SNP to outlaw smutty innuendo

The Scottish government intend to outlaw smutty innuendo. The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill, due to become law in September, includes provision for a new offence of “communicating indecently”. The Bill reads:

If a person (“A”), intentionally and for a purpose mentioned in subsection (3), sends, by whatever means, a sexual written communication to or directs, by whatever means, a sexual verbal communication at, another person (“B”)—

(a) without B consenting to its being so sent or directed, and

(b) without any reasonable belief that B consents to its being so sent or directed,

then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of communicating indecently.

If this was enforced rigidly, most of my friends would be in prison. These luddites aren’t living in the 20th century, let alone the 21st. Are the Scottish government actually insane? Or do they merely hate free speech and civil liberties? Either way, this is an absurd law.

As Reuben Bard-Rosenberg of OurKingdom points out, if someone says something sexual to you that you don’t like, you can always tell them to fuck off.

About these ads
This entry was posted in politics, Scotland, war on civil liberties and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to SNP to outlaw smutty innuendo

  1. Pingback: Raoul Moat and Facebook « Amused Cynicism

  2. gwenhwyfaer says:

    Doesn’t “fuck off” itself fall foul of this proposal?

    • cabalamat says:

      I think so. Arguably, the law applies to itself — it’s (1) communication, and (2) sexual (it talks about sex all over the place).

  3. gmda says:

    A quick read of the referenced subsection (3) makes a nonsense of your point, unless you happen to actually gain sexual gratification from making innuendo, or you’re attempting to humiliate or embarrass the other party.

    • cabalamat says:

      Gmda: A quick read of the referenced subsection (3) makes a nonsense of your point

      Er, which point? I’ve made several.

      unless you happen to actually gain sexual gratification from making innuendo, or you’re attempting to humiliate or embarrass the other party.

      Who’s to know what motives one had for saying something? Or what inferences a jury will draw?

      Actually I think sunsection 3 to be the most illiberal part of the whole thing, since it attempts to criminalise certain thoughts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s