Man convicted of hate crime because his dog did a Nazi salute?

FCIM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have said, yes, I agree that context is key.

I saw news articles and reports that informed me that there were no complaints made before the police got involved. I had no reason to doubt them and have, without any argument, said that if they are proven false then I was misinformed and will gladly retract that particular statement.

It in no way invalidates my opinion or argument that offense is undeniably subjective and should not warrant a criminal conviction due to its (as admitted by you) indefinable nature.

Again, playing around with "new facts". I did not admit that offence was indefinable, I said it should be, as it always has been, society's role to decide what is and what isn't offensive as it always has done through public decency legislation. Can you tell me what part of that you don't understand?

conorhal

Do you remember what lefty spergs used to say every time that old windbag Mary Whitehouse went on a letter writing campaign complaining about the 'indecency' in some TV show or other?

I think it generally went, 'If you don't like it, pick up that remote control and change the channel!'

Slow hand clap to the left for becoming pearl clutching, maiden aunts, parsing the internet with a magnifying glass actively looking for things to be offended by.

conorhal

Billy86 wrote: »

Such a big meanie bully, waaaaahhhh.



I'm not mad about Linehan beyond his writing, but it's hilarious how people lose their sh*t every time he opens his mouth or Tweets.

I don't see anybody here demanding he be banned or jailed for the crime of being a bell-end though, and it would seem that bellendery aimed at no individual in particular is punishable by up to 5 years in jail these days.
So you'd imagine that a bell-end like Linehan would be a bit less smug about the verdict, seeing as supporting it is a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face for a comedian.

FCIM

FCIM wrote: »

Again, playing around with "new facts". I did not admit that offence was indefinable, I said it should be, as it always has been, society's role to decide what is and what isn't offensive as it always has done through public decency legislation. Can you tell me what part of that you don't understand?

Sure I can.

For the, I dunno, 5th or 6th time (?), can you please tell me what you would ask the public (society) in order for them to be able to define what is offensive and what is criminal.

Personally, I can't find any words that can define such proposed legislation as it is too subjective.

You have already admitted that you don't know where the line is, and as an advocate limiting free speech that is offensive, how would you possibly be able to come to a conclusion when you don't know the parameters yourself?

This is what I do not understand and I really hope that you can help me see your point of view.

FCIM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sure I can.

For the, I dunno, 5th or 6th time (?), can you please tell me what you would ask the public (society) in order for them to be able to define what is offensive and what is criminal.

Personally, I can't find any words that can define such proposed legislation as it is too subjective.

You have already admitted that you don't know where the line is, and as an advocate limiting free speech that is offensive, how would you possibly be able to come to a conclusion when you don't know the parameters yourself?

This is what I do not understand and I really hope that you can help me see your point of view.

See, now I don't think you even read my posts properly. Again, can you tell me what part of there always having been restrictions on the extremities of freedom of speech through public decency laws and that that day's society has always established what was considered acceptable and what was considered profane and which crossed the limits of permissible use of freedom of speech you don't understand? Again it would seem you are continually asking the same question purely in the hope that I may change my answer to something which better suits your opinion. Sorry, but that's crossing over into insanity.

What do you consider profane? How can someone know when they overstep the mark? How do you know if you are at the "extreme"?

Where is there another example of someone making a joke and being convicted as a criminal in recent UK law?

FCIM

Deleted User wrote: »

What do you consider profane? How can someone know when they overstep the mark? How do you know if you are at the "extreme"?

Where is there another example of someone making a joke and being convicted as a criminal in recent UK law?

Wording the question in a different way is just as daft as repeating it.

For the final time, there have always been curbs on the extremities of freedom of speech through public decency laws based on that which that day's society deemed acceptable or profane. I honestly don't know how I can get the message across to you so, you can continue to repeat the same question again and again like a mantra if you want but as I've already answered it with the same answer for what seems like the hundredth time I have to tell you that I give up. The only thing I can suggest is getting Mammy to read the answer for you and put it into words you might be better able to understand.

Gravelly

FCIM wrote: »

Wording the question in a different way is just as daft as repeating it.

For the final time, there have always been curbs on the extremities of freedom of speech through public decency laws based on that which that day's society deemed acceptable or profane. I honestly don't know how I can get the message across to you so, you can continue to repeat the same question again and again like a mantra if you want but as I've already answered it with the same answer for what seems like the hundredth time I have to tell you that I give up. The only thing I can suggest is getting Mammy to read the answer for you and put it into words you might be better able to understand.

Who defines the extremes? You say society should and it should be put to a vote. I ask you to give me your definition, you say you aren't a politician.

Let's leave it. You obviously don't want to debate or discuss the issue.

FCIM

Gravelly wrote: »

FCIM

Deleted User wrote: »

Who defines the extremes? You say society should and it should be put to a vote. I ask you to give me your definition, you say you aren't a politician.

Let's leave it. You obviously don't want to debate or discuss the issue.

Good debate and discussion doesn't usually revolve around asking the same, already answered, question.

FCIM

FCIM wrote:

Good debate and discussion doesn't usually revolve around asking the same, already answered, question.

Seriously mate, you haven't answered any question. You've spouted that it should be up to the public/society to decide what differentiates offensive and criminal, and then when asked your opinion (as a member of public/society), you say you aren't qualified to make that distinction.

Then you go on about public decency laws to stop extremes in societal behaviour. I ask what are the extremes and how they can be defined and you blank that too.

I have repeated myself an awful lot but it was purely to try and understand where you were coming from. But it's become obvious that it will be impossible. How can I understand when you yourself don't know?

Billy86

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Right, well I missed those posts, I got that wrong but seriously, that last line is a bit rich coming from you.

Nah, I just find it hilarious to see the same people bitching and moaning about free speech and "just telling it like it is!!!" all of a sudden get in a rush to be all triggered and offended by a "mean bully" comedian.

FCIM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Seriously mate, you haven't answered any question. You've spouted that it should be up to the public/society to decide what differentiates offensive and criminal, and then when asked your opinion (as a member of public/society), you say you aren't qualified to make that distinction.

Then you go on about public decency laws to stop extremes in societal behaviour. I ask what are the extremes and how they can be defined and you blank that too.

I have repeated myself an awful lot but it was purely to try and understand where you were coming from. But it's become obvious that it will be impossible. How can I understand when you yourself don't know?

The difficulty in your understanding is that I have continually argued for a continuation of the same systems which have always been in place. This really is the very last time I'm going to explain it to you before giving up. In the past people got arrested for saying fûck in public. Nowadays that would very rarely happen unless it was enhanced by some other factor, for example telling a law officer to fûck off. Society in the past believed saying fûck in a public space was profane and crossed the boundaries of the law. Today's society doesn't believe that or certainly not in the same way. The problem is, just as with your love for Tommy Robinson, you want to break everything down into simple black or white situations so they are understandable to you. The world doesn't work like that and as I am quite happy for the same systems governing public decency to continue to be used if adapted, is obviously too complex for you to understand. I am sorry for your confusion but I don't see what I can do to ease it when I have already tried numerous times to do.

FCIM

FCIM wrote: »

The difficulty in your understanding is that I have continually argued for a continuation of the same systems which have always been in place. This really is the very last time I'm going to explain it to you before giving up. In the past people got arrested for saying fûck in public. Nowadays that would very rarely happen unless it was enhanced by some other factor, for example telling a law officer to fûck off. Society in the past believed saying fûck in a public space was profane and crossed the boundaries of the law. Today's society doesn't believe that or certainly not in the same way. The problem is, just as with your love for Tommy Robinson, you want to break everything down into simple black or white situations so they are understandable to you. The world doesn't work like that and as I am quite happy for the same systems governing public decency to continue to be used if adapted, is obviously too complex for you to understand. I am sorry for your confusion but I don't see what I can do to ease it when I have already tried numerous times to do.

I don't have a "love" for Tommy Robinson but I do respect his opinion. Wildly different. Same as I respect yours. (as hard as they are to understand)

Your first half of that paragraph was a lot of bluster. I am aware that society has changed and what was once acceptable is now not. The whole point of this thread was discussing whether teaching a dog to raise it's paw under the command of "seig heil" and saying "gas the jews" numerous times was a criminal offense.

I don't think it is or should be. I'm unaware of whether it is or not in Ireland. There is no definition to law. Should I be scared or worried to make a joke in case the wrong audience hears and then I am a criminal?

When you say you are happy for the current systems used to govern decency once they are adapted..... surely you mean that you are happy for them to be continued to be used once you agree with the adaptations?

Will I Am Not

Billy86 wrote: »

Nah, I just find it hilarious to see the same people bitching and moaning about free speech and "just telling it like it is!!!" all of a sudden get in a rush to be all triggered and offended by a "mean bully" comedian.

Almost as hypocritical as finding it hilarious how people lose their sh*t every time Linehan opens his mouth or Tweets while simultaneously losing your sh*t every time Trump opens his mouth or Tweets.

FCIM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't have a "love" for Tommy Robinson but I do respect his opinion. Wildly different. Same as I respect yours. (as hard as they are to understand)

Your first half of that paragraph was a lot of bluster. I am aware that society has changed and what was once acceptable is now not. The whole point of this thread was discussing whether teaching a dog to raise it's paw under the command of "seig heil" and saying "gas the jews" numerous times was a criminal offense.

I don't think it is or should be. I'm unaware of whether it is or not in Ireland. There is no definition to law. Should I be scared or worried to make a joke in case the wrong audience hears and then I am a criminal?

When you say you are happy for the current systems used to govern decency once they are adapted..... surely you mean that you are happy for them to be continued to be used once you agree with the adaptations?

That last sentence sums up just how fruitless it is to continue trying to explain a concept to you. Yes, I am society and I get to decide what I, as the only member of society, want. "I Am The People" :rolleyes:.

FCIM

FCIM wrote: »

That last sentence sums up just how fruitless it is to continue trying to explain a concept to you. Yes, I am society and I get to decide what I, as the only member of society, want. "I Am The People" :rolleyes:.

I honestly don't know if you are serious by saying that.

Would you rebel against the system once they went against your personal views?

I am a member of society and I would be appalled if I felt that I could be persecuted for a joke. You are a member of society and you feel that I should be persecuted for a joke, depending on whether it overstepped certain invisible parameters, that you yourself cant quantify.

I agree that it's fruitless. You have absolutely no point.

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't have a "love" for Tommy Robinson but I do respect his opinion. Wildly different. Same as I respect yours. (as hard as they are to understand)

Your first half of that paragraph was a lot of bluster. I am aware that society has changed and what was once acceptable is now not. The whole point of this thread was discussing whether teaching a dog to raise it's paw under the command of "seig heil" and saying "gas the jews" numerous times was a criminal offense.

I don't think it is or should be. I'm unaware of whether it is or not in Ireland. There is no definition to law. Should I be scared or worried to make a joke in case the wrong audience hears and then I am a criminal?

When you say you are happy for the current systems used to govern decency once they are adapted..... surely you mean that you are happy for them to be continued to be used once you agree with the adaptations?

This is not correct. He wasn't in trouble because of what he did. He was in trouble for recording it and putting it on the web. You can still be as racist as you want in private. But when you decide to broadcast your actions to the world there are different rules.

FCIM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I honestly don't know if you are serious by saying that.

Would you rebel against the system once they went against your personal views?

I am a member of society and I would be appalled if I felt that I could be persecuted for a joke. You are a member of society and you feel that I should be persecuted for a joke, depending on whether it overstepped certain invisible parameters, that you yourself cant quantify.

I agree that it's fruitless. You have absolutely no point.

You have no ability to understand history nor sociology so that rather limits the scope of the discussion.

FCIM

FCIM wrote: »

You have no ability to understand history nor sociology so that rather limits the scope of the discussion.

I understand history. I understand sociology. I understand absolute deflection.

Look man, I have no interest in you or your ridiculous attempts to avoid answering questions while proclaiming that you have answered them numerous times.

I genuinely thought you may have had a point that I missed and was interested in hearing your reasoning. It's abundantly clear you have no point and are just an agitator.

/feedingtroll

Back on topic... can anyone else foresee that there will be any other sentence than a suspended sentence or community service?

Does anyone see a custodial term?

Billy86

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Almost as hypocritical as finding it hilarious how people lose their sh*t every time Linehan opens his mouth or Tweets while simultaneously losing your sh*t every time Trump opens his mouth or Tweets.

I forgot Graham Linehan was the one of the most powerful men in the world, when did that happen?

Besides, I prefer to pay attention to the ****show that is what Trump does rather than the his twitter vomit. That's because he's among the most powerful people in the world, and not simply a comedian. But you already knew that.

Will I Am Not

Billy86 wrote: »

I forgot Graham Linehan was the one of the most powerful men in the world, when did that happen?

Besides, I prefer to pay attention to the ****show that is what Trump does rather than the his twitter vomit. That's because he's among the most powerful people in the world, and not simply a comedian. But you already knew that.

I still find it hilarious when people lose their sh*t every time he opens his mouth or Tweets.

ceadaoin.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I honestly don't know if you are serious by saying that.

Would you rebel against the system once they went against your personal views?

I am a member of society and I would be appalled if I felt that I could be persecuted for a joke. You are a member of society and you feel that I should be persecuted for a joke, depending on whether it overstepped certain invisible parameters, that you yourself cant quantify.

I agree that it's fruitless. You have absolutely no point.

On another thread that poster said that they admire Stalin and think that the figures about the amount of deaths he was responsible for are lies. I'm going to assume that if someone said the same about Hitler and how many Jews were killed by his regime then that would cross the line of what he finds to be acceptable speech. Both of those statements are wrong and offensive but some people are so blinded by politics that can't or won't see that. I mean, if it's fine for someone to be charged with a crime for one statement then the same should apply to the other, right? It's a pity that this issue, along with others has been hijacked by the extremes of both sides

If anyone thinks that this isnt setting a precedent and that it doesn't have the potential to be abused and used to silence dissenters then they are living in cloud cuckoo land. History has shown that this is likely to happen.

conorhal

Deleted User wrote: »

I understand history. I understand sociology. I understand absolute deflection.

Look man, I have no interest in you or your ridiculous attempts to avoid answering questions while proclaiming that you have answered them numerous times.

I genuinely thought you may have had a point that I missed and was interested in hearing your reasoning. It's abundantly clear you have no point and are just an agitator.

/feedingtroll

Back on topic... can anyone else foresee that there will be any other sentence than a suspended sentence or community service?

Does anyone see a custodial term?

Yeah.. I don't think you've watched enough Rick and Morty to match his intellectual capacity... :pac:

Well they have been very determined to 'make an example' of Dankula all down the line, the case was brought without a complaint till they manufactured one, though unemployed, Dankula was denied legal aid because his girlfriend received an inheritance but he couldn't access it as the money was received with the condition it could only be drawn down to buy a house. The prosecution even pressed for a more severe charge during the case.
If there's one thing can be said about SJWs, they don't back down, they double down on their idiocy.
Since the case was little more than a vindictive and malicious prosecution from the outset, I fear there's a very real chance he could get a custodial sentence as a big FU for the support the case has attracted.

I understand he does not intend to appeal but it's understandable when you consider the last time the Crown prosecution went to town on a joke, when Paul Chambers tweeted "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your **** together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jul/27/twitter-joke-trial-high-court
He overturned his conviction... 2 appeals and a hundred grand in legal fees later. Dankula hasn't the money or I suspect the willingness to spend another two years of his life fighting the conviction. I think that's a shame though because the precedent this sets is chilling.

titan18

Wibbs wrote:

We had a German Shepherd and my dad named him Rommel. Didn't do the Nazi salute, though he cocked his leg on the regular. I knew a lad who had another German Shepherd that was called Adolph.

Nothing wrong with Rommel tbf

Venom

conorhal wrote: »

Yeah.. I don't think you've watched enough Rick and Morty to match his intellectual capacity... :pac:

Well they have been very determined to 'make an example' of Dankula all down the line, even pressing for a more severe charge during the case. If there's one thing can be said about SJWs, they don't back down, they double down on their idiocy. Since the case was little more than a vindictive and malicious prosecution from the outset, I fear there's a very real chance he could get a custodial sentence as a big FU for the support the case has attracted.

Well they jailed 2 guys for leaving bacon butties around a mosque in the UK so I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Ultimate Seduction

Venom wrote: »

Well they jailed 2 guys for leaving bacon butties around a mosque in the UK so I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Rightly so. That's not comedy or speech, that's a genuine hate crime

Pepefrogok

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Rightly so. That's not comedy or speech, that's a genuine hate crime

The guy jailed for leaving a bacon sandwich on the doorstep of a mosque died 5 months into his sentence in 2016, the government/ombudsmen/coroner have yet to this day to tell the public how he died, never befor has it took this long, why the silence? another national disgrace that the liberals will cheer!

Ultimate Seduction

Pepefrogok wrote: »

The guy jailed for leaving a bacon sandwich on the doorstep of a mosque died 5 months into his sentence in 2016, the government/ombudsmen/coroner have yet to this day to tell the public how he died, never befor has it took this long, why the silence? another national disgrace that the liberals will cheer!

. Ya i hear the English prisons are overrun with arabs and a dangerous place for infidels