My T-Shirt Went to Peterborough and All I Got Was an £80 Fine
Juliet Samuel | August 15, 2007, 8:18am
The BBC’s “
WHO, WHAT, WHY?” magazine section brings us the story of Mr. Pratt, of Peterborough, England, fined for his "offensive" t-shirt:
He thought it was a bit of a laugh, but Peterborough City Council failed to see the funny side of David Pratt's T-shirt. He has been threatened with a £80 penalty notice after wearing a top with the slogan: "Don't piss me off! I am running out of places to hide the bodies.” After an official complaint was made to the council, street wardens told Mr Pratt his T-shirt could cause offence or incite violence. He faces an on-the-spot fine from the police if he wears it again.
And he’s not the only one. The article goes on to list a bunch of objects that were censored by police, mostly after complaints by nosy members of the public: A toddler’s t-shirt with the word “sperm” on it; a pub sign featuring the word “faggot;” and an fcuk (French Connection U.K.) t-shirt picturing a copulating couple:
Using threatening, abusive, or insulting language is a criminal offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, even if it's printed on a T-shirt. This applies in England and Wales, in Scotland such an incident would be classed as breach of the peace, says the Law Society of Scotland.
It is not necessary for someone to have made an official complaint for the police to act, they just have to think it might offend a hypothetical third party, says criminal solicitor Louise Christian.
James Anderson Merritt | August 15, 2007, 9:31am | #
JW wrote, "Unfortunately, Europe seems to be the beta test for just about every bad idea to import over the pond."
This never ceases to ... er ... piss me off. We fought a war of independence so that Americans could live in America and do things their own way, but then we turn right around almost immediately, and start up the pressure to act just like all of the other nations. Said pressure has become particularly acute in the most recent few decades.
It reminds me of teenagers, who rebel against their parents, only to embrace the "individuality" of looking or acting like every other participant in the trends and fads de jour.
I'm not saying that foreigners, Europeans especially, cannot have good ideas and get things right once in a while. But it is a profoundly wrong thing to point to the "experience" of other nations and suggest that we should pattern our own accordingly, just because their approaches seem to "work." The things their societies and governments do -- and get away with -- are based on a fundamentally different set of assumptions about the individual's relationship to the government, and the government's relationship to the people. The more we act like all the other nations, the more we must abandon our fundamental assumptions, or at least contort them to a point that would sadden and confuse those who fought and died for American liberty down through the years.
We face many problems that other nations also face. But our solutions need to be uniquely American in order for us to preserve and enrich our legacy of liberty. As we adopt more and more approaches that were born in more authoritarian states (or seemingly benign states that are nevertheless founded on authoritarian assumptions), we can't help but become more authoritarian, too. So let's knock it off, already!
But assuming that people WON'T knock it off, then tell me, which is the better response to the foolishness: getting pissed (British), or getting pissed (American)? If we don't respond at all, of course, we'll all be pissed ON.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
