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

Franz Von Peppercorn · 21-03-2018 12:38PM

Mark Henderson wrote: »

Funny how they didn't arrest the red haired royal lad when he dressed up as a member of the Nazi party.

I don’t see gervais ever being arrested. Or a royal. Or the rich. This is just another form of social control of the plebs.

In the spectator piece there was an altercation between a university prof and two guys on the train. It was the two guys who were investigated.

Pepefrogok · 21-03-2018 12:45PM

dav3 wrote: »

Who are "yous"? Are you referring to the conservative party and the people who voted them into power?

I'm not sure what relevance that has on an Irish forum.

Yous as in the "progressive" sorts applying societal pressure for actions like this to be taken, you can see them in this very thread happy that this guy is facing jail. I did say a few posts ago that it was left wingers and liberals but I was wrong, I am sure there will be plenty of actual liberals who will be against this illiberal abuse of state power.

Hector Savage · 21-03-2018 12:48PM

delly wrote: »

As mad as the thought is, I wonder would this type of comedy be tolerated on tv today?

No it wouldn't and some muppet will eventually complain about Fawlty Towers and that episode will be removed from the BBC iPlayer and they will stop selling the DVDs.

This is like in 1984 - the ministry for information (i think) that would erase points of history that wouldn't suit the current narrative.

21-03-2018 12:50PM

Baron de Charlus wrote:

It's terrible, Joe. You can't shout "Gas the Jews" 23 times over.

Actually, it is terrible that you can't shout that. I find it disturbing that you would feel otherwise.

FCIM · 21-03-2018 12:53PM

2 Scoops wrote: »

Philip Defranco spot on as always

So you're one of those people who thinks the Holocaust was a great laugh. Now whose mask is slipping?

Maxpfizer · 21-03-2018 12:55PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

It's terrible, Joe. You can't shout "G*s the J**s" 23 times over.

Why does the number of times matter?

It's a grossly offensive phrase regardless of the number of times you use it.

I'd say you probably shouldn't even say it once.

Yet here you are, posting that phrase.

That offensive phrase. Why would you post something like that?

Should you be banned from boards? Maybe charged with a hate crime? You can't deny you've used the phrase.

I won't report your post because I know any sensible moderator would look at the context and say that, in context, you've done nothing wrong in using that phrase. Probably I'd be in trouble for needlessly wasting their time.

You used the phrase though. Why?

Does context matter now?

Chips Lovell · 21-03-2018 12:59PM

Of course it's not too surprising that, of the 1,200 convictions a year under Section 127, it's the Nazi dude that the usual suspects spring to defend.

I'm sure they'll be doing the same thing the next time some Muslim lad is prosecuted for saying British soldiers should be killed.

Irish Guitarist · 21-03-2018 01:01PM

Ten years ago no one gave a shit what happened on the internet. Some idiot could tell someone to kill themselves and no one cared. It's bizarre how much things have changed. There doesn't seem to have ever been a happy medium either. It's gone from no one taking personal abuse or libelous comments seriously because "it's just the net" to this kind of nonsense.

conorhal · 21-03-2018 01:03PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Of course it's not too surprising that, of the 1,200 convictions a year under Section 127, it's the Nazi dude that the usual suspects spring to defend.

I'm sure they'll be doing the same thing the next time some Muslim lad is prosecuted for saying British soldiers should be killed.

Do you understand the difference between making a joke ABOUT Nazi's and calling for the murder of people?

Clearly not.

Maxpfizer · 21-03-2018 01:06PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Of course it's not too surprising that, of the 1,200 convictions a year under Section 127, it's the Nazi dude that the usual suspects spring to defend.

I'm sure they'll be doing the same thing the next time some Muslim lad is prosecuted for saying British soldiers should be killed.

How is the guy a Nazi?

Everyone says his girlfriends dog is cute. He decides as a prank to turn the dog "into the least cute thing that I could think of, which is a Nazi".

Your logical conclusion is "this guy is a Nazi".

I'm not REALLY sure how "guy pranks his girlfriend by turning her cute dog into the least cute thing he can think of" is comparable to "guy says British soldiers should be killed" but you are making that comparison.

I don't understand why?

If we are arguing that context does not matter here then why not just come right out and say that context doesn't matter?

Pepefrogok · 21-03-2018 01:07PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Of course it's not too surprising that, of the 1,200 convictions a year under Section 127, it's the Nazi dude that the usual suspects spring to defend.

I'm sure they'll be doing the same thing the next time some Muslim lad is prosecuted for saying British soldiers should be killed.

And you don't see the difference? Put it this way, if this guy was genuinely calling for the gassing of Jews I doubt anyone here would be defending him, but he made a video with comedic licence, he took the cutest thing and dubbed a voice for it to a back drop of a Hitler speech, what are you finding hard to understand about this? Look at my post history, I am very pro jew/Israel so if you were thinking I am a secret antisemitic sort that is obviously not true, I really just think that this is wrong.

Chips Lovell · 21-03-2018 01:07PM

conorhal wrote: »

Do you understand the difference between making a joke ABOUT Nazi's and calling for the murder of people?

Thought as much;)

conorhal · 21-03-2018 01:08PM

Maxpfizer wrote: »

It's not a waste of time or resources for them though, that's the thing.

Having a law about offensive communications and being able to test it and enforce it is incredibly useful for any government.

In this case with the dog the prosecution have successfully managed to get the judge to ignore the context of the "joke" and to convict a man for being "grossly offensive". If there is ever a need, they will now be able to do this on a large scale.

Look at the Spanish police in Catalunya last year. That was not a good look for them at all. The ability to prosecute and punish people for being offensive might have allowed them to do something in a less visible and less violent way.

This prosecution has now gone on longer then the Nuremberg trials, that's the real joke here.

Gravelly · 21-03-2018 01:09PM

It's the "how do you boil a frog" thing in action.

Baby steps - today you arrest some unlovable loser for making his girlfriends dog do a nazi salute. Next month or next year, arrest some other equally unlovable character because he says "politician X is a scumbag and should have his ass kicked" and eventually, little by little, no one will even notice when you arrest that guy who doesn't vote the "correct" way.

Those who think this is a good idea are very shortsighted - eventually the same kind of law that got this poor dope convicted may just convict you too.

21-03-2018 01:14PM

FCIM wrote:

So you're one of those people who thinks the Holocaust was a great laugh. Now whose mask is slipping?

What the **** are you talking about?

conorhal · 21-03-2018 01:14PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Thought as much;)

You though people might have a different reaction to two completely different scenerios? One that jokes about murderers and another that advocates for murder?

You really got me there bud! That's some gottcha moment, you've utterly exposed me as the kind of person that would support free speech with the reservation that you probably shouldn't be allowed to shout fire in a packed theatre or actively promote the murder of individuals. Boy do I feel foolish now!

FCIM · 21-03-2018 01:17PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What the **** are you talking about?

Was I talking to you?

21-03-2018 01:18PM

FCIM wrote:

Was I talking to you?

No, but on a discussion forum I feel that I am allowed ask what you meant. That's kind of how they work. Unless you want to take your conversation to PM, then I'll continue to question your ramblings

mloc123 · 21-03-2018 01:19PM

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Can comedy be hate speech? Whether you find him funny or not, it’s his brand of comedy.

I hope the Police will be knocking around to Jim Davidson if it is...

dav3 · 21-03-2018 01:20PM

conorhal wrote: »

Do you understand the difference between making a joke ABOUT Nazi's and calling for the murder of people?

Clearly not.

Does wanting to gas people count as murder or is that top bantz?

The 'youtube comedian' as he's referred to is a simpleton. Yet he's exactly the type of person that has been targeted over the past number of years. The type of person who will sit through a 47 hour long youtube video by the same tried and jaded youtubers ranting and raving about (get your bingo card out) liberals, leftists, muslims, immigrants, open boarders, gays, Marxisits, cultural Marxists, socialists, cucks, libtards, feminists, women, etc, etc.

The type of person who will happily retweet and like comments that reinforce their twisted and warped view of the world regardless of where the comment came from or if there is even any truth to it.

It's been happening for years and most sane people are tired of having to wade through the absolute sh*te that gets posted by the likes of Mark Meechan and his ilk on a daily basis.

Maxpfizer · 21-03-2018 01:21PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Thought as much;)

What an utterly depressing response.

21-03-2018 01:24PM

dav3 wrote:

It's been happening for years and most sane people are tired of having to wade through the absolute sh*te that gets posted by the likes of Mark Meechan and his ilk on a daily basis.

Don't look at it then. I'm sick of Amy schumer/Trevor noah/Colbert etc so I just don't look at them or read articles about them.

You aren't being forced to read or wade through their "sh*te", you choose to do so.

Captain Obvious · 21-03-2018 01:24PM

Pepefrogok wrote: »

Context matter? What if it was made to look like a cute pug was saying it to a video back drop of a Hitler speech? Pretty funny, no? A crime? Or is this just football team politics? Your team got a goal against the evil right wingers.F.C so it's all good? You know this is not right. God this power yous are happy to hand out now will come back and bite all us on the ass.

That's interesting. I would have thought authoritarian rules on speech were more a right wing thing. Do you just call things left wing when you don't like them?

Maxpfizer wrote: »

It probably is but there has to be some level of thought put into how such things are dealt with.

The guy was dragged through court for 2 years over all this. Multiple court appearances.

He said something bad, definitely, and when they words are removed from context it looks even worse.

Is that an honest thing to do though, to remove the words from their context?

Is it a morally good thing to remove the words from their context and then burden this guy with a criminal conviction and potential prison time based on the decontextualised phrase?

Obviously it's largely irrelevant for us in real terms but in the spirit of a fair discussion do you really think what happened to this guy is justified?

On the face of it it doesn't sound like it. But I haven't heard all the evidence or the judges reasoning. I also think audience matters. A joke between two people will be treated differently than something put on a public site. I think this fella would get off on an appeal though.

conorhal · 21-03-2018 01:26PM

dav3 wrote: »

Does wanting to gas people count as murder or is that top bantz?

The 'youtube comedian' as he's referred to is a simpleton. Yet he's exactly the type of person that has been targeted over the past number of years. The type of person who will sit through a 47 hour long youtube video by the same tried and jaded youtubers ranting and raving about (get your bingo card out) liberals, leftists, muslims, immigrants, open boarders, gays, Marxisits, cultural Marxists, socialists, cucks, libtards, feminists, women, etc, etc.

The type of person who will happily retweet and like comments that reinforce their twisted and warped view of the world regardless of where the comment came from or if there is even any truth to it.

It's been happening for years and most sane people are tired of having to wade through the absolute sh*te that gets posted by the likes of Mark Meechan and his ilk on a daily basis.

In other words, he's 'the type of person' I'd like to see jailed because I don't like that type of person.
Your support of gulags for wrongthinkers and deplorables is noted. just remember that a lot of those who built them ended up in them too.

Gravelly · 21-03-2018 01:27PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I would have thought authoritarian rules on speech were more a right wing thing. Do you just call things left wing when you don't like them?

Used to be, back in the early to mid 20th century. For some reason nowadays, it appears to be the preserve of the left (though that said, The Russians, Chinese etc. haven't been keen on it going back quite a while).

mloc123 · 21-03-2018 01:29PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's interesting. I would have thought authoritarian rules on speech were more a right wing thing. Do you just call things left wing when you don't like them?

An interesting trend recently is that the left now appear to be more concerned with blocking free speech (that offends them). It is a strange role reversal on 30-40 years ago. The 'liberal' left are becoming more conservative.

dav3 · 21-03-2018 01:31PM

conorhal wrote: »

In other words, he's 'the type of person' I'd like to see jailed because I don't like that type of person.
Your support of gulags for wrongthinkers and deplorables is noted. just remember that a lot of those who built them ended up in them too.

Impressive hyperbole. Although I think you could have ramped it up a bit more if you put more effort into it.

Pepefrogok · 21-03-2018 01:32PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's interesting. I would have thought authoritarian rules on speech were more a right wing thing. Do you just call things left wing when you don't like them?

So how do you explain it being the usual people of a left wing persuasion who are supportive of this action by the police and courts? It may have escaped your attention but the no platforming, anti free speech and book burning types are not right wingers anymore, the far left are the authoritarianism fans now.

Captain Obvious · 21-03-2018 01:34PM

Pepefrogok wrote: »

So how do you explain it being the usual people of a left wing persuasion who are supportive of this action by the police and courts? It may have escaped your attention but the no platforming, anti free speech and book burning types are not right wingers anymore, the far left are the authoritarianism fans now.

That's interesting. I wonder if I could find any recent examples of right wingers restricting free speech.

Maxpfizer · 21-03-2018 01:34PM

dav3 wrote: »

Does wanting to gas people count as murder or is that top bantz?

The 'youtube comedian' as he's referred to is a simpleton. Yet he's exactly the type of person that has been targeted over the past number of years. The type of person who will sit through a 47 hour long youtube video by the same tried and jaded youtubers ranting and raving about (get your bingo card out) liberals, leftists, muslims, immigrants, open boarders, gays, Marxisits, cultural Marxists, socialists, cucks, libtards, feminists, women, etc, etc.

The type of person who will happily retweet and like comments that reinforce their twisted and warped view of the world regardless of where the comment came from or if there is even any truth to it.

It's been happening for years and most sane people are tired of having to wade through the absolute sh*te that gets posted by the likes of Mark Meechan and his ilk on a daily basis.

How does the guy want to gas people?

Everyone says his girlfriends dog is cute. He decides as a prank to turn the dog "into the least cute thing that I could think of, which is a Nazi".

Your logical conclusion is "this guy wants to gas people".

If he posts sh!te online does he deserve a criminal conviction?

You've singled out the kind of things he likes to rant and rave about reinforcing a twisted view of the world but the trial wasn't about ANY of those things. You are muddying the waters there significantly with all that extra stuff.

He was convicted on the basis of the single youtube video prank on his GF, not his views on other things. What's the point of bringing it up?

Isn't that a dangerous opinion in itself? The idea when a guy is being accused of committing one crime we can bring his political views into play and say "convict him of the crime anyway because of his other beliefs"?

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

Comments