“Last week, almost a year on, he was convicted by Sheriff Adrian Cottam of sending a “grossly offensive” message contrary to section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003. He awaits sentence, and perhaps an appeal.” I’m an attorney. Can someone please explain this to me? How can a criminal defendant be convicted by a sheriff? What is going on?
This discussion is far too long–being “offensive” would eliminate much or all of stand up comedy, as Jimmy Carr is finding out. Jimmy Carr used to be funny. He made great rape jokes, just as Ricky Gervais made amazing jokes about being molested. Hard to do but both pulled it off. So did Jim Jeffries, back when he used to be funny. Anthony Jeselnik. If people are offended, don’t listen. Don’t go to the show. Free choice. Stand up comedians seem to be at the forefront of defending free speech, no topic off limits. Bravo to them!
Why do people even consider criminalising something so subjective? It’s totalitarian. If Captain Tom’s family is offended, they’ll just have to live with it. So what?
Did you know that in Scotland a ‘Sheriff’ is a judge? He presides over a Sheriffs court, which is a criminal court that “can deal with any crimes except murder, rape and treason“. Those are reserved for the High Court of Justiciary.
The trial took place in Scotland, judges are called sheriffs here. Scotland has some unique aspects of its legal system which differ from the rest of the UK.
Sorry Rasmus, your reply wasn’t showing when I posted mine.
With some reluctance I have to partially agree with you. (Not the Sheriff point, explained by Rasmus.) But I do prefer comedians who tell jokes. By all means defend free speech, thank you, stand-up comics, it’s appreciated, but by being “offensive” you are to some people strengthening the case for curtailing free speech. It needs a bit of thought as to what you are going to say.
With respect, I disagree. Actually, Jimmy Carr analyses jokes and why jokes are offensive or not offensive–short answer: the audience decides. I can’t find it on YouTube right now, maybe someone else can, but he talks about the function of humour in society, what’s acceptable, what’s not. The most offensive joke in his view, measured by impact, was the Danish cartoonist who drew Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. This led to death and destruction against Denmark. I’ll keep looking, but maybe someone else can find this clip.
When a comedian deconstructs a joke it’s a big risk–most can’t pull it off, and most shouldn’t try–do we really want magicians showing how their acts work? But Jimmy does, back when he was funny, and it’s an amazing journey, informative, new material, and well worth your time.
Could you expand on that? The (in)famous Mohammed cartoons were fairly mild political satire, perfectly acceptable, with no intent to offend anyone – to a Danish audience. They only ‘became’ offensive when they were transported to Pakistan, where no one reads Danish newspapers, but where a large group of people were hell-bent on being violently offended anyway. Are you really saying that what makes a comment offensive, and therefore unacceptable, is the existence of a group that is determined to get offended? If so it would follow that any reference to the independence of Tibet is very offensive indeed (just ask Xi).
This is just wildly wrong, from a Muslim point of view. In their faith, it is haram to depict the prophet Mohammed. The Danish artist surely knew this, so he was attempting to offend, provoke, poke (insert your preferred word here), which is his right and fair play.
To address your later point, I’m not saying anything like that–no topic off limits in my view. The only flaw in comedy is not being funny. I once thought there was nothing funny about child abuse or rape, but I have been proven wildly wrong. Fair play. Ricky Gervais made me laugh (about being molested) despite myself–and the audience loved it too. It’s a form of steam release for a society to mock horrible things. I don’t think Jimmy Carr’s joke about the positives of the Holocaust is particularly funny, but hey, not all jokes work all the time.
And by the way, he very carefully dissects the lowest form of audience, writ large, who claim to take offense on behalf of some other group. Stated another way, the Roma might have some cause to be offended (but so what?), but other groups pretending to take offense on their behalf are truly Churlish Unhinged Negative Twins.
A mild variation on your point about the Danish cartoon. The artist was making a point about Islamic terrorism, in the full knowledge no doubt that it would cause a violent reaction. I suspect his primary aim was to point at the horrors of the bombings, not annoying Muslims.
Actually I do not think so. The newspaper had noticed that people were shying away from any depictions of the Islamic prophet, and wanted to 1) start a discussion, 2) make the point that this was not necessary, and you could do it without the sky falling down. You could say that they succeded on 1) and failed spectacularly on 2) , but without benefit of hindsight no one could have predicted that you would get 25 people killed over what was by local standards not only obvious but mild. And, anyway, why would anybody in the Muslim world *care* what drawings they made in a tiny provincial place like Denmark?
I still cannot figure out what you are saying. Is that cartoon wrong or acceptable – never mind the various points of view? If you are saying that Muslims and Danes have different opinions on that cartoon, and that this was probably the cartoon that offended the largest number of people the most, I can only agree. Those are neutral statements of fact. But the whole discussion here is normative. How much *should* one consider the point of view of people who are not part of your society and who are not part ot the intended audience?
Wow, I always try to be clear, really clear, so here goes: I like the cartoon. A cartoon, even one that offends, can (almost?) never be “wrong.” I don’t care if it offends–sometimes that’s the point. Remember “Piss Jesus,” a work of art that put a cross in urine. Not my thing, I don’t quite get it, but the “artist” was trying to make a point. Good for him, sort of.
With the Mohammed cartoon, it was a bit less subtle, but I get it, I like it, and I simply don’t care who it offends and how many. Bravo to DK for taking the hit, sort of.
Thank you, I’ll try to find it.
But surely, the audience is finding whether it is offensive to them, not to the target of the joke? How many audiences would find it funny if they were, for example, told by the comedian that they were thick, smelly, should not be allowed out without brain surgery, and too stupid to comprehend his humour? I might find that funny sitting watching it on TV, but the audience might well react badly.
I still think though that speech should be free, no matter how offensive, unless it is really likely to cause destruction of life or property. Then it is not the humour or the speech that should be tested in the courts, but whether there was incitement.
Kindly see my last ¶ above. I hope you can find it, as it is worth your time.
Charles Hedges
2 years ago
Captain Sir Tom fought for, as did millions of others. freedom. Joseph Kelly is offensive but he has done us a favour by reminding people of the spite of some Glasgow Celtic fans. Lawyers and The Law do not protect freedom. German laws were passed by the Nazis to remove the freedom of Jewish people. Professor S Hicks has videos on You Tube showing how the Nazis were supported by intellectuals. It was this spite which Hitler used to control the German people.
Freedom will have a greater chance of being kept if we ridicule the spiteful, chip on the shoulder, types.
michael stanwick
2 years ago
After all, responsibility for deciding what can and cannot be said should rest, perhaps, with any reasonable member of the public.
Perhaps the a priori addendum of this is that any reasonable member of the public should, paraphrasing Emma Webb of The Free Speech Union, be able to be trusted to hear and then interpret that speech themselves, and not told how they should be editing the public space in line with current ideologies.
Last edited 2 years ago by michael stanwick
Richard Parker
2 years ago
Naturally, I don’t support Kelly’s conviction for his actions. It flies in the face of too much that I hold to be important. The fact that he’s a crass tw*t is to me indisputable, but it’s not a legal matter and it shouldn’t be. (Funny that I have to censor a well deserved insult, though, isn’t it?)
As a further consideration, Kelly wishes Captain Tom to be in hell. Now, if he actually believed in eternal damnation, he’d also know that assuming the role of judge in that matter would be to supplant God and would therefore be blasphemous. Unless, of course, his religion is a front for interests more secular in nature. Not that I give a tinker’s for his opinions on that or anything else.
Last edited 2 years ago by Richard Parker
Dominic A
2 years ago
Two highly significant things that are often overlooked in contemporary speech ‘outrages’-
Intentionality – did the speaker intend to be offensive, or was ignorant, or making a joke, good or bad?
Instant Karma – people, society is often self-correcting, self-punishing, self-rewarding; there is usually no need for the law, government to step in. It seems this applies to vaccine mandates (people may be more likely to get the vaccine if not mandated by a political team they don’t like), and I suspect to the Sheridan, and Kelly, who will forever more be know as morons.
Vince B
2 years ago
There has been a terrifying mash-up on the Left recently of the notions “offensive,” “harm,” and “safety,” as in “Ruth’s feelings were harmed by Reggie’s offensive comments, so she complained to her boss that her workplace had become unsafe.”
And so, in the our endless quest to remain “safe” and free from “harm” we can stifle anything deemed “offensive.” Of course, only those who have the cultural winds at their back are so willing to clamp down on speech. We see this in the broadest sense now, when any off-script comment about Covid is “misinformation,” “anti-science propaganda” that “is literally getting people killed.”
Lady Liberty is being slowly poisoned to death by the left, while the right holds a knife to her throat (the latter at least here in the US). Scary times.
Nicky Samengo-Turner
2 years ago
Welcome to the new britn DDR
Tom Watson
2 years ago
“In place of Section 127, the report recommended a new offence…the Crown must prove that the defendant intended harm. Harm is defined as, at a minimum, serious psychological distress. This is, on the face of it, a great improvement.” – Yes. “But there is a twist. The Law Commission’s original plan…was that the Crown need only prove that the defendant was aware of the risk that harm might be caused. This is a much lower threshold than intention. The reason for their change of heart…is that the Online Safety Bill imposes a legal duty on social media companies to remove harmful content — including content that is not illegal…Narrowing the ambit of an important piece of criminal legislation at the heart of our right to Free Speech — is a worrying development,” – Couldn’t disagree more. Had to reread this several times to make sure I’m not misunderstanding. Surely the last thing we want is for the definition of criminal speech online to match up with ‘anything a social media moderator considers to be in some way harmful’? It would be *widening* the ambit of criminal legislation at the heart of our right to free speech that would be worrying. What am I missing here?
Erik Hildinger
2 years ago
In the States, at least, there is a legal doctrine that a statute may be “void for vagueness.” In other words, it is wrong to enforce such a statute on the ground that it cannot reasonably be understood. I have no idea whether this doctrine applies in British law in either the observance or the breach, but this report suggests not, at least in this circumstance. A question that might be asked is this: in the situation discussed above, is it not in fact useful to the government to have vague laws on the books in order to threaten or punish those with whom it broadly disagrees? Complaints that the law is too broad to follow could be met by using media companies as enforcers, so that blame for the immediate application of the law can be shifted to non-government entities, putting the issue at one remove from its real source.
Daniel Lee
1 year ago
Just a cloaked example of the Left’s ongoing attack on free speech (because too darn many people they disagree with are using it). If “grossly offensive” is too vague to be enforced, who will define and enforce the vastly more meaningless “harm”? We know who; it will be the usual Woke warriors who find any opposition to their agenda “harmful” and subject to suppression by whatever means come to hand.
SULPICIA LEPIDINA
2 years ago
What’s new here?
We hanged Julius Streicher in 1946 for making similar offensives remarks. Mr Kelly should be more careful.
Main Edition
US
FR
“Last week, almost a year on, he was convicted by Sheriff Adrian Cottam of sending a “grossly offensive” message contrary to section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003. He awaits sentence, and perhaps an appeal.”
I’m an attorney. Can someone please explain this to me? How can a criminal defendant be convicted by a sheriff? What is going on?
This discussion is far too long–being “offensive” would eliminate much or all of stand up comedy, as Jimmy Carr is finding out. Jimmy Carr used to be funny. He made great rape jokes, just as Ricky Gervais made amazing jokes about being molested. Hard to do but both pulled it off. So did Jim Jeffries, back when he used to be funny. Anthony Jeselnik. If people are offended, don’t listen. Don’t go to the show. Free choice. Stand up comedians seem to be at the forefront of defending free speech, no topic off limits. Bravo to them!
Why do people even consider criminalising something so subjective? It’s totalitarian. If Captain Tom’s family is offended, they’ll just have to live with it. So what?
Did you know that in Scotland a ‘Sheriff’ is a judge? He presides over a Sheriffs court, which is a criminal court that “can deal with any crimes except murder, rape and treason“. Those are reserved for the High Court of Justiciary.
You could have mentioned that absolute zenith of Scotch Judicial procedure, the conviction one one :
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing.*
(*How Dr Johnson would have laughed.)
Nope. Thanks!
The trial took place in Scotland, judges are called sheriffs here. Scotland has some unique aspects of its legal system which differ from the rest of the UK.
Sorry Rasmus, your reply wasn’t showing when I posted mine.
The more the merrier. You actually live in Scotland too.
With some reluctance I have to partially agree with you. (Not the Sheriff point, explained by Rasmus.) But I do prefer comedians who tell jokes. By all means defend free speech, thank you, stand-up comics, it’s appreciated, but by being “offensive” you are to some people strengthening the case for curtailing free speech. It needs a bit of thought as to what you are going to say.
With respect, I disagree. Actually, Jimmy Carr analyses jokes and why jokes are offensive or not offensive–short answer: the audience decides. I can’t find it on YouTube right now, maybe someone else can, but he talks about the function of humour in society, what’s acceptable, what’s not. The most offensive joke in his view, measured by impact, was the Danish cartoonist who drew Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. This led to death and destruction against Denmark. I’ll keep looking, but maybe someone else can find this clip.
When a comedian deconstructs a joke it’s a big risk–most can’t pull it off, and most shouldn’t try–do we really want magicians showing how their acts work? But Jimmy does, back when he was funny, and it’s an amazing journey, informative, new material, and well worth your time.
Could you expand on that? The (in)famous Mohammed cartoons were fairly mild political satire, perfectly acceptable, with no intent to offend anyone – to a Danish audience. They only ‘became’ offensive when they were transported to Pakistan, where no one reads Danish newspapers, but where a large group of people were hell-bent on being violently offended anyway. Are you really saying that what makes a comment offensive, and therefore unacceptable, is the existence of a group that is determined to get offended? If so it would follow that any reference to the independence of Tibet is very offensive indeed (just ask Xi).
This is just wildly wrong, from a Muslim point of view. In their faith, it is haram to depict the prophet Mohammed. The Danish artist surely knew this, so he was attempting to offend, provoke, poke (insert your preferred word here), which is his right and fair play.
To address your later point, I’m not saying anything like that–no topic off limits in my view. The only flaw in comedy is not being funny. I once thought there was nothing funny about child abuse or rape, but I have been proven wildly wrong. Fair play. Ricky Gervais made me laugh (about being molested) despite myself–and the audience loved it too. It’s a form of steam release for a society to mock horrible things. I don’t think Jimmy Carr’s joke about the positives of the Holocaust is particularly funny, but hey, not all jokes work all the time.
And by the way, he very carefully dissects the lowest form of audience, writ large, who claim to take offense on behalf of some other group. Stated another way, the Roma might have some cause to be offended (but so what?), but other groups pretending to take offense on their behalf are truly Churlish Unhinged Negative Twins.
A mild variation on your point about the Danish cartoon. The artist was making a point about Islamic terrorism, in the full knowledge no doubt that it would cause a violent reaction. I suspect his primary aim was to point at the horrors of the bombings, not annoying Muslims.
Actually I do not think so. The newspaper had noticed that people were shying away from any depictions of the Islamic prophet, and wanted to 1) start a discussion, 2) make the point that this was not necessary, and you could do it without the sky falling down. You could say that they succeded on 1) and failed spectacularly on 2) , but without benefit of hindsight no one could have predicted that you would get 25 people killed over what was by local standards not only obvious but mild. And, anyway, why would anybody in the Muslim world *care* what drawings they made in a tiny provincial place like Denmark?
I still cannot figure out what you are saying. Is that cartoon wrong or acceptable – never mind the various points of view? If you are saying that Muslims and Danes have different opinions on that cartoon, and that this was probably the cartoon that offended the largest number of people the most, I can only agree. Those are neutral statements of fact. But the whole discussion here is normative. How much *should* one consider the point of view of people who are not part of your society and who are not part ot the intended audience?
Wow, I always try to be clear, really clear, so here goes: I like the cartoon. A cartoon, even one that offends, can (almost?) never be “wrong.” I don’t care if it offends–sometimes that’s the point. Remember “Piss Jesus,” a work of art that put a cross in urine. Not my thing, I don’t quite get it, but the “artist” was trying to make a point. Good for him, sort of.
With the Mohammed cartoon, it was a bit less subtle, but I get it, I like it, and I simply don’t care who it offends and how many. Bravo to DK for taking the hit, sort of.
Thank you, I’ll try to find it.
But surely, the audience is finding whether it is offensive to them, not to the target of the joke? How many audiences would find it funny if they were, for example, told by the comedian that they were thick, smelly, should not be allowed out without brain surgery, and too stupid to comprehend his humour? I might find that funny sitting watching it on TV, but the audience might well react badly.
I still think though that speech should be free, no matter how offensive, unless it is really likely to cause destruction of life or property. Then it is not the humour or the speech that should be tested in the courts, but whether there was incitement.
Kindly see my last ¶ above. I hope you can find it, as it is worth your time.
Captain Sir Tom fought for, as did millions of others. freedom. Joseph Kelly is offensive but he has done us a favour by reminding people of the spite of some Glasgow Celtic fans. Lawyers and The Law do not protect freedom. German laws were passed by the Nazis to remove the freedom of Jewish people. Professor S Hicks has videos on You Tube showing how the Nazis were supported by intellectuals. It was this spite which Hitler used to control the German people.
Freedom will have a greater chance of being kept if we ridicule the spiteful, chip on the shoulder, types.
After all, responsibility for deciding what can and cannot be said should rest, perhaps, with any reasonable member of the public.
Perhaps the a priori addendum of this is that any reasonable member of the public should, paraphrasing Emma Webb of The Free Speech Union, be able to be trusted to hear and then interpret that speech themselves, and not told how they should be editing the public space in line with current ideologies.
Naturally, I don’t support Kelly’s conviction for his actions. It flies in the face of too much that I hold to be important. The fact that he’s a crass tw*t is to me indisputable, but it’s not a legal matter and it shouldn’t be. (Funny that I have to censor a well deserved insult, though, isn’t it?)
As a further consideration, Kelly wishes Captain Tom to be in hell. Now, if he actually believed in eternal damnation, he’d also know that assuming the role of judge in that matter would be to supplant God and would therefore be blasphemous. Unless, of course, his religion is a front for interests more secular in nature. Not that I give a tinker’s for his opinions on that or anything else.
Two highly significant things that are often overlooked in contemporary speech ‘outrages’-
Intentionality – did the speaker intend to be offensive, or was ignorant, or making a joke, good or bad?
Instant Karma – people, society is often self-correcting, self-punishing, self-rewarding; there is usually no need for the law, government to step in. It seems this applies to vaccine mandates (people may be more likely to get the vaccine if not mandated by a political team they don’t like), and I suspect to the Sheridan, and Kelly, who will forever more be know as morons.
There has been a terrifying mash-up on the Left recently of the notions “offensive,” “harm,” and “safety,” as in “Ruth’s feelings were harmed by Reggie’s offensive comments, so she complained to her boss that her workplace had become unsafe.”
And so, in the our endless quest to remain “safe” and free from “harm” we can stifle anything deemed “offensive.” Of course, only those who have the cultural winds at their back are so willing to clamp down on speech. We see this in the broadest sense now, when any off-script comment about Covid is “misinformation,” “anti-science propaganda” that “is literally getting people killed.”
Lady Liberty is being slowly poisoned to death by the left, while the right holds a knife to her throat (the latter at least here in the US). Scary times.
Welcome to the new britn DDR
“In place of Section 127, the report recommended a new offence…the Crown must prove that the defendant intended harm. Harm is defined as, at a minimum, serious psychological distress. This is, on the face of it, a great improvement.” – Yes.
“But there is a twist. The Law Commission’s original plan…was that the Crown need only prove that the defendant was aware of the risk that harm might be caused. This is a much lower threshold than intention. The reason for their change of heart…is that the Online Safety Bill imposes a legal duty on social media companies to remove harmful content — including content that is not illegal…Narrowing the ambit of an important piece of criminal legislation at the heart of our right to Free Speech — is a worrying development,” – Couldn’t disagree more. Had to reread this several times to make sure I’m not misunderstanding. Surely the last thing we want is for the definition of criminal speech online to match up with ‘anything a social media moderator considers to be in some way harmful’? It would be *widening* the ambit of criminal legislation at the heart of our right to free speech that would be worrying. What am I missing here?
In the States, at least, there is a legal doctrine that a statute may be “void for vagueness.” In other words, it is wrong to enforce such a statute on the ground that it cannot reasonably be understood. I have no idea whether this doctrine applies in British law in either the observance or the breach, but this report suggests not, at least in this circumstance. A question that might be asked is this: in the situation discussed above, is it not in fact useful to the government to have vague laws on the books in order to threaten or punish those with whom it broadly disagrees? Complaints that the law is too broad to follow could be met by using media companies as enforcers, so that blame for the immediate application of the law can be shifted to non-government entities, putting the issue at one remove from its real source.
Just a cloaked example of the Left’s ongoing attack on free speech (because too darn many people they disagree with are using it). If “grossly offensive” is too vague to be enforced, who will define and enforce the vastly more meaningless “harm”? We know who; it will be the usual Woke warriors who find any opposition to their agenda “harmful” and subject to suppression by whatever means come to hand.
What’s new here?
We hanged Julius Streicher in 1946 for making similar offensives remarks. Mr Kelly should be more careful.