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.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
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?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ARudeMechanical
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.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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?
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ARudeMechanical
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
1 reply 2 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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?
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ARudeMechanical
No limit to the free expression of ideas/opinions, no. Even really horrible ones must be allowed to be spoken.
1 reply 1 retweet 16 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
At risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, so Hitler was OK until he personally ordered the first Jew to be killed?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ARudeMechanical
He wasn't OK, no. But slippery slopes don't work. People have to be proposing a threat before we can move against them. Until then, we can argue and monitor and counteract.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
There is a limit to freedom of speech then? The level of the physical (mental?) threat posed by what is said. This is a very hard line to define so, as I said earlier, we are differing only on exactly where to draw it. A highly subjective judgement!
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like
By freedom of speech, I am referring specifically to the free exchange of ideas. Threatening people, breaking confidentiality, advocating violence and other harm done with mouths are rightly illegal.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Yes the key word there is advocating. Had the guy insinuated that gassing Jews is a good thing then fine. I would draw the line there I think. But he didn’t. It was clearly about drak humour. Distasteful but still a joke.
0 replies 1 retweet 6 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.