• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
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

People on NeoGAF were defending it, you can go check that topic. I pointed out earlier tips sent to the police are fine to check out, but thankfully that case was dropped (I think it was anyway) after it was clear her intent was not actually to go on a killing spree. She didn't need a criminal record for a #killallwhitemen tweet. Not if there wasn't credible evidence of an actual threat, and a hashtag like that is not directly targetting anyone. White men aren't a single entity.

Bahar Mustafa was charged in October 2015[29] for threatening communications on a social media platform. The wording of the statement made by the police[30] suggested two separate charges, one under Section 127 and another under the Malicious Communications Act. It was widely speculated that the communications were relating to the hashtag "#killallwhitemen".

Most people that end up tweeting stuff like that take a beating online and maybe get fired from their job. I'm not convinced in a case like #killallwhitemen after its apparent its attention seeking, should result in a criminal record or jail sentence.
 
Oct 29, 2017
3,166
"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"?

Yes, Im totally sure that he was making a very serious political statement about how he really sees the world while talking to his pug and was in no way trying to be an edgelord.
 

Kinthey

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
22,328
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
Isn't it just brought up as an example that this type of law hits against "both sides"?
 

Krauser Kat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,701
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.
but funny videos are being used to recruit and make nazism palatable to the masses. These groups do end up killing people and have killed people in the past. what people in here are saying "its a joke" is giving cover for propaganda that maybe not this video but has had real world effects of radicalizing young men. "its a joke" is not a cover for this. These things keep being jokes until someone ends up dead.

THIS IS NOT A JOKE. someone died that day and to some people its still just a joke.
 

zashga

Losing is fun
Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,202
This story is weird. In principle I disagree with jailing someone for "grossly offensive" speech, but:

1) This is a UK law and I don't live there
2) It's incredibly hard to feel any sympathy for this guy in particular

As an American, I don't feel any need to defend the guy since what he did wouldn't be illegal here. Stupid, yes. Unfunny, yes. Career-limiting, yes. Illegal, no. That's as far as I care to comment, because I find it impossible to argue that another country's laws should change to protect this asshole.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,784
but funny videos are being used to recruit and make nazism palatable to the masses. These groups do end up killing people and have killed people in the past. what people in here are saying "its a joke" is giving cover for propaganda that maybe not this video but has had real world effects of radicalizing young men. "its a joke" is not a cover for this. These things keep being jokes until someone ends up dead.

THIS IS NOT A JOKE. someone died that day and to some people its still just a joke.


That's not what this thread is about though.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,338
United Kingdom

Ahem...
OoSYmXZ.jpg
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,705


it does irritate me that THIS is apparently the flagship case - hmmm i wonder why the self-proclaimed free speech absolutists appear to only be mobilizing in this case:

charitable answer: its because of their awareness towards the implication of their physical attributes - they could theoretically be misconstrued as a nazi, but could never be misconstrued as a minority protesting for their civil rights - and so thus they prioritize cases that could potentially affect them

uncharitable answer: they support only the group they are in ideological alignment with

THAT SAID:

i agree that these sort of laws need to be implemented very carefully, because often times conservatives with their socially conservative views are elected

hate speech laws are important, and its going to require some navigation to deal with the edge cases - let's carefully write laws that conservatives cannot use against marginalized people

from what i've read, this particular case could set a bad precedent rife for abuse, and that concerns me
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
No, this thread is about government intervention over something that shouldn't have government intervention. I think a large majority of the people against the verdict in this thread probably think Dankula is a racist dumbass.

He's probably the reason the English would support Scottish Independence to kick Scotland out of the UK.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,053
Oh, just play it safe and ban jokes. It's not like the people in favour of this will miss humour at all.

Who is straw manning again? Going from wanting hate speech banned to "aw screw it ban all jokes" is an intellectually dishonest take. Is it really that difficult for you to be funny without resorting to hate speech against people and calling for their mass extinction? You are defending calls for racial genocide.
 

King_Moc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,126
Who is straw manning again? Going from wanting hate speech banned to "aw screw it ban all jokes" is an intellectually dishonest take. Is it really that difficult for you to be funny without resorting to hate speech against people and calling for their mass extinction? You are defending calls for racial genocide.

It's almost like i was taking the piss or something. Still, you proved my point about not missing the humour.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,053
It's almost like i was taking the piss or something. Still, you proved my point about not missing the humour.

It's almost like you are trying to get out of replying to actual arguments by just hand waving everything with an attempted cute remark that had no relevancy to the situation.

You wanna try again or just admit what's really happening here
 

LL_Decitrig

User-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,334
Sunderland
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.

I don't think your understanding of hate speech is correct. Hate speech isn't about direct threats (that's harassment). It's not about targeting individuals at all. It's about incitement to hatred. "Gas the Jews" is a very obvious incitement to hatred (and worse), because it calls for the most awful imaginable crime to be committed against an entire group of people.
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
I don't think your understanding of hate speech is correct. Hate speech isn't about direct threats (that's harassment). It's not about targeting individuals at all. It's about incitement to hatred. "Gas the Jews" is a very obvious incitement to hatred (and worse), because it calls for the most awful imaginable crime to be committed against an entire group of people.

Intention. If you directly target someone it can more easily be argued you intended to stir up hate. The racial and religious hatred act is where more of the serious convictions land

The bill contains wording to amend the Public Order Act 1986:

  • Section 29A
    • Meaning of "religious hatred"
      • In this Part "religious hatred" means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.
  • Section 29B:
    • (1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
Critics of the Bill (before the amendments noted below, adding the requirement for the intention of stirring up hatred) asserted that the Act would make major religious works such as the Bible and the Quran illegal in their current form in the UK. Comedians and satirists also feared prosecution for their work. While sympathising with those who promoted the legislation, actor and comedian Rowan Atkinson said: "I appreciate that this measure is an attempt to provide comfort and protection to them but unfortunately it is a wholly inappropriate response far more likely to promote tension between communities than tolerance."[5] Leaders of major religions and race groups, as well as non-religious groups such as the National Secular Society and English PEN spoke out against the Bill.

Supporters of the Bill responded that all UK legislation has to be interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998, which guarantees freedom of religion and expression, and so denied that an Act of Parliament is capable of making any religious text illegal.

The House of Lords passed amendments[6][7] to the Bill on 25 October 2005 which have the effect of limiting the legislation to "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred". This removed the abusive and insulting concept, and required the intention — and not just the possibility — of stirring up religious hatred.

The Government attempted to overturn these changes, but lost the House of Commons votes on 31 January 2006.

One does have to question why this pug video did not fall under the racial and religious hatred act?

I didn't know about this

The Government attempted to overturn these changes, but lost the House of Commons votes on 31 January 2006.

Because the changes above were actually valid. Blasphemy laws serve no purpose in a civilised society. Intent of hatred should have to be identifiable before you potentially jail or go after someone when it comes to religion.

The other notable bill involves sexual discrimination

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986. The amended Part 3A adds, for England and Wales, the offence of inciting hatred on the ground of sexual orientation. All the offences in Part 3 attach to the following acts: the use of words or behaviour or display of written material, publishing or distributing written material, the public performance of a play, distributing, showing or playing a recording, broadcasting or including a programme in a programme service, and possession of inflammatory material. In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.[8]

Again

In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.[8]
 
Oct 25, 2017
21,466
Sweden
for people who pretend that hate speech against whites is not prosecuted, what do you think would be the reaction if someone who has a twitter history of retweeting not-explicitly-incitement-of-violence posts by ISIS were to make a hilarious youtube video where they teach their pet to respond with the one-finger ISIS salute to whenever he says "death to all imperialist infidels"? would you say that person should have a right to post that video without legal repercussions?
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,784
for people who pretend that hate speech don't apply to hate speech against whites, what do you think would be the reaction if someone who has a twitter history of retweeting not-explicitly-incitement-of-violence posts by ISIS were to make a hilarious youtube video where they teach their pet to respond with the one-finger ISIS salute to whenever he says "death to all imperialist infidels"

I think the reaction should be the same: shitty person, shouldn't be arrested.
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
for people who pretend that hate speech don't apply to hate speech against whites, what do you think would be the reaction if someone who has a twitter history of retweeting not-explicitly-incitement-of-violence posts by ISIS were to make a hilarious youtube video where they teach their pet to respond with the one-finger ISIS salute to whenever he says "death to all imperialist infidels"

Credible links to incitement of violence will always make things different. Although you might need to clarify what said tweets are. If they are beheadings or links to websites that have extremist content, it may make things different than a case about speech.

It may also depend on what they said at the start of the video, during it and at its end. Your scenario hasn't apparently happened yet, but there are example court cases already posted in this topic. Including the one you thought was valid which was the police officer snapchat dicks. Which I guess you can argue is a white officer having "hate speech" against him.

One of the acts above says this

In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.[8]

But there has still been some questionable cases

On 13 October 2001, Harry Hammond, an evangelist, was arrested and charged under section 5 of the Public Order Act (1986) because he had displayed to people in Bournemouth a large sign bearing the words "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord". In April 2002, a magistrate convicted Hammond, fined him £300, and ordered him to pay costs of £395.[11][12][13]

On 2 September 2006, Stephen Green was arrested in Cardiff for distributing pamphlets which called sexual activity between members of the same sex a sin. On 28 September 2006, the Crown advised Cardiff Magistrates Court that it would not proceed with the prosecution.[14][15]

On 8 December 2009, Mr Justice Richard Clancy, sitting at Liverpool Magistrates' Court, acquitted Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, hoteliers, of charges under the Public Order Act 1986 and under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Vogelensangs were charged after a guest at their hotel, Ericka Tazi, complained that the Vogelenzangs had insulted her after she appeared in a hijab.[16]

On 4 March 2010, a jury returned a verdict of guilty against Harry Taylor, who was charged under Part 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. Taylor was charged because he left anti-religious cartoons in the prayer-room of Liverpool's John Lennon Airport on three occasions in 2008. The airport chaplain, who was insulted, offended, and alarmed by the cartoons, called the police.[17][18][19] On 23 April 2010, Judge Charles James of Liverpool Crown Court sentenced Taylor to a six-month term of imprisonment suspended for two years, made him subject to a five-year Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) (which bans him from carrying religiously offensive material in a public place), ordered him to perform 100 hours of unpaid work, and ordered him to pay £250 costs. Taylor was convicted of similar offences in 2006.[20]

On 20 April 2010, police arrested Dale McAlpine, a Christian preacher, of Workington in Cumbria, for saying that homosexual conduct was a sin. On 14 May 2010, the Crown decided not to prosecute McAlpine.[21] Later still the police apologised to McAlpine for arresting him at all, and paid him several thousand pounds compensation.[22]

Predominantly around inconsistencies. Although like all speech laws amendments go on

In 2012, a campaign was launched by The Christian Institute to remove the word "insulting" from section 5 of the Public Order Act. The campaign was backed by a number of high-profile activists including comedian Rowan Atkinson and former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis. On 12 December 2012, the House of Lords voted in favour of amending the Public Order Act to remove the word "insulting". In January 2013, the government announced that it would accept the amendment, despite having previously opposed it. The amendment to the Public Order Act was duly passed into law, as section 57 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/22/section/57/enacted). Section 57 of the Act came into force on 1 February 2014.[10]
 
Last edited:

King_Moc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,126
It's almost like you are trying to get out of replying to actual arguments by just hand waving everything with an attempted cute remark that had no relevancy to the situation.

You wanna try again or just admit what's really happening here

Well, basically this probably (almost certainly tbh) racist dickhead in Scotland did a really shit joke. That's what happened here. Viewed in isolation (as it should be) I don't see the problem with the joke though. Sure, it's in very bad taste, but It's clearly an absurd juxtaposition of a particularly silly breed of dog with horrific right wing dogma for comic effect. You might not like it, but that's all it is.

Perfect post and avatar combo. Christopher Morris is an absolute legend.

Seeing his mug always reminds me of back in the day when Brasseye did a mock special on pedophiles with a huge chunk of the UK population not realizing it was a joke.

Cheers! He had to move to France for a few years after that, what with all the threats he was getting from people. The show was only actually offensive if you lacked the mental capacity to understand it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
21,466
Sweden
I think the reaction should be the same: shitty person, shouldn't be arrested.
then you are clearly naive and uneducated about the double standards for whites and people of colour. if you want to get a hint about what would happen, you could start by reading about the recent case of incredibly talented french "the voice" participant Mennel Ibtissem who was mass-harassed into quitting the show and her passion over (admittedly incredibly stupid and misguided) social media posts from a couple of years back about french terrorist attacks. i know, it's not a one-to-one comparison because it's about deprivation of platform (which she wasn't using to spread her opinions) rather than government action. but it as a potent illustration of the double standards in play. when young dumb white people make stupid arguably bigoted posts, they get social media followers and patreon supporters. when young dumb brown people make dumb arguably bigoted posts they get harassed out of the spotlight
Credible links to incitement of violence will always make things different. Although you might need to clarify what said tweets are. If they are beheadings or links to websites that have extremist content, it may make things different than a case about speech.
i went out of my way to say they had retweeted posts by isis leaders that were not about incitement to violence. say, maybe if they tweet out their absolutist views on consumption of drugs to their followers. i'd say that would be comparable to this situation with a guy who retweets posts by alt-right figureheads about free speech
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,784
then you are clearly naive and uneducated about the double standards for whites and people of colour. if you want to get a hint about what would happen, you could start by reading about the recent case of incredibly talented french "the voice" participant Mennel Ibtissem who was mass-harassed into quitting the show and her passion over (admittedly incredibly stupid and misguided) social media posts from a couple of years back about french terrorist attacks. i know, it's not a one-to-one comparison because it's about deprivation of platform (which she wasn't using to spread her opinions) rather than government action. but it as a potent illustration of the double standards in play. when young dumb white people make stupid arguably bigoted posts, they get social media followers and patreon supporters. when young dumb brown people make dumb arguably bigoted posts they get harassed out of the spotlight

I said that SHOULD be the reaction, I didn't say that's what it would be. I'm well aware of the disproportionate application of laws as well as the societal hypocrisy that comes with criticizing certain things. But I'm not those people. I'm consistent in my belief that these laws should be applied broadly and that what doesn't break it (freedom of speech) should similarly be applied broadly.

Don't call me naive over something I've researched at length.
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
then you are clearly naive and uneducated about the double standards for whites and people of colour. if you want to get a hint about what would happen, you could start by reading about the recent case of incredibly talented french "the voice" participant Mennel Ibtissem who was mass-harassed into quitting the show and her passion over (admittedly incredibly stupid and misguided) social media posts from a couple of years back about french terrorist attacks. i know, it's not a one-to-one comparison because it's about deprivation of platform (which she wasn't using to spread her opinions) rather than government action. but it as a potent illustration of the double standards in play. when young dumb white people make stupid arguably bigoted posts, they get social media followers and patreon supporters. when young dumb brown people make dumb arguably bigoted posts they get harassed out of the spotlight

i went out of my way to say they had retweeted posts by isis leaders that were not about incitement to violence. say, maybe if they tweet out their absolutist views on consumption of drugs to their followers. i'd say that would be comparable to this situation with a guy who retweets posts by all-right figureheads about free speech

The reason a lot of the right wing nut jobs manage to walk around as free citizens is because they know how to speak and say things without direct incitement. As above in the laws it often has to be proven you are intending to incite hatred, not just being abusive and insulting.

I'm not entirely sure the average ISIS leader does a good job of hiding their incitement, because a good few might actually have blood on their hands. I'm sure you know there are people on watch lists in the UK who are actually free people by all accounts because they cannot be arrested prior to there being justifiable cause? It's not always a clear case of you retweeted something so off to jail you go.

This was probably in the courts for 2 years till it was fought over what charge could stick. What has been handed out is a charge that has also been used in silly things like the Snapchat dicks and probably will only amount to fines and community service. However, a 6 month jail sentence is still possible.

The charge hasn't been on the grounds incitement or racial and religious hatred, but being offensive. Which is something many will debate about the validity of a Government having such power to convict and charge you of being offensive.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
21,466
Sweden
I said that SHOULD be the reaction, I didn't say that's what it would be. I'm well aware of the disproportionate application of laws as well as the societal hypocrisy that comes with criticizing certain things. But I'm not those people. I'm consistent in my belief that these laws should be applied broadly and that what doesn't break it (freedom of speech) should similarly be applied broadly.

Don't call me naive over something I've researched at length.
fair enough

but then we'll have to agree to disagree, because i'm also consistent in my views and think that someone with a history of retweeting ISIS leaders (even if the specific posts they retweet are not about violence) SHOULD be prosecuted if they upload a hilarious video where they teach their pet to respond with the one-finger ISIS salute to whenever they say "death to all imperialist infidels"
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
fair enough

but then we'll have to agree to disagree, because i'm also consistent in my views and think that someone with a history of retweeting ISIS leaders (even if the specific posts they retweet are not about violence) SHOULD be prosecuted if they upload a hilarious video where they teach their pet to respond with the one-finger ISIS salute to whenever they say "death to all imperialist infidels"

What are they being prosecuted for? Retweeting ISIS or the hilarious video? Also, is it stated at the beginning of the video its a joke about a terrible thing to wind up their girlfriend?

Meechan hasn't been charged for his twitter account, but this video.
 
Oct 25, 2017
21,466
Sweden
What are they being prosecuted for? Retweeting ISIS or the hilarious video? Also, is it stated at the beginning of the video its a joke about a terrible thing to wind up their girlfriend?
for the video where they hilariously repeat "death to all imperialist infidels" dozens of times. the twitter history would serve as part of the ancillary evidence to prove that they are likely to have had the intent to sow hatred, despite the limp-dick disclaimer at the start of the video that they are trying to wind up their brother that they used to try and cover their ass
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
for the video where they hilariously repeat "death to all imperialist infidels" dozens of times. the twitter history would serve as part of the ancillary evidence to prove that they are likely to have had the intent to sow hatred, despite the limp-dick disclaimer at the start of the video that they are trying to wind up their brother that they used to try and cover their ass

Well I guess if it's your court case you can decide! There might be different charges involved if your scenario involves people who do actually want to kill people, as retweeting ISIS members brings into the equation who are those people, what are they responsible for and what have they done. I'd like to think Twitter removes actual leaders of ISIS but who knows.

It is up to a court to be able to establish if someone actually intends to kill or injure others. Meechans tweets were not part of this court case though, as it was this video he was arrested for in 2016.

By all means if there is an actual case quite like that bring it up, as hypotheticals aren't necessarily solid for comparing to cases that are actually real.
 

Krauser Kat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,701
No, this thread is about government intervention over something that shouldn't have government intervention. I think a large majority of the people against the verdict in this thread probably think Dankula is a racist dumbass.

I guess this kicks the can to how blatant does nazi propaganda have to be before it becomes hate speech or inciting violence. But that isnt this debate and this video in itself isnt that bad but its part of a trend that helps nazis and their ilk. I think large platforms should be very wary of helping spread this. I do wish he would get community service or something, or a rough night one weekend when he finally "jokes" in front of people who give a shit about minorities.
 

Ravensmash

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,797
I will say that this thread made me think of Jimmy Carr, and I've just ended up watching his stand up on TV.

Dude is hilarious - no idea why I presumed I disliked his stuff before.
 

LL_Decitrig

User-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,334
Sunderland
Intention. If you directly target someone it can more easily be argued you intended to stir up hate. The racial and religious hatred act is where more of the serious convictions land

[I acknowledge with gratitude your many well researched quotes and citations, which conform with my personal memory of the struggles with this issue during the Blair years.]

What we've ended up with is a debate about freedom of expression that is carried out in the interplay between legislatures, courts, police and journalists. It makes me quite nostalgic for the sixties when I was a child.

This time around, I suspect, my role will be that ancient judge who said "Who are the Beatles?" And that's okay. As long as you kids and your oddly anthropomorphic dog get serious about fixing climate change.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
56,969
Well, basically this probably (almost certainly tbh) racist dickhead in Scotland did a really shit joke. That's what happened here. Viewed in isolation (as it should be) I don't see the problem with the joke though. Sure, it's in very bad taste, but It's clearly an absurd juxtaposition of a particularly silly breed of dog with horrific right wing dogma for comic effect. You might not like it, but that's all it is.

That's not all it is, unfortunately.

It being a joke doesn't remove the danger it has of helping to normalize racism/bigotry. Itself being a racist/hateful action regardless of intent.
 

Deleted member 9317

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
9,451
New York
I'm sick and tired of hearing about this, losing respect for a lot of people over this; folks like Ricky 'Seona Dancing' Gervais losing their shit over it, calling it Freedom of Speech.

Freedom of Speech to say and make jokes about "Gassing the Jews"? Will the person who also "jokingly" said "Kill the white men" get the same level of celebrity endorsement?

Fuck all the pieces of shits that think genocide is a joke. Let's jokingly teach kids nazi salutes as well every time someone says "gas the Jews". Brilliant moral standards.

"Oh but but the video was supposed to be private!", well it ain't anymore, is it?!

"Oh but but it was to annoy his girlfriend;", by doing the same stupid joke multiple times on multiple occasions until you lose whatever this "joke" was?

I don't give a fuck what happens to this guy, I'll let the judge decide. I don't care how many tax dollars are wasted, we as humanity have wasted tax dollars on much worse cases.

So yeah, 2018 is where gassing the Jews become an acceptable joke, a moral ground for Freedom of Speech.

This piece of shit cried on national TV, and looking at his Twitter, he clearly did not lesson anything .
 
Last edited:

M1chl

Banned
Nov 20, 2017
2,054
Czech Republic
I don't care how many tax dollars...

Apparently it happened in USA, not in Scotland, strange. Tell me more, how much do you know about this case.

Besides, I really struggle to think about how you can jail someone over being "Grossly Offensive", when feelings takes over courts, I think we have a pretty big problem. And as far as I know, this guy has big USSR tattoo https://goo.gl/images/Q8nQ6N , which I find find far more distasteful then the video, which is I don't know kinda "meh". I think at this point we also should jailed everyone who used Untergang clip with "Hitler" in bunker with added funny captions for the for proper edginess, just to be sure that no one feelings is going to be hurt.

I wonder if something like Monty Python could be even aired today. If family guy with Hitler is also not a hate speech....or when I saw heiling cats and other stuff with Hitler speech in the background and Nazi symbols in South Park: Stick of Truth did not sneakily makes me Nazi, because I enjoyed very much. It did not, maybe because I am able to recognise satire.

And before anyone ask, I have grandparents who were fuck over by Nazis and after that by Bolsheviks, so tell me more how offended I should feel in this case.

Funny thing that there was similar "incident" was happening in WW2 in Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_(dog) and Nazi Regime actually dropped the case. Yet here we are.

Jailing someone for hurt feelings is very bad precedent and absolutely idiotic idea. I wonder where it ends, it very much reminds me what my parents told me, how little it took under communist regime to get you jailed.

Don't care about this dude, I care about personal freedom, liberty and government controlling what you can and cannot say. Because my parents (and few remaining grandparents) lived under this totalitarian control over individualism, half of their lives.

So fuck this.
 

RedMercury

Blue Venus
Member
Dec 24, 2017
17,658
Jailing someone for hurt feelings is very bad precedent and absolutely idiotic idea.
That isn't all it is though, it is promoting a terrible ideology and making light of genocide. It is a threat to the entire world and can't be allowed to proliferate. This is a British guy, the Nazis literally wreaked havoc bombing them, like there's still people alive who went through it, it isn't some joking thing.
 

Ravensmash

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,797
That isn't all it is though, it is promoting a terrible ideology and making light of genocide. It is a threat to the entire world and can't be allowed to proliferate. This is a British guy, the Nazis literally wreaked havoc bombing them, like there's still people alive who went through it, it isn't some joking thing.

"Don't mention the war!"
 

Deleted member 9317

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
9,451
New York
M1chl thank you for taking your time responding to my late night rant. I get your point, I really do. I'm all for comedy, the world could use a little bit of laughter.

Freedom of Speech, IMO, means you can say or do whatever the fuck you want. You can act like an asshole, or you can make jokes about the most insensitive topic out there. I just don't think it's appropriate to joke about genocide and hide behind "Freedom of Speech", that's all.

Whoever forbid if he pulled this shit in Germany..

Gassing the Jews is simply not funny. That was suffering, torture, rape, mutilation, mass graves, wiping culture, wiping generations of families, destroying history, devouring.

Let me rephrase, gassing the Jews would be funny to a group of friends with wonky sense of humor, however once this video leaked it's an open season.

Far worse has been done in private setting, however once made public it's a different matter.

I don't want them to make an example out of this guy, however I don't want anyone glorifying him like an underrated comedian messiah.

Let's all train our dogs to take a shit everytime we say Gas the Jews, hopefully the joke will normalize and gassing the Jews become a norm. [/s]
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
This thread is a shitshow. Audioboxer is being very thorough in his explanations and i feel like people are purposefully ignoring what he is saying.

It's cool it's just a debate. Mods have been pretty lenient to let it play out even although I think one person was banned early on for something stupid.

The debate itself is heavily littered with emotional responses, understandably, as the holocaust is one of the worst things to happen throughout humanity. It is possible however to debate the arm of the Government/police arresting an asshole, versus said asshole simply facing public consequences for being an asshole. You do not need to defend Markus Meechan as a person, to talk about this case. I think that is what many people find it incredibly difficult to do, as talking about this is instantly correlated to support of or defence of Meechan as a person. Or some of the usual quips that to talk about this in a certain way, must mean you sympathize with Nazis. Which is just a bit childish and reductive.

It would be kind of like saying a lawyer in a court of law actually likes, supports and thinks every client they represent is a good person. That's obviously not the case. Lawyers defend people they know are complete pieces of shit everyday, more interested in making sure the Government and court apply civil liberties and rights equally for everyone (even people that are impossible to like), until said rights and liberties are taken away if a guilty charge is passed. But sure, that's a bit flawed as a comparison as no, most of us aren't lawyers, and often lawyers do defend people they know actually are guilty trying to get a not guilty pleas based on technicalities or other things in a court.

Still, you can sort of use that comparison to see how posters in here CAN discuss the reach of the Government over this video, WITHOUT it meaning you think Meechan is a decent guy. He's not, he's a complete wanker and acts pretty anti-social with his behaviour. It does have to be pointed out his behaviour on Twitter isn't actually what he has been charged for though, it is simply the Nazi pug video. That is what a UK court has deemed viable for a criminal charge and potentially locking someone up for up to 6 months.

They have also banned UK citizens from being able to see the video on YouTube. Therein censoring the whole countries capability to watch something. We know our courts can already block content online, as they do it with torrent websites and video streaming websites (The Pirate Bay the biggest example). However, I do have to say actually blocking UK citizens from seeing this video on YouTube is another conversation about the reach of our Government that probably should be debated ~ Irrespective of anyone saying why would you want to watch the video? The state has made that decision for the country, rather than you having the individual liberty to make your own mind up. Sure, there are mirrors and proxies though, but that is the same with torrent websites.
 
Last edited: