your fixation on offense (which, again, is nothing to do with it).
Re your edit: if you actually knew what hate speech is defined as in law, you'd know that's not true.
It seems all the edgy teenagers are out in force today, so I'm outta here! Toodle-ooo!
If you're not willing to talk about offense then why are you commenting on an article about someone arrested "on suspicion of using a public communication network to send offensive messages"
Because "offensive messages" defined in law is not the same as "being offended". But like I said, I'm tired of dealing with edgy teenagers today so I'm not going to try and explain to you further, I lack the crayons. Laters.
If something is to be considered offensive then it must by definition cause offense to someone. otherwise how do you tell if something is offensive?
Seriously, do you understand words or not?
Connotative meaning and denotative meaning of words are why the language used in laws is so specific. If you knew anything about the law or how it works, you'd know that.
Any more questions you want answered I'd suggest either Google or your teacher.
What has the difference between connotative and denotative meanings go to do with the word "offensive" in "offensive messages". used in that context "offensive" requires someone to be offended, that is its main meaning... otherwise it has no meaning.
Anyway i thought you were checking out like three messages ago, why are you still here trying (and failing) to guess my age?
Since you've already asked and had this one answered, I'll just copy/paste it for you, but I'd again suggest you look up the meaning of the terms:
Because “offensive messages” defined in law is not the same as “being offended”.
You asked a question, I answered. It's only polite after all. With each comment you make, you're only making your ignorance of law more clear to those who actually understand what you're talking about. If you're not a teenager, well, you have some learning to do I guess.
E: it's kind of sweet you're going back just to downvote my comments. I like that you're dedicating so much time to me <3
if you are not free to speak certain things then by definition you do not have free speech.