I'm pretty sure some of my code review feedback would put me on the wrong side of Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

In all seriousness though, I can not control what some are grossly offended by. I consider someone's offence at anything I do or say to be their problem, one they can solve by not listening to me because we live in a fairly free society.

Of course at work, that's a different matter in a different environment subject to different rules.

I'm sure some of my code would qualify as "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" so adequate feedback on it should be allowed!

Would you consider personal insults to be the recipient's problem too? They're offended by it, but they could just not listen to it.

I'm guessing much of insults also isn't in the message itself, but in the publicity of the message. You thinking that I'm an idiot is one thing, you telling me in private that you do is another, and you telling everyone that you think I'm an idiot is another one.

If someone calls me an idiot in public, my hurt feelings are my problem and how I respond to that is my problem.

If I am not emotionally well equipped enough to say "I don't care what that person thinks" then that's also my problem.

Really, if someone calls me an idiot that statement says more about them than me.

Now if someone says i'm a murderer without evidence, that's another matter altogether. But I may, in fact, be an idiot.

I'm not convinced humanity is equipped to deal with what social media is capable of unleashing.

Yeah, most people can take being told they're an idiot by a person or a few. Social media on the other hand allows some coincidence or celebrity to make you basically front page news, and get you called an idiot by hundreds of thousands of people.

I think very few people are equipped to deal with something like that.

And society shouldn't be deprived the coordination that free speech allows because people can't handle that.

The core problem is critical thinking and emotional literacy education at large, not a need to curtail free speech to avoid offense.

> If someone calls me an idiot in public, my hurt feelings are my problem

Yeah no. People are responsible for the consequences of their actions. Being abusive to others does not liberate you from that.

Sure, there are nuances (you're not necessarily solely responsible for consequences), but these nuance the stance, not remove your responsibility.

I didn't say they were _only_ my problem, but they are my problem.

How I resolve those hurt feelings is a choice for me.

Calling someone an idiot would very rarely be considered "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character;". Some words or actions are menacing, for example if someone said they wanted to rape your child. And some behaviour is inextricably linked with violence such as racism. Obviously there is nuance and context here, and the police don't always get it right. But threatening language absolutely does exist. Sometimes I think we need to be more explicit about what that context actually is and social networks tend to have a wide audience with different expectations.

I'm sure it does, but i'd rather 100 idiots said they wanted to rape my child than one person's offensive but valid speech gets censored.

I will note that I don't think freedom of speech extends to the anonymous. If you say you want to rape my child, you best put your name to it.

If your name is by your speech, then say it and own your vile.

-- yours, sirsinsalot, anon internet commenter.

In the UK, it not only can be, it is. If you look, you'll find a case of it, eventually, because the UK brings in almost 200 people a month over internet charges that are considered mildly offensive but legal and benign in the rest of Europe.

Two of the most serious cases I can think of this, is hate speech arrests of teenagers for sharing rap lyrics with 'nigga' in them, and the slew of "harmful speech" arrests over criticizing the crown around the queen's funeral.

But with publicity, it's not really just your feelings, it's about everybody else's feelings, because it might change how they think about and act towards you. Claims that you're a murderer also only really matter when made publicly.

I think it's the same for lots of things. People get "offended" not so much because some opinion offends them, but because they don't want it to spread or be normalized. Like nipples on TV offending some demographic, even though they could just close their eyes. It's other people seeing the nipples that they don't like.

Well all those people need to grow up.

This attitude that "I feel offended" therefore what I'm offended by must be stopped because it _must_ be offensive to everyone because I _must_ be representative of everyone because I'm a prototype of good taste and humanity.

Free the nipple, don't free the nipple, I'll concentrate on surrounding myself with nipple liberationists and we can share our nipples not caring about the rest of those narrow minded nipple prudes.

Since other people have mentioned the "nazi dog" case, I thought I'd bring in a source:

> https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...

"The centrepiece of the video consisted of the appellant repeating the phrase “gas the Jews” as a command to the dog, to which the dog then reacted. The video also showed the dog responding to the exclamation “Sieg Heil” (hail victory), by raising its right paw whilst watching a recording of the Nuremberg rally.

This was interspersed with flashing images of Hitler and swastikas, accompanied by strident music.

The sheriff analysed the law under section 127 of the 2003 Act by considering the dicta in DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 (at paras 7-12 and 21-22) to the effect that whether a message was grossly offensive was a question of fact. The sheriff found in fact that the video was grossly offensive and would be found to be so by a reasonable person. The repeated use of “gas the Jews” and similar phrases had a menacing character and reasonably caused apprehension within the Jewish community. The appellant had known that the video would be likely to be regarded as grossly offensive and menacing to Jewish people, or at least recognised the risk that it would be taken as such. The offence was aggravated by both racism and religious prejudice."

I would like to reiterate the legal ruling that "whether a message was grossly offensive was a question of fact".

It's also worth noting that if you actually watch the video it's very, very, very obvious that it's a joke and that the video's creator isn't actually a Nazi and he doesn't actually want to gas the Jews. (And neither does his dog.)

Is it funny? I've heard funnier Holocaust jokes. Is it offensive? To some, surely. But I don't want anyone who's unfamiliar with the case to read your comment and get the wrong idea about the video's nature.