Some theses about that, how to properly conduct a discussion, so as not to be prosecuted for humiliation, dignity and business reputation of the opponent

(exclusively on the rights of humor)

Some times are gone, when the courts were flooded with lawsuits from vulnerable citizens, which took the crooked word in their address more painfully, than a punch. And they went to court against the offenders. I once asked one such plaintiff:

- That, it turns out, that during the quarrel Mykola only called you, and Ivan also struck. So?

- And so…

- And why do you want to sue only with Nikolay, and you do not want to bring Ivan to justice?

- Well, because Nicholas is? Is it wrapping me up again, that's it. And Ivan can give in the face again. I need it?

Then the authorities understood, that something must be done with moral sufferers who are infringed upon with honor and dignity. And first set normal rates of court fees for going to court. And then the category of "evaluative judgment" appeared in the courts - this is when the defendant had enough to prove, that expression or phrase, which offended the plaintiff to the point of mental disorder, confirmed by a medical opinion - this is not a statement of fact, but only an assessment of a phenomenon. And that's all: for evaluative judgments were not punished.

And then the plaintiffs understood: judges for the most part will not believe the arguments, that the word spoken or written has caused such severe stress and health problems, that they can be cured only by applying large sums of money. And the sufferers understood, that the expected moral damage of millions of hryvnias is fantastic, at best, you can count on some 2-5 thousands. And this is not worth the lengthy litigation, nerves and all that dirt, which fell on the plaintiff during the proceedings (especially, if the plaintiff is an official).

Yet the average citizen cannot restrain himself, so as not to call on the authorities with a sharp word. In the vast majority of cases, the government is guided by the principle "The dog barks - and the budget is still sawing".

True, not then, when the official was called a gandon. The local court can then prosecute the chatterbox, leading, in particular, such a rationale:

According to the dictionary of obscene words and expressions, the term "gondon" means: 1) condom, 2) bad person.
According to the Wikipedia dictionary, "gondon" is bad, unpleasant, hanger, asshole.
Considering the above, the court considers the expression "handon" to be an offensive word, and therefore considers PERSON1 guilty of committing an administrative offense, provided for in Art. 173 KUPAP, which is the basis for bringing him to administrative responsibility.

But there is a higher justice and an appeals court, which is nevertheless comprehensive, full, objectively, and with a proper study of all case materials figured it out and installed it, that an idiot is not an asshole (as the local court erroneously noted), A French writer:

…case materials testify … that with the phrase "gandon" in the context of the conversation, PERSON_1 compared PERSON_2 to the French science fiction writer "Yves Gandon", because he thought, that he tells fantastic things.
All doubts about the proven guilt of a person, are interpreted in her favor, and because of the convincing evidence that, that PERSON_1 , saying the word "handon", wanted to thereby offend PERSON_2 , and did not mention the name of the French science fiction writer, are absent in the case file, then all doubts about it are resolved in favor of the person involved.

So, as the Russians say, “Gandon is an elastic concept”. And since this decision of the appellate court is final and not subject to appeal, it is so, which forms law enforcement practice. And it also brings a lot of enlightenment, because it was thanks to the appeal court that the people of Ukraine learned about the French writer.

In the context of the above, it is impossible not to mention another person, whose name is often heard, but few people know about the life path of this person. Born in Naples, in the sculptor's family, the man came to Petersburg at the beginning of the reign of Empress Anna Ioannivna - as a musician. But a musical career did not happen, and later our hero agreed to be a court jester. Thanks to wit and cleverness, made a brilliant career in this field (true, did not become president - probably, just because, that then the form of government was different and monarchs were born, rather than being elected). He soon became a favorite of the empress and her constant partner during card games. Having made a fortune, he returned to his homeland after the death of the empress.

At court, he was nicknamed "Adam", "Adamka", "Antonio", "Antony" and "Petrushka". But his real name was Petro-Mira Pedrillo.

So if in a dispute you understand, that you cannot do without allegories and comparisons, and your opponent is clearly not Aristotle or Descartes, you can compare him with other personalities, whose life path will enable you to prove in court, that you by no means meant anything offensive.

In some cases, to avoid the risk of being accused, the following strategy will be appropriate. They talk about it, that after one military meeting Marshal Zhukov left Stalin's office angry and spoke: "That mustachioed devil!» Security chief, who heard it, immediately reported to Stalin. He calls Zhukov and asks:

— Comrade Zhukov, and who did you mean by the phrase "devil with a mustache"?

- How is it - who? Hitler, Of course!

Stalin, addressing the head of security:

- Who were you thinking about??

So be careful in your expressions and be sure to prepare for discussions: study historical and not very figures, to freely criticize them by their names, who is worthy of it. And in case, if you are still dragged to court, choose the right defense strategy.