Man Convicted in Scotland for Making a Joke

DOTA

wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
24,504
If we're going by that approach though, do we begin criminally charging comedians like Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr?
My heart wouldn't bleed if they were given a small fine either.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,017
Yes, I think we're being invited to laugh at how socially unacceptable it is to say 'gas the jews'.
If that's the case then I don't think it should be a criminal matter or a matter for jurisprudence in general. If he isn't inciting hatred, then he isn't doing anything wrong. If it turns out that he is some type of Nazi, it becomes different because the context switches.
 

Cheesy

Bread with dipping sauce
Scout
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
36,181
My heart wouldn't bleed if they were given a small fine either.
Surely that's very draconian, though? We'd effectively be getting into territory where people taking offence at comedic material results in criminal prosecutions. Do we do the same for fictional TV shows? Because if not then comedians can, of course, then claim they're effectively playing a persona during their shows; Boyle's material is ridiculously offensive, at times, but for the most part he's a fairly charitable left-wing liberal.

I also worry it wouldn't really reflect wider society as a whole, and would be attempts at enforcing changes people don't particularly desire. The guy in this case is quite clearly an absolute cock, and no one I really know repeatedly uses phrases like 'Gas the Jews' relentlessly in some attempt at humour, because it's quite clearly not funny...but at the same time a lot of people make off-colour jokes. It's always happened, and it will continue to happen. And for the most part people tend not to be particularly annoyed or offended. Attempts to restrict that strike me as wholly unenforceable, and an attempt to create a society which doesn't really exist at all.

And I get why people would argue for this. Because a lot of people will often hide behind off-colour humour to disguise off-colour views, and a lot of people will play the 'PC gone mad' card when they're quite blatantly being discriminatory cnuts. I absolutely agree there should be criminal prosecutions for people who incite hatred - racial or otherwise - and for people who harass others. While I support freedom of speech, it's necessary to have certain limits in place in order to recognise that it's not okay to say - or do - certain things. But I'm not sure general Holocaust jokes or 9/11 jokes should be worthy of criminal prosecution. That strikes me as too far. And something that a less than benevolent government - i.e. most of them - could distort to their advantage.
 

DOTA

wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
24,504
Surely that's very draconian, though? We'd effectively be getting into territory where people taking offence at comedic material results in criminal prosecutions. Do we do the same for fictional TV shows? Because if not then comedians can, of course, then claim they're effectively playing a persona during their shows; Boyle's material is ridiculously offensive, at times, but for the most part he's a fairly charitable left-wing liberal.

I also worry it wouldn't really reflect wider society as a whole, and would be attempts at enforcing changes people don't particularly desire. The guy in this case is quite clearly an absolute cock, and no one I really know repeatedly uses phrases like 'Gas the Jews' relentlessly in some attempt at humour, because it's quite clearly not funny...but at the same time a lot of people make off-colour jokes. It's always happened, and it will continue to happen. And for the most part people tend not to be particularly annoyed or offended. Attempts to restrict that strike me as wholly unenforceable, and an attempt to create a society which doesn't really exist at all.

And I get why people would argue for this. Because a lot of people will often hide behind off-colour humour to disguise off-colour views, and a lot of people will play the 'PC gone mad' card when they're quite blatantly being discriminatory cnuts. I absolutely agree there should be criminal prosecutions for people who incite hatred - racial or otherwise - and for people who harass others. While I support freedom of speech, it's necessary to have certain limits in place in order to recognise that it's not okay to say - or do - certain things. But I'm not sure general Holocaust jokes or 9/11 jokes should be worthy of criminal prosecution. That strikes me as too far. And something that a less than benevolent government - i.e. most of them - could distort to their advantage.
A less than benevolent government can do all sorts though and it's not as if this decision is remotely indicative of the current UK leadership's views.

I don't see what this glorification of free speech as an ultimate ideal actually achieves. The Americans don't half go on about it and their country is currently a worldwide joke - in part because a lot of people believed a lot of nonsense that was obviously untrue but was legal for powerful people to say.

I'm not convinced I'm arguing for thought police, just yet, but the case against is not that great right now.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,017
I don't see what this glorification of free speech as an ultimate ideal actually achieves.
There have been points in time where if this ideal didn't exist then many of the civil rights we have today would also not exist.
 

DOTA

wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
24,504
There have been points in time where if this ideal didn't exist then many of the civil rights we have today would also not exist.
And there have been points in time where vile political groups would not have been able to grow to the hugely destructive state they did if they weren't given a platform 'in the name of free speech'.
 

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
I'm often humourless about humour. :D
I just view this offensive/ironic humour as limited in imagination & its purveyors as one-trick ponies in many cases. Plus, the whittling-away of our common empathy is an adverse effect of this style.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,017
And there have been points in time where vile political groups would not have been able to grow to the hugely destructive state they did if they weren't given a platform 'in the name of free speech'.
It's a double edged sword, you just hope the better side wins out. Take it away and the worst side has already won.
 

Cheesy

Bread with dipping sauce
Scout
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
36,181
A less than benevolent government can do all sorts though and it's not as if this decision is remotely indicative of the current UK leadership's views.

I don't see what this glorification of free speech as an ultimate ideal actually achieves. The Americans don't half go on about it and their country is currently a worldwide joke - in part because a lot of people believed a lot of nonsense that was obviously untrue but was legal for powerful people to say.

I'm not convinced I'm arguing for thought police, just yet, but the case against is not that great right now.
Because surely it's one of the central components of any modern, liberal society? The ability to be able to express yourself without fearing of criminal repercussions?

Obviously it's more complex than that, because things like harassment or inciting people to hatred can't and shouldn't be tolerated lest we want to keep that liberal society, but at the same time it's an incredibly slippery-slope to start arresting or prosecuting people for mere remarks based on what is construed as offence.

And freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to universally lie either - statements that are false or downright incorrect should be seen as libelous. Ideally we should have independent bodies that hold politicians to account when they lie or distort facts in a way that's clearly untruthful. Although getting such a body to be truly independent is a problem in itself.

The American right go on about it all the time but are clearly using it as a distortion considering Trump likes to undermine any press outlet that goes against him. But that shouldn't mean freedom of speech is something we should abandon, even if it's largely getting taken over by alt-right gimps who confuse freedom of speech with being a complete cock.
 

Cheesy

Bread with dipping sauce
Scout
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
36,181
I'm often humourless about humour. :D
I just view this offensive/ironic humour as limited in imagination & its purveyors as one-trick ponies in many cases. Plus, the whittling-away of our common empathy is an adverse effect of this style.
I do think that's often the case. Although I don't think it should be illegal.

Most humour is offensive to some extent, though, I'd argue. Most comedians will tend to be taking the piss out of one group or another, and while it'll often be inane compared to groups who've historically suffered unspeakable oppression, it's a fine line as to what becomes acceptable and unacceptable. And policing speech isn't going to make people saying/thinking things...they'll just do it in private, giving us a false distortion of what public life is really like.

And - again - I preface this by saying that there are of course limits. Making a Holocaust joke shouldn't be illegal. But flat-out denying the Holocaust in a way which incites hatred against those who suffered in it or harassing those who suffered during it should absolutely be a crime.
 

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
Yeah, it's a matter of degree.
 

DOTA

wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
24,504
It's a double edged sword, you just hope the better side wins out. Take it away and the worst side has already won.
They already have, innit mate. Something about the system.

I think this just comes down to my inability to understand why people give more of a feck about someone's right to teach their dogs to respond to 'gas the jews' than they appear to care about... other shit. All the other shit I would moan about. Global poverty, Western bigotry, climate change etc... they are increasingly ruining this fecking world and half the people I agree with about all of these things talk more about freedom of speech than they do about any of that. As if it matters more that we have open and honest discourse as we kill ourselves than battling the mindsets that are causing it.
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,539
There have been points in time where if this ideal didn't exist then many of the civil rights we have today would also not exist.
The 1st amendment only acquired the current everything-goes image it has today *after* the internal socialist threat had been dealt with by the US. For example, being a Communist is illegal in the US. Arguing against war was also illegal and got a presidential candidate in jail. Coming back to the present day, the Bush and then Obama administrations made it illegal for lawyers to talk to any group (unilaterally) declared a terrorist organisation, even if they were speaking about disarming. I'm not even considering slaves who of course had no rights, or the long list of extrajudicial stuff by the FBI forcibly deporting boatloads of socialists, strikebreaking, or cracking down on civil rights and feminist groups (who were all theoretically engaging in protected free speech activities).

At the same time, corporations can use their freedom of speech to spend unlimited cash on presidential races. Employers can use their freedom to tell their employees to stop campaigning for candidates the owners don't like. Employees can be fired for criticising religion on personal blogs, while the law must respect the religious beliefs of immortal non-human limited-liability corporations when they decide to deny birth control to their employees.*

The "freedom" of speech stretches exactly as far as the state and corporate interests finds it safe and useful.


*all examples here
 

Cheesy

Bread with dipping sauce
Scout
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
36,181
They already have, innit mate. Something about the system.

I think this just comes down to my inability to understand why people give more of a feck about someone's right to teach their dogs to respond to 'gas the jews' than they appear to care about... other shit. All the other shit I would moan about. Global poverty, Western bigotry, climate change etc... they are increasingly ruining this fecking world and half the people I agree with about all of these things talk more about freedom of speech than they do about any of that. As if it matters more that we have open and honest discourse as we kill ourselves than battling the mindsets that are causing it.
Yeah I think this fair enough. The alt-right/libertarian types have done a good job at making it a much bigger deal than it really is. Hence why, even though I disagree with the pug man's conviction (even though he's a dick) and partly disagree with you on this issue, I find statements that we're heading toward some dystopian nightmare where people can't say anything without being prosecuted - the sort of thing you'll hear parroted by Peterson and the like - to be ridiculous, and a convenient diversion away from other significant issues like climate change.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
16,681
I watched Ricky Gervais last night and while I didn't love all of his new show, he did make an excellent point about people getting upset and offended on things they see on Twitter or YouTube.

It's like seeing an advertisement for guitar lessons on the notice board at your local supermarket, getting pissed off and ringing the number on the ad to complain because you don't want guitar lessons.

If you don't think it's funny then don't follow the guy. Don't watch it and don't share it. It will have literally zero impact in your life unless you happen to walk past this dog one day in the street and somebody else happens to say one of the triggers out loud. Even then, you're probably unlikely to notice.

The guy is clearly an idiot and all this outrage has resulted in is giving another idiot a platform to share his idiocy from. Has there ever been an age where idiots are given as much opportunity to share their stupidity with us?

If he is guilty of a criminal offence here (which he isn't) then every bloody person who contributed to making this crap video go viral and ending up in front of my eyes tonight is culpable of an offence as well.

Say what you will about the old days but at least the village idiots were shunned to the edges of society, left to mutter at lampposts and largely ignored except for the odd story to scare children from wandering too far from the garden.

We can't prosecute unfunny idiots for making crap, unfunny and offensive jokes without also prosecuting good comedians for telling the clever, funny and offensive jokes that lots of us enjoy.
 

DOTA

wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
24,504
I watched Ricky Gervais last night and while I didn't love all of his new show, he did make an excellent point about people getting upset and offended on things they see on Twitter or YouTube.

It's like seeing an advertisement for guitar lessons on the notice board at your local supermarket, getting pissed off and ringing the number on the ad to complain because you don't want guitar lessons.

If you don't think it's funny then don't follow the guy. Don't watch it and don't share it. It will have literally zero impact in your life unless you happen to walk past this dog one day in the street and somebody else happens to say one of the triggers out loud. Even then, you're probably unlikely to notice.

The guy is clearly an idiot and all this outrage has resulted in is giving another idiot a platform to share his idiocy from. Has there ever been an age where idiots are given as much opportunity to share their stupidity with us?

If he is guilty of a criminal offence here (which he isn't) then every bloody person who contributed to making this crap video go viral and ending up in front of my eyes tonight is culpable of an offence as well.

Say what you will about the old days but at least the village idiots were shunned to the edges of society, left to mutter at lampposts and largely ignored except for the odd story to scare children from wandering too far from the garden.

We can't prosecute unfunny idiots for making crap, unfunny and offensive jokes without also prosecuting good comedians for telling the clever, funny and offensive jokes that lots of us enjoy.
This is bollocks, though. Gervais is not putting out a sign for guitar lessons. He is putting out advertisements for his highly political comedy show. And when I walk past it, I still get it pushed towards me by anyone who chose to share it. Guitar teachers don't really have this reach, believe it or not. I don't inadvertently discover the best way to hold an F chord, in standard tuning, when exposed to his material. I get to hear about his tedious political views.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
16,681
This is bollocks, though. Gervais is not putting out a sign for guitar lessons. He is putting out advertisements for his highly political comedy show. And when I walk past it, I still get it pushed towards me by anyone who chose to share it. Guitar teachers don't really have this reach, believe it or not. I don't inadvertently discover the best way to hold an F chord, in standard tuning, when exposed to his material. I get to hear about his tedious political views.
I have both a Twitter and a YouTube account and manage to use both quite frequently without being subjected to things that offend or annoy me.

I don't think I've ever inadvertently been subjected to a Ricky Gervais tweet or video without searching for it.
 

DOTA

wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
24,504
I have both a Twitter and a YouTube account and manage to use both quite frequently without being subjected to things that offend or annoy me.

I don't think I've ever inadvertently been subjected to a Ricky Gervais tweet or video without searching for it.
I congratulate you but your experience alone does not tell us much about his reach and, you know, I still reckon it's pretty incomparable to the average guitar teacher despite your obliviousness to his offerings.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
16,681
I congratulate you but your experience alone does not tell us much about his reach and, you know, I still reckon it's pretty incomparable to the average guitar teacher despite your obliviousness to his offerings.
They are both advertising. You don't like what he's advertising so don't pay attention to it.

I don't like all the ads on Sky tv so I cancelled my subscription and instead, I subscribe to media which doesn't force me to watch ads.

You may well be right about his reach and it might not be possible for you to avoid the occasional tweet or video of his reaching through your filters. Much the same as I might be unable to avoid seeing the guitar teachers advert when I'm searching for a babysitter on the notice board.

But you can certainly choose not to read past the name on the tweet and definitely choose not to be offended by his opinions.
 

DOTA

wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
24,504
They are both advertising. You don't like what he's advertising so don't pay attention to it.

I don't like all the ads on Sky tv so I cancelled my subscription and instead, I subscribe to media which doesn't force me to watch ads.

You may well be right about his reach and it might not be possible for you to avoid the occasional tweet or video of his reaching through you filters. Much the same as I might be unable to avoid seeing the guitar teachers advert when I'm searching for a babysitter on the notice board.

But you can certainly choose not to read past the name on the tweet and definitely choose not to be offended by his opinions.
This is not the same and I very much doubt you believe it is. There is not a thread for my local guitar teacher on redcafe and even if there was then, yes, I can still ignore it, but people aren't talking about it at work the next day.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
16,681
This is not the same and I very much doubt you believe it is. There is not a thread for my local guitar teacher on redcafe and even if there was then, yes, I can still ignore it, but people aren't talking about it at work the next day.
Then you can ignore them. People are always going to like talking about things you dont like talking about. You can choose to either be offended by their views or not.

In what way is it not the same? Is it simply because Ricky Gervais is more famous than the guitar teacher and more people have Twitter accounts than visit the supermarket?

Ricky Gervais does not have any mechanism by which he can send an unsolicited tweet or video directly to you.

Yes somebody you know can share it with you but someone could also send you the guitar teachers phone number.

Your issue should be with the person looking to drum up outrage by sharing the tweet with you rather than Ricky Gervais for having the opinion.
 

DOTA

wants Amber Rudd to call him a naughty boy
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
24,504
Then you can ignore them. People are always going to like talking about things you dont like talking about. You can choose to either be offended by their views or not.

In what way is it not the same? Is it simply because Ricky Gervais is more famous than the guitar teacher and more people have Twitter accounts than visit the supermarket?

Ricky Gervais does not have any mechanism by which he can send an unsolicited tweet or video directly to you.

Yes somebody you know can share it with you but someone could also send you the guitar teachers phone number.

Your issue should be with the person looking to drum up outrage by sharing the tweet with you rather than Ricky Gervais for having the opinion.
Yes. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that despite the human ability to ignore things your average guitar teacher wishes they could get their advert seen by as many people as any Gervais tweet.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
16,681
Yes. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that despite the human ability to ignore things your average guitar teacher wishes they could get their advert seen by as many people as any Gervais tweet.
You seem to think I'm arguing that the guitar teacher has as much reach as a Gervais tweet. I'm not.

I'm arguing that you have no more business being offended by an opinion Ricky Gervais shared with his followers and never intended for you, than someone who doesn't want guitar lessons has being offended by seeing an ad for them.

It's really that simple. Twitter and YouTube allow us to choose who we follow. We can even choose to block and mute specific accounts if we really don't want to see their opinions.

People then share their opinions and thoughts and even advertisements with their followers - not with other people who don't like their opinions.

The only reason you are seeing it is because someone you know or follow liked it - take issue with their taste and decision to share it with you, or because someone you know or follow is looking to stir outrage - again, take issue with them.

Ricky Gervais is allowed to share an opinion, or tell a joke, or even to advertise, regardless of whether or not the content of the tweet he hasn't sent to you might offend you.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
34,063
Like most people with liberal values I think it's ridiculous that someone should go to court over a joke (and a relatively tame one at that). Freedom of speech is (or at least should be) rather important for someone with progressive views. Plus of all things to target, this guy?

More than anything though, I do wish this discussion wasn't taking place at a time when Ricky Gervais gets to take this as proof that he's right.
 
Last edited:

Member 39557

Guest
I winced at gas the jews, but actually chuckled when the Dog did the Nazi salute.

Bad taste, but not worth the taxpayers money to prosecute him in my opinion. He was supported in court by Tommy Robinson, so I have no sympathy for anybody that would associate with such a person. It also leads me to question his real intentions behind the video.
 

JohnLocke

Full Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
5,884
Location
The Valley Below
It was clearly a joke, I don't really understand why he would be prosecuted for it. Bad taste certainly but so what?

As someone else said should Frankie Boyle be arrested for some of the shocking things he's said? He's said some seriously offensive things.

I watched one Count Dankula's videos explaining what had happened in the aftermath of being arrested for pug video, and he said that a crazy lady shouted at him in the street that he was a "Nazi Bastard" and emptied a dog waste bin on his doorstep. Police not interested in the shit being smeared on his door and his GF being scared, but arrested the lady that shouted at him for Hate Speech. Priceless!
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,349
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
I winced at gas the jews, but actually chuckled when the Dog did the Nazi salute.

Bad taste, but not worth the taxpayers money to prosecute him in my opinion. He was supported in court by Tommy Robinson, so I have no sympathy for anybody that would associate with such a person. It also leads me to question his real intentions behind the video.
The dog gets all the credit for that. Pugs are inherently hilarious animals. Almost as though they’re bred to be comedians. I have a dog that is half pug and he’s funnier than most of my friends.
 

Member 39557

Guest
The dog gets all the credit for that. Pugs are inherently hilarious animals. Almost as though they’re bred to be comedians. I have a dog that is half pug and he’s funnier than most of my friends.
Probably. There was a certain eagerness in the Dogs expression and movements which was both endearing and funny.
 

RexHamilton

Gumshoe for hire
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
4,417
It was clearly a joke, I don't really understand why he would be prosecuted for it. Bad taste certainly but so what?

As someone else said should Frankie Boyle be arrested for some of the shocking things he's said? He's said some seriously offensive things.

I watched one Count Dankula's videos explaining what had happened in the aftermath of being arrested for pug video, and he said that a crazy lady shouted at him in the street that he was a "Nazi Bastard" and emptied a dog waste bin on his doorstep. Police not interested in the shit being smeared on his door and his GF being scared, but arrested the lady that shouted at him for Hate Speech. Priceless!
I agree with you here. If you're going to prosecute one person for being grossly offensive, then you should be prosecuting thousands of people a day. What would we say if there was a muslim majority in Britain in 50 years time and they started prosecuting women for wearing (what they consider) revealing clothes because they find it grossly offensive. Offence is something individual. What offends me won't offend everyone and while holocaust jokes will be seen as offensive to most people, it's not a reason to prosecute someone.

This man is obviously a gobshite, but if we are to punish gobshites for being gobshites, we'll need a lot more prisons.
 

JohnLocke

Full Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
5,884
Location
The Valley Below
I agree with you here. If you're going to prosecute one person for being grossly offensive, then you should be prosecuting thousands of people a day. What would we say if there was a muslim majority in Britain in 50 years time and they started prosecuting women for wearing (what they consider) revealing clothes because they find it grossly offensive. Offence is something individual. What offends me won't offend everyone and while holocaust jokes will be seen as offensive to most people, it's not a reason to prosecute someone.

This man is obviously a gobshite, but if we are to punish gobshites for being gobshites, we'll need a lot more prisons.
I don't think it matters if you're offending the majority or the minority to be honest, it's a joke and everyone knows it is, be offended by it or don't, as far as I care.

I don't even think he's that much of a gobshite. I've watched a few of his videos and find them quite funny (enjoyed the Vegan one). I think it's his appearance that make people jump to conclusions: like him being a work-shy tosser.

He's got a hammer and sickle tattoo as well, which almost proves for certain that he's a nazi.

People like Tommy Robinson endorsing him aren't doing him any favours but being a working class lad being brought before the court he's probably just happy to have people support him.
 

RexHamilton

Gumshoe for hire
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
4,417
I don't think it matters if you're offending the majority or the minority to be honest, it's a joke and everyone knows it is, be offended by it or don't, as far as I care.
I agree, but what I mean about the majority is, people don't seem to care that he's being prosecuted because it's something that's widely accepted as offensive. But they should because if things changed and our "normal" views were seen as offensive in the future, we'd be up in arms if we were prosecuted for sharing them.
 

Muffled funk

Not to be trusted
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,497
Location
Norway
Maybe its my inability to understand people but why would they give more of a feck about the advertising reach of a guitar teacher than global poverty, Western bigotry, climate change etc... they are increasingly ruining this fecking world.
 

JohnLocke

Full Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
5,884
Location
The Valley Below
hammer and sickle is commie
I know, I was joking / highlighting the absurdity of him actually being a nazi / sympathiser. Not that I think there's a great distinction between the two for being murderous, but he doesn't align himself with it anymore either. Just thought it was funny.

I agree, but what I mean about the majority is, people don't seem to care that he's being prosecuted because it's something that's widely accepted as offensive. But they should because if things changed and our "normal" views were seen as offensive in the future, we'd be up in arms if we were prosecuted for sharing them.
Don't know if it's a fair reflection on the general consensus but the majority of people in here don't think he should be prosecuted and I think people who don't really care about such things would probably be of the same opinion.

The only people that would agree with the prosecution are those on the hard left, imo anyway.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
16,681
Maybe its my inability to understand people but why would they give more of a feck about the advertising reach of a guitar teacher than global poverty, Western bigotry, climate change etc... they are increasingly ruining this fecking world.
I would suggest it's your inability to understand context and metaphor, rather than people in general to be fair.
 

Fearless

Mighty Mouse
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
4,460
Location
The Pink Torpedo Club
I agree with you here. If you're going to prosecute one person for being grossly offensive, then you should be prosecuting thousands of people a day. What would we say if there was a muslim majority in Britain in 50 years time and they started prosecuting women for wearing (what they consider) revealing clothes because they find it grossly offensive. Offence is something individual. What offends me won't offend everyone and while holocaust jokes will be seen as offensive to most people, it's not a reason to prosecute someone.

This man is obviously a gobshite, but if we are to punish gobshites for being gobshites, we'll need a lot more prisons.
I'm Jewish and don't appreciate his humour at all. However, assuming that the intent was indeed humour, then I'm fine with it.
Likewise I have no problem with Yid chants at Spurs matches. If anything, criminalising humour/banter/parody will ironically turn us more into a Nazi state than just leaving it be.

It's always about intent & context.