"Harassment" isn't being insulted. It's being constantly insulted, or bullied, or stalked or whatever. Calling someone a wanker is not harassing them.

I wouldn't say calling a black person a nigger is harassment, I'd say that's just being an arsehole.

But it was still said in a public space, and so free speech is in full effect. They have every right to reply to you.

Remember that just because something you say isn’t directed at a person, they can still hear it and can still be offended, upset, or just in disagreement of it. It’s their choice to make you aware of that just as much as it’s your choice to vocalize it in the first place.

And it’s fairly easy to come up with scenarios where what you say in public can have repercussions on the people around you. Consider the scenario of a man in a bar loudly talking about how horrible his day at work has been, with plenty of profanity mixed in to help illustrate. He may not be addressing anyone else around him except his friend, but other patrons can hear it and it’s putting them off their evening. In this case the people around him are no longer able to enjoy their evening, but also the bartender is in danger of losing patrons as this guy could irritate people enough that they leave.

There are plenty of other scenarios that you could come up with – someone making rape jokes in the vicinity of a rape survivor, for instance, or someone cracking jokes about immigrants in earshot of an immigrant.


Likely harassment is always going to remain an issue in society, sure. That doesn’t mean that steps shouldn’t be taken to minimize it – to educate people on what constitutes harassment so they know what not to do, to call it out when it happens and try to show someone what they have done wrong, and for people who partake in it to face consequences. Ignoring it doesn’t solve the problem, it just moves the problem elsewhere.


But in that situation all you’ve done is antagonize someone for the sake of your own entertainment. Can’t you see how that’s a shitty situation for everyone else besides you?


That’s fair enough, your opinions are yours and you have a right to them. But it’s worthwhile to acknowledge that there are ways of articulating and defending your opinions that can be both positive and negative, and it’s generally in your best interest to go the positive route for the reasons I’ve mentioned previously.


The state of being offended isn’t a conscious decision people take. There’s no option where someone says something to you and you get to sit back and think “did what they say offend me or not?�

You do have a decision in how you react, on whether you respond to the offence in some way. But that reaction is in part based on your emotional stake as well – if someone has just said something incredibly rude or upsetting to you, it can hit you in a way that prevents you from reacting rationally or from controlling your emotional response. And the more directed and antagonistic the comment is the more likely that will happen.

But if you are able to respond in a level, rational way – does brushing it off and ignoring it mean that the person will continue to act that way, will they say other offensive things to you or to others? If they then think you didn’t have an issue then they might even go on to say something worse. They might go on to repeat it to someone else who doesn’t have the same tolerance as you. Is it not then better to point out to them that you have an issue with something they said, as an opportunity to try and let them understand why what they said is problematic and so avoid future upset?


It can also be considered racial discrimination depending on the circumstances, which is something that often isn’t covered by free speech.

This isn't about going out of your way to avoid offending somebody. This is about you not going out of your way to intentionally offend someone.

So you're saying that there should be laws in place that the police can use to prosecute someone for harassment? You're in favour of limitations on freedom of speech?

I guess the key word there is "irl". I actually really dislike that term because of the way it perpetuates this idea that the internet isn't real life and nothing said or done on it can affect anyone.

REALLLLLLLY??

Better put on your hard hat then.

Freedom of speech should be maintained.

The recipient of the statement should be able to ignore it and does not have any lawful reason to sue the speaker.

The law should not be biased depending on the feelings of the judged.

In case someone physically harms another due to the things that the other said, the subject is guilty of harming the other.


This is what we studied at our law lessons. In German, though, so the terms I used here might be imprecise.

Except slander and libel.

I read some of these responses, not all.

I was just throwing it out there that I've noticed that many of those who I've had discussions/debates with on social media have been on the spectrum somewhere. I'm vaguely aware that those with Ass Burgers can take things literally...so maybe it is a case of them getting crossed wires and being all "WAIT, BUT...WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD AND WHY THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE LAUGHING??"

Re: the topic -

I'm all for people saying whatever they want, so long as it stops at incitement to violence. I'm also all for people challenging views they dislike, so long as the Govt doesn't get involved or violence in anyway. Though, if the latter does happen - a certain responsibility falls on the person who's the cause. You can call that "blaming the victim", I guess, but it is still relevant.

When the recent attacks in Paris happened straight away I made a joke. Straight away I mocked folk who were using the attacks to bring attention to themselves. I got death threats and threats of violence in my inbox on FB...but, it's kinda expected. And if something did happen to me...then, okay. That's partly my fault. The perpetrators are still totally in the wrong and shouldn't be condoned...but I can accept my role in the whole...thing.

Re: comedy -

When a comic gets on stage you HAVE to believe nothing he says is true. He's saying things that may or may not be funny to make you laugh, or at least try to. Joe Rogan does a bit where he says just that. Now, will the comedian's story upset or offend you? Maybe. But you then want what to happen?

You want someone to punch someone for telling a story? You want someone to be arrested for that?

Crazy.

I don't know whether you even read what I said about saying things against comedians but just for the record I was referring to conversations with other people about them. Heckling them because of it is just shitty and annoying.

How many of them have actually been diagnosed by a psychiatrist, and how many are idiots on the internet who want to be magical diamonds in the rough?


Going to a comedy show is a social contract. And, frankly, you usually know what you're getting yourself in for when you bought the ticket. That's different to a socially maladjusted nutbag who insults someone for his own amusement, then tries to say it's justified because he's 'only joking'.

Frankly, as I've said elsewhere on the forums, if you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech. Humour doesn't change the acceptability or offensiveness of speech in any way.

I don't know the relevance to stand-up but Kevin's parents failed.

The end.

People are going to be shitty. Especially kids. So you either PREPARE your child for that. Or you protect them from it.

Some people just shouldn't have children.

...

Whoa, sudden rush of DéjÃ* vu there. Weird.

That article is satire. It's making fun of people who think "don't worry brah it's just a prank" automatically rids you of blame.

People are going to be shitty. That doesn't mean you should just take accept their shittiness and just sit there and take their bullying. And victim blaming is especially bad.

Time to pop out the buzzwords.

Fun fact I only did that because I knew someone would notice my post faster this way. It doesn't even make sense with the rest of my post.

The rest of the post still stands though, and even the last sentence is true, if in a stand-alone kind of way.

See Nep you played right into her hands. Bam.

Pow.

I bet FA is great at chess.

The best chess players are male.

Because a lot more men play chess professionally.

That's because in general men have a better mind for strategy.
Is this what you do with all your posts?

Please tell me you don't actually believe that.

Fun fact: I only said that so you'd notice my post faster.

Well I mean I actually believed what I said even if I did it for a stupid reason, but I honesty don't know whether you believe that or not.

Nah I don't, women are way more manipulative than men.

Yeah, those bitches, manipulating men and been’ all evil and stuff