Right to offend | Vital Football

Right to offend

R

radfordinlondon

Vital Football Legend
Couldnt read this story and not comment, given that our friendly forum is frequently given over to the keyboard equivalent of mad max beyond the thunderdome.

Judges have ruled on freedom of speech that it should include the right to offend and even include abuse. Im sure football referees will be delighted at the ruling.

Judge said the freedom to only speak inoffensively is not worth having.

Looks like vital, once again, are trailblazers for progress 🤣🤣
 
radfordinlondon said:
Couldnt read this story and not comment, given that our friendly forum is frequently given over to the keyboard equivalent of mad max beyond the thunderdome.

Judges have ruled on freedom of speech that it should include the right to offend and even include abuse. Im sure football referees will be delighted at the ruling.

Judge said the freedom to only speak inoffensively is not worth having.

Looks like vital, once again, are trailblazers for progress 🤣🤣
Click to expand...
Nob off you dribbling fucktard
 
Wow - this gives me so much comfort, knowing that dealing with such a diversity of posters and especially, the platform we offer for those with disabilities is compliant.
 
radfordinlondon said:
Couldnt read this story and not comment, given that our friendly forum is frequently given over to the keyboard equivalent of mad max beyond the thunderdome.

Judges have ruled on freedom of speech that it should include the right to offend and even include abuse. Im sure football referees will be delighted at the ruling.

Judge said the freedom to only speak inoffensively is not worth having.

Looks like vital, once again, are trailblazers for progress 🤣🤣
Click to expand...

You Barbara Streisand ****!

 
radfordinlondon said:
Couldnt read this story and not comment, given that our friendly forum is frequently given over to the keyboard equivalent of mad max beyond the thunderdome.

Judges have ruled on freedom of speech that it should include the right to offend and even include abuse. Im sure football referees will be delighted at the ruling.

Judge said the freedom to only speak inoffensively is not worth having.

Looks like vital, once again, are trailblazers for progress 🤣🤣
Click to expand...

so i can call people homos and spastics again?
ironically bbc wont play the lyrics to fairytale of new york, go figure.
 
paz1967 said:
so i can call people homos and spastics again?
ironically bbc wont play the lyrics to fairytale of new york, go figure.
Click to expand...

I believe the answer is context under the law. If it was directed at an individual (as opposed to their views) you might fall foul of other legislation. However the new ruling clearly offers some latitude.

I am not a lawyer tho.
 
radfordinlondon said:
I believe the answer is context under the law. If it was directed at an individual (as opposed to their views) you might fall foul of other legislation. However the new ruling clearly offers some latitude.

I am not a lawyer tho.
Click to expand...
If what you say is racist, sexist, homophobic etc then yes you would still fall foul of other legislation but calling someone a deluded fantasist tosspot is fine.
 
This is not a new development. The quote "freedom to only speak inoffensively is not worth having" comes from a case in 1999, and has thus been applied and considered for over 20 years.
 
if it is malicious then its malicious so in reality that judgment is clearly worthless nonsense :)
 
chandos9 said:
This is not a new development. The quote "freedom to only speak inoffensively is not worth having" comes from a case in 1999, and has thus been applied and considered for over 20 years.
Click to expand...

I should have posted a link, there was a new ruling, possibly confirming the precedent u cite, was related to a case bought by a trans person.
 
radfordinlondon said:
I should have posted a link, there was a new ruling, possibly confirming the precedent u cite, was related to a case bought by a trans person.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. My point is that this is nothing new, but is just a new case, just like others on the same issue. Here is the link to what you were talking about : https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/3421.pdf My point is that this just is a recent, and well reported application of conventional principles. I suppose I could say that this is old news. If you want a Forest- related timeline, the quote in question dates back to a time when Forest had only just been relegated from the Premier League: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1999/733.html
 
i still call my mates out if being a puff or a faggot if theyre being gay. None of those words had anything at all to do with sexual i.d, 100% about being a sissy haha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.