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

Maxpfizer

FCIM wrote: »

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.

Obviously the thread is just going around in circles at this point.

How about we try to come to some understanding?

What would be the minimum amount of offense someone would have to cause before you would say a 6 month prison sentence is justified?

So just give a solid example here of something a person could say online or in public or on TV or even in a newspaper where your reaction would be "the person who made that statement should now go to jail for 6 months because of that statement.

Then maybe give us an example of a statement that would be offensive but that wouldn't be a criminal offense.

Maxpfizer

Captain Obvious wrote: »

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?

Same questions to you Captain Obvious.

What would be the minimum amount of offense someone would have to cause before you would say a 6 month prison sentence is justified?

So just give a solid example here of something a person could say online or in public or on TV or even in a newspaper where your reaction would be "the person who made that statement should now go to jail for 6 months because of that statement".

Then maybe give us an example of a statement that would be offensive but that wouldn't be a criminal offense.

fash

ceadaoin. wrote: »

FCIM wrote: »

It sets a dangerous precedent

“If someone does something that isn’t a criminal offence but the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we would class this as a ‘hate incident’. Though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are. This means it may be possible to charge them with an offence".

Those guys who wrote/performed in the SNL Irish skit should probably avoid going to the UK for the rest of their lives.

conorhal

FCIM wrote: »

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.

It's a mouse not a rat! That's all you've got?
You sound foolish and you are foolish. If context matters then that's the end of the argument.

The_Valeyard

I think most comedy tends to be quite liberal or left wing. Im struggling to think if any good or decent alt right, or conservative comedians. Maybe someone give a few examples

Could explain the reaction by Graham Linehan. Its just not the 'right' kind of comedy.

FCIM

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Obviously the thread is just going around in circles at this point.

How about we try to come to some understanding?

What would be the minimum amount of offense someone would have to cause before you would say a 6 month prison sentence is justified?

So just give a solid example here of something a person could say online or in public or on TV or even in a newspaper where your reaction would be "the person who made that statement should now go to jail for 6 months because of that statement.

Then maybe give us an example of a statement that would be offensive but that wouldn't be a criminal offense.

In the overwhelming majority of cases I wouldn't involve the police. I think it starts a very dangerous precedent to make saying something an offence except in extreme circumstances. I am also not particularly a fan of so-called hate speech offences. I do believe there are limits to freedoms and responsibilities which come from them. I would avoid these so-called new laws and return to a position of public decency legislation. My father worked for a while as a policeman in Wales. When he was a policeman, it was normal for the police to arrest people for swearing in the street and he's told me that he did so. Nowadays that would be ridiculous unless someone was doing it to create a disturbance but that day's society thought it publicly indecent to fûck and blind in the street, particularly in front of women and children. I think today's society can decide what is publicly decent and not. Just for the record, I said today's society, not today's FCIM so I won't be answering any questions as to what is publicly decent or not because I am only part of society, I am not it and I'm not prepared to personalise an issue which can only responsibly be something which society as a whole decides.

FCIM

conorhal wrote: »

It's a mouse not a rat! That's all you've got?
You sound foolish and you are foolish. If context matters then that's the end of the argument.

Well done on that. Well done too on being incapable of seeing the difference in CONTEXT of a video showing a cartoon of rats in striped pyjamas being pushed into ovens at Auschwitz with a backdrop of laughter and a song about how we got the subhuman rats again and a guy interviewing his own father who was a Holocaust survivor and depicting that interview in a graphic novel. Superb work there... and I'm foolish... Give me strength!

Vladimir Poontang

GrahamLinehan on a Twitter rant against this guy.

He has turned into a right hypocrite twat.

One of the biggest bullies on twitter, can't wait for him to be brought down a peg or two.

conorhal

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I think most comedy tends to be quite liberal or left wing. Im struggling to think if any good or decent alt right, or conservative comedians. Maybe someone give a few examples

Could explain the reaction by Graham Linehan. Its just not the 'right' kind of comedy.

Graham Linehan is the biggest douche on twitter.

Enjoy some Bill Burr instead.

In the thread's spirit of offensive comedy, lets go with his routine on 'It's OK to hit a woman'

Or perhaps Owen Benjamin on how, Trans people ruined everything

fash

I wonder what would happen if this law was enforced equally on all - what would happen to the average religious preacher etc?

conorhal

FCIM wrote: »

Well done on that. Well done too on being incapable of seeing the difference in CONTEXT of a video showing a cartoon of rats in striped pyjamas being pushed into ovens at Auschwitz with a backdrop of laughter and a song about how we got the subhuman rats again and a guy interviewing his own father who was a Holocaust survivor and depicting that interview in a graphic novel. Superb work there... and I'm foolish... Give me strength!

Oh, so you're finally getting it then.

Lip quiver INTENSIFIES

FCIM

Old Alf would probably appeal to the Alt Right and Conservative crowd who likely wouldn't realise he's actually lampooning them.

FCIM

conorhal wrote: »

Lip quiver INTENSIFIES

What age are you?

Maxpfizer

FCIM wrote: »

Old Alf would probably appeal to the Alt Right and Conservative crowd who likely wouldn't realise he's actually lampooning them.

I dunno. Seems more likely that he'd be arrested by Police Scotland because they don't understand what lampooning is. When he explains they'd just say "context is irrelevant".

conorhal

FCIM wrote: »

What age are you?

I'll post a pic:

Are Am Eye

I think David Baddiel describes well enough here why this wasn't
a hate crime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fTnuqbxxW4

The Legend Of Kira

Captain Obvious wrote: »

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?

The thing about such channels that spread conspiracy rumours is they actually believe what they re publishing- given that they believe what they re publishing,, from their point of view they wouldn,t see it as " spreading lies " .

Same can be said about all different people who spread JFK conspiracy rumours over the years- they actually believe what they publish so from their point of view they wouldn,t see it as " spreading lies "either- that said I wouldn,t support censoring people who publish conspiracy rumours when such rumours can be debunked with proof/evidence .

FCIM

Maxpfizer wrote: »

I dunno. Seems more likely that he'd be arrested by Police Scotland because they don't understand what lampooning is. When he explains they'd just say "context is irrelevant".

If that is supposed to be a dig at me, never once did I say context is irrelevant. In fact, on several occasions I've said or demonstrated that I think the exact opposite.

FCIM

conorhal wrote: »

I'll post a pic:

Get a comb, your hair is all over the place.

Maxpfizer

FCIM wrote: »

If that is supposed to be a dig at me, never once did I say context is irrelevant. In fact, on several occasions I've said or demonstrated that I think the exact opposite.

Nope. You're paranoid buddy.

FCIM

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Nope. You're paranoid buddy.

Fair enough, just enough people have been rattling on at me about context in this thread that you never know.

Dread Pirate Roberts

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

GrahamLinehan on a Twitter rant against this guy.

He has turned into a right hypocrite twat.

One of the biggest bullies on twitter, can't wait for him to be brought down a peg or two.

Jesus i just had a look at his tweets. What a bully.Comes across really bad.
Even more bizarre when there was a prominent nazi thread in an episode of Father Ted.

FCIM

FCIM wrote:

Fair enough, just enough people have been rattling on at me about context in this thread that you never know.

People have asked you questions. Questions you deflected by saying "I dunno. I just think that some words are out of bounds" then when asked which words you said "I dunno, I'm not Leo varadkar".

You have holes in your argument to such an extent that I think I may have fallen prey to a troll.

The only thing I'm questioning is when does a joke become a criminal offence and who decides that. You have admitted that you don't know. That's OK. But it's quite strange to engage in a conversation or debate when your ultimate answer is "I don't know"

Gravelly

Dread Pirate Roberts wrote: »

Jesus i just had a look at his tweets. What a bully.Comes across really bad.
Even more bizarre when there was a prominent nazi thread in an episode of Father Ted.

Had a look at it there myself - my god, Linehan comes across as completely unhinged! I would have thought the creator of Father Ted would be able to laugh at himself - he really takes himself terribly seriously, and appears to think he is some kind of imperious sage, who's word can't be questioned. What's worse is he seems to have all these little acolytes who attack anyone who dares to ask a question of the great and wise one.

There's someone who is completely and utterly the opposite of how I'd imagined them to be!

w.b. yokes

I don’t think he got done a hate crime, I believe it was for being “greviously offensive” but either way it’s ****ing ridiculous. I hope the people of the UK use this as platform for change in both their law and their law enforcement’s puzzling priorities.

FCIM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People have asked you questions. Questions you deflected by saying "I dunno. I just think that some words are out of bounds" then when asked which words you said "I dunno, I'm not Leo varadkar".

You have holes in your argument to such an extent that I think I may have fallen prey to a troll.

The only thing I'm questioning is when does a joke become a criminal offence and who decides that. You have admitted that you don't know. That's OK. But it's quite strange to engage in a conversation or debate when your ultimate answer is "I don't know"

No, I haven't deflected, I've said time and again it is for society as a whole to decide. That's also not saying simply "I don't know" but pointing to the belief that it is not an issue upon which one single person should decide. I've also evidenced how history and society in general is on my side because there have always been public decency laws which curb the extremities of freedom of speech. Now is it that you just don't like my answer and you are repeatedly asking the same thing in the hope that I might change it, in which case you'd be the one closer to trolling, or is it just you are incapable of understanding the written word?

FCIM

FCIM wrote: »

No, I haven't deflected, I've said time and again it is for society as a whole to decide. I've also evidenced how history and society in general is on my side because there have always been public decency laws which curb the extremities of freedom of speech. Now is it that you just don't like my answer and you are repeatedly asking the same thing in the hope that I might change it, in which case you'd be the one closer to trolling, or is it just you are incapable of understanding the written word?

I agree that the society that should decide. In this particular case, there was not one complaint by the public about the video. It was decided by government/police that this was a criminal act.

I'll ask one more time (in the off chance that you aren't trolling)...

If it goes to a public vote regarding what defines hate speech and the criminality of such, what (in your opinion) should be the wording of the vote? Is any such thing possible due to the absolute ambiguity of "offense"?

I don't want you to change your stance, I actually want to understand it.

Ultimate Seduction

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree that the society that should decide. In this particular case, there was not one complaint by the public about the video. It was decided by government/police that this was a criminal act.

I'll ask one more time (in the off chance that you aren't trolling)...

If it goes to a public vote regarding what defines hate speech and the criminality of such, what (in your opinion) should be the wording of the vote? Is any such thing possible due to the absolute ambiguity of "offense"?

I don't want you to change your stance, I actually want to understand it.

Is that true, that there was no complaints made at all? Who made the police/gubberment aware?

FCIM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree that the society that should decide. In this particular case, there was not one complaint by the public about the video. It was decided by government/police that this was a criminal act.

I'll ask one more time (in the off chance that you aren't trolling)...

If it goes to a public vote regarding what defines hate speech and the criminality of such, what (in your opinion) should be the wording of the vote? Is any such thing possible due to the absolute ambiguity of "offense"?

I don't want you to change your stance, I actually want to understand it.

If you're not trolling, can you outline exactly why you are asking the same question over and over again expecting a different answer to the one I've already given and used evidence to back up?

At this stage I'm convinced one of two things are at play here, either you're deliberately trolling or Einstein was right.

Chris_Heilong

Youtube who took the guys video down originally after review put it back up as they said it falls under humous content.

I hope someone organises a rally to put an end to this madness.