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

FCIM

FCIM wrote: »

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?

You can get kicked out of a bar I'd be pretty sure you can get kicked out of a synagogue.

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.

Ah, you're arguing something other than the actual subject. Got ya.

jimgoose

FCIM wrote: »

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?

Synagogue Guy and Hillsborough Dude are most certainly exercising their right to free speech. However, "free speech" != "free of consequences".

FCIM

FCIM wrote: »

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?

If you want mate. It's up to you. You can go into a synagogue and make holocaust jokes if you want, and you can tell a widow that her husband was a c*nt. It's really not a nice thing to do but it shouldn't be illegal.

You can do it on the footpath if you want too. Nothing to stop you. You might get a hiding off a few people, but that's between you lot.

I can't see what you are trying to make me say! Do you think that by these absurd scenarios that I will believe that (outside of incitement of violence) words should be illegal?

Maxpfizer

FCIM wrote: »

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.

That's really offensive to me.

FCIM

Deleted User wrote: »

You can get kicked out of a bar I'd be pretty sure you can get kicked out of a synagogue.


Ah, you're arguing something other than the actual subject. Got ya.

Hmm... the whole issue here is freedom of speech isn't it? Sorry if it's a bit confusing for you.


OK, so I go to Curva Nord in Milan for the Inter v Juventus match and I start, along with others singing and chanting about Heysel. I'm in absolutely no danger of being kicked out because I'm surrounded by Interisti and I wouldn't be singing and chanting alone. I'm not going to get arrested either because, as anyone who has ever been in a Curva knows, there are no police around. The Juventini at the other end of the stadium might be offended. People watching on TV or listening to the radio might hear it and be offended. But that's not my problem is it? I'm perfectly entitled to sing and chant about what I like and if that includes mocking the Heysel victims, so what, it's my right in freedom of speech.

FCIM

Deleted User wrote: »

If you want mate. It's up to you. You can go into a synagogue and make holocaust jokes if you want, and you can tell a widow that her husband was a c*nt. It's really not a nice thing to do but it shouldn't be illegal.

You can do it on the footpath if you want too. Nothing to stop you. You might get a hiding off a few people, but that's between you lot.

I can't see what you are trying to make me say! Do you think that by these absurd scenarios that I will believe that (outside of incitement of violence) words should be illegal?

OK, so incitement to violence is beyond the pale. What about "oh Vesuvio, lavali col fuoco" (oh Vesuvius, wash them with fire) which is regularly sung at Napoli fans. Is that beyond the pale or is it OK because the volcano can't exactly understand and react to our words? And it isn't absurd, it's a regular terrace chant.

In case you try to say chanting that is absurd:

Gamer Bhoy 89

He's from the same town I grew up in. Nothing ever happens in Coatbridge :P

FCIM

FCIM wrote: »

Hmm... the whole issue here is freedom of speech isn't it? Sorry if it's a bit confusing for you.


OK, so I go to Curva Nord in Milan for the Inter v Juventus match and I start, along with others singing and chanting about Heysel. I'm in absolutely no danger of being kicked out because I'm surrounded by Interisti and I wouldn't be singing and chanting alone. I'm not going to get arrested either because, as anyone who has ever been in a Curva knows, there are no police around. The Juventini at the other end of the stadium might be offended. People watching on TV or listening to the radio might hear it and be offended. But that's not my problem is it? I'm perfectly entitled to sing and chant about what I like and if that includes mocking the Heysel victims, so what, it's my right in freedom of speech.

Pretty much. You'll probably get a hiding from the opposing fans for goading them and you will show yourself up as being a nasty individual, but yeah.

Do you think it should be a criminal offense to sing a nasty song?

FCIM

FCIM wrote: »

OK, so incitement to violence is beyond the pale. What about "oh Vesuvio, lavali col fuoco" (oh Vesuvius, wash them with fire) which is regularly sung at Napoli fans. Is that beyond the pale or is it OK because the volcano can't exactly understand and react to our words? And it isn't absurd, it's a regular terrace chant.

erm... are you really asking me if asking a volcano to erupt and kill people is incitement of violence?

jimgoose

Deleted User wrote: »

...Do you think it should be a criminal offense to sing a nasty song?

Half the national anthems in the World have lines/stanzas about hacking enemies to death or blasting them with hot piss, or somesuch. Good luck with that... :pac:

FCIM

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty much. You'll probably get a hiding from the opposing fans for goading them and you will show yourself up as being a nasty individual, but yeah.

Do you think it should be a criminal offense to sing a nasty song?

I somewhat suspect that I wouldn't get a hiding from the opposing fans given that I've been there when it happened and seen it. I wouldn't send anyone to jail for it but I would expect and accept the club getting fined by the FIGC for it.

Deleted User wrote: »

erm... are you really asking me if asking a volcano to erupt and kill people is incitement of violence?

It could be, depends on how it's construed. Some lunatic could hear that and think it's OK to set fire to Neapolitans.


We'll have to agree to disagree. I think certain things are beyond the pale and that rights bring responsibilities, which is actually the opposite of complete liberalism. You think anything is fair game and think of the right to freedom of speech carries with it no level of responsibility whatsoever which, despite what you like to think, actually makes you far more liberal than I.

FCIM

jimgoose wrote: »

Half the national anthems in the World have lines/stanzas about hacking enemies to death or blasting them with hot piss, or somesuch. Good luck with that... :pac:

Perhaps one of the most violent being the absolutely stunningly beautiful La Marsellaise. Perhaps the difference is that La Marsellaise doesn't trivialise and isn't an attempt to take the p!ss out of death but is a celebration of how the modern French republic was founded.

FCIM

FCIM wrote: »

I somewhat suspect that I wouldn't get a hiding from the opposing fans given that I've been there when it happened and seen it. I wouldn't send anyone to jail for it but I would expect and accept the club getting fined by the FIGC for it.

Grand. That's up to the league and the standard they hold the teams to. Nothing to do with criminality

FCIM wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think certain things are beyond the pale and that rights bring responsibilities, which is actually the opposite of complete liberalism. You think anything is fair game and think of the right to freedom of speech carries with it no level of responsibility whatsoever which, despite what you like to think, actually makes you far more liberal than I.

I never once said that it doesn't bring responsibilities. If you say something, you better be sure that if you offend other people, they have a right to come back at you. I'm not sure if you think that I find being called liberal an insult. I don't for the record.

But I am very confused by your stance. You say that some things are beyond the pale yet you cant tell me what those things are or how they should be decided. That is absolutely ridiculous. Who is the moral arbiter? You readily admit you don't know or have no idea, so how can you come to the conclusion that "some things are off limits" when you yourself can't tell me what those things are or what the limit is??

Baffling!

FCIM

Deleted User wrote: »

Grand. That's up to the league and the standard they hold the teams to. Nothing to do with criminality



I never once said that it doesn't bring responsibilities. If you say something, you better be sure that if you offend other people, they have a right to come back at you. I'm not sure if you think that I find being called liberal an insult. I don't for the record.

But I am very confused by your stance. You say that some things are beyond the pale yet you cant tell me what those things are or how they should be decided. That is absolutely ridiculous. Who is the moral arbiter? You readily admit you don't know or have no idea, so how can you come to the conclusion that "some things are off limits" when you yourself can't tell me what those things are or what the limit is??

Baffling!

Baffling is your inability to see what should be over the line. Something which has the potential to cause grave emotional or physical distress to another person or group of people without just cause should be off limits.

In terms of developing laws to decide what is beyond the pale, it should be decided by plebiscite if a country so chooses to go forward with such an idea.

Gamer Bhoy 89

Gamer Bhoy 89 wrote: »

He's from the same town I grew up in. Nothing ever happens in Coatbridge :P

Did you ever think it would be some sort of weird multi species Nazi hotspot?!

FCIM

I don't know why we're going round in circles discussing this sh1te anyway. There have always been laws against the extremities of freedom of speech. Public decency laws controlled it in the past, the reason these new laws are being discussed now is that politicians with fúck all else to do keep making new laws which are almost to the final full stop the same as those used in the past.

FCIM

FCIM wrote:

Baffling is your inability to see what should be over the line. Something which has the potential to cause grave emotional or physical distress to another person or group of people without just cause should be off limits.

You keep saying that. But you can't be off limits if you don't have a defined limit. Some people are easily offended. Some aren't.

A rape joke could cause a rape victim distress. Should rape jokes be illegal?

Anything has to potential to cause grave emotional distress. Its not up to me to not offend, I can only deem what's offensive to me and that will be wildly different to the next person. Hell, some days a certain thing will offend me and it'd be water off a ducks back the next day. Does that mean it's criminal depending on my mood?

I can't legislate for the sensibilities of others.

FCIM wrote:

In terms of developing laws to decide what is beyond the pale, it should be decided by plebiscite if a country so chooses to go forward with such an idea.

OK. What will be the wording on the vote then? I don't think you'll be able to tell me.

Ulysses Gaze

FCIM wrote: »

Baffling is your inability to see what should be over the line. Something which has the potential to cause grave emotional or physical distress to another person or group of people without just cause should be off limits.

In terms of developing laws to decide what is beyond the pale, it should be decided by plebiscite if a country so chooses to go forward with such an idea.

What happens if a plebiscite decides.

"We don't need any hate speech laws. At all. I can say what I want and to hell with you if it offends you. And if you are not from this country and don't like it? Fcuk off back to where you come from."

FCIM

FCIM wrote:

I don't know why we're going round in circles discussing this sh1te anyway. There have always been laws against the extremities of freedom of speech. Public decency laws controlled it in the past, the reason these new laws are being discussed now is that politicians with fúck all else to do keep making new laws which are almost to the final full stop the same as those used in the past.

Because someone was convicted of making a joke video on YouTube. I don't think it should be illegal.

The Legend Of Kira

FCIM wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty much.  You'll probably get a hiding  from the opposing fans for goading them and you will show yourself up as  being a nasty individual, but yeah.  

Do you think it should be a criminal offense to sing a nasty song?

I somewhat suspect that I wouldn't get a hiding from  the opposing fans given that I've been there when it happened and seen  it. I wouldn't send anyone to jail for it but I would expect and accept  the club getting fined by the FIGC for it.

Deleted User wrote: »

erm... are you really asking me if asking a volcano to erupt and kill people is incitement of violence?

It could be, depends on how it's construed. Some lunatic could hear that and think it's OK to set fire to Neapolitans.


We'll have to agree to disagree. I think certain things are beyond the pale and that rights bring responsibilities, which is actually the opposite of complete liberalism. You think anything is fair game and think of the right to freedom of speech carries with it no level of responsibility whatsoever which, despite what you like to think, actually makes you far more liberal than I.

When some people say " freedom of speech " & " responsibility " what type of responsibility are you talking ? a responsibility not to offend other people or something else ?

Dave147

Have to feel sorry for Him(mler)...

FCIM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You keep saying that. But you can't be off limits if you don't have a defined limit. Some people are easily offended. Some aren't.

A rape joke could cause a rape victim distress. Should rape jokes be illegal?

Anything has to potential to cause grave emotional distress. Its not up to me to not offend, I can only deem what's offensive to me and that will be wildly different to the next person. Hell, some days a certain thing will offend me and it'd be water off a ducks back the next day. Does that mean it's criminal depending on my mood?

I can't legislate for the sensibilities of others.



OK. What will be the wording on the vote then? I don't think you'll be able to tell me.

Do you just like repeating yourself or have you missed me repeatedly saying it won't be me who decides? I'm not a politician, it's not up to me. Sorry if you thought I was Varadkar, Martin or McDonald but I'm not so I won't have any input into it.

As you're so keen on freedom of speech let me outline it thus: I really couldn't care less what happens to some plug eared, p1ss bearded, fat, sweaty ape who struggles to communicate in coherent sentences and looks like a tramp who is frightened of soap. They can throw him in jail and melt the key, feed him to his girlfriend's pet dog or make him eat his urine coloured facial hair, he isn't my problem. I didn't like what he said, that's my right and I don't have any idea what you're trying to achieve because you're not going to change my mind on disliking his actions nor are you capable of denying me my right to an opinion which is outrageously hypocritical anyway as you claim to be for freedom of speech and for any @rsehole to be able to say what he or she wants when he or she wants.

ceadaoin.

FCIM wrote: »

Do you just like repeating yourself or have you missed me repeatedly saying it won't be me who decides? I'm not a politician, it's not up to me. Sorry if you thought I was Varadkar, Martin or McDonald but I'm not so I won't have any input into it.

As you're so keen on freedom of speech let me outline it thus: I really couldn't care less what happens to some plug eared, p1ss bearded, fat, sweaty ape who struggles to communicate in coherent sentences and looks like a tramp who is frightened of soap. They can throw him in jail and melt the key, feed him to his girlfriend's pet dog or make him eat his urine coloured facial hair, he isn't my problem. I didn't like what he said, that's my right and I don't have any idea what you're trying to achieve because you're not going to change my mind on disliking his actions nor are you capable of denying me my right to an opinion which is outrageously hypocritical anyway as you claim to be for freedom of speech and for any @rsehole to be able to say what he or she wants when he or she wants.

I haven't seen anyone trying to deny your right to an opinion. Of course you or anyone else is entitled to be offended by something. But should offending someone be a crime, given that what each individual might find offensive varies widely? You don't seem to be able to answer that

Sure based on this case, if Monty Python were an up and coming comedy troupe posting their videos on YouTube they'd be locked up!

Let's wait until someone you dont find offensive or maybe who you agree with is charged with a crime and see if your opinion changes. I doubt that these charges will only be levied against internet neck beards posting stupid videos in the future.

FCIM

FCIM wrote:

Do you just like repeating yourself or have you missed me repeatedly saying it won't be me who decides? I'm not a politician, it's not up to me. Sorry if you thought I was Varadkar, Martin or McDonald but I'm not so I won't have any input into it.

FCIM wrote:

As you're so keen on freedom of speech let me outline it thus: I really couldn't care less what happens to some plug eared, p1ss bearded, fat, sweaty ape who struggles to communicate in coherent sentences and looks like a tramp who is frightened of soap. They can throw him in jail and melt the key, feed him to his girlfriend's pet dog or make him eat his urine coloured facial hair, he isn't my problem. I didn't like what he said, that's my right and I don't have any idea what you're trying to achieve because you're not going to change my mind on disliking his actions nor are you capable of denying me my right to an opinion which is outrageously hypocritical anyway as you claim to be for freedom of speech and for any @rsehole to be able to say what he or she wants when he or she wants.

Ugh. I didn't like what he said or did. I just don't think it's criminal.....Which is the point of the thread....On a discussion forum.

I'm not denying you a right to your opinion you mentalist. Calm you knickers sweetheart. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. Just so happens yours seems to be full of sh*t.

FCIM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone trying to deny your right to an opinion. Of course you or anyone is entitled to be offended by something. But should offending someone be a crime, given that what an individual finds offensive varies widely? You don't seem to be able to answer that

So, if I think it should am I entitled to hold that opinion? Is it freedom of speech for me to say that I think it should?

The Legend Of Kira

FCIM wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Grand.  That's up to the league and the standard they hold the teams to.  Nothing to do with criminality



I never once said that it doesn't bring responsibilities.  If you say something, you better be sure that if you offend other people, they have a right to come back at you.  I'm not sure if you think that I find being called liberal an insult.  I don't for the record.  

But I am very confused by your stance.  You say that some things are beyond the pale yet you cant tell me what those things are or how they should be decided.  That is absolutely ridiculous.  Who is the moral arbiter?  You readily admit you don't know or have no idea, so how can you come to the conclusion that "some things are off limits" when you yourself can't tell me what those things are or what the limit is??

Baffling!

Baffling is your inability to see what should be over the line. Something which has the potential to cause grave emotional or physical distress to another person or group of people without just cause should be off limits.

In terms of developing laws to decide what is beyond the pale, it should be decided by plebiscite if a country so chooses to go forward with such an idea.

"" Something which has the potential to cause grave emotional or physical distress to another person or group of people without just cause should be off limits. ""

Some people may of heard by now comments made by Danny Healy Rae yesterday .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=40&v=4GFRV6AQ6D8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GFRV6AQ6D8
Some people & groups online are offended by his speech.

https://twitter.com/TFMRIRE/status/976240632917356544

https://twitter.com/gerryheed/status/976238762970755072

Based on what you said in your post.

"" "" Something which has the potential to cause grave emotional or physical distress to another person or group of people without just cause should be off limits. ""

In your opinion should Danny Healy Rae be punished for what he said, given that his speech has offended some people ?

Captain Obvious

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" Something which has the potential to cause grave emotional or physical distress to another person or group of people without just cause should be off limits. ""

Some people may of heard by now comments made by Danny Healy Rae yesterday .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=40&v=4GFRV6AQ6D8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GFRV6AQ6D8

Some people & groups online are offended by his speech.

https://twitter.com/TFMRIRE/status/976240632917356544

https://twitter.com/gerryheed/status/976238762970755072

Based on what you said in your post.

"" "" Something which has the potential to cause grave emotional or physical distress to another person or group of people without just cause should be off limits. ""

In your opinion should Danny Healy Rae be punished for what he said, given that his speech has offended some people ?

Doesn't he have Dáil privilege?

ohnonotgmail

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" Something which has the potential to cause grave emotional or physical distress to another person or group of people without just cause should be off limits. ""

Some people may of heard by now comments made by Danny Healy Rae yesterday .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=40&v=4GFRV6AQ6D8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GFRV6AQ6D8

Some people & groups online are offended by his speech.

https://twitter.com/TFMRIRE/status/976240632917356544

https://twitter.com/gerryheed/status/976238762970755072

Based on what you said in your post.

"" "" Something which has the potential to cause grave emotional or physical distress to another person or group of people without just cause should be off limits. ""

In your opinion should Danny Healy Rae be punished for what he said, given that his speech has offended some people ?

given the nature of what he said I would settle for him to be horsewhipped as he is dragged down O'Connell street.

FCIM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ugh. I didn't like what he said or did. I just don't think it's criminal.....Which is the point of the thread....On a discussion forum.

I'm not denying you a right to your opinion you mentalist. Calm you knickers sweetheart. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. Just so happens yours seems to be full of sh*t.

Calm your (missing an R there, I'm not a pair of knickers, knickers can't write, silly) knickers you mentalist with opinions full of s**t. Getting agitated whilst telling someone else to calm down would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Would seem my opinions aren't the only thing which are s**t though, your level of literacy being something to add firmly to that list.

end of the road

FCIM wrote: »

"Gas the Jews". Anyone who thinks that's remotely funny or has sympathy with a clown who think it is and feels hard done by because he got caught wants their head examined.

Should there be a song and dance about it? No. He's just a d!ckhead who isn't worthy of anyone's attention, but the Far Right will try to make a martyr out of an absolute waste of sperm like they always do .

i agree with you that he is a dick. there is no dispute on that from me.
i'm not far right, in fact some would accuse me of being slightly hard left. however i am concerned about the way britain is heading in terms of sensorship and removing people's rights, and i cannot stand by or support people being prosecuted on the basis that "someone feels it was something" . if something is not a crime, it's not a crime. prejudice or hate while neither are something i'd engage in, should not be crimes.
essentially if we were in england, i could decide that i feel something said on this site, something possibly very innocent, was "motivated by prejudice or hate" report it to the police and that person would be prosecuted. sorry but that is absolutely wrong and needs to be stamped out, hard.