How far can one joke?

The judge has agreed that his tweets were legitimate.

Mr Justice Knowles said:

The claimant’s tweets were lawful and there was not the slightest risk that he would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet.

I find the combination of the police visiting the claimant’s place of work, and their subsequent statements in relation to the possibility of prosecution, were a disproportionate interference with the claimant’s right to freedom of expression because of their potentially chilling effect.

It gets better. He continued:

In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society.

However, the court ruling is unlikely to resolve much because the judge did not accept Miller’s wider challenge against the College of Policing guidelines on ‘hate crime.’

As the BBC reports:

These define a hate incident as “any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender”.

So to the question in the heading – how far can one go?  I don’t mean in the eyes of the stasi because the answer is not at all.

No, I mean as a reasonable person.  For example, I’m not sure I’d draw attention to Bloomberg’s height or Roddick drawing attention to Agassi’s bald pate.  They can’t help those.

Now, how about ‘fat broads and horse-faced lesbians’ in the DemRat debate?

‘Horse-faced’ is the questionable one there, the rest they can do something about.  Depends, doesn’t it, if she takes care of herself or not?  If she does, I’d say the jibe would be out of order.

What of PG Wodehouse’s ‘toothsome fillies’?  What of a man described as ‘rotund’?

5 comments for “How far can one joke?

  1. Twisted Root
    February 20, 2020 at 5:24 pm

    With violent crime being against all forms of law the battleground is over psychological attack. It is about who can get away with denigrating who. Anyone wielding the hate crime weapon is the abuser – a psychological abuser. Their characteristics include; weak, bitter, cowardly, untrustworthy, low time preference, poor reasoning skills, disloyal, envious, and low self esteem often manifesting in poor personal hygiene. Optimal defensive strategy is to point, mock, laugh and exclude from your existence permanently.

    • Andy5759
      February 20, 2020 at 8:35 pm

      It’s all about good manners. Sometimes I try to remember my father’s wise words, if you can’t say anything good then say nowt. We can all be insulting, even when innocently trying to describe someone. I’ve lost count of the number of times that I have had to apologise for loose comments while in drink. To bring the law into this is utterly insane, haven’t they got enough on their hands already?

      • Ted Treen
        February 21, 2020 at 1:18 am

        “…haven’t they got enough on their hands already?..”

        One would have thought so, but they appear to have followed the example of one Pontius Pilate, and washed said hands of anything to do with actual crime.

      • March 1, 2020 at 6:53 am

        Yes, they’ve got knife crime and grooming gangs, but that takes hard work. They’d rather surf the net…

  2. February 21, 2020 at 7:48 am

    Which is shaping up for their new roles, not unlike the firemen in Fahrenheit 451.

Comments are closed.