Do we hav the right not to be upset?

[jake-the-peg]

Should it be an arrestable offense to post an image on facebook that upsets people?

[jake-the-peg]

https://en-gb.facebook.com/MohammedCartoons

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...hern-ireland-15563139

http://www.guardian.c...rrested-burning-poppy

[NOX]

I think freedom of speech needs to prevail in preference to pandering to anyone's (including mine) personal sensibilities tbh.

[youngmafbog]

Depends what the image is. If it agains teh law (porn etc) then no. If it falls within the law then yes.

Burning flags/poppies/Korans could be construed as incitement to violence.

I think the big problem here is the hypocracy of the (usually extreme faction ) muslim faith. they find it ok to burn something many value in the West but then think it is fine to murder over a caricature or burning of the Koran.

[naomi24]

No, we do not have the right not to be upset. We've reached a situation where we're often treading on eggshells. It seems everything upsets someone.

[jno]

hard to say. This is part of the continuing debate about how to deal with social media. Are they on a par with swearing in the pub or with a TV programme naming someone as a paedophile? Does anonymity make a difference? Should anonymity even be allowed? If not, how do you stop it?

[jake-the-peg]

I think YMB there is the other side of that coin

If muslims are being hypocritical objecting to burning korans and then burning poppies what about the police arresting these people for posting pictures of burning poppies.

If this is illegal then perhaps I'm next - (I and others) have used a white poppy as an avatar - should I expect a knock on the door?

Have we really reached the stage where posting a picture of a burning poppy earn you a trip to the police station?

[NOX]

In my opinion there might be many reasons one could post a picture of a burning poppy- not all of them derogatory.
If I were of an artistic persuasion I could argue that it was imagery that represented the futile death of millions of young men in countless wars and that the poppy was a symbol hijacked by the establishment to give those deaths glory and con yet another generation into being cannon fodder.
I don't recall Wildfred Owen getting a knock on the door when he wrote Dulce Et Decorum Est.... but in some circumstances the meaning could be construed as exactly the same as a burning poppy.

[ichkeria]

No, within reason. There's a difference between censoring an offending item (often a sensible approach) and censuring the originator of that item, especially arresting them.

[Old_Geezer]

I think it depends on the particular incident. One has a right to post and also a responsibility not to deliberately cause upset others too. Each incident needs to be judged on it's own merits. Is it a case of some viewers being too sensitive, or one of the poster trying to cause offense ? Society has to decide what falls where.

[LazyGun]

Its something of a fine line. It comes down to this: What you post to a Facebook page, or post on twitter, is the equivalent of walking down your high street,bawling out your opinions through a loudhailer, or parading an image on a sandwich board to all and sundry, endlessly.

So everyone should exercise caution before they post- think before they broadcast their opinion, but ultimately, we should robustly defend the principle of free speech and free expression, and we should not let voices and opinions be neutered just because others might be offended.

And if we are happy to support the publication of, say, cartoons of Mohammed, then we should also be equally happy if others wish to post a burning poppy, or a burning flag.

Only when speech or images posted are clearly outside the law or are a clear example of hate speech or an incitement to violent action should posts be censored, and action taken against the poster, and obviously there will be some discrepancy since a decision on such issues is always going to have an element of subjectivity about it.

For example, it was clearly outside the law to post on twitter the ID of a rape victim, as happened recently. I don't think posting a picture of a burning poppy should be censored.

[McMouse]

//Do We Have The Right Not To Be Upset?//

Yes, I do have the right not to be upset, just like I also have the right to be upset.

[sandyRoe]

If we want to continue to enjoy free speech we need to know that we're sometimes going to hear, and see, things that offend us.

[Khandro]

It's inevitable that someone somewhere, is going to be upset by almost any image, it all depends on motivation; to display an image on the internet - or anywhere else - with the clear intention of offending and upsetting someone should, in my opinion, be an offence.

[LazyGun]

Pop goes the principle of free speech in KhandroWorld then. The right not to suffer an attack of the vapours triumphs over the need to express yourself without censorship.

[jake-the-peg]

So If I change my Avatar to a picture of a burning poppy and someone complains should I be arrested and charged with mailcious telecommunications?

What about if I change it to a cartoon of Mohammed?

[LazyGun]

No in either case, but I suspect in the current environment that you may experience the attentions of plod.

[douglas9401]

We have the right not to be told to be upset by professional agitators trawling (and trolling) for something that can be misrepresented and blown out of all proportion.

[ludwig]

// Do we have the right not to be upset? //

No. I thought this was ridiculous. Apparently 1 person complained about the burning poppy image. There's obviously a line to be drawn somewhere about what is legally and morally publishable in public, but this surely falls way short of it on both counts.

[Khandro]

LG. //Pop goes the principle of free speech in KhandroWorld then// No not at all. I withdraw "or anywhere else" though, as it lacks qualification and it really depends on where and how. The anonimity of the internet can be a safe-haven for cowards who lack the ability to argue their views, and instead post offensive material for the sole purpose of offending and causing distress, is this something you wish to support?

[Zacs-Master]

define 'upsets'. This is the weak point in the OP. What upsets one person may well be completely acceptable to others. Unless the joining procedure for FB extends to a psychosometric test for each user with appropriate filters, it is not possible.