Talk about censorship

[Ishbar]

I think Grok is right, more so than Yegg.
Everything today is intended to be politically correct, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, and sex. If such laws were to be put in effect if "someone" were offended, wouldn't they have to go on the judgment of "someone" who is most offended by that subject? You want something offensive?
Laws that single out certain groups of people, i.e.; "Gay Bashing".

If someone wants to make a crack about someone that's gay, let them, nearly 99% of all jokes are derogatory towards straight people, so if anything, gays who contribute to the 1% that tell the other 99% would be doing the same thing as us. Though instead, is I or anyone makes a gay joke its automatically "offensive", being offended is someone's opinion, as long as the jokes morally and ethically sound there is no problem with it. I'm sick and tired of people getting special privileges, the real problem aren't people," not getting a fair chance". In kindergarten it may have. When Jack wouldn't share his yoyo with Billy. The problem is that people can't get over themselves, and they can't get over their differences with other people. The guy who made the gay joke was just being like the average young adult student, he wasn't harboring malicious intent to offend Mr. Brown and his "gay" horse.  People need to grow up.

[Yegg]

I think Grok is right, more so than Yegg.
Everything today is intended to be politically correct, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, and sex. If such laws were to be put in effect if "someone" were offended, wouldn't they have to go on the judgment of "someone" who is most offended by that subject? You want something offensive?
Laws that single out certain groups of people, i.e.; "Gay Bashing".

If someone wants to make a crack about someone that's gay, let them, nearly 99% of all jokes are derogatory towards straight people, so if anything, gays who contribute to the 1% that tell the other 99% would be doing the same thing as us. Though instead, is I or anyone makes a gay joke its automatically "offensive", being offended is someone's opinion, as long as the jokes morally and ethically sound there is no problem with it. I'm sick and tired of people getting special privileges, the real problem aren't people," not getting a fair chance". In kindergarten it may have. When Jack wouldn't share his yoyo with Billy. The problem is that people can't get over themselves, and they can't get over their differences with other people. The guy who made the gay joke was just being like the average young adult student, he wasn't harboring malicious intent to offend Mr. Brown and his "gay" horse.  People need to grow up.

You people don't seem to be getting the idea. What Mr.Brown said may have not been "malicious" in his eyes or perhaps his intention wasn't to offend anyone, but the fact is that it did offend someone! He knew it would offedn the officer. The average, normal adult would most likely be offended by such a thing. Mr. Brown who is young, obviously knows about this and I'm sure he knew it would offend the officer. But since he was out with his friends this probably didn't cross his mind, he was entertaining his friends and like someone else mentioned, he may have been under the influence of alcohol. If he was drunk to any extent, then he may have made the comment with absolutely no thought of consequences.

[Ishbar]

If he was under the influence the article would have stated that, then he would of been prosecuted for drunk and disorderly conduct, and drunk in public. 

[Explicit]

I think Grok is right, more so than Yegg.
Everything today is intended to be politically correct, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, and sex. If such laws were to be put in effect if "someone" were offended, wouldn't they have to go on the judgment of "someone" who is most offended by that subject? You want something offensive?
Laws that single out certain groups of people, i.e.; "Gay Bashing".

If someone wants to make a crack about someone that's gay, let them, nearly 99% of all jokes are derogatory towards straight people, so if anything, gays who contribute to the 1% that tell the other 99% would be doing the same thing as us. Though instead, is I or anyone makes a gay joke its automatically "offensive", being offended is someone's opinion, as long as the jokes morally and ethically sound there is no problem with it. I'm sick and tired of people getting special privileges, the real problem aren't people," not getting a fair chance". In kindergarten it may have. When Jack wouldn't share his yoyo with Billy. The problem is that people can't get over themselves, and they can't get over their differences with other people. The guy who made the gay joke was just being like the average young adult student, he wasn't harboring malicious intent to offend Mr. Brown and his "gay" horse. People need to grow up.

You people don't seem to be getting the idea. What Mr.Brown said may have not been "malicious" in his eyes or perhaps his intention wasn't to offend anyone, but the fact is that it did offend someone! He knew it would offedn the officer. The average, normal adult would most likely be offended by such a thing. Mr. Brown who is young, obviously knows about this and I'm sure he knew it would offend the officer. But since he was out with his friends this probably didn't cross his mind, he was entertaining his friends and like someone else mentioned, he may have been under the influence of alcohol. If he was drunk to any extent, then he may have made the comment with absolutely no thought of consequences.

You're speculating.  The student was out with his friends which happened to be after finals.  It doesn't necessarily mean they were under the influence, you're just assuming.

[Yegg]

I think Grok is right, more so than Yegg.
Everything today is intended to be politically correct, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, and sex. If such laws were to be put in effect if "someone" were offended, wouldn't they have to go on the judgment of "someone" who is most offended by that subject? You want something offensive?
Laws that single out certain groups of people, i.e.; "Gay Bashing".

If someone wants to make a crack about someone that's gay, let them, nearly 99% of all jokes are derogatory towards straight people, so if anything, gays who contribute to the 1% that tell the other 99% would be doing the same thing as us. Though instead, is I or anyone makes a gay joke its automatically "offensive", being offended is someone's opinion, as long as the jokes morally and ethically sound there is no problem with it. I'm sick and tired of people getting special privileges, the real problem aren't people," not getting a fair chance". In kindergarten it may have. When Jack wouldn't share his yoyo with Billy. The problem is that people can't get over themselves, and they can't get over their differences with other people. The guy who made the gay joke was just being like the average young adult student, he wasn't harboring malicious intent to offend Mr. Brown and his "gay" horse. People need to grow up.

You people don't seem to be getting the idea. What Mr.Brown said may have not been "malicious" in his eyes or perhaps his intention wasn't to offend anyone, but the fact is that it did offend someone! He knew it would offedn the officer. The average, normal adult would most likely be offended by such a thing. Mr. Brown who is young, obviously knows about this and I'm sure he knew it would offend the officer. But since he was out with his friends this probably didn't cross his mind, he was entertaining his friends and like someone else mentioned, he may have been under the influence of alcohol. If he was drunk to any extent, then he may have made the comment with absolutely no thought of consequences.

You're speculating.  The student was out with his friends which happened to be after finals.  It doesn't necessarily mean they were under the influence, you're just assuming.

I never said they were drunk. I said "he may have been under the influence of alcohol". Not he was under the influence, but he may have been. I also went on to say that if this was the case, then he may not have thought about his comment. So if he wasn't drunk, then the last sentence prooves false.

[Explicit]

I never said they were drunk. I said "he may have been under the influence of alcohol". Not he was under the influence, but he may have been. I also went on to say that if this was the case, then he may not have thought about his comment. So if he wasn't drunk, then the last sentence prooves false.

What gives you the notion that he may have been under the influence, though?  It's quite common for people to just blurt things out without running it through in their head.

[Yegg]

I never said they were drunk. I said "he may have been under the influence of alcohol". Not he was under the influence, but he may have been. I also went on to say that if this was the case, then he may not have thought about his comment. So if he wasn't drunk, then the last sentence prooves false.

What gives you the notion that he may have been under the influence, though?  It's quite common for people to just blurt things out without running it through in their head.

"like someone else mentioned, he may have been under the influence"

Someone else mentioned it first. So I sort of worked with it, just as a possibility. Never saying that he was in fact drunk, only a possibility. And it was a possibility. Just like there was a possiblity that he had cancer, even though that would be completely irrelevant. It's just to say that it was a possibility. Not a fact or opinion.

[Grok]

I'm laughing because you are splitting hairs over an argument regarding whether he was under the influence of alchol as if that has anything to do with throwing someone in jail for making a joke.  Yeh the kid was entertaining his friends!  He walks up to a public figure and ASKS, not TELLS, the mounty if he knew is horse was gay.  It's not even a statement.

To agree with this type of arrest is to say that any political satire or commentary intended to offend the target is to be illegal.  I sure as hell hope we don't go there.

Slippery slope you say?  Yes, I agree and hope you claim it, for every law put in place with good intentions that has bad usages someone has cried "slippery slope, it will be used this way and this way .." to which the lawmakers laugh and say "never" ... and implement the law.  Every time, the law gets misused in the worst possible way.

You cannot or should not legistlate speech that might offend someone as a criminal act.

[Yegg]

I'm laughing because you are splitting hairs over an argument regarding whether he was under the influence of alchol as if that has anything to do with throwing someone in jail for making a joke.  Yeh the kid was entertaining his friends!  He walks up to a public figure and ASKS, not TELLS, the mounty if he knew is horse was gay.  It's not even a statement.

To agree with this type of arrest is to say that any political satire or commentary intended to offend the target is to be illegal.  I sure as hell hope we don't go there.

Slippery slope you say?  Yes, I agree and hope you claim it, for every law put in place with good intentions that has bad usages someone has cried "slippery slope, it will be used this way and this way .." to which the lawmakers laugh and say "never" ... and implement the law.  Every time, the law gets misused in the worst possible way.

You cannot or should not legistlate speech that might offend someone as a criminal act.

So what you're saying, once again, is that we should have all the rights to knowingly offend someone. Why must someone offend another in the first place? Are we as people soemhow required to outwardly express our opinions whether true or false to another? I hope not! I don't think you people are getting the point. Such things shouldn't even occur, people don't need to be offending others as a joke, knowing there is a strong possibility that the individual being offended may take strong offense to it. Unfortunately people are dumbasses and they, for whatever reason, don't have the concept of what is and isn't an offense to another.

[Hitmen]

we should have all the rights to knowingly offend someone

Yes.

[Yegg]

we should have all the rights to knowingly offend someone

Yes.

Too bad that's not what I want if that's what you are trying to imply.

[SNiFFeR]

we should have all the rights to knowingly offend someone

Yes.

Too bad that's not what I want if that's what you are trying to imply.

And I think we've all come to notice the world revolves around you, and what you want.

On the topic note:
I really feel bad for those people that are not secure enough with themselfs to take a simple derogatory comment. Honestly, do you really get offended that harshly from words?

I'd rather take some abusive language than violence (fist to skull). I really thought we were a more advanced culture. I can understand if you break someone's face you goto jail. So, you call someone/something gay and then you goto jail. Hmm. That means, why bother saying anything, I'll just go break your face and get put it jail.

[Grok]

Im not even talking about whether people should "have the right to offend someone" whatever that is.  The point is that attempting to criminalize such speech is an open door to corruption and misuse.  It's a bad law and should not exist.  For example, it requires in this case a judgment by someone as to whether they think the guy was trying to offend.  Perhaps he wasn't.  Maybe he was making a joke.  Maybe he thought the horse was gay.  Maybe he thought the policeman did not know his police was gay and was doing a public service by telling him so.  See how ridiculous it gets?  Now if you accept that "how the policeman felt about it as being offensive" is legitimate, then I say your whole argument is offensive to me, and you must accept it and go to jail because I am offended.

[Arta]

We have no laws that prohibit offending people.

You don't have public deceny laws?...

My bad. We do, of course. I was referring more to the kind of offense Grok is talking about: calling someone an idiot or insulting their religion. That is not illegal.

[CrAz3D]

We have no laws that prohibit offending people.

You don't have public deceny laws?...

My bad. We do, of course. I was referring more to the kind of offense Grok is talking about: calling someone an idiot or insulting their religion. That is not illegal.

If you insult someone using profanity that someone could still be prosecuted.