Free speech or hate speech?

[Skism]

Recently Count Dankula a Youtuber was convicted in Scotland.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/r ... k-12221597

Basically he decided to annoy his girlfriend by making her dog a Nazi see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD_QlnY8Ggg

(In a cruel twist of Irony the original Nazis jailed someone who taught his do to do Nazi salutes for disrespect)
Is this a case of a joke or is it hate speech?


In another twist I was in the process of collecting evidence about someone who in my view IS a NAZI: https://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/n ... -sjws.html

(Ive collected multiple screen-shots + Links about this one - that was going to be a separate thread)

[Cpt.Jericho]

Where is the "sausage" option in this poll?

[Skism]

Where is the "sausage" option in this poll?

Its with Lemons!

[Cpt.Jericho]

No sausages, no vote.

[RegisterMe]

I'm for "free speech", as long as whatever is said is well articulated, well argued and well supported.

Because so much "speech" I read is so ill informed it's embarrassing.

[felter]

LOL, just shows, you don't have to be stupid to be an idiot.

[Skism]

I'm for "free speech", as long as whatever is said is well articulated, well argued and well supported.

Because so much "speech" I read is so ill informed it's embarrassing.

So you are for censoring all idiots then?

Is that not a bit elitist?

Hmm surely everyone has the right to speech after all stupid people have opinions and worth too.

Not everyone can get across a point in a well articulated way BUT what they have to say might be important.

[Rapier]

I didn't sit through the trial and I don't think I have enough information from media outlets to be sure one way or another. What the convicted did admit is that they did it deliberately and solely to annoy someone else. That's not acceptable in my opinion (though not necessarily a criminal offense).

'Free speech' is not something that exists in isolation - as with any right it comes with a responsibility, the responsibility to treat other people with respect. IMO: No respect, No rights.

[Avis]

Dankula was always going to be made an example of, his video was obviously a joke.

What I find worrying is that what is 'grossly offensive' is decided not by the person making a joke or the person listening to the joke but is based on someones interpretation of a vaguely worded law.

I'm offended every day by what some people don't find remotely offensive, I accept that it is me that is 'taking offense' some feel they have a right to not be offended by anyone, if that rule were applied evenhandedly we'd be *(&^d because everyone is offended by something! I get bored of the way some hide behind 'common values' again this is teladi droppings those common values are determined by a minority or to protect a minority without consulting the majority to determine if they are in fact 'common' values, this is what Dankula has fallen foul of imho.

[Bishop149]

I'm a little torn on this one.
If it had just reached its intended audience, his girlfriend and (I'm guessing small) circle of friends then he'd just be another idiot on YouTube who needs some sense slapping into him. But it went viral. . . . . . and so 3M views later it becomes a problem worthy of police attention. You can bet your bottom dollar the people doing a lot of the spreading it around were actual Nazis, and that may indeed be how he came to the attention of the authorities.

People like him deserve little more than a stern talking to an perhaps referral to their mothers. But then one Mr Ricky Gervais weighed in, a man with a platform of 13 million twitter followers, who has single handedly at LEAST quadrupled the number of people who are aware of of a video suggesting it might be fun to "Gas the Jews". Slap the offender on the wrist and tell him not to do it again, then arrest sodding Ricky Gervais.

He KNOWS what his platform is, he KNEW that by drawing attention to it a millions of people would go find and look at the video and he probably knows (unless hes a moron) and a small percentage of those people will support and embrace the message made in jest and would like nothing more than to act on it.
With social media comes some social responsibility.
I honestly think that individuals with the reach of a news organisation should be regulated in the same way.

[clakclak]

Recently Count Dankula a Youtuber was convicted in Scotland.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/r ... k-12221597

Basically he decided to annoy his girlfriend by making her dog a Nazi see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD_QlnY8Ggg

(In a cruel twist of Irony the original Nazis jailed someone who taught his do to do Nazi salutes for disrespect)
Is this a case of a joke or is it hate speech? [...]

A joke. Maybe not a very tasteful one but a joke.

However, to play devils advocate here:

Scotland has these laws. Since when does "It was only a joke" count as excuse to break the law. Isn't that the same as some other youtuber doing stupid illegal shit and than screaming "It's just a prank bro!"?

[RegisterMe]

Having Tommy Robinson support him in court casts this in a darker light imho.

[Skism]

Having Tommy Robinson support him in court casts this in a darker light imho.

I'm not so sure frankly.

I can't imagine him saying things like all 'Jews are the problem' or 'You must be against the Jews or you are not an ally'

Don't see him saying that. So therefore not a Nazi or Antisemite

Here is his (Tommy Robinson that is) statement in front of the court.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_MxAXaKzOU


Does not look dreadfully offensive to me.

[Antilogic]

Oh god of course you have a blog for your insane rubbish.

Anyway.

In this case the defendant was found guilty, not for making a video to annoy his girlfriend, but for uploading a video into a public domain that was "offensive, knowingly offensive, containing anti-Semitic content and he would have known it was grossly offensive to many Jewish people".

So, standing on a street corner and shouting these views is a physical equivalent.

Hum. I'm all for making distasteful jokes, but context is extremely important. I won't repeat a lot of what I say on discord at work, for example.

This is very much an on the edge case, but it's clear more people need to understand context and how it is applied to the UK laws on free speech and etc. If you want to go see a Jimmy Carr show, you do it with the understanding it's going to be offensive and hopefully funny.

But if you upload something on YouTube, you are making what is effectively a planetary wide broadcast. In this case it seems clear he wanted the video to go viral to drive his channels views, subscriptions and ultimately advertising revenue.

Ill slide slightly on the side of the court with this one, given available information and the intent of the defendant.

[Rive]

Is this a case of a joke or is it hate speech?

I think it is extreme clickbaiting with consequences.

I think the Internet needs more of this.
I mean, more consequences.

[Skism]

Oh god of course you have a blog for your insane rubbish.

Er Where did I communicate it was MY blog ?

Read it again.

This is very much an on the edge case, but it's clear more people need to understand context and how it is applied to the UK laws on free speech and etc. If you want to go see a Jimmy Carr show, you do it with the understanding it's going to be offensive and hopefully funny.

And why is Jimmy Carr allowed and not this guy? Is that not Privilege?

[Antilogic]

Oh god of course you have a blog for your insane rubbish.

Er Where did I communicate it was MY blog ?

Read it again.

Well that's something.

This is very much an on the edge case, but it's clear more people need to understand context and how it is applied to the UK laws on free speech and etc. If you want to go see a Jimmy Carr show, you do it with the understanding it's going to be offensive and hopefully funny.

And why is Jimmy Carr allowed and not this guy? Is that not Privilege?

You also need to Read it again I spend half my post talking about context, and the application thereof.

[Skism]

10 Votes so Far:

0 Think its hate speech
7 Think its a joke too far
2 think Other
1 thinks Lemons

[The Q]

Too be honest I have a problem with the "it's comedy" or "it's satire" argument that is mentioned everytime someone posts or says something offensive, and is called out for it. Yes, we do have to protect the right of free speech, and yes, we live in a society where an increasing amount of people is way too quick with shouting that something is or would be offensive. But that cannot mean that we have to tolerate everything that is said by someone, just for the sake of tolerance or free speech. If someone enthusiastically shouts nazi slogans I don't think that's something that has to be tolerated. It also certainly does not qualify as "making fun of religion", as it does not reference any part of the religion itself.

As for the argument of that it was just intended for a small private audience, his girlfriend and some of his friends, then it would have been a good idea to not upload it to a video sharing platform. Or at least to remove it once he got aware that this is not only shared by his few friends anymore. In any way, I feel this is a lousy explanation or excuse, I hear or read far too often these days: "Oh, it wasn’t me who wrote that, it was my intern!", "It was obviously a technical mistake!", "It was an accident, my finger slipped from my mouse button.", "I didn’t it mean it that way!", "My statement was misinterpreted!".

Now I have to admit that I am unsure what an appropriate punishment would be. Fortunately, this is neither decided by me nor by any amount of facebook or youtube likes, comments or polls (or the like), but a proper court / judge instead.

[Antilogic]

Or at least to remove it once he got aware that this is not only shared by his few friends anymore

That's an important point I think. If he did pull it at that point, then I would say - OK, you did something stupid but at least pulled it in before it got out of hand.

But no, he wanted it to go viral.