The very first panel states "The government can't arrest you for what you say." Where's the misunderstanding?
I'd be pretty surprised if Randall Munroe was in favor of this verdict.
Man who taught dog Nazi salute found guilty of hate crime
- Thread starter EightBitNate
- Start date
The very first panel states "The government can't arrest you for what you say." Where's the misunderstanding?
I'd be pretty surprised if Randall Munroe was in favor of this verdict.
Absurd as in dogs weren't used to hunt down slaves or even as recently to attack blacks marching during civil rights? Hell wasnt it just a couple months ago a police officer was egging his dog on to maul a black man that was already in custody?
Totally think the guy is a douche and personally think he deserves everything he's getting but legally, I think this is a slippery slope. Its unreasonable and a colossal waste of resources for the government to be babysitting every shitty youtube poster out there.
If the government can intervene at all, then it's censorship.
I agree with you, there should be more focused put on what happens online when it comes to radicalization. People like Evalion and other alt-right personalities (not alt-light) should be on some sort of watchlist in the same way people making pro-ISIS videos should. I'm conflicted on where to go from there because I acknowledge the issues with freedom in general, but these are unambiguously hateful people that are absolutely in favor of some sort of terrorism.
A guy making his pug do a Nazi salute does NOT pass the smell test here.
I've actually found another video of some idiot in the UK doing this. Someone should forward it to the police.
At least some comments are funny.... but the follow up....
But more importantly, what the fuck is this lmao? That came out of Australia. Crazy Aussies.
That's why I said it depends on the breed of dog. Just like the joke this thread is about would be a lot less funny if it was a mean-looking German Shepherd instead of a pug (though still funny).
A happy, goofy-looking lab or golden retriever with a kkk hood on just scratching his head to get it off or whatever is hilarious to me in the same way the pug is. It's an ignorant animal that has no idea what's going on and might be associating something awful with something positive because it has no concept of human morality.
I don't expect you to agree with my sense of humor, so I'm not sure how explaining again and again why I find something funny is relevant and not a waste of time. People have different senses of humor, and that's fine.
I've actually found another video of some idiot in the UK doing this. Someone should forward it to the police.
At least some comments are funny.... but the follow up....
But more importantly, what the fuck is this lmao? That came out of Australia. Crazy Aussies.
... That second video.... What the fuck is that hahaha
People do really want the censorship government. While in some countries like China it is implemented silently behind people's back and people on the west condemn that - in the west itself (though not in all countries) people are asking the government to do exactly that and get the power to enforce allowed speech.
Also we are close to "government approved social behaviour" state lol
Also we are close to "government approved social behaviour" state lol
The UK Government has actually made YouTube block the video for what it is worth
Original link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus
What is displayed if you try to view it in the UK
The UK Government can issue court orders to block things online, hence how The Pirate Bay and a whole host of other torrent and streaming sites are ISP level blocked.
This is why the snoopers charter and porn bill aren't things people are singing and dancing about.
I have no idea but it's pretty mental. Sexy bitch mode activated!
The UK Government has actually made YouTube block the video for what it is worth
Original link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus
What is displayed if you try to view it in the UK
The UK Government can issue court orders to block things online, hence how The Pirate Bay and a whole host of other torrent and streaming sites are ISP level blocked.
This is why the snoopers charter and porn bill aren't things people are singing and dancing about.
Well, now, THAT looks like censorship. Whether I agree with it or not is for another thread, I guess. The charges against him are not censorship, though.
It's preemptive censorship as it makes a string of words (considered offensive by a governing body) illegal to say. It's not media censorship, but it's still an infringement on free expression, which is effectively a form of censorship.
We're kind of arguing semantics here though. The point of the thread is whether the charges are warranted or not.
just for the record, i want to state (again) that that post was only directed at a few posters who i see popping up over and over again in different topics and, by complete coincidence i am sure, always end up siding with the racists again and again. the post wasn't directed at everyone disagreeing with me on the topic this thread concerns; in fact it was directed at only a tiny fraction of them
i found something interesting reading the wikipedia article on hate speech laws in the uk
to start with this is the hate speech law in general. i bolded the part that is different between uk and us
(i just wanted to clarify for those still confused by the difference between us hate speech and eu hate speech that speech doesn't have to literally incite violence to be considered hate speech in europe. insulting speech against racial groups is enough if such speak is intended to cause distress, which hilarious "burn the jews" jokes probably would for jews. to prove that this was his intention, one could use his twitter feed where he frequently posts bigoted posts.)
now as to your point specifically, there was also this section of the wikipedia article:
so it is possible that this hate speech law does not apply in scotland where i think this person was tried. i am only a layperson and haven't been able to google forth an answer to what applies to scotland. the wikipedia article is a bit useless in this regard and doesn't say what the specific law is in scotland. maybe an actual uk (though welsh i think?) legal expert like phisheep may be able to shine some light on it. maybe legislation of hate speech is unclear in scotland and that is why they're using the communications act instead?
well, if you follow that quote chain back it started with someone saying that it's only hate speech if it incites violent. i was only responding to that, to eurosplain that well actually the law is more general here in europe. i wasn't really trying to say that that law was used in this case. to make the purpose of my post clear i even quoted that initial post thinking that by doing so no one could possibly misunderstand what very specific point i was responding to. but clearly, you still found a way.
anyway i looked up the communications law now anyway and again found some interesting information on wikipedia:
so i bolded a few snippets that are interesting.
i bolded the first part because i think it pertains to the discussion i had earlier with Audioboxer about the case with someone being prosecuted for posting publicly online a picture of a specific police officer with a dick drawn on top. i said that such behaviour was problematic because it attacked an individual (as opposed to a dick drawn on a picture of a generic police badge) and wanted to point out that the law clearly considered this distinction between comments against individuals and general comments. whether you think it's right that it is illegal or not, i can see how publicly posting a picture of an individual with a dick drawn on top could be considered such harassment targeting an individual
i bolded the second part to specifically point out that, unlike what some posters claim, this law is not going to be used target any joke that may be offensive to some. prosecutors who would use the law to prosecute someone need to prove that doing so is indeed proportional. so rest assured ,you will be able to keep saying that Boris Johnson is a cunt (if such is your want) in the future without facing prosecution. the third bolded part clarifies that comments targeting minorities are considered more aggravating. given this, i don't disagree with the court's judgement that this falls under the law in question.
to sum up, for those of you genuinely fearing being prosecuted under this law in the future (and who are not in fact secret racists) just avoid publicly targeting identifiable non-public individuals in a disproportionate manner or publicly making bigoted comments or jokes about minorities and you will assuredly be fine!
i think that the ACLU has a very specific mission, which is to protect the liberties granted by the us constitution bill of rights. this includes the us interpretation of free speech which is more broad (in my opinion too broad) than the european interpretation of free speech which has broader restrictions against hate speech. frankly, i don't see how the ucla is relevant in this current discussion about a european case at all
Last edited:
There was a topic on this forum the other day with one comment that China's ID laws might actually be okay to completely remove any online anonymity. Like, people know bad comes with the good of being able to use an avatar online, but FFS, allowing the state to mandate what is essentially mass-doxxing? Cmon. There are better ways to tackle shit online, just as there are reasonable ways for some speech regulation without going overboard to ask the state to play big brother/adults daycare advisor.
"Good intentions" shouldn't necessarily be what write actual laws and state powers that can and will be used against citizens. The world is not a perfect place, and anyone's political side is not always in power (unless you do live in China/North Korea), nor are they immune from making mistakes.
It doesn't meet the definition of censorship. It's impossible to preemptively censor someone from doing what this guy did, in this day and age. Now, HE can choose to self-censor, but that's not the standard definition of censorship.
This IS a free speech issue. People rallying around free speech when there's non-legal consequences, yeah those people are either alt-right dipshits or have been fooled by them in an attempt to normalize awful behavior. This is not that, this is something actually be prosecuted for words. How is that not a free speech issue?
I decided to look for the act itself to find out what he was charged for but I can't see anything that fits the bill.
Why does that law seem so vague and open to interpretation?
I don't make a habit of reading too many laws in detail, but look at that second section.
It feels like this law was written to accommodate telecommunications or individualised circumstances (e.g. prank calling) rather than general Internet usage as it stands in 2018.
It primarily was but it is increasingly being used for internet offences
https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003/Section_127
It primarily was but it is increasingly being used for internet offences
https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003/Section_127
So this really seems like an edge case which could quite easily have been dismissed by the court - especially in light of the interim guidelines which require the incident to be more than offensive/shocking.
Sounds like there needs to be some further clarification on what is deemed to be "more than" offensive/shocking in instances like this.
Edit: Is there any difference in the way this is applied/can be applied in a Scottish court?
Fair enough, but that doesn't stop the several other left organizations and people including plenty of the "SJW Youtube sphere" like H. Bomberguy not being cool with this verdict.
The "you're standing beside Nazis!" defense is a bad one because it poisons the well on any kind of discussion. It makes it seem like this is a much different issue when it's 100% based on civil liberties that people left, right and center are all in favor of. "I don't like what you said, but I'll defend your right to say it" should NOT be a partisan statement, it should just be common sense because there's both historical and modern precedent for when that right ISN'T available.
Okay, since getting caught up, I've seen you repeat this over and over again when it's just not true in this particular case.
The far right frames everything as a free speech issue in a disingenuous appeal to emotion over rights being violated. The thing is most of those are NOT free speech issues.
Getting banned from a social media service: not a free speech issue
People criticizing you for what you're saying: not a free speech issue
Getting removed from some campus speaking event: not a free speech issue
Getting kicked off private property for words: not a free speech issue
Getting deplatformed in any way: not a free speech issue
Being arrested for what you're saying: A FREE SPEECH ISSUE
You want to agree with this verdict? Fine. But it means that you're not cool with the level of free speech that is being argued in favor of in this thread. This is one of the few times the right that labels everything a free speech issue would actually be correct. And they'd be 100% in the right for doing so because this IS a problem. Now they have a martyr as well as a sizable amount of people to point to and say "see, they actually DON'T believe in free speech!" This is really fucking bad for the future of discourse like this and will just keep the right winning because sometimes all you need is just one point to win a game, and this is a point that they've won wholeheartedly.
And as the main target for those deep in these people's ideologies, that is fucking terrifying.
I don't think so, but I'll check if any devolved powers can change this.
Whilst I try to check due to the Monthy Python topic, and the content of this topic, I'll leave this here for an actual humorous sketch
You mean someone who isn't part of the Alex Jones network on YouTube said something?
But yeah, apparently so
"I don't agree with them but I support their right to say it" universally translates to "I actually do support the hate speech they say but I'm trying to be low key racist here, don't put the spotlight on me" in 2018.
I think you're right. It's fairly old and it represents a gradual evolution from earlier laws that were aimed at inappropriate use of telephone lines.
But what has changed here? Does the ability of the defendant to reach millions of people make the damage more or less than when the offence was strictly person to person?
Sure. Note that the narrative appears to be that 2017 is significantly worse than 2016 (or at least what I am saying is the narrative. If that's not the narrative, then the data is what the data is) in terms of white supremacy.
The other thing I couldn't quite reverse engineer is what subgroups comprise the supergroup White Supremacists so that it was only a difference of 1 (as the 2018 report states) between 2016 and 2017, so I am just running with the number of White Supremacist groups has not materially changed since it only went down by 1.
Using the SPLC numbers for 2016 and 2017
SPLC Numbers for 2016
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2017/active-hate-groups-2016
SPLC Numbers for 2017
https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map/by-ideology (I'm lazy and assuming March 2018 is close enough to Dec 2017)
Note on the data - it appears that groups can and do appear in multiple categories. I don't have the physical issue so I can't state for sure how they went about it.
Key -
NN - Neo-Nazi
WN - White Nationalist
SH - Skinhead
NC - Neo-Confederate
AI - Anti Immigrant
AM - Anti-Muslim
AL - Anti-LGBT
BN - Black Nationalist
AG - Anti-Government
Group 2016 2017
NN 99 121
WN 98 100
SH 78 71
NC 42 31
Clan 130 72
AI 14 22
AM 101 114 (note, this went from 34 in 2015 to 101 in 2016 if I am reading it right)
AL 52 51
BN 193 233
AG 623 689
Total 917 954
Largest Raw Increase (if they do not appear, then they went down)
AG 623 689 66
BN 193 233 40
NN 99 121 22
AM 101 114 13
AI 14 22 8
Largest % Increase (if they do not appear, they went down)
Group 2016 2017 % Increase
AI 14 22 57.14%
NN 99 121 22.22%
BN 193 233 20.73%
AM 101 114 12.87%
AG 623 689 10.59%
WN 98 100 2.04%
Sorry, tables are hard in here.
EDIT: the SPLC report itself gives important context and connections to these numbers that is important for understanding. Please read before jumping to any conclusions.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2018/2017-year-hate-and-extremism
For instance - about the anti-government increase - they posit a hypothesis that is worth checking out over time (ie, do anti-muslim groups start increasing proportionally to anti-government groups repeatedly, etc)
Last edited:
Speaking to someone on the phone means directly targetting someone, same goes for leaving a voicemail on an answering machine belonging to someone. Uploading a video to your own YouTube that someone has to go and watch where you don't directly name anyone, link them, call them out, identify them and so on is slightly different than a phonecall or text message which is by its nature directly sending whatever you send to someone else.
Normally under hate speech laws credible threats or direct engagement/harassment is looked for. Which is why this ultimately fell under the communications act for being grossly offensive. Not the racial and religious act.
No it fucking doesn't. Don't put words in people mouths.
Free speech isn't an all-encompassing legal precedent. There have always been exceptions, which in turn varies from country to country. Acknowledging that while also mocking conservatives who are ironically too sensitive to being told they're bigoted that they cry about non-existent free speech violations doesn't make one a hypocrite.
Well yeah. It is an example basically - people want to deanonimize the Internet because they seems not to be affected but...Most of medical forums and others will become dead because people won't want to share the problems because other people will be able to easily identify them.
Maybe he should do a whole series of Animals React to Bigotry with something for everyone, prove he's a man of the people
Try learning what nuance is. They're defending a persons right to make a dumb joke. That is all.
Personally, in the context of this specific case, I'd argue that it makes the damage less.
If that video was sent to an individual (maybe a minority) then that comes across as quite menacing.
I'm not sure if that applies so much on a larger platform.
The former would certainly seem to go further than just being offensive/unpleasant, which is what the law refers to.
Just my view though and I'm no legal expert. I just find it quite fascinating tbh.
Ah yes the straight white conservative male humor that targets minorities in despicable and violent ways, but then when a "white people" joke is dropped within earshot suddenly HOW DARE YOU. Seen it before, this shit isn't going to stand moving ahead into the future. Get used to not targeting minorities with hate speech or go to jail, it's not hard. The only people with difficulty are racists. What's your difficulty with it again?
What are you talking about?
Who's complaining about white people jokes in here?
Probably not wanting to set precedent that limits people's free speech even if the offender in this case actually is a shitty person.
But that's not what this is about, this is about something that would fall under a non-existent free speech violation if there was no legal action and the guy started saying "you're violating my freedom of speech!" to anyone calling him racist over the joke. Because there is legal action, it is a free speech violation as understood by many people including what is depicted in that comic.
Stop it with this disingenuous strawman shit, it's getting old and adding nothing to the discussion.
You don't know me, and you don't know any of the posters that have defended his right to tell a joke. You're making dumb assumptions that don't ring true in the slightest.
"YOU WANNA GAS THE JEWS? GAS THE JEWS"
There is no straw man. Just pure unadulterated hate coming from one side aimed at everyone who is not them. What's it going to take for people like you to open your eyes and ears and see what's really happening here? How many people have to die at their hands before you stop and go "maybe this shit is actually influencing people in a horrible way"?
Those white people jokes are precisely why this is an awful precedent to set. You think people wouldn't ban those types of jokes too?
The historical precedent here is that these types of laws where the government gets the final word on offense are generally used as a cudgel to maintain the status quo, not a force for good to push progress along. This is why people are so protective of freedom of speech, because we KNOW what happens when it gets thrown out and it isn't pretty.
Well, several people brought up the "#killallwhitemen" woman a few times. Somehow I doubt it would have been vigorously defended as just a joke if she'd taught a cat to meow in response while repeating it, but I could be wrong
You don't seem to realize that people can then also be sent to jail for a "white people" joke.
Edit: ah saw your other post, so you just want to send everyone to jail, lol
Last edited:
Well, at least you're consistent. We'll just have to agree to disagree here because we're fundamentally opposed on how we view free speech.
It was vigorously defended in the old place as far as I remember, however, the thread was shorter because there were fewer people defending the states actions back then. Those would have been banned anyway.