There are a number of examples of speech laws in the western world that have banned insults. From 1994-2014 the UK had a ban on speech that was "insulting"

The UK's Communications Act 2003 section 127 also says:

> (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he-

> (a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

> (b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

> (2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he-

> (a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

> (b) causes such a message to be sent; or

> (c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

From Wikipedia on the act:

> On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted.

Then why was this guy[0] sued by the Scottish Government for a joke, offensive as it may be? Prosecution specifically labeled intent to cause offense as the crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan

He was fined for training a dog to make the Nazi salute to the phrase "Do you wanna gas the Jews?".

I'm 100% fine with slipping that far down the slope.

Do you realise what comedy is? This guy was a comedian who had performed on stage, so he certainly fits the bill. Think of all the current celebs who have said far worse on stage.

I'm British, here, almost all good humour is targeting/focusing around some group in some way (e.g. Monty Python, Fawlty Towers). We call it black comedy because it's horrible out of context.

So, are you in favour of getting rid of comedy?

If your comedy act leaves an audience member trained to do Nazi salutes, yes, I oppose it.

Then you are not in favour of free speech, and logically should believe that mainstream comedians like Jimmy Kimmel, Jack Whitehall, Jimmy Carr, etc.. should all be deplatformed and their lives destroyed, just like this man's. They've all said terrible, mean, things to formulate jokes.

Or does your rule only apply when the little guy does something offensive?

> Then you are not in favour of free speech

Correct. I'm in favor of certain restrictions on speech; I think Germany's bans on Nazi slogans and symbols are a good model.

I draw a distinction between "I trained a dog to make Nazi salutes" and comedy routines, yes. It appears the UK does as well.

How can you be against free speech when all other freedoms stem from free speech? This is why I don't like what Germany and the UK are doing - any country without true free speech (barring death threats or incitement to violence, etc..) is not really free.

Also, the UK has free speech, just not on online platforms and I'd like to see that distinction ended.

> How can you be against free speech when all other freedoms stem from free speech?

I don't agree with that bare assertion.

I subscribe to the belief that unlimited tolerance leaves societies open to malicious actors. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

See, I do agree on paradox of tolerance, I just think we differ on the best way of resolving that paradox. Freedom of speech != freedom from social consequences. I'm not suggesting racists should get a free pass, just that advocating for it to not get you fined/locked up by the government. WDYT?

Edit: On my "derived from free speech" remark - I believe that's the case because freedom of speech is how we keep the government in check. The minute they can decide Nazi imagery is unacceptable, they have legal standing to do the exact same to whichever political party or marginalised group they dislike. Too dangerous imo.

> interim guidelines

Implying they already expect to reevaluate this decision?

While this statement sounds reasonable at face value, these kind of important distinctions really need to be codified in law, not left up to prosecutorial discretion. Vague speech laws plus a great degree of prosecutorial discretion is exactly how a lot of brutal regimes oppress dissenters while justifying their actions.

> Vague speech laws plus a great degree of prosecutorial discretion is exactly how a lot of brutal regimes oppress dissenters while justifying their actions.

Sure, but it's also how a lot of non-brutal regimes keep laws from growing out of control with silly edge cases.

If you are harassing someone, law enforcement doesn't have to consult the legislated list of 23,784 actions that constitute harassment. That seems reasonable.

Harassment laws are common in the US and don't have to enumerate a large list of different actions that constitute harassment.

The clarification that you just quoted above from the Director of Public Prosecutions is only one sentence in length but it would entirely change the meaning of the law, if a clarification like that were actually in it.

US harassment laws are not a list of 23,784 actions that constitute harassment either. Here's an example of one state's law. It is clear and specific, something all laws should be: https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/

English law combines acts, statutes, statutory instruments, but also case law. The law is built to adjust to a changing society.

You might be interested in this programme (from 2013, so there have been some changes since then) that explains how it works: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01sn9cf

This is also the case in the 49 US states that base their legal system on English Common law.