Morkonan wrote: Chips wrote:
But, isn't "intent" a critical part of UK law in this regard?
Nope. At least, not as far as I am aware.
But, that's what the entry in the Wiki that you posted directly states.[...]
Wikipedia article wrote:[...]words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace[...]
Yes, "intent or likely." That "or likely" relies on the defendant's own interpretation, doesn't it?
His intent and the obvious interpretation of his own actions inasmuch as what he thought the result would be is... "a joke." He obviously didn't "likely" think that posting it would be harassment, alarm, distress, etc...
I have no working, colloquial, familiarity with the word "cheeky" and its use in the UK. I've heard it, of course, in many movies and have read it in several forms, but I'm not intimate with its interpretation. Here's a standard: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/cheeky
I assume that's basically a correct interpretation?
If that is the case, then couldn't this behavior, isolated in context between himself and his girlfriend, be considered "cheeky behavior" and it's intent not to actually result in some hefty negative repercussions, but just as a bit of an intimate joke? I assume he wasn't trying to get rid of her.
I still think it was a dumb thing to do. I wholeheartedly agree that he was stupid. I also hope that his girlfriend slapped him in her outrage... (Not promoting assault or abuse!
) And, I really don't understand why anyone watches his youtube channel. I'm also not trying to actively defend him, since I, too, have emotions and enjoy, somewhat, seeing him get his comeuppance...
But, it is a case of law. The government, apparently, considers this a crime worthy of punishment and I do find that concerning. I'm also trying to understand how those who are more intimate with those laws and used to their specific implementation feel about this. :This constitutes my "disclaimer" for presenting an opposing argument.