The concept of an internationally enforceable law against verbal impoliteness and offense raises several important considerations:
Freedom of Speech: Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right recognized by international law and many national constitutions. It allows individuals to express their ideas, opinions, and emotions freely. Introducing a law that restricts verbal expression, even if impolite or offensive, could be seen as infringing upon this right.
Subjectivity and Cultural Differences: What one culture or individual considers impolite or offensive may be entirely different from another's perspective. Defining and enforcing a standard for politeness across diverse cultures and societies would be a complex and challenging task.
Practicality and Implementation: Enforcing laws against verbal impoliteness and offense would require significant resources and monitoring mechanisms. It may also raise questions about how to differentiate between genuine cases of harm and mere disagreements or misunderstandings.
Slippery Slope: Introducing laws to regulate speech, even with good intentions, can create a slippery slope where governments might misuse such laws to suppress dissent and control public discourse. It could lead to censorship and violations of civil liberties.
Education and Social Change: Instead of relying on legal enforcement, promoting education and social awareness about the impact of words and respectful communication might be more effective in fostering a culture of empathy and understanding.
Existing Legal Frameworks: Many countries already have laws against hate speech, harassment, and defamation, which cover certain aspects of offensive verbal behavior. These laws aim to protect individuals from harm and ensure a civil society without impeding free expression entirely.
In summary, while the intention to create a more polite and respectful global society is commendable, implementing an internationally enforceable law against verbal impoliteness and offense raises significant challenges related to freedom of speech, cultural differences, practicality, and potential misuse of power. It might be more effective to focus on education, promoting empathy, and upholding existing legal frameworks that address harmful speech without compromising fundamental human rights.