First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Markus Meechan (Count Dankula) has been convicted for "grossly offensive behavior"
13900 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / AH / Helipad
Offline
Posted 3/21/18
Markus Meechan, otherwise known as Count Danukla on YouTube, has been convicted of being "grossly offensive" for a joke. Specifically, a viral video of his pug, who he trained to do a Nazi salute and react to the phrase "gas the jews" in an excited manner, is what got him in trouble. Meechan has insisted numerous times that the video was meant as a joke to annoy his girlfriend and that he is not an anti-Semite. He states this in the actual pug video as well.

His sentencing is scheduled to take place in April (if it doesn't get delayed again).

Here is the video that got him in trouble: https://m.youtube.com/watch?sts=17606&utcoffset=-300&v=SYslEzHbpus&layout=mobile&client=mv-google&skipcontrinter=1

Here are some articles about his conviction:
http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/20/man-taught-dog-nazi-salutes-convicted-hate-crime-2-7402575/
http://www.newsweek.com/youtuber-count-dankula-who-taught-dog-nazi-salute-faces-jail-hate-crime-853470
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/nazi-dog-joker-convicted-hate-12220027

It's official. Telling a joke in the UK can get you thrown in the gulag. Thoughts?
612 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
99
Offline
Posted 3/21/18
While I think the vid is tasteless and stupid I don't think he should go to jail for it
2005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Sacramento, CA
Offline
Posted 3/21/18
Meh. While I certainly don't think he should go to jail for it, I really don't have much sympathy for him. This is the kind of lame shock humor he should have grown out of by now.

Police should have more important shit to worry about though, instead of going after some unfunny youtuber who makes lame jokes.
4279 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Offline
Posted 3/21/18
what people do to get their "15 minutes of fame" anymore. I miss the good ole days when people did actual good things, such as something as cute as rescue a cat from a tree or something. but no we got this garbage. it's not funny, and lacks originality. just another lazy person trying to become something he's not. there are other ways to "annoy" people, especially a partner. just another bit of trash to sweep under the rug in my opinion, nothing exciting, new... cliche and boring on so many levels.
runec 
39050 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/21/18

Shipwright wrote:
It's official. Telling a joke in the UK can get you thrown in the gulag. Thoughts?


I choose to believe it wasn't the video that swayed the jury to a guilty verdict but rather the fact he calls himself "Count Dankula".

1994 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Valhalla
Offline
Posted 3/21/18
Read about this yesterday, it's pretty retarded.Uk is a joke.Rick Gervais also spoke about it and I 100% agree with what he said.


https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/976115287991910400
runec 
39050 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/21/18

ronin99 wrote:
Read about this yesterday, it's pretty retarded.Uk is a joke.Rick Gervais also spoke about it and I 100% agree with what he said.

https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/976115287991910400


Eh, Gervais is kind of oversimplifying this ( as is the op ). Whether or not you agree with the verdict the case looks like it has a fair bit more nuance to it than "he's going to jail for a joke".



13826 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 3/21/18

runec wrote:
Eh, Gervais is kind of oversimplifying this ( as is the op ). Whether or not you agree with the verdict the case looks like it has a fair bit more nuance to it than "he's going to jail for a joke".


it seems to me that the court considered his videos a "hate crime" against holocaust survivors. i have to agree that his videos were in bad taste, but giving him jail time is going way overboard. just banning him from Youtube and taking down his videos would have been sufficient.
13900 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / AH / Helipad
Offline
Posted 3/21/18

runec wrote:


ronin99 wrote:
Read about this yesterday, it's pretty retarded.Uk is a joke.Rick Gervais also spoke about it and I 100% agree with what he said.

https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/976115287991910400


Eh, Gervais is kind of oversimplifying this ( as is the op ). Whether or not you agree with the verdict the case looks like it has a fair bit more nuance to it than "he's going to jail for a joke".






I disagree. I think it's rather simple. Either a person has freedom of speech or they do not.

runec 
39050 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/21/18

namealreadytaken wrote:
it seems to me that the court considered his videos a "hate crime" against holocaust survivors. i have to agree that his videos were in bad taste, but giving him jail time is going way overboard. just banning him from Youtube and taking down his videos would have been sufficient.


The crux seems to be that he posted it to a public forum ( Youtube ) and decided to leave it up to drive content despite his defense that it was just to annoy his girlfriend and never meant to be seen by anyone else. Well, that and the court said he should have been smart enough to know better.

Personally, I think the "gas the Jews" part is what nudged it over the line on him in the eyes of the court.




Shipwright wrote:
I disagree. I think it's rather simple. Either a person has freedom of speech or they do not.


It's not even that simple in America.



13900 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / AH / Helipad
Offline
Posted 3/21/18

runec wrote:


namealreadytaken wrote:
it seems to me that the court considered his videos a "hate crime" against holocaust survivors. i have to agree that his videos were in bad taste, but giving him jail time is going way overboard. just banning him from Youtube and taking down his videos would have been sufficient.


The crux seems to be that he posted it to a public forum ( Youtube ) and decided to leave it up to drive content despite his defense that it was just to annoy his girlfriend and never meant to be seen by anyone else. Well, that and the court said he should have been smart enough to know better.

Personally, I think the "gas the Jews" part is what nudged it over the line on him in the eyes of the court.




Shipwright wrote:
I disagree. I think it's rather simple. Either a person has freedom of speech or they do not.


It's not even that simple in America.





America is a lot better off than the UK, apparently. Do you think he should go to jail?
2005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Sacramento, CA
Offline
Posted 3/21/18

Shipwright wrote:
I disagree. I think it's rather simple. Either a person has freedom of speech or they do not.


If it's that black and white though then you could make the argument that Charles Manson never did anything wrong. He never killed anyone himself, he just said some stuff and then his followers did the work for him. If your words incite others to violence you should be punished. Obviously that's an extreme example, but the argument could be made that this guy was trying to do something similar. I don't believe he was, of course, but that's likely the argument those prosecuting him used.
1994 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Valhalla
Offline
Posted 3/21/18

Shipwright wrote:


runec wrote:


ronin99 wrote:
Read about this yesterday, it's pretty retarded.Uk is a joke.Rick Gervais also spoke about it and I 100% agree with what he said.

https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/976115287991910400


Eh, Gervais is kind of oversimplifying this ( as is the op ). Whether or not you agree with the verdict the case looks like it has a fair bit more nuance to it than "he's going to jail for a joke".






I disagree. I think it's rather simple. Either a person has freedom of speech or they do not.



^^^
runec 
39050 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/21/18 , edited 3/21/18

Shipwright wrote:
America is a lot better off than the UK, apparently. Do you think he should go to jail?


Honestly? No. In fact I would be surprised if he's actually sentenced to literal jail as opposed to a fine or community service or something. I don't even think he'd have been convicted if this was a jury trial. But apparently it was a bench trial for some reason?




mxdan 
11779 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 3/21/18 , edited 3/21/18

In England and Wales the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
Offences under Part 3 carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both.[6]

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states, in part:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

...

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.[7]
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom



British law is pretty clear. He may 'claim' it is for a laugh but the law has to differentiate his intention and the reaction to what he did. Had he been a bit more graceful in his choice of language he probably would of been fine. But the guy was trying to push the limit.

Not that I personally think he should go to jail. I think that assholes like him deserve social ramifications but the law is tricky to discern in this regard because it requires ethical interpretation. That interpretation can vary on experience of person to person so as Runec said a Jurry would of probably been the best choice.

But, what he did probably was illegal.

Perhaps you should be more outraged at how the law was written, not of the enforcement of it.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.