It is legal to call a police horse "gay"

[Coito ergo sum]

I was once arrested in Melbourne, during the anti-vietnam-war days, for handing out leaflets on the street urging people not to register for the draft. From memory, I think I was violating some council by-law, put in place deliberately to stymie such acts (it was a long time ago - I'm pretty certain such a law is now quashed...)

I suppose I was, in effect, urging others to break the law...

Yup, and that is why merely "urging others to break the law" is something that ought not be illegal. Without the right to urge others to break the law, we'd not be able to espouse the benefits of marijuana, or lowering the drinking age, etc.

And, you may well have been offending people like mad -- those that supported the war -- veterans -- they may well have been insulted and I could see them as being just as likely to "breach the peace" over your speech activities as someone who, say, is offended by a racist making a racist plea.

That is the big problem with this stupid law. mistermack's position that "it's you're own fault because if you don't want to be arrested, don't be offensive" is ludicrous because one doesn't need to be offensive in order to piss people off enough (or have them feign being pissed off) to get arrested.

[JimC]

I was once arrested in Melbourne, during the anti-vietnam-war days, for handing out leaflets on the street urging people not to register for the draft. From memory, I think I was violating some council by-law, put in place deliberately to stymie such acts (it was a long time ago - I'm pretty certain such a law is now quashed...)

I suppose I was, in effect, urging others to break the law...

Yup, and that is why merely "urging others to break the law" is something that ought not be illegal. Without the right to urge others to break the law, we'd not be able to espouse the benefits of marijuana, or lowering the drinking age, etc.

And, you may well have been offending people like mad -- those that supported the war -- veterans -- they may well have been insulted and I could see them as being just as likely to "breach the peace" over your speech activities as someone who, say, is offended by a racist making a racist plea.

That is the big problem with this stupid law. mistermack's position that "it's you're own fault because if you don't want to be arrested, don't be offensive" is ludicrous because one doesn't need to be offensive in order to piss people off enough (or have them feign being pissed off) to get arrested.

We did the leaflet thing deliberately, in a group outside the town hall, knowing we would be arrested, to get some media attention.

We were processed in a "batch" fashion in a magistrate's court, and fined. I was intending not to pay my fine, and thus go to jail (touch of young martyr's syndrome, I suspect... ) but my dad paid the fine behind my back!

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Should have run up a huge dope bill with the local heavies and been suitably outraged when he paid that behind your back too instead of letting you get a martyr's kneecapping!

[Callan]

I was once arrested in Melbourne, during the anti-vietnam-war days, for handing out leaflets on the street urging people not to register for the draft. From memory, I think I was violating some council by-law, put in place deliberately to stymie such acts (it was a long time ago - I'm pretty certain such a law is now quashed...)

I suppose I was, in effect, urging others to break the law...

Fomenting civil unrest.
Tsk, tsk, tsk.

[Jason]

Using the word 'fomenting'.
Tsk tsk.

[MrJonno]

By "not legally significant", I think Mr Jonno meant that it would not be placed on permanent, public record and should have no adverse effect on such things as job prospects, creditworthiness, suitability for certain volunteer roles, etc.

Well, it is a public record, in that folks can find out if you're arrested. At least, it's easy to find out in the US if someone was arrested.

And, those aren't the only significant factors of an arrest. One, there is the stress of being arrested - taken in, cuffed, booked - and cited -- maybe held overnight, even. Even in Britain, sitting in a jail overnight sucks. Two, the cost and expense, and stress, associated with being prosecuted - attorneys -- loss of work time (which certainly can effect one's job). Three, the risk of loss, and having one's pro-gay marriage speech in the public square being found to be offensive to devout Christians.

The act of arrest simply allows the police a formal platform under which to question and investigate a suspect in a case and may impose certain temporary restrictions on that suspects movements - it in no way implies guilt, or even a supposition of guilt - the latter only comes when a formal charge is made and the former when a conviction is returned by a duly appointed court.

I would have thought that would have been obvious to you, given your profession - or are things done differently across the pond?

You understate, drastically, what happens when you get arrested, even on your side of the pond.

Of course the arrest is not a (legally) implication or assumption of guilt. We have the presumption of innocence here too. Heck, a formal charge is just an accusation here. But, that doesn't mean that an arrest is not a "legally significant event."

Arrest is a tool in crowd control preferable the police should ask someone to refrain from their actions first if they suspect a crime is being commited but if they fail you get arrested. The 'checks and balances' on this are the rules on what happens after you are arrested, ie a lawyer, recorded conversations the police not beating crap out of you.

What % of people who are arrested ever get found guilty of anything 10%?, 1%? I doubt its very high. The police simply arent in a position /have training to accurately determine if someone has commited a crime when they on the spot. They make their best educated guess (which is all reasonable suspicion is). Unlawful arrest is very very rare event. Pretty much a policeman has to be recorded saying to another policeman 'the guy looked the type so I nicked himi'

[Cormac]

From my vague recollection, there is an offence known as conduct liable to cause a breach of the peace.

I can't see why that can't be the yardstick. And the test should be whether a reasonable person is likely to be provoked to retaliate.
Not easy for a jury in every case, but what is ?

If you're talking about "fighting words" then that makes sense. If you're talking about politics and offensive views or statements, then it doesn't, because no reasonable person should react with violence because of an offensive political statement or view.

There you have it. It's not, "should" they react in a non peaceful way. It's "are they likely" to react that way, given the provocation. That would be for a jury to decided.
There is an offence here which says exactly that, " conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace ".

But if someone has merely said something that is merely "offensive", then violence should never be the response!

And if it is, it's a gay response!

Exactly!

[Cormac]

But if someone has merely said something that is merely "offensive", then violence should never be the response!

I'm not sure what " a breach of the peace " constitutes in every case.
It wouldn't have to be violence. There are probably lots of breaches of the peace, short of violence.

It's a grey area. If I kick your car, is that violence? Or just something likely to lead to violence ? ( forgetting the criminal damage element ).
If I say "there is no god", in a debate, that's one thing. If I shout it in church, at a funeral, that's closer to "likely to cause a breach of the peace".
I can't see why it doesn't work.

Because it allows anyone to concoct an excuse for violence where none exists. Violence is a reasonable response to violence, or the credible imminent threat of violence. It is not a credible response to a statement, no matter how insulting.

[Cormac]

Coito, I don't agree that the law has to be so specific.
If you think you're borderline, you're taking a risk. It's not for society to spell out to the nth degree how close to the line you can go.
If your solution is that all offensive behaviour is ok, because people shouldn't get offended, then that's not the real world.

I'm quite happy with a vague law, that the police, prosecutors, and jury if it comes to that have to interpret.
If you don't want to fall foul of it, don't be offensive.

I think the authorities are quite capable of filtering out cases where people are too easily offended, or too "keen" to be offended.
But if not, that's a job for a jury.

There should be no question of the involvement of the police or judiciary for a simple statement. There is a gaping chasm between an insult being offered verbally, and a physically violent response.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What made them think the horse was gay?

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Coito ergo sum]

Arrest is a tool in crowd control preferable the police should ask someone to refrain from their actions first if they suspect a crime is being commited but if they fail you get arrested. The 'checks and balances' on this are the rules on what happens after you are arrested, ie a lawyer, recorded conversations the police not beating crap out of you.

Arrest is a tool to stifle the free speech of an individual. It is the easy way out for police, because instead of having to deal with people who are actually getting violent, they can just just silence a peaceful speaker.

What % of people who are arrested ever get found guilty of anything 10%?, 1%? I doubt its very high.

Irrelevant. The time to speak out against the Democratic party is at the Democratic National Convention. It is no consolation to someone put in the pokey for the night that they can come back in four years and try their luck again.

The police simply arent in a position /have training to accurately determine if someone has commited a crime when they on the spot. They make their best educated guess (which is all reasonable suspicion is). Unlawful arrest is very very rare event. Pretty much a policeman has to be recorded saying to another policeman 'the guy looked the type so I nicked himi'

It is that last sentence which explains exactly why your view of it is bizarre. You acknowledge that the police are rarely held to account for a wrongful arrest, because they pretty much have to admit to arbitrarily and capriciously busting a person. Yet, you wish to vest them with the power to arrest people who are merely mouthing words, because someone else might be pissed off by those words.

And, you haven't addressed my specific examples.

What of the the pro-choice demonstrator in London, who wants to march and holler about how the laws in the UK on abortion are too strict on abortion, and they need to be loosened up. This offends a crowd of devout religious folks in the area, and they become agitated and the crowd starts buzzing and becoming evidently unruly and hostile. Do the cops shut the speakers up, disburse them or arrest them? Or, do the cops deal with the idiot unruly crowd?

What about a protester protesting the oppression of women in Islamic Sha'ria courts in London. Passing Muslims become enraged at a protesting woman, denigrating the holy Sha'ria. Arrest the protester?

[Cormac]

By "not legally significant", I think Mr Jonno meant that it would not be placed on permanent, public record and should have no adverse effect on such things as job prospects, creditworthiness, suitability for certain volunteer roles, etc.

The act of arrest simply allows the police a formal platform under which to question and investigate a suspect in a case and may impose certain temporary restrictions on that suspects movements - it in no way implies guilt, or even a supposition of guilt - the latter only comes when a formal charge is made and the former when a conviction is returned by a duly appointed court.

I would have thought that would have been obvious to you, given your profession - or are things done differently across the pond?

You know, of course, that powers of arrest are routinely abused. Neither are they as casual as you might think from the way they're represented on TV.

For example, in Ireland:

In order to arrest you, the Garda Siochana [Our police force - literally "Guardians of the Peace"] must have a warrant for your arrest unless you are arrested for an offence that is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 5 years or more. In that case, the Gardai must have reasonable cause to suspect that you are guilty of an offence.

Once you are arrested, you must be brought to a Garda station without undue delay. You must be told the reason for your arrest.

A 5 year prison term implies a fairly serious offence. So the Gardai can't just have an off the cuff desire to arrest you. They will need significant corroborating evidence in order to do so. Wrongful or unlawful arrest can lead to significant awards in the civil courts for plaintiff who have been so detained.

I think the UK is very similar to Ireland, although I think UK police generally have more powers.

In the USA, police have a qualified privilege protecting them from personal consequences of a false arrest. However, this protection can be lifted in certain circumstances.

And your statement that arrest doesn't imply guilt is partly correct. This is true, because only the courts have the jurisdiction to find as a matter of fact as to a person's guilt or innocence. It is false in the sense that the arresting officer cannot just arrest on a whim - not even in the United States. They do have to have a firm and grounded belief that the arrested party is guilty of an offence.

The police must believe this, and produce evidence for this guilt, OR the person will have been wrongfully arrested. Whether or not they're compensated for the wrongful arrest, or the cop faces consequences depends on the local laws and the circumstances.

Police can't just arrest a person just to remove them from potential harm.

[Cormac]

By "not legally significant", I think Mr Jonno meant that it would not be placed on permanent, public record and should have no adverse effect on such things as job prospects, creditworthiness, suitability for certain volunteer roles, etc.

Well, it is a public record, in that folks can find out if you're arrested. At least, it's easy to find out in the US if someone was arrested.

And, those aren't the only significant factors of an arrest. One, there is the stress of being arrested - taken in, cuffed, booked - and cited -- maybe held overnight, even. Even in Britain, sitting in a jail overnight sucks. Two, the cost and expense, and stress, associated with being prosecuted - attorneys -- loss of work time (which certainly can effect one's job). Three, the risk of loss, and having one's pro-gay marriage speech in the public square being found to be offensive to devout Christians.

The act of arrest simply allows the police a formal platform under which to question and investigate a suspect in a case and may impose certain temporary restrictions on that suspects movements - it in no way implies guilt, or even a supposition of guilt - the latter only comes when a formal charge is made and the former when a conviction is returned by a duly appointed court.

I would have thought that would have been obvious to you, given your profession - or are things done differently across the pond?

You understate, drastically, what happens when you get arrested, even on your side of the pond.

Of course the arrest is not a (legally) implication or assumption of guilt. We have the presumption of innocence here too. Heck, a formal charge is just an accusation here. But, that doesn't mean that an arrest is not a "legally significant event."

Not only that, if you are arrested in the UK, your DNA is taken and kept on the register. The government was forced, reluctantly, to provide a process for innocent people to get their DNA taken off the database - but this process is awkward, and seems almost intentionally designed to make it difficult to get the sample destroyed.

I think that is a fairly permanent record.

[MrJonno]

Arrest is a tool in crowd control preferable the police should ask someone to refrain from their actions first if they suspect a crime is being commited but if they fail you get arrested. The 'checks and balances' on this are the rules on what happens after you are arrested, ie a lawyer, recorded conversations the police not beating crap out of you.

Arrest is a tool to stifle the free speech of an individual. It is the easy way out for police, because instead of having to deal with people who are actually getting violent, they can just just silence a peaceful speaker.

What % of people who are arrested ever get found guilty of anything 10%?, 1%? I doubt its very high.

Irrelevant. The time to speak out against the Democratic party is at the Democratic National Convention. It is no consolation to someone put in the pokey for the night that they can come back in four years and try their luck again.

The police simply arent in a position /have training to accurately determine if someone has commited a crime when they on the spot. They make their best educated guess (which is all reasonable suspicion is). Unlawful arrest is very very rare event. Pretty much a policeman has to be recorded saying to another policeman 'the guy looked the type so I nicked himi'

It is that last sentence which explains exactly why your view of it is bizarre. You acknowledge that the police are rarely held to account for a wrongful arrest, because they pretty much have to admit to arbitrarily and capriciously busting a person. Yet, you wish to vest them with the power to arrest people who are merely mouthing words, because someone else might be pissed off by those words.

And, you haven't addressed my specific examples.

What of the the pro-choice demonstrator in London, who wants to march and holler about how the laws in the UK on abortion are too strict on abortion, and they need to be loosened up. This offends a crowd of devout religious folks in the area, and they become agitated and the crowd starts buzzing and becoming evidently unruly and hostile. Do the cops shut the speakers up, disburse them or arrest them? Or, do the cops deal with the idiot unruly crowd?

What about a protester protesting the oppression of women in Islamic Sha'ria courts in London. Passing Muslims become enraged at a protesting woman, denigrating the holy Sha'ria. Arrest the protester?

You don't get many wrongful arrests because basically its very hard for the police to make such one, very few police arrests are unlawful.

As for restricting speech to prevent an immediate loss of life, of course the police can do this and have done in the past. Don't believe in unlimited anything including speech , everything in life is a compromise

[Coito ergo sum]

You don't get many wrongful arrests because basically its very hard for the police to make such one, very few police arrests are unlawful.

As for restricting speech to prevent an immediate loss of life, of course the police can do this and have done in the past. Don't believe in unlimited anything including speech , everything in life is a compromise

Do you want to talk about situations when there is an "immediate loss of life"in the offing, or were we still going to talk about "likely to create a breach of the peace" or "if you don't want to be arrested, don't offend people."

Saying "don't believe in absolute anything" is a platitude. Good. Nobody believes in an absolute anything. What I take issue with is where you draw the line, which is essentially that if someone starts acting up while another person is speaking in public, then the police ought to arrest the speaker, just in case. It places the power to silence the speaker in the hands of those who disagree with the speaker.

Do you plan to address the examples I gave? Or, you're just going to ignore real world application of the rule in favor of some esoteric idealization?