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

WoollyRedHat

Every dog has its day.

FCIM

FCIM wrote: »

So you think everything should be OK? What about that @rsehole with the Hillsborough rentokill T-shirt? I'm sure he'd say he meant it as a joke.

While I disagree with most "offensive" speech, I will do whatever it takes to defend people's ability to say it. With regards to the Hillsborough situation, I don't think he should have been charged for wearing a t-shirt. That's ludicrous.

"Repeal" jumpers offend people who are pro-life. Should there be a ban on them?

Again, I ask, where is your "line". What oversteps the boundary and turns offensive into criminal? Is it only things that you care about or things that you find offensive?

They should jail the dog too. Jail everyone

FCIM

FCIM wrote: »

Lmfao! Have you been smoking something You're deliberately being silly, aren't you? What is your real understanding of the line and try not to be facetious?

You have decided that any mention of a specific topic to get humour from it shouldn't happen. I'm taking another subject to show how ridiculous it is.

And who would the "innocent" victims here be?

Have you heard of organised crime in Italy? Fair few get caught in the crossfire. It's all linked. That chant exists to make the singers feel smug while talking about massive systemic issues in Italy crossing violence, fraud and football. I'm not personally offended but someone could be that someone was using such a thing in a way to derive humour/smugness.

Ulysses Gaze

Deleted User wrote: »

It's using corruption involving high-ranking officials who also have links to businesses, government officials as well as of course organised crime. It's using that whole sorry episode in a way to make fun of some people who were innocent and had nothing to do with it while the fans singing it feel better about themselves.

It's easy to extend things out.

The line is about Juventus and their history of corruption in Italian football.

But as Brian Glanville has pointed out, corruption and match fixing crosses all the big three Italian Clubs. Historically. It's just Juventus did it more blatantly, more recently.

http://www.espn.com/soccer/blog/name/93/post/1840239/headline

Pepefrogok

Edz87 wrote: »

They should jail the dog too. Jail everyone

I wonder when the first conviction for liking a video will come? Jail everybody who up ticked that Nazi pug video! Why else would someone give it a like if they didn't agree with the message!!!

Will I Am Not

FCIM wrote: »

I absolutely agree. I love politically incorrect humour and find both Alf Garnett and Bernard Manning hilarious. I just think "gas the Jews" crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed. For me, it's the fact that it's making little of human deaths. It might not have been his intention, in fact, I doubt it was, but I do think certain things should be off limits.

What about Madeleine McCann jokes? Should the likes of Frankie Boyle be up in court over his material?

jimgoose

FCIM wrote: »

So you think everything should be OK? What about that @rsehole with the Hillsborough rentokill T-shirt? I'm sure he'd say he meant it as a joke.

I found that highly offensive and I'm not exactly the "triggered" type, but I wouldn't say that chap should be prosecuted as a criminal. No more than this other blithering idiot saying an offensive phrase to a dog in order to elicit a particular offensive "reaction" should be.

Maxpfizer

FCIM wrote: »

So you think everything should be OK? What about that @rsehole with the Hillsborough rentokill T-shirt? I'm sure he'd say he meant it as a joke.

That's not the point.

If we agree that everything isn't OK then where do we draw the line between legally offensive and illegally offensive?

We can do it with drinking and driving. If you are below the limit it's legal to drive. If you are above the limit it's illegal to drive.

How do we do that with offensiveness?

We just leave it for a judge to decide how he feels on the day? So there's not an objective measurement on causing offense, just a subjective interpretation?

Here, look, I will concede. Not everything should be allowed.

Now, how do we decide what is allowed and what isn't allowed?

Some Guy: "My girlfriend says her wee dog is the cutest thing ever. So I am going to turn him into the least cute thing I can think of... a Nazi".

How offensive is this? Should it be allowed? Should it be a criminal offence? Who is it offending? Nazis?

Some Other Guy: "My girlfriend says her wee dog is the cutest thing ever. So I am going to turn him into the least cute thing I can think of... a Jew".

Is this one better or worse than the Nazi one?

Ulysses Gaze

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

The line is about Juventus and their history of corruption in Italian football.

But as Brian Glanville has pointed out, corruption and match fixing crosses all the big three Italian Clubs. Historically. It's just Juventus did it more blatantly, more recently.

http://www.espn.com/soccer/blog/name/93/post/1840239/headline

I know what it's about, and I know Italian football has a mental history across a few kinds of corruption. It's all linked so using one part of it is apparently making light of the whole thing.

Pepefrogok

Pepefrogok wrote: »

I wonder when the first conviction for liking a video will come? Jail everybody who up ticked that Nazi pug video! Why else would someone give it a like if they didn't agree with the message!!!

All that stuff is stored anyway to give a better overview on citizens and their beliefs. Everything online is watched and recorded. Who knows how that information will be acted on in the future.

pleas advice

He's in the doghouse now...

FCIM

Deleted User wrote: »

You have decided that any mention of a specific topic to get humour from it shouldn't happen. I'm taking another subject to show how ridiculous it is.



Have you heard of organised crime in Italy? Fair few get caught in the crossfire. It's all linked. That chant exists to make the singers feel smug while talking about massive systemic issues in Italy crossing violence, fraud and football. I'm not personally offended but someone could be that someone was using such a thing in a way to derive humour/smugness.

Yes, yes Calciopoli and Totonero were all about 'Ndrangheta, Camorra and Cosa Nostra :rolleyes:.


As you've decided we're talking about football songs here, do you consider the humour in the following the same or different?

FCIM

FCIM wrote: »

As you've decided we're talking about football songs here, do you consider the humour in the following the same or different?

You still haven't explained how you would decide what is offensive or criminal.

FCIM

jimgoose wrote: »

I found that highly offensive and I'm not exactly the "triggered" type, but I wouldn't say that chap should be prosecuted as a criminal. No more than this other blithering idiot saying an offensive phrase to a dog in order to elicit a particular offensive "reaction" should be.

Neither am I the easily triggered type. Perhaps prosecuting isn't the right thing to do, and I do see why people would say it's dangerous to start deciding what is criminally offensive and what isn't. There does have to be some kind of limit though. If freedom of speech is absolute, what is to stop me or anybody else going to a synagogue, walking up onto the Jewish equivalent of the altar and starting to tell Holocaust jokes?

FCIM

FCIM wrote: »

Neither am I the easily triggered type. Perhaps prosecuting isn't the right thing to do, and I do see why people would say it's dangerous to start deciding what is criminally offensive and what isn't. There does have to be some kind of limit though. If freedom of speech is absolute, what is to stop me or anybody else going to a synagogue, walking up onto the Jewish equivalent of the altar and starting to tell Holocaust jokes?

Even if you did that you shouldn't be feckin jailed for it. Clip round the ear but jail?


Ma va..

FCIM

FCIM wrote: »

Neither am I the easily triggered type. Perhaps prosecuting isn't the right thing to do, and I do see why people would say it's dangerous to start deciding what is criminally offensive and what isn't. There does have to be some kind of limit though. If freedom of speech is absolute, what is to stop me or anybody else going to a synagogue, walking up onto the Jewish equivalent of the altar and starting to tell Holocaust jokes?

Trespass laws. Or harassment laws if you tried to follow someone around doing the same.

FCIM

Deleted User wrote: »

You still haven't explained how you would decide what is offensive or criminal.

That's the million dollar question. It isn't me who gets to decide though, is it? All I think is that there has to be a limit. For example, do you think me going to an Inter v Juventus match and chanting "Serie B Serie B Serie B" along with the rest of the Curva is the same as me chanting "L I V E R P Double O L Liverpool FC"? I don't know where the line in the sand needs to be drawn, but I do think there should be one. If everything is fair game, as you would seem to want it to be, what's to stop me going to my local church on Sunday, getting up on the altar during the main Mass and denouncing Christ as a paedophile because so many priests have been proven as such that there must be a link?

jimgoose

Deleted User wrote: »

Trespass laws. Or harassment laws if you tried to follow someone around doing the same.

...or having your pimply arse Krav Maga-d by a pissed-off ex-IDF Rabbi. Oy Vey! :pac:

FCIM

Deleted User wrote: »

Trespass laws. Or harassment laws if you tried to follow someone around doing the same.

I'm not trespassing by going into a synagogue during a service. What if I didn't go onto the Jewish equivalent of the altar but I sat at the back eating a bacon and sausage sandwich and announcing to everyone how delicious pig meat is?

Why can't I follow somebody around saying anything I want? Surely that's freedom of speech, isn't it? I can say what I like, where I like, when I like.

FCIM

FCIM wrote: »

Neither am I the easily triggered type. Perhaps prosecuting isn't the right thing to do, and I do see why people would say it's dangerous to start deciding what is criminally offensive and what isn't. There does have to be some kind of limit though. If freedom of speech is absolute, what is to stop me or anybody else going to a synagogue, walking up onto the Jewish equivalent of the altar and starting to tell Holocaust jokes?

What's to stop someone walking up to your face and calling you an ugly/fat/retarded c*nt? Nothing. But I assume it's not something you worry about on a daily basis even though there is no absolute law in place to prevent it.

FCIM

jimgoose wrote: »

...or having your pimply arse Krav Maga-d by a pissed-off ex-IDF Rabbi. Oy Vey! :pac:

Why? Why should somebody be beaten up for saying what they want? It's freedom of speech isn't it?


Personally, I think the right course of action for the Hillsborough T-shirt guy would have been a damn good hiding but then I'm going against freedom of speech by saying that, aren't I, or am I, is it my right to say that?

FCIM

Deleted User wrote: »

What's to stop someone walking up to your face and calling you an ugly/fat/retarded c*nt? Nothing. But I assume it's not something you worry about on a daily basis even though there is no absolute law in place to prevent it.

Other than the fact that I'm quite big and would have a better than reasonable chance of knocking them out for saying it, nothing. It's their right, freedom of speech and all that.

FCIM

Edz87 wrote: »

Even if you did that you shouldn't be feckin jailed for it. Clip round the ear but jail?


Ma va..

So, let's take freedom of speech to the absolute limit. I go to some fella's funeral, go up to the wife and tell her her recently deceased husband was a cúnt. Surely if there are no boundaries that would be ok too, right?

FCIM

FCIM wrote: »

Why can't I follow somebody around saying anything I want? Surely that's freedom of speech, isn't it? I can say what I like, where I like, when I like.

Once you aren't encroaching on someone elses right to privacy and peace. You have a right to your opinion, a right to voice your opinion but not a right for your opinion to be respected.

If someone finds you/what you say offensive and wants to remove themselves from where you are/hearing your opinion, then that's fair enough. I don't think they have a right to silence you.

If you are in an establishment/building and the owners would rather you not spout your opinions in their place, then that is their right too.

Common decency really.

FCIM

FCIM wrote: »

So, let's take freedom of speech to the absolute limit. I go to some fella's funeral, go up to the wife and tell her her recently deceased husband was a cúnt. Surely if there are no boundaries that would be ok too, right?

It wouldn't be criminal. Nobody is saying that it would be nice.

Maxpfizer

FCIM wrote: »

If freedom of speech is absolute, what is to stop me or anybody else going to a synagogue, walking up onto the Jewish equivalent of the altar and starting to tell Holocaust jokes?

Nothing? Your own sense of what's right and wrong?

Feels like you are dodging the question though.

Who decides when speech crosses the line between legally offensive and illegally offensive?

So we can totally choose the worst example and say well what if I guy strolls into the funeral of a murder victim and starts making jokes about the deceased and murder or whatever. OK we agree that it's bad. We don't agree that it's not a criminal offence right?

What about the debatable cases? Is there an objective measurement for offensiveness?

I'm asking you where the point is between making an offensive joke that is not a criminal offense and making and offensive joke that is?

FCIM

Deleted User wrote: »

Once you aren't encroaching on someone elses right to privacy and peace. You have a right to your opinion, a right to voice your opinion but not a right for your opinion to be respected.

If someone finds you/what you say offensive and wants to remove themselves from where you are/hearing your opinion, then that's fair enough. I don't think they have a right to silence you.

If you are in an establishment/building and the owners would rather you not spout your opinions in their place, then that is their right too.

Common decency really.

So I can't go into a synagogue or into a cemetery and start telling Holocaust jokes or start telling recently widowed women that their husbands were cúnts, but I can stand outside the gates of a synagogue or a cemetery on the public footpath and do the same thing? Surely it's my right to freedom of speech in a public area?

FCIM

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Nothing? Your own sense of what's right and wrong?

Feels like you are dodging the question though.

Who decides when speech crosses the line between legally offensive and illegally offensive?

So we can totally choose the worst example and say well what if I guy strolls into the funeral of a murder victim and starts making jokes about the deceased and murder or whatever. OK we agree that it's bad. We don't agree that it's not a criminal offence right?

What about the debatable cases? Is there an objective measurement for offensiveness?

I'm asking you where the point is between making an offensive joke that is not a criminal offense and making and offensive joke that is?

I've already told you that it isn't me who gets to decide, which wasn't dodging the question, so your repeating the same question over and over again like a demented parrot is redundant.

conorhal

FCIM wrote: »

"Gas the Jews"..

GOTCHA you antisemitic sonofabitch!


.. since taking a part of a sentence out of a dumb post out of context and completely misrepresenting it as criminal is totally OK now it seems, I thought it only fair to do the same to you.