He was convicted of publishing a YouTube video of a dog making a Nazi salute in response to the command “gas the Jews”. I think that’s rather more than a tasteless joke. It’s incitement to race hate and no better than encouraging incest, rape or pedophilia. Free speech has limits
-
-
-
I don't agree that it was. You can hate the joke and still defend his right to say it. Also, it was an attempt to annoy his girlfriend by making her pug do the least cute thing possible.
-
The court did no accept that excuse. His girlfriend would have been no less annoyed (if that was his aim) without YouTube publication. If I made a video promoting child rape, would you support my right to disseminate it?
-
You don't an excuse for filming yourself pranking your girlfriend, no matter how distastefully. He could perhaps lose friends but not be prosecuted. Same for jokes about paedophilia, yes, tho I wouldn't want to hear them.
-
Not just a joke though, is it? It’s incitement. And it’s not in private. It’s taking advantage of a public platform. What did he expect to gain other than self-publicity and stirring up hatred?
-
Incitement to what? Other people now pointing out to me, it really doesn't matter that it was a joke. It matters that someone got arrested for being offensive. We must defend the right to say things that we find appalling if we want to be able to say things others find appalling.pic.twitter.com/Lns9f0mFn5
-
Are you saying there is no limit whatsoever to freedom of speech or are we just disagreeing about the level at which it is set?
-
No limit to the free expression of ideas/opinions, no. Even really horrible ones must be allowed to be spoken.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
No he didn’t. This is the first time I’ve ever disagreed with you Helen! A sad but inevitable day. Teaching the pug to put its paw up to “Seig Heil” would have been parodying Nazis. When did they every go round snapping a salute to “Gas the Jews”? This was not a joke at all.
-
Well, it was. You can argue it was a joke at the expense of Jews rather than Nazis (tho I think this is dubious) and that genocide is not a fitting topic for a joke (which I agree with) but it was still a joke. Also, whether or not it was a joke is rather beside the point.
-
The point is whether people should be prosecuted for saying offensive things, whether they do so humorously or sincerely, and I think it's clear they should not.
-
2/2 The law treads a very careful line between allowing Art. 10 ECHR Rights (which are conditional) and domestic law. One consideration is the targeting of specific groups with hate speech. What he did falls into that category so the presumption is prosecution.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Scotland today. "Offensive comments will be investigated." Not hate speech. "Offensive comments." When the offended decide what is criminally actionable, anyone who disagrees with an idea or a joke will become 'offended.' This is madness!pic.twitter.com/mBsRAgXpzK
-
Don't be such a dipstick they're talking in legal speak. Any comments which are offensive to the law - i.e. CRIMINALLY OFFENSIVE as in being a criminal offence. Why are people so thick?
-
Em - so you’ve not been following the ‘nazi’ pug debacle then?
-
I'm replying to Terry Varga's comments that "offensive comments will be investigated". He's misinterpreting 'offensive'. Really it's not that hard if you just give yourself a little time to think.
-
And I’m asking if you’re aware of the ‘nazi’ pug debacle that’s going on. Where “offensive comments” - well, “offensive” YouTube video has caused him to be prosecuted. It’s the same difference. Wrongthink is being punished. Freedom to offend will be crushed.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Object all you want. Also sue for defamation is a person is being falsely accused of something. However, I'd support the right of someone to say women are evil, incestuous bitch/whore/witches all they want as long as they don't force anyone to listen to it.
-
And what do they do via Youtube? Its hardly private. It is also threatening and demeaning and distressing. Or accuse people of crimes they haven't committed like treason or terrorism. And campaign to have them deported like a lynch mob. Free speech has it's limits and rightly so.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.