First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Markus Meechan (Count Dankula) has been convicted for "grossly offensive behavior"
runec 
41930 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/21/18 , edited 3/21/18

mxdan wrote:
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.


Yes, I think that distinction is being lost here. Claiming something is a joke doesn't absolve you of the consequences. Especially in regards to the law. If you yelled fire in a crowded theatre or threatened to kill someone then told the cops it was just a joke you'd still get your arse hauled off in America. Your motivation isn't the problem.

On that same note claiming something is a joke doesn't mean it can't not be racism or bigotry. The two aren't mutual exclusive. Despite the guy's defense. Again though, I think "gas the Jews" was the tipping point. "Sieg Heil" was stupid but "gas the Jews" could be seen as incitement.

A good rule of thumb if you must make a tasteless/offensive joke is to ask yourself whether the people who believe in what you're making fun of can pass your joke around as an endorsement of their beliefs. I'm pretty confident Nazi pug is out there somewhere being passed around Nazi websites and that there's at least some of them who believe this guy is on their "side".

I mean, if your video requires a disclaimer to explain the "joke" then you already have a problem.









Humms 
14295 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 3/21/18 , edited 3/21/18
If only he left it at the Nazi salute. Sieg Heil Mein little pug, good boy ( heavy pug breathing) see, that's funny, because pugs are generally more humorous, because of their breathing problem, so you get a much greater reaction.

You're a knob to think that spamming the word gas the Jews is even remotely funny, or would even be worthy of a video.

You could have said anything and it would be funny, because it's a dog, and dogs will be dogs. You just dug your own grave.

You do it for the shock factor, ha ha he said Jews, haha I'm laughing.

There's a time and place for everything. Saying Jew or Jewish people can be funny if done correctly. Just like white people, just like black people, and so on. It's called comedy, it's called a joke.

Jail time? No. Good luck in public though

runec 
41930 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/21/18 , edited 3/21/18

Humms wrote:
If only he left it at the Nazi salute. Sieg Heil Mein little pug, good boy ( heavy pug breathing) see, that's funny, because pugs are generally more humorous, because of their breathing problem, so you get a much greater reaction.


I will now take this as an excuse to link Pug Party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhPcn-2iHJ4
16605 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / AH / Helipad
Offline
Posted 3/21/18 , edited 3/22/18

runec wrote:


I will now take this as an excuse to link Pug Party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhPcn-2iHJ4


lmfao
31259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 3/21/18 , edited 3/25/18

DrunkKanti wrote:

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.


One directed his followers to kill people while one made a Nazi joke with his dog (regardless of how tasteless it was, it was still a joke). It is that black and white actually. Why would anyone think Adolf Hitler didn't do anything wrong for "saying some stuff" while his followers marched across Europe killing & taking people captive? Charles Manson was basically a discount version of Hitler. Dankula's case is not to be compared to some lunatic who was actually inciting violence. Asking your animal if he wants to gas the Jews in a sarcastic manner (while also being very clear in the beginning and at the end of the video that it was just a joke to make the dog less cute to his girlfriend) is not the same as "Hey Susan, you girls are going to go kill Sharon Tate in her home tonight. Be ready to leave by 7 0' clock." If that argument can be made, then our society is screwed. How would a pug even be able to gas Jews in the first place? It's that ridiculousness that should be a dead giveaway it's a joke for crying out loud. But anyway, it was deemed "grossly offensive" under the communications act. The judge even stated "You need to keep in mind the reasonable enlightenment of a multi racial society." This is just a case of "You are not allowed to be offensive by law."
runec 
41930 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/21/18 , edited 3/22/18
But how do you know for sure the pug has never taken someone's life?

It would be the perfect cover for a murder. No one ever suspects the pug.

10256 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/21/18 , edited 3/22/18
This was a joke against the Nazis. They were the butt of the joke, not Jews.

The Scottish court literally told him that they decide the context of what he said, not him. Any of you posting in this thread from the UK could be tried under the same laws and told your post is grossly offensive because the court says YOU meant it in that way.

So if you want to make a joke against Nazis in the UK you can't mention Jews or allude anything towards the holocaust. Except the joke being about Nazis could (will) be interpreted that it DID involve the holocaust and is therefore hate speech so off to jail you go.

If you're in the UK, write to your MP. If you're not, watch out for "hate speech" laws being proposed in your country and write to your equivalent of an MP to say "stop this". The UK is going to have to sort this out. If they do, it'll be the template for free speech in all liberal democracies. If not, it'll be the template for authoritarianism in every free country. And there are people who want 1984 as an outcome.

I'm old enough now that I'll be dead before it can affect me (laws and social change move fairly slowly when it comes to the general populace). If you're 20 then you might well be screwed depending on how the next couple of years goes. And if you're 20 and not in the UK, you might want to reconsider starting a family until you know which way this is going.
Humms 
14295 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 3/22/18 , edited 3/22/18

runec wrote:


Humms wrote:
If only he left it at the Nazi salute. Sieg Heil Mein little pug, good boy ( heavy pug breathing) see, that's funny, because pugs are generally more humorous, because of their breathing problem, so you get a much greater reaction.


I will now take this as an excuse to link Pug Party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhPcn-2iHJ4


I feel so bad for that dog xD

Living with that voice for too long, please end my suffering *Pug noise* What would we do without the Internet.
mxdan 
12366 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Online
Posted 3/22/18 , edited 3/22/18

runec wrote:


Humms wrote:
If only he left it at the Nazi salute. Sieg Heil Mein little pug, good boy ( heavy pug breathing) see, that's funny, because pugs are generally more humorous, because of their breathing problem, so you get a much greater reaction.


I will now take this as an excuse to link Pug Party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhPcn-2iHJ4


What did that dog do to be reincarnated into that hell hole?
runec 
41930 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/22/18 , edited 3/22/18

mxdan wrote:
What did that dog do to be reincarnated into that hell hole?


I assume you have to do something pretty awful to be reincarnated as a pug to begin with.

Like posting tastelessly offensive Youtube videos.
mxdan 
12366 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Online
Posted 3/22/18 , edited 3/22/18

runec wrote:


mxdan wrote:
What did that dog do to be reincarnated into that hell hole?


I assume you have to do something pretty awful to be reincarnated as a pug to begin with.

Like posting tastelessly offensive Youtube videos.


5547 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 3/22/18 , edited 3/22/18

runec wrote:


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".



That's probably even worse...
16605 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / AH / Helipad
Offline
Posted 3/23/18 , edited 3/23/18
Markus Meechan uploaded a video in which he reflects on the guilty verdict:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAopshGFYNo
228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/23/18 , edited 3/23/18

mxdan wrote:


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.


Yeah fucking ass holes who record a video of their girlfriend's pug doing a Nazi/roman salute for the sole reason of annoying their girlfriend and then posting it on his twitter feed because he found it hilarious ought to be punished by muh social ramifications. I don't care if his intention was to open the seven hells this sort of shit is Orwellian.

Legalism.

mxdan 
12366 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Online
Posted 3/23/18 , edited 3/24/18

Cathugud wrote:


mxdan wrote:


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.


Yeah fucking ass holes who record a video of their girlfriend's pug doing a Nazi/roman salute for the sole reason of annoying their girlfriend and then posting it on his twitter feed because he found it hilarious ought to be punished by muh social ramifications. I don't care if his intention was to open the seven hells this sort of shit is Orwellian.

Legalism.



Putting 'muh' behind a valid point to try and discredit its importance doesn't do so. It just makes you into a troll. But judging by your response you most likely didn't understand my point. Getting mad at prosecutors for doing their job, as stated by law, is pointless. The law itself is subject to too much interpretation.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.