Chips wrote:But, isn't "intent" a critical part of UK law in this regard?
Nope. At least, not as far as I am aware.
But, that's what the entry in the Wiki that you posted directly states.
You can be racist without intending to cause distress... it's still being racist (otherwise no convictions for hate preachers peddling hate inside closed doors would be possible).
Is
being a "racist" a crime?
What if one is a racist, but doesn't promote racism or incite others to racism? Is that, then, still a crime?
Think the "intent" is related to direct sending of material via post/email/forums/twitter, but not sure, no legal eagle, but that's causing distress to an individual without having to be along religious/ethnic lines.
That's an "action", not an "intent." For instance, you might be offended at something I wrote. But, it was never, ever, nor has ever been, an intent of mine to offend anyone nor to purposefully post anything offensive.
If someone is offended by someone, does that make the person they were offended by a criminal, regardless of that person's intent?
According to the law, would the directors and cast members of "The Producers" be subject to this punishment?
Nope.
As the defendant himself has already stated - it was intended to cause offence - albeit to his girlfriend. But he states right at the very start of the video his intent.
I suffered through his whole video. His declaration of desiring to "piss off" his girlfriend is qualified, later, and specifically applied to the video.
The whole purpose of his video was to upset and offend. His repeated admissions his channel is just for that reason... provides intent. Whether that intent should be sufficient to break the law and result in the conviction is the actual point in question.
As he said, "it was a joke." His intent was to make a joke. In "bad taste?" Perhaps, but that's only a component of the "joke."
However, I don't think he has any right to claim any sort of "higher purpose" like attempting to gain legitimacy by claiming "free speech." That's like posting pictures of naked boobies and then claiming "free speech." There's obviously a difference in defining such things and I don't mean that the results must always be agreeable. It's just obvious that titillation for its own sake is different, in my opinion, than "free speech." But, how would that be considered in a broader context? What were the desired results?
Personally, no, but i'm not a judge. As said, he was seeking reactions and he got more than he bargained for - and wants to retreat under "free speech". The court will (has, so far) determined that's not acceptable defence. Wouldn't be too surprised if it goes other way on appeal.
I would agree that trying to seek safe harbor beneath the shelter of "free speech" was probably not a good example of what that phrase stands for. But, then again, what other option did he have? Instead of trying to focus on the particulars of the case and his intent in both the act and in posting the vid, maybe his attorney decided that the only way to open the window of victory was to throw the brick of "Freedom of Speech" at it and hope for the best? They may have thought that attempting to address more readily discernible facts would have been "uncomfortable" in court, rather than sticking to something a bit more patriotic... IOW - If you spend your time denying you're a racist for eight hours, or whatever, then it doesn't matter how good your argument is - Everyone is going to associate you with being a racist. If he spent all that time talking about Hitler, Nazis and doing reprehensible things to Jews, all in the context of not intending to offend anyone or to incite anything... Probably not a good legal strategy.
The "but but x mentions hitler in y production, surely that's offensive and they'd all be locked up" that has been trotted out a few times is the sort of attempts to argue/discuss that a small child would bring forth. I mean, come on...
No.
Perhaps you aren't familiar with it. Here's the wiki entry on the original. It was made into a play/musical and then remade into a newer theatrical version. -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Producers_(1968_film)
There are layers of "intent" here, just as there are, at least in his presumed defense, in his work.
The first layer is fictional and deals with a producer attempting to bilk huge sums of money from rich patrons in order to finance a play, but one that he knows will certainly fail, thus enabling him to pocket the money without having to pay out any net gains from production. Who's going to doubt that the most terrible play he could think of producing would fail and not make any money? He'll pocket the left-over production money he raised and retire a wealthy huckster and fraud.
The fictional character's intent is to defraud investors.
He lies to investors, saying that his intent is to produce a wonderful play, sure to make great profits.
But, his intent with actually showing the play is to offend so many people that the play fails on its opening night.
However, that's the "story." What is the "real life" intent of those producing the "real life" play or screening the movies?
Their intent is show a comedy - A "Joke." They're not espousing the fictional motives and intents of the characters in the play or movie, simply showing its content as a comedy.
To wit: If he had written a script and then filmed it, with the intent to demonstrate something outrageous, as comedy, would he then have been found guilty by the court?
This is a much more deeper comparison than a "small child" would make. Jumping at the opportunity to make such a claim, simply because "Hitler" is, on the other hand...