It is. People should stop suggesting it is a credible possibility.
Man Convicted in Scotland for Making a Joke
- Thread starter Physiocrat
- Start date
I'm going to teach my six year old niece to belch 'jet fuel can't melt steel beams'.
Of course there's a difference between communication and destruction of property, that wasn't my point. The point is that the arguement by those who metaphorically vandalise the right to free speech while at the same time claim they are doing so to defend it is as ridiculous as if the aforementioned vandals claimed to care about the state of the aforementioned play ground.
There have indeed always been efforts to curtail freedom of speech but usually against those who maintained a legitimate and admirable cause. People defend the expression of those causes because, even if they disagree with the cause itself, they are/were confident that it at least came from a position of good faith. I can't imagine there being a deluge of people defending this guys right to make jokes about Jews and gas when there are other, more admirable hills to die on. The danger with shitposters and white supremacists masquerading as free speech advocates is that the wider society starts thinking that it's not worth defending anymore.
The problem with this is the assumption that far-right Nazi types are doing so when they instead often distort the truth to their own ends. Simply holding such ideas or expressing them in a harmless context shouldn't be illegal but in cases where racial hatred is directly incited or where people are harassed there should absolutely be some form of punishment. The problem with your assumption is that he presupposes truth, reason and logic will always win out when it's been demonstrated time and time again that many will instead favour emotive but false arguments that appeal to their own sensitivities.
Now that would be funny.
See Mockney's points in the Gervais thread about offensive just for the sake of it and offensive but funny.
I'd say try opening your ears to the white working class. They were moved to vote Brexit partially due to frustrations around multiculturalism that they feel like they haven't had a say in and is protected by the state. Using hate speech laws to silence dissent may be a win in the short term but it is creating a white victimhood complex.
Your views are in favour of people of the promotion of historically oppressed backgrounds, politically speaking in the UK this is the current paradigm.
They had this for a good long while. It was only an issue when Cameron decided we should vote on it.
Have you got any evidence of this actually happening? Because fining someone for teaching a pug to Sig Heil doesn’t count.
Ooh, I missed that thread. Busy at work with shitty press day.
How are the feet now you're not plodding round, trying to ticket BMW drivers?
Is it really a free speech issue if the dog is doing a Nazi salute. More akin to interpretative dance or something.
He's not a Nazi though is he? He's an idiot who made his girlfriend's dog respond to socially inappropriate phrases. He even starts the video with an acknowledgment of the evilness of Nazism.
This is a bad precedent to set.
Why is there any police involvement? Why any involvement from the legal system at all?
Had to give up the job (they've said it's mine to have back should I feel capable - shockingly enough there's not a great societal desire to be a traffic warden) and can still barely walk despite months of rest, now. I'm just praying my feet will cope with retail work, or the likes, cause I've done far too much being stuck at home for one life.
Every party for the last few elections has agreed we should vote on it. It was going to happen eventually because the public disliked the institution so much.. because there was never any open dialogue about it.
Sorry to do a cop out as I really need to go to bed, but I'm from a very working class background and still have people on my facebook who are in the bracket I am speaking about.
Openly speaking of 'one rule for one race and not the other' (even if this is untrue)
As a quick search for hate speech arrests:
https://www.rt.com/uk/406467-hate-crime-twitter-troll/
Personally, I'd argue that unless someone is clearly outright arguing against 'gassing the jews' I don't think it should be legal to say 'gas the jews'.
Source?
Like everything, it depends entirely on context. If he were standing in the street, outside a temple maybe, and saying "gas the Jews", I could see why he might be arrested and charged.
Teaching a dog to respond to Nazi phrases is hardly the same thing. The context here is comedic. The man in question isn't a Nazi, doesn't want to gas any Jews, and isn't trying to spread that message to other people (therefore inciting hatred). It was a joke. Gervais makes light of the Holocaust all the time, but we don't see him being challenged by the legal system because people understand that it's a joke. Not meant to be taken seriously.
You could say he's an idiot, but this is a freedom of speech issue.
This is all of course true.
I guess I just don't share the idea it is either harmless or sufficiently so to be tolerated. Something having comedic intention doesn't remove its ability to be politically dangerous.
What about those memes of animals that look like Hitler? Spreading Hitler's message via secondary implication. Ban them too? Where do you draw the line?
Can't seem to link it on my phone but the BBC has a timeline saying that it has been a manifesto pledge or a political promise from all 3 major parties since 2005
I don't recall that being the case.
Were it so, a 'political promise' is not a serious thing.
I'm not sure. I haven't given it that much thought, but I'm quite sure I don't feel the need to protect the desire for people to attempt to profit from video footage of themselves teaching a dog to respond to 'gas the jews'.
Drawing attention to animal memes associated with something grossly offensive is grossly offensive.
Reported for advocacy and hate speech.
Sorry to hear that dota, sounds pretty grim. I'd imagine a lot of retail work is on your feet a lot too.
Sounds like they've been nice about it and can understand joe public's attitude to the job.
Make sure you get properly checked out cos you're a young guy and would be a shame for your feet to hold you back. Could be linked to your back or posture?
Very flat flooted, apparently.
We're shamelessly off topic here. So I'm afraid I'm going to have to accuse you of being a nazi sympathiser, just to justify it. You fascist cnut.
It bothers me that jokes can be used against people who may not hold any first order sentiments of the joke itself. Is the target the Jews, or is the target the socially unacceptable nature of the phrase and his girlfriend's reaction to it? If it's the latter, then this is a freedom of speech issue and political correctness gone batshit.
Kitler has the redeeming factor of being cute at least. Not saying I agree with this bloke getting done, but he is clearly a tosser that elicits next to no sympathy.
Warped sense of humour at best. Where do you stand on the Maddie trolls? I'm torn between finding it draconian and thinking feck these pricks who feel they have no accountability for the hate and hurt they spread online.
I'm sure orthopaedic shoes can fix that? I'm now trying to get my cat to meow that the Jews caused 9/11.
I think ridiculing Hitler/the Nazis is fine & has several beneficial merits but surely comedy ends when some believe that gassing people is somehow humorous.
I have no knowledge of the McCann thing. But targeting a dead girl (or her family) is different to this case where there may not actually be any target, except his girlfriend.
This is the point that has to be proven. If that's what he believes then there's no sympathy, but a joke about a terrible thing isn't the same as advocating terrible things.
except you have richard spencer who just admitted that his group is going to change their current strategy because the direct opposition to them made it untenable
Even if it's ironic - baiting people who'd be offended - then it's poor stuff; is this what humour is reduced to these days? Apparently so.
If it's ironic then it makes a big difference because the inverse is the point. You're using something horrible in order to ridicule those who advocate horrible things. That should always be allowed. Some of the best comedians to ever live would never have been able to get a show made if these were the levels expected.
There's a difference between Bernard Manning and Frankie Boyle. One believed what he said, the other said what others believed in order to ridicule them. Both generally have to be allowed because if you ban one you run the risk of banning the other.
I've laughed at the watchtower joke like many have, but I've also seen old folk crying their eyes out at Dachau, so wonder whether comedic licence is worth that much that you'd place it above millions of peoples' feelings.
Personally, I think context is what counts. If you go to a comedy show, especially a comic known for provocative jokes, then you have no right to be offended (unless that comic is actually racist and you somehow didn't know beforehand).
Comedic license isn't restricted to public platforms or public figures. It's a societal license and I do place it above other peoples' feelings. Sounds very harsh, but if it offends them then that's their problem.
Dave Chappelle is one of the best comedians of the century and his comedy is a case in point. It's all based on irony. Ban it? Not for me.
I agree mostly. I don't get people going to see a provocative comedian and then moaning.
Maybe it comes back to whether someone is being genuinely inciteful/ironic/cutting, rather than just causing offence for its own sake, like Mockney said.
I'm not a fan of censorship, but I still dunno if comedians' 'societal licence' rides roughshod over the feelings of all. I admit I have laughed at one or two Maddie jokes though
If we're going by that approach though, do we begin criminally charging comedians like Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr?
Yes, I think we're being invited to laugh at how socially unacceptable it is to say 'gas the jews'.