Free speech or hate speech?

[Skism]

Oh god of course you have a blog for your insane rubbish.

Er Where did I communicate it was MY blog ?

Read it again.

This is very much an on the edge case, but it's clear more people need to understand context and how it is applied to the UK laws on free speech and etc. If you want to go see a Jimmy Carr show, you do it with the understanding it's going to be offensive and hopefully funny.

And why is Jimmy Carr allowed and not this guy? Is that not Privilege?

[Antilogic]

Oh god of course you have a blog for your insane rubbish.

Er Where did I communicate it was MY blog ?

Read it again.

Well that's something.

This is very much an on the edge case, but it's clear more people need to understand context and how it is applied to the UK laws on free speech and etc. If you want to go see a Jimmy Carr show, you do it with the understanding it's going to be offensive and hopefully funny.

And why is Jimmy Carr allowed and not this guy? Is that not Privilege?

You also need to Read it again I spend half my post talking about context, and the application thereof.

[Skism]

10 Votes so Far:

0 Think its hate speech
7 Think its a joke too far
2 think Other
1 thinks Lemons

[The Q]

Too be honest I have a problem with the "it's comedy" or "it's satire" argument that is mentioned everytime someone posts or says something offensive, and is called out for it. Yes, we do have to protect the right of free speech, and yes, we live in a society where an increasing amount of people is way too quick with shouting that something is or would be offensive. But that cannot mean that we have to tolerate everything that is said by someone, just for the sake of tolerance or free speech. If someone enthusiastically shouts nazi slogans I don't think that's something that has to be tolerated. It also certainly does not qualify as "making fun of religion", as it does not reference any part of the religion itself.

As for the argument of that it was just intended for a small private audience, his girlfriend and some of his friends, then it would have been a good idea to not upload it to a video sharing platform. Or at least to remove it once he got aware that this is not only shared by his few friends anymore. In any way, I feel this is a lousy explanation or excuse, I hear or read far too often these days: "Oh, it wasn’t me who wrote that, it was my intern!", "It was obviously a technical mistake!", "It was an accident, my finger slipped from my mouse button.", "I didn’t it mean it that way!", "My statement was misinterpreted!".

Now I have to admit that I am unsure what an appropriate punishment would be. Fortunately, this is neither decided by me nor by any amount of facebook or youtube likes, comments or polls (or the like), but a proper court / judge instead.

[Antilogic]

Or at least to remove it once he got aware that this is not only shared by his few friends anymore

That's an important point I think. If he did pull it at that point, then I would say - OK, you did something stupid but at least pulled it in before it got out of hand.

But no, he wanted it to go viral.

[felter]

I notice most if not all of the comments come from outside Scotland. It's not UK law, as UK law is different from Scottish law, UK law is normally just associated to England and Wales. you can do certain things in England and get away with it but come north of the border you will be prosecuted for it.

Here is Scotland we have a problem with religious bigotry, normally it is associated with Catholics and Protestants. We hear it in the press that they are needing to do more about it, that the courts need to take it more seriously, that sort of thing. It is associated more with football, you go to a Scottish football game and make a Nazi salute you will be arrested for it, You stand up and shout Gas the Jews you will be arrested for it. There are certain songs that used to be sung quite commonly at certain football games, called anti sectarian we even have a charity called Nil By Mouth that is all against it.

We in Scotland all know these things, this guy also knew it, that's why the judge said he was an intelligent person. He should have known better, maybe he just thought it was just about Catholics and Protestants but it's not it's about religion as a whole. He should just accept it, as he will get a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again, make a big deal about it and he could end up in serious trouble. The biggest mistake he made though is he never told that English racist to eff off, as he would not help his case.

[Observe]

I've read every post in this thread and I confess, I haven't the faintest idea what the subject is.

[The Q]

Maybe try reading the first news article linked by Skism in the opening post?

[Skism]

I've read every post in this thread and I confess, I haven't the faintest idea what the subject is.

Maybe try reading the first news article linked by Skism in the opening post?

That would Help

Basically Observe a man who is known by his youtube name as Count Dankula (real name Mark Meechan) decided to upload a practical joke where he taught his Dog to do something akin to a Nazi salute and respond to "Gas the Jews" in his own words in an effort to annoy his girlfriend.

Problem is he has now been convicted in Scotland of being Grossly Offensive under the Communications act.

So the question posed (and Poll is) is this Hate speech or a poor joke? Or Lemons? Or something else?

Does this make things clearer?

[Observe]

Basically Observe a man who is known by his youtube name as Count Dankula (real name Mark Meechan) decided to upload a practical joke where he taught his Dog to do something akin to a Nazi salute and respond to "Gas the Jews" in his own words in an effort to annoy his girlfriend.

Problem is he has now been convicted in Scotland of being Grossly Offensive under the Communications act.

So the question posed (and Poll is) is this Hate speech or a poor joke? Or Lemons? Or something else?

Does this make things clearer?

Yes. Thank you. My eyes tend to glaze over when presented with an article right away.

I'd say it's lemons for the most part. Lemons for him doing it, lemons for prosecuting it, lemons for the whole thing getting grossly blown out of proportion.

[Chips]

Youtube has settings that mean you can hide your video, make it link only etc.
If you publish it, then you're responsible for the content of what you are publishing. There are settings to prevent this sort of thing, and he'd have had an opportunity to alter those settings as/when it grew popular. He had every opportunity to mitigate the issue but decided not to (especially considering it was only intended for 7 friends - it just doesn't stack up).

Did he *really* do it to "annoy" his girlfriend? Or was it a way to get noticed having seen how others have hit the headlines for "shocking" behaviour on the platform.

Furthermore, at a time when the platform is under fire for some content that is questionable in decent society, having such videos could reinforce/embolden/encourage others to do likewise; others who aren't "joking" but attempt to use such a cover to peddle their claptrap. That may go some way to explain the outcome.

Bottom line, he's an adult - take responsibility. I personally think it was just a way to get noticed, be "popular". Reap what you sow... but if he gets a custodial sentence it would seem a bit overly strong.

[Morkonan]

Manchild does stupid stuff for attention, thinks its funny because he spends his life in circles where that humor is appreciated, then wonders why the real-world is offended when he publicizes his behavior in order to win some internet points...

I think actually prosecuting this guy is a bit harsh. His little video was more a "documentary about teaching a dog to do silly things" that it was about making some sort of "statement." IMO, taking this to court is a bit extreme and weakens whatever law they're using to prosecute him with. (I don't think the law is intended to govern people's personal lives or what tricks they can teach their dogs.)

Anyway... guy does stupid stuff, gets slapped for being stupid. A friend of mine taught his toddler to throw his arms up in the air and shout "Boobies" as a joke to annoy his wife. I don't think he should be prosecuted for being misogynistic and offensive to women. Besides... it was darn funny.

[Skism]

Manchild does stupid stuff for attention, thinks its funny because he spends his life in circles where that humor is appreciated, then wonders why the real-world is offended when he publicizes his behavior in order to win some internet points...

I think actually prosecuting this guy is a bit harsh. His little video was more a "documentary about teaching a dog to do silly things" that it was about making some sort of "statement." IMO, taking this to court is a bit extreme and weakens whatever law they're using to prosecute him with. (I don't think the law is intended to govern people's personal lives or what tricks they can teach their dogs.)

Anyway... guy does stupid stuff, gets slapped for being stupid. A friend of mine taught his toddler to throw his arms up in the air and shout "Boobies" as a joke to annoy his wife. I don't think he should be prosecuted for being misogynistic and offensive to women. Besides... it was darn funny.

He has not just been prosecuted but Convicted and here is his post Trial speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HigbJc21cvo

I believe he is facing a possible prison time of at least (and Ill check this ) - EDIT Found it:

A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

[Observe]

I believe he is facing a possible prison time of at least (and Ill check this ) 1 Year

I just don't see the justice in putting him in prison. If anything, that will give him more reason to go further into the 'dark side' and be even more alienated from 'normal' accepted behavior.

[Morkonan]

...He has not just been prosecuted but Convicted and here is his post Trial speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HigbJc21cvo

I believe he is facing a possible prison time of at least (and Ill check this ) 1 Year

Wow!

Well, go from "stupid guy doing stupid stuff and winning stupid prizes" to "stupid courts doing stupid stuff and gratz citizenry for winning the stupid prize results.."

That's just nuts. Yeah, sure, the guy did something dumb, but not something needing prison time as a response to "protect the citizens and society" or whatever the law uses to justify itself.

Context and intent is important, as he maintains in his interview. If that is ignored by the courts.... Imagine all the history professors who are about to go to prison! Comedians in chains? /mass hysteria

[Skism]

I believe he is facing a possible prison time of at least (and Ill check this ) 1 Year

I just don't see the justice in putting him in prison. If anything, that will give him more reason to go further into the 'dark side' and be even more alienated from 'normal' accepted behavior.

I got it slightly wrong its 6 Months and a level 5 fine (whatever that means)

And Yea I do not see what good is done putting him in Prison

This drags the law into disrepute.

And I seriously doubt he is a Nazi, or that his video was intended that way.

[Morkonan]

...This drags the law into disrepute. ..

Exactly! That's why I think it weakens the law, itself. The law likely had a rational reason for its implementation that may have truly been in the best interest of society.

But, because of a knee-jerk reaction, likely strongly based on some political shenanigans and publicity-seeking (my assumption) the law has been applied far-outside of where its original focus was supposed to be, exposing it to be much more easily contested.

Either he successfully appeals his conviction, and the law is shown not to be applicable to his case, or he does not and it gets directly challenged, since its scope is entirely unreasonable.

PS - I have no clue as to the finer points of the laws governing this case. ZERO. So, whatever I have to say may be irrelevant... as usual.

[RegisterMe]

Well if the sentence, or even the guilty finding, is so egregious it will be overturned on appeal won't it.

No doubt there's oodles of money out there from free speach advocates and / or the EDL etc to fund such action.

[Chips]

Erm, 6 month prison - that sounds remarkably like the sort of limits that a magistrates are able too give out. When media quote that it doesn't mean that is the sentence to be received.

There's nothing to say he's going to get a custodial sentence (saw no mention in several articles about it), and the chances are he won't; if he does, it'll likely be suspended and not actually served. I imagine a fine, community service etc.

Being an arse and claiming "yeah, but it's funny" doesn't make it okay to be that arse, nor defend the action of being an arse. If the courts find him guilty of a crime for being said arse, then feel free to appeal it. If it gets upheld, guess what, you're an arse! (if he appeals, is it then just more magistrates listening and making judgement?)

[The Q]

I got it slightly wrong its 6 Months and a level 5 fine (whatever that means)

A level 5 fine is £10,000. The standard scale is defined in section 225 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 whereby the statutory maximum was increased from £5,000 to £10,000 in section 48 of the Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007.

Whereby these are probably the maximum penalties. If it really was his first crime, and there has been no other similar incidents whatsoever, then as Chips already mentioned he still has a chance to end up on probation, with a much lower fine or something like community service.

Being an arse and claiming "yeah, but it's funny" doesn't make it okay to be that arse, nor defend the action of being an arse. If the courts find him guilty of a crime for being said arse, then feel free to appeal it. If it gets upheld, guess what, you're an arse! (if he appeals, is it then just more magistrates listening and making judgement?)

That's pretty accurate.