In the news

Fair enough but I don't think we should be dependent on the musings from a bygone era where racially perjorative slang was both acceptable and common place. Our understanding now of psychology, mental health, stress and emotional distress is significantly further advanced from those times. Take for instance some of the recent cases of online bullying that have led to the suicide of the victims. Are you just going to prohibit the final missive of the last tormentor that can demonstrably have prompted the suicide but not all of those that preceded it because severe psychological harm is an acceptable consequence of freedom of speech? After all, not one physical blow was struck before the last one, albeit at the victim's own hands.
And I'm definitely in favour of a clash of contrary opinions. However, to take as an example, "all them musrats want to do is blow us up" vs. "not all Muslims are terrorists" are clashing contrary opinions that fall very short of the other bit you should have highlighted; robust debate. Without that bar to mudslinging asshats, the truth you placed so much importance on is perpetually obscured.

To arrest, you only need reasonable grounds to suspect an offense has taken place. Section 5 of the public order act states an offense is complete if the following apply;

person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

Assuming he did do this (reasonable grounds to suspect he did could be taken as the fact he tweeted to say he had done so) then you could very easily argue that the woman he spoke to could have felt either harassed or distressed. It doesn't actually matter if she was.

The subject of the question is enough to make it "racially/religiously aggravated".

Whether or not he ends up being convicted is another matter. I very much doubt the CPS want a social media etiquette bun fight.

This is the harm principle. It's claimed, by him, to be an objective principle. The problem is that he never satisfactorily defines harm, and this we are returned to a position in which someone in a position of authority decides subjectively on a particular case.

Mill wrote:

"An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard."

If we follow this logic we get to strange places (perhaps banning the publication of images of Mohammed because it may insight violence a la Charlie Hebdo).

I think one of the most persuasive elements of Millian philosophy is that despite it's age it can still be as relevant today as when he was writing. You are right that what was acceptable in the 19th century is seen today as totally unacceptable in the same way as perhaps eating meat today might be anathema in 100 years.

Take your bullying example. There is no doubt that online bullying is not only pervasive but a serious problem leading to innumerable suicides, sadly more often than not young children. Speech that drives others to suicide is immediately physically harmful to others and therefore falls the wrong side of the line. No physical harm is needed to fall foul. Online bullying clearly can incite harm and should rightly be prohibited (I think it already is an illegal offense?).

When talking about robust debate (and also in reply to @spiderpie), asshats saying 'all mussies are terrorists' or, in this instance, challenging and innocent bystander on something so far removed from her life that it is almost tragic, is obviously beyond stupid. What social media brings these people is a platform for their views to be projected across the globe. The beauty is that their bigoted stupidity is so easily parried by the millions of people are able to react on (in this case) Twitter. Look at all the amazing replies this buffoon got! His bigotry countered by phenomenal solidarity. That is how you defend against and defeat racism, homophobia, bigotry and bullying. The truth, which so often needs defending, won hands down today.

Freedom of speech is emotive, at the very least I think we can agree that this skid stain got his just desserts.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

Interesting read re: all above.
Try to ignore the provocative title.

good point. But I think most liberal minded people would agree that a picture of Muhammad in a newspaper is a very different thing to a picture of Muhammad on numerous placards held by a mob of pergida supporters outside a mosque in Cologne.

One challenges a system of belief, the other challenges for a fight. One is rightly illegal the other is not.

Personally, I don't think that offensive behaviour in itself is something to be legislated against.
I think doing that just legitimises cries of 'oppression!' from people who would usually be all too happy to oppress others, and often are in the process of doing so.

Obviously, every case is very different.. but I think that on the whole we are capable of discerning between offensive speech, and speech that has potential to cause actual harm or abuse.

For Mill it's an issue of consequences, not intention. The meaning of the ideas are less important than the potential harmful outcome (he's a utilitarian, after all - albeit one with liberal sympathies).

*you're

Having said that, the essence of your point stands. It's just very difficult to formalize it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/matthew-p-doyle-arrested-after-confronting-muslim-woman-croydon_uk_56f3977fe4b04aee1b6ff522?utm_hp_ref=uk

JWestland
Still nasty schadenfreude to be pleased she got hurt in my book.

O'rly?!

Yep.
Bit some ppl don't seem to know 2+2=4 too. Wasn't the first rather aggro comment that day.

"I confronted an Irish women yesterday in Camden. I asked her to explain Bono. She said "Nothing to do with me". A mealy mouthed reply."

Ha Ha!

My two cents: in Northern Ireland anti offense laws would only lead to stifling of debate due to religious morons. See also blasphemy. And that causes real social harm are dangerous ideas are then not confronted out of fear of "offense".

Cyber bullying is awful but for that there are other laws as bullying causes harm. It's not easy to tackle though.

Me being told to fuck off as a dirty foreigner or being told I'll burn in hell, well meh. Tiny violin. I can ignore it. It's not a fantastic fun read but hey. If someone shouts it in my face it does become threatening.

I do tend to challenge bigotry / nastiness on social media though. Not wanting it to be criminalized doesn't mean I think it's OK either.

This

alialias
Feeling utterly helpless with the NHS/general tory nonsense. What can you do when the electoral system is in favour of the minority who support those who are in power?

People don't have the balls to down tools. Cash is king ,right? Well withdraw the on;y thing you have; make it clear, this is unacceptable. We paid for it (like the railways, postal system and social housing) and it will remain in our hands. Otherwise we bring everything to a halt.

edscoble in reply to @>>>>>>
By moving to Australia?

While the tentacles of the central banking system spread, you'll find there are fewer places on this planet that you can escape. The fight has to start here and now.

marcom
Another of these news that puts in me the disgust for a very large part of the humanity ruling this planet. And all their sustainers.

theguardian.com/world/2016/ma­r/16/north-korea-sentences-us-student-to­-15-years-hard-labour

“His detention was completely unjustified and the sentence North Korea imposed on him is an affront to the concepts of justice. Continuing to hold him only further alienates the international community.” Kasich repeated his calls for the Obama administration to “redouble its efforts” to secure Warmbier’s release."

They have more front than Brighton pier...Have a look closer to home if you're looking to talk about the concepts of justice.

Also, that guy used the term "towelhead" in a follow-up tweet – that may well have been what got him knicked.

Katie Hopkins treads a careful line of not actually using racial slurs.

Its a sick world we live in. People are too easily driven by hate.

And wet hair.

>>>>>> in reply to @greenhell
The electorate have the collective memory of a gnat, he'll be fine...

Just incase anyone missed it^

dave4 in reply to @ 
Things have been beginning to point in the right direction for them since the last General Election though... they won the Oldham by election with an increased share of the vote, and the latest poll put them a ahead of the Tories nationally.

Shifting the voting boundaries as well as social cleansing also helps.

I think you may be right. Cops said he was arrested on suspicion of "racial hatred" - so it cannot be for the anti-Muslim tweet, as offensive as it is it's not racist.