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

ohnonotgmail

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Doesn't he have Dáil privilege?

unfortunately. and he knows how to abuse it.

The Legend Of Kira

Captain Obvious wrote: »

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? Regardless of where he said it,, even if hypothetically speaking he said it on radio- given that some people are offended by his speech, what are other posters opinions/thoughts should he face any punishment for offending other people ?

ohnonotgmail

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Regardless of where he said it,, even if hypothetically speaking he said it on radio- given that some people are offended by his speech, what are other posters opinions/thoughts should he face any punishment for offending other people ?

can we settle on a swift kick to the nuts for him from one of the people he offended? you know, those people who lost a child and who he sees fit to insult.

ceadaoin.

FCIM wrote: »

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?

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Who has said otherwise? But why should you be entitled to have someone locked up based on that opinion?

The problems come when people are charged with criminal offenses for offending someone (or in this case offending nobody because nobody complained about the video). It opens the door for dissenters to be silenced en masse or on a smaller scale for individuals to be targeted by opponents claiming offense or that the person is "motivated by hatred" (they don't actually have to say anything offensive or bigoted under new laws remember)

What could possibly go wrong?

Ultimate Seduction

I'm using the internet since 2006 and I've yet to see anything that even slightly offended me. If I don't like what someone is saying I simply keep scrolling. People wasting police time by being offended are the ones who should face punishment

FCIM

end of the road wrote: »

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.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The UK is going mad in terms of political correctness and it is one of the reasons I left it. It's not the place I grew up in. I've already said in other parts of this forum that I think it is very worrying that the likes of Alf Garnett are effectively banned off TV and I find it equally worrying that the likes of Bernard Manning would probably serve time.

What I do have a problem with is some clown thinking up the most offensive thing that he could come up with, posting it on the internet and expecting there to be no consequences. A massive problem these days is people demanding rights but neglecting responsibility. There have always been laws curbing the extremities of freedom of speech in the cause of public decency. At one time, you could be arrested for swearing publicly. I don't think that's necessary now but I can accept that it was right at that time. People getting excited over someone getting arrested for being deliberately offensive are getting excited over nothing remotely new. That it has gone too far in the UK is obvious to most but it is only an exaggeration of something which has always existed.

Ultimate Seduction

FCIM wrote: »

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The UK is going mad in terms of political correctness and it is one of the reasons I left it. It's not the place I grew up in. I've already said in other parts of this forum that I think it is very worrying that the likes of Alf Garnett are effectively banned off TV and I find it equally worrying that the likes of Bernard Manning would probably serve time.

What I do have a problem with is some clown thinking up the most offensive thing that he could come up with, posting it on the internet and expecting there to be no consequences. A massive problem these days is people demanding rights but neglecting responsibility. There have always been laws curbing the extremities of freedom of speech in the cause of public decency. At one time, you could be arrested for swearing publicly. I don't think that's necessary now but I can accept that it was right at that time. People getting excited over someone getting arrested for being deliberately offensive are getting excited over nothing remotely new. That it has gone too far in the UK is obvious to most but it is only an exaggeration of something which has always existed.

I've been slagged many times the famine and being a dirty Irish dog ect many times by British people, i don't go running to the police. Offence is taking not giving . Don't like it don't watch it it's really that simple

FCIM

FCIM wrote:

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.

..... OK.

Anyway, back to the topic in hand, yes you have a right to voice your opinion. I'm not sure you grasp this freedom of speech malarkey.

People discussing the issue and asking you questions isn't denying you your speech or opinion.

The fact that you are unable to answer the most basic of questions relating to your opinion (as you aren't a politician) might seem like we are stifling you, but nobody has tried.

FCIM

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

I've been slagged many times the famine and being a dirty Irish dog ect many times by British people, i don't go running to the police. Offence is taking not giving . Don't like it don't watch it it's really that simple

I wouldn't go to the police either. I'd stand and fight my ground. Offence is not all taking though. Daubing swastikas on Jewish graves is deliberately offensive. Scrawling paedo priest on the gravestone of a priest is deliberately offensive. Now, both of those are chargeable under vandalism laws but you can't say that offence isn't deliberately caused in those instances.

FCIM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

..... OK.

Anyway, back to the topic in hand, yes you have a right to voice your opinion. I'm not sure you grasp this freedom of speech malarkey.

People discussing the issue and asking you questions isn't denying you your speech or opinion.

The fact that you are unable to answer the most basic of questions relating to your opinion (as you aren't a politician) might seem like we are stifling you, but nobody has tried.

I have already said several times what I think defines being beyond the pale but you won't take that to be answering your question. Why puzzles me as it is essentially covering the basic topic of your questioning. Is it possibly that you don't actually understand the question you're asking?

Ultimate Seduction

FCIM wrote: »

I wouldn't go to the police either. I'd stand and fight my ground. Offence is not all taking though. Daubing swastikas on Jewish graves is deliberately offensive. Scrawling paedo priest on the gravestone of a priest is deliberately offensive. Now, both of those are chargeable under vandalism laws but you can't say that offence isn't deliberately caused in those instances.

That's vandalism as you said. What has that got to do with speech or typing something on the internet?

FCIM

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

That's vandalism as you said. What has that got to do with speech or typing something on the internet?

Are you able to keep up with even your own side of the conversation? You claimed offence is exclusively in the taking. I quite clearly outlined what I was getting at by saying that there are instances where offence can be deliberately caused. Could you at least try to keep up with your side? It really is tiresome to shoulder the responsibility for your side of the conversation as well as my own.

Ultimate Seduction

FCIM wrote: »

Are you able to keep up with even your own side of the conversation? You claimed offence is exclusively in the taking. I quite clearly outlined what I was getting at by saying that there are instances where offence can be deliberately caused. Could you at least try to keep up with your side? It really is tiresome to shoulder the responsibility for your side of the conversation as well as my own.

Offence is taking by something on the internet. Damaging gravestones has absolutely no relevance to this thread.

FCIM

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Offence is taking by something on the internet. Damaging gravestones has absolutely no relevance to this thread.

So if a YouTube vlogger puts up a video of a cartoon of rats in striped pyjamas being herded into ovens at Auschwitz to a backing track of people laughing and singing yeah baby we got the subhuman rats again, then that isn't deliberately offensive? The problem there lies exclusively with anyone who comes across the video and takes offence? I know you'll come back with "but YouTube would take down the video, close the account, ban the IP address and potentially forward the video to law enforcement agencies" but that isn't the point, the point is, according to you, the only problem there is with the people who happen to see it before the video is removed.

Ultimate Seduction

FCIM wrote: »

So if a YouTube vlogger puts up a video of a cartoon of rats in striped pyjamas being herded into ovens at Auschwitz to a backing track of people laughing and singing yeah baby we got the subhuman rats again, then that isn't deliberately offensive? The problem there lies exclusively with anyone who comes across the video and takes offence? I know you'll come back with "but YouTube would take down the video, close the account, ban the IP address and potentially forward the video to law enforcement agencies" but that isn't the point, the point is, according to you, the only problem there is with the people who happen to see it before the video is removed.

Besides animal cruelty, no , I don't think it should be a punishable crime. Simply turn off the video.

FCIM

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Besides animal cruelty, no , I don't think it should be a punishable crime. Simply turn off the video.

That wasn't my question, and I explicitly said it was a cartoon so stop deflecting about animal cruelty. My question was, do you honestly believe that someone who created a video like that in no way, shape or form intended to cause offence?

Ultimate Seduction

FCIM wrote: »

That wasn't my question, and I explicitly said it was a cartoon so stop deflecting about animal cruelty. My question was, do you honestly believe that someone who created a video like that in no way, shape or form intended to cause offence?

Mocking people or a group of people yes. I don't see a problem. Again, don't like it, turn it off. I only scan through your posts as they are just big hypothetical rants.

FCIM

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Mocking people or a group of people yes. I don't see a problem. Again, don't like it, turn it off. I only scan through your posts as they are just big hypothetical rants.

I'm not surprised, you have enough trouble keeping up with what you said yourself a couple of minutes ago. Anyway, seeing as you're such a space cadet that you think a video like that is just a chuckle and would have been created without any intention at all to take offence I honestly don't see the point in continuing a conversation which you have repeatedly dragged down into the gutter.


I will wrap up by highlighting an example of why limits are put on freedom of speech and how, even in the past, those limits existed and I'll choose one close to home for you, Ian Paisley (in case you don't know who he was, Google him, plenty will come up). A lot of people from a variety of walks of life, some very educated scholars, lay the blame for the Troubles or a very significant part of it at the feet of Paisley. It is also hardly outlandish to suggest that if he had been carrying on like that in a part of the world with a more mature attitude to civil rights, including another part of the UK, he would have been jailed for a lot longer than he actually was. It is also fact that he was jailed even in the Six Counties of the 1960s. At the time, the offence he was charged under was unlawful assembly but it was quite clearly an attempt to curb the worst excesses of his usage of freedom of speech. Maybe the Troubles would have started without him, maybe they would have been every bit as bloody but the fact that he played a pivotal role in instigating them is historical fact, not hypothetical ranting, simple documented fact.


Now, when it comes down to it, I'm probably not on the whole in favour of imprisoning people for their opinions, however outrageous. I've said elsewhere on this forum that I prefer people to be out in the open because otherwise they get driven underground and that is infinitely more dangerous. I also fully acknowledge that the UK has gone politically correct crazy. Probably not as bad as the opposite in the seventies when it was seen as OK to throw bananas onto the pitch at black football players or make monkey noises at them but not healthy nonetheless. The fact remains though that there have always been public decency laws which in some cases have curbed freedom of speech. A very obvious example is that some decades ago it was not unheard of for people to be arrested for using foul and abusive language in public. By today's standards, that seems excessive but obviously it was seen as right at the time. Restricting a person's ability to say fúck in the street or punishing them if they do is a restriction on freedom of speech and again, rather than hypothetical ranting, is historical fact and absolute evidence that the extremities of that freedom have always been policed.

Captain Obvious

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Mocking people or a group of people yes. I don't see a problem. Again, don't like it, turn it off. I only scan through your posts as they are just big hypothetical rants.

Mocking people like the victims of the latest school shooting or the parents of the victims of Sandy Hook? What about channels like InfoWars that spread blatant lies that result in these people being targeted?

Ultimate Seduction

FCIM wrote: »

I'm not surprised, you have enough trouble keeping up with what you said yourself a couple of minutes ago. Anyway, seeing as you're such a space cadet that you think a video like that is just a chuckle and would have been created without any intention at all to take offence I honestly don't see the point in continuing a conversation which you have repeatedly dragged down into the gutter.


I will wrap up by highlighting an example of why limits are put on freedom of speech and how, even in the past, those limits existed and I'll choose one close to home for you, Ian Paisley (in case you don't know who he was, Google him, plenty will come up). A lot of people from a variety of walks of life, some very educated scholars, lay the blame for the Troubles or a very significant part of it at the feet of Paisley. It is also hardly outlandish to suggest that if he had been carrying on like that in a part of the world with a more mature attitude to civil rights, including another part of the UK, he would have been jailed for a lot longer than he actually was. It is also fact that he was jailed even in the Six Counties of the 1960s. At the time, the offence he was charged under was unlawful assembly but it was quite clearly an attempt to curb the worst excesses of his usage of freedom of speech. Maybe the Troubles would have started without him, maybe they would have been every bit as bloody but the fact that he played a pivotal role in instigating them is historical fact, not hypothetical ranting, simple documented fact.


Now, when it comes down to it, I'm probably not on the whole in favour of imprisoning people for their opinions, however outrageous. I've said elsewhere on this forum that I prefer people to be out in the open because otherwise they get driven underground and that is infinitely more dangerous. I also fully acknowledge that the UK has gone politically correct crazy. Probably not as bad as the opposite in the seventies when it was seen as OK to throw bananas onto the pitch at black football players or make monkey noises at them but not healthy nonetheless. The fact remains though that there have always been public decency laws which in some cases have curbed freedom of speech. A very obvious example is that some decades ago it was not unheard of for people to be arrested for using foul and abusive language in public. By today's standards, that seems excessive but obviously it was seen as right at the time. Restricting a person's ability to say fúck in the street or punishing them if they do is a restriction on freedom of speech and again, rather than hypothetical ranting, is historical fact and absolute evidence that the extremities of that freedom have always been policed.

Who said it was a chuckle? I mightn't like it, I might find it discussting but I don't think it should be a crime. I've only read the first paragraph of that because you've resulted to name calling because you don't like my opinion. You are getting very worked up there, take a break and give those fingers a rest.

FCIM

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Who said it was a chuckle? I mightn't like it, I mind find it discussting but I don't think it should be a crime. I've only read the first paragraph of that because you've resulted to name calling because you don't like my opinion. You are getting very worked up there, take a break and give those fingers a rest.

So you took offence from something on the internet lol and don't really believe what you're saying. Though I'd say it is really that you've read the rest of the post, can't refute the evidence I've given you and so are deflecting. Either way, case closed.

Ultimate Seduction

FCIM wrote: »

So you took offence from something on the internet lol. Though I'd say it is really that you've read the rest of the post, can't refute the evidence I've given you and so are deflecting. Either way, case closed.

No I didn't take offence, I just don't talk with people who name call because someone has s different opinion to you.

FCIM

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

No I didn't take offence, I just don't talk with people who name call because someone has s different opinion to you.

Is it not my right to freedom of speech to think and say that I think that you're a space cadet though?

Ultimate Seduction

FCIM wrote: »

Is it not my right to freedom of speech to think and say that I think that you're a space cadet though?

Yes it is, you're free to call me whatever you want. I'm also free to lose respect for you for calling someone names.

s10

Can someone just ban this "person" or cut the fiber to the "hospital".
FCIM
Join Date: Sep 2017
Jumps into subjects and just attacks people.
I presume he's never has an account longer than 6 months.

FCIM

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Yes it is, you're free to call me whatever you want. I'm also free to lose respect for you for calling someone names.

No worries, happy days!

FCIM

s10 wrote: »

Can someone just ban this "person" or cut the fiber to the "hospital".
FCIM
Join Date: Sep 2017
Jumps into subjects and just attacks people.
I presume he's never has an account longer than 6 months.

"Cut the fiber to the "hospital"... just attacks people" .

conorhal

FCIM wrote: »

So if a YouTube vlogger puts up a video of a cartoon of rats in striped pyjamas being herded into ovens at Auschwitz to a backing track of people laughing and singing yeah baby we got the subhuman rats again, then that isn't deliberately offensive? The problem there lies exclusively with anyone who comes across the video and takes offence? I know you'll come back with "but YouTube would take down the video, close the account, ban the IP address and potentially forward the video to law enforcement agencies" but that isn't the point, the point is, according to you, the only problem there is with the people who happen to see it before the video is removed.

Well I guess we should probably ban Pulitzer prize winning graphic novel Maus so, since context isn't relevant any more..

pleas advice

he DIDN'T SEE that coming ...

FCIM

conorhal wrote: »

Well I guess we should probably ban Pulitzer prize winning graphic novel Maus so, since context isn't relevant any more..

Don't know the story but I highly doubt it has a backdrop of laughter and singing "we got the subhuman rats again" so I'd say I've already suggested why context is important.

Also, they're mice. Again, a different context to depicting humans as rats.