A man named Markus Meechan has been convicted of a hate crime in Scotland. Sentencing is not until next month. The crime that Meechan has been convicted of is a result of a video he put on youtube which subsequently went viral.

This is a mirror of the video, it’s about two minutes long.

https://youtu.be/5rdWlVyN9es?t=58

In it, Meechan demonstrates numerous times how he has trained his girlfriends pug dog to respond excitedly to the phrase “Gas the jews” and to raise it’s paw in a mock-Nazi salute on command “Seig Heil”. A short segment also shows the pug watching a video of Hitler at some rally giving Hitler-esque speeches.

At the start of the video Meechan explains that his plan is to annoy his girlfriend by turning her beloved, cute little pug in to the “least cute thing (he) could think of, which is a Nazi.” Later in the video Meechan says to camera ““I’m not racist, by the way. I just really, really wanted to (tick my girlfriend) off.”

I’m interested in reactions to the video and to the finding of criminality from people here.

Do you think Meechan’s video was offensive?
Do you think that people should or should not have the right-under-law to upload such a video?
Do you think criminal conviction and possible gaol time is an appropriate response from the authorities to the uploading of the video?

I can’t view it at work, but what a moron and the I’m not racist doesn’t exactly wash, who wouldn’t realise it’s likely to offend.
If it’s illegal then he should expect a consequence and even if not he’s likely to cop flak for doing it anyway.
It’s hard to prosecute I imagine as it depends on where the video is hosted as well I think, could be illegal in his country but if its on a server elsewhere it may not be
Jail time is harsh, a fine instead

He definitely deserved to be dumped by his girlfriend and shunned by other acquaintances.

haven’t watched the video, but yes an individual (generalizing) does have to take responsibility for what something might lend to.

especially when something is made public.

so too the platforms that allow it.

if an individual (or group, including media), appeal to amusement – entertainment – by way of making casual a horror, then the law should test that.

the reality is the forces of normal often protect the right to deliver casual trauma.

esselte said:

A man named Markus Meechan has been convicted of a hate crime in Scotland. Sentencing is not until next month. The crime that Meechan has been convicted of is a result of a video he put on youtube which subsequently went viral.

This is a mirror of the video, it’s about two minutes long.

https://youtu.be/5rdWlVyN9es?t=58

In it, Meechan demonstrates numerous times how he has trained his girlfriends pug dog to respond excitedly to the phrase “Gas the jews” and to raise it’s paw in a mock-Nazi salute on command “Seig Heil”. A short segment also shows the pug watching a video of Hitler at some rally giving Hitler-esque speeches.

At the start of the video Meechan explains that his plan is to annoy his girlfriend by turning her beloved, cute little pug in to the “least cute thing (he) could think of, which is a Nazi.” Later in the video Meechan says to camera ““I’m not racist, by the way. I just really, really wanted to (tick my girlfriend) off.”

I’m interested in reactions to the video and to the finding of criminality from people here.

Do you think Meechan’s video was offensive?
Do you think that people should or should not have the right-under-law to upload such a video?
Do you think criminal conviction and possible gaol time is an appropriate response from the authorities to the uploading of the video?

My thoughts

1 By itself, no, in context of history and if its linked to Nazi Germany then yes
2 If its not connected to Nazi Germany then yes, if it is connected to Nazi Germany then no, as its a tool for hate against humanity
3 hatred against humanity is a reason for putting someone in goal (depending), if they cannot be counseled first using cognitive therapies etc, by itself it doesn’t not deserve jail, if its used as a tool for inciting hatred against humanity then yes jail time if those persons cannot be rehabilitated by counseling

Should we tolerate Nazis walking around displaying hatred against humanity?

Do you place someone in jail for having a hatred for humanity or can they still live in society? When Nazis get together in a group as far right protestors, group dynamics can increase levels of hatred towards actual physical violence.

There are different levels of jail around the world some low security ones can be a whole town like arrangement or a facility within a farm without walls then from that you move to facilities with walls etc

There is counseling and rehabilitation etc which should be used first before looking at jail options.

The pug will need rehabilitation as well.

What if society applied Queensland anti-bikie laws to Nazis?

or a watered down version?

transition said:

haven’t watched the video, but yes an individual (generalizing) does have to take responsibility for what something might lend to.

especially when something is made public.

so too the platforms that allow it.

if an individual (or group, including media), appeal to amusement – entertainment – by way of making casual a horror, then the law should test that.

the reality is the forces of normal often protect the right to deliver casual trauma.

way too much license these days, license to deliver casual mischief into the aether, for entertainment, and the license seems to be that once it’s gone wild the responsibility is diluted, which often has attributes of overdetermination, like a firing squad.

but then media is a good model of that anyway, and since social media platforms it seems to have got worse, at least of some marginal personalities that use it. For lot of people, possibly most, it’s more modest indulgence, restraint is the norm.

300,000 year old social instincts, and for many the platforms assisting hyper-sociability haven’t helped much.

Tau.Neutrino said:

What if society applied Queensland anti-bikie laws to Nazis?

or a watered down version?

Organised crime syndicates could always be treated as terrorists organisations and dealt with that way, ba bang

transition said:

transition said:

haven’t watched the video, but yes an individual (generalizing) does have to take responsibility for what something might lend to.

especially when something is made public.

so too the platforms that allow it.

if an individual (or group, including media), appeal to amusement – entertainment – by way of making casual a horror, then the law should test that.

the reality is the forces of normal often protect the right to deliver casual trauma.

way too much license these days, license to deliver casual mischief into the aether, for entertainment, and the license seems to be that once it’s gone wild the responsibility is diluted, which often has attributes of overdetermination, like a firing squad.

but then media is a good model of that anyway, and since social media platforms it seems to have got worse, at least of some marginal personalities that use it. For lot of people, possibly most, it’s more modest indulgence, restraint is the norm.

300,000 year old social instincts, and for many the platforms assisting hyper-sociability haven’t helped much.

You have more freedom to be racist moron because of social media but more ways to get caught with the evidence for all to see

Tau.Neutrino said:

What if society applied Queensland anti-bikie laws to Nazis?

or a watered down version?

Should any group that gets together to incite hatred towards humanity be banned as a group?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

What if society applied Queensland anti-bikie laws to Nazis?

or a watered down version?

Should any group that gets together to incite hatred towards humanity be banned as a group?

Banning could cause them to go underground as the desire would still exist and make it harder to keep an eye on them, they banning may also give them justification to be violent.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

What if society applied Queensland anti-bikie laws to Nazis?

or a watered down version?

Should any group that gets together to incite hatred towards humanity be banned as a group?

The end goal for Nazis was to kill Jews, inciting hatred towards humanity can lead to mass killings.

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

What if society applied Queensland anti-bikie laws to Nazis?

or a watered down version?

Should any group that gets together to incite hatred towards humanity be banned as a group?

Banning could cause them to go underground as the desire would still exist and make it harder to keep an eye on them, they banning may also give them justification to be violent.

ok,

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Should any group that gets together to incite hatred towards humanity be banned as a group?

Banning could cause them to go underground as the desire would still exist and make it harder to keep an eye on them, they banning may also give them justification to be violent.

ok,

Letting them out of the box isn’t working out well. The rise of the far right wing on social media is pretty ugly and scary.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Should any group that gets together to incite hatred towards humanity be banned as a group?

Banning could cause them to go underground as the desire would still exist and make it harder to keep an eye on them, they banning may also give them justification to be violent.

ok,

I don’t agree with banning things as it usually the easy way to try and stop some behaviour and it doesn’t work as it creates an illegal network for people to acquire it

sarahs mum said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Banning could cause them to go underground as the desire would still exist and make it harder to keep an eye on them, they banning may also give them justification to be violent.

ok,

Letting them out of the box isn’t working out well. The rise of the far right wing on social media is pretty ugly and scary.

Probably not maybe they can still be kept an eye on though.

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Banning could cause them to go underground as the desire would still exist and make it harder to keep an eye on them, they banning may also give them justification to be violent.

ok,

I don’t agree with banning things as it usually the easy way to try and stop some behaviour and it doesn’t work as it creates an illegal network for people to acquire it

Should counseling be compulsory or voluntary for inciting hatred towards humanity?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

ok,

I don’t agree with banning things as it usually the easy way to try and stop some behaviour and it doesn’t work as it creates an illegal network for people to acquire it

Should counseling be compulsory or voluntary for inciting hatred towards humanity?

Probably should be yes

Thanks for the replies. I basically disagree with everything you all have said in this thread. It’s understandable but still unfortunate that most of the people who chose to comment were also unable to actually watch the video, but to keep things simple I’ll link another video of the excellent Jonathan Pie commenting on this case. He covers pretty much all the points that are important to me. I think this is a frightening development in a Western democracy which needs to be addressed.

Warning video contains lots of swearing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2bVS40cz0

I didn’t know you were a Jonathon Pie fan :)

I think the “free speech” thing is way over-simplistic. No-one thinks that anybody should be allowed to say anything they like, and the dividing line between criminal and merely extremely offensive is certainly not clear cut.

On the other hand, in this particular case, it was clearly intended as a joke, rather than to increase the gassing of jews, and is way on the non-criminal side of the fuzzy dividing line.

So I agree with Esselte and Jonathon Pie.

I don’t think I’ve had the opportunity to say that before.

esselte said:

Thanks for the replies. I basically disagree with everything you all have said in this thread. It’s understandable but still unfortunate that most of the people who chose to comment were also unable to actually watch the video, but to keep things simple I’ll link another video of the excellent Jonathan Pie commenting on this case. He covers pretty much all the points that are important to me. I think this is a frightening development in a Western democracy which needs to be addressed.

Warning video contains lots of swearing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2bVS40cz0

Tell us what you think.

Tau.Neutrino said:

esselte said:

Thanks for the replies. I basically disagree with everything you all have said in this thread. It’s understandable but still unfortunate that most of the people who chose to comment were also unable to actually watch the video, but to keep things simple I’ll link another video of the excellent Jonathan Pie commenting on this case. He covers pretty much all the points that are important to me. I think this is a frightening development in a Western democracy which needs to be addressed.

Warning video contains lots of swearing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2bVS40cz0

Tell us what you think.

??

The quoted text says what he thinks, doesn’t it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

esselte said:

Thanks for the replies. I basically disagree with everything you all have said in this thread. It’s understandable but still unfortunate that most of the people who chose to comment were also unable to actually watch the video, but to keep things simple I’ll link another video of the excellent Jonathan Pie commenting on this case. He covers pretty much all the points that are important to me. I think this is a frightening development in a Western democracy which needs to be addressed.

Warning video contains lots of swearing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2bVS40cz0

Tell us what you think.

??

The quoted text says what he thinks, doesn’t it?

I’m wondering what esselte thinks.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tell us what you think.

??

The quoted text says what he thinks, doesn’t it?

I’m wondering what esselte thinks.

Why are you wondering what Esselte thinks when you have just quoted some text where Esselte tells us what Esselte thinks?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

??

The quoted text says what he thinks, doesn’t it?

I’m wondering what esselte thinks.

Why are you wondering what Esselte thinks when you have just quoted some text where Esselte tells us what Esselte thinks?

Well Jonathan Pie is very angry about the joke, I dont see him laughing about it.

Esselte disagrees with us without saying why.

No I dont the joke funny.

I would imagine that some Jews and non Jews are offended while some Jews and non Jews are not offended.

I dont think he deserves jail time, there have been agreements and disagreements about various cartoonists and comedians offending people in the past.

One guy went into a newspaper and actually shot a few people because he found a cartoon offensive, he wasn’t happy about the joke at all? Overreaction?

Well that’s an extreme case of over reaction, but yes I think the judge in the Nazi pug case has overreacted a bit.

One thing with jokes is that some will find a joke funny while others will not.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Well Jonathan Pie is very angry about the joke, I dont see him laughing about it.

Esselte disagrees with us without saying why.

No, JP very clearly states that he is angry about the man who made the joke being convicted of a crime, because it was just a joke.

He implies that he didn’t find it particularly funny, but he very clearly says that this is irrelevant.

Esselte clearly says he agrees with JP, and said essentially the same as JP in the opening post.

I don’t see where the confusion is.

Tau.Neutrino said:

One thing with jokes is that some will find a joke funny while others will not.

Its like Nazi costumes at a dress up party.

One royal family member went dressed up as a Nazi and the media had a field day over it and they pulled the photo.

Does that mean we get rid of Nazi party costumes?

How can it be dismissed as a joke when he did it with the deliberate intention (by his own admission) of causing offence to his girlfriend?

Tau.Neutrino said:

One thing with jokes is that some will find a joke funny while others will not.

Obviously, but what does that have to do with it?

The question is, should someone be subject to a criminal prosecution for making a video that did not incite violence or hatred, on the grounds that some people find it offensive?

party_pants said:

How can it be dismissed as a joke when he did it with the deliberate intention (by his own admission) of causing offence to his girlfriend?

Is deliberately causing offence to your girlfriend a criminal offence then?

It doesn’t seem to have been the basis of the conviction in this case anyway.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

One thing with jokes is that some will find a joke funny while others will not.

Its like Nazi costumes at a dress up party.

One royal family member went dressed up as a Nazi and the media had a field day over it and they pulled the photo.

Does that mean we get rid of Nazi party costumes?

The Pug has no knowledge of Jewish History or a Nazi salute, Nazi policy, Nazi History, or Nazi propaganda and has never met Hitler or any other Nazis.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

How can it be dismissed as a joke when he did it with the deliberate intention (by his own admission) of causing offence to his girlfriend?

Is deliberately causing offence to your girlfriend a criminal offence then?

It doesn’t seem to have been the basis of the conviction in this case anyway.

if it involves anti-semitic slogans like “gas the Jews” then yes, it probably is.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

One thing with jokes is that some will find a joke funny while others will not.

Obviously, but what does that have to do with it?

The question is, should someone be subject to a criminal prosecution for making a video that did not incite violence or hatred, on the grounds that some people find it offensive?

In this particular case, It does not warrant a prosecution, and it is wasting court time.

Who is going to look after Pug while its owner is in Jail?

>Esselte disagrees with us without saying why.

Who the hell is us, that inclusive contagion.

Media and associated distortions of what’s near and far make things relevant (or significant) to individuals that probably aren’t, or wouldn’t usually be, or more to the point the distortions obscure the fact that most that’s happening in the world isn’t known to any of us. A good thing mostly.

I didn’t watch the video because I don’t find the idea of a dog being trained to do nazi salutes etc the least bit entertaining, I refuse to indulge it for entertainment. Nor will I be taken there to defend freedom, with concerns of the decay of western democracy or otherwise.

The nazi’s had big ideas about the way the world should be, that it should yield to some insanity of humans, like reality was the work of minds, that it should be mostly.

I’m here to tell you it’s not.

For some reality, think about and enjoy what isn’t the work of minds, and it’s that which keeps most people out of trouble, or from causing others trouble.

transition said:

>Esselte disagrees with us without saying why.

Who the hell is us, that inclusive contagion.

Media and associated distortions of what’s near and far make things relevant (or significant) to individuals that probably aren’t, or wouldn’t usually be, or more to the point the distortions obscure the fact that most that’s happening in the world isn’t known to any of us. A good thing mostly.

I didn’t watch the video because I don’t find the idea of a dog being trained to do nazi salutes etc the least bit entertaining, I refuse to indulge it for entertainment. Nor will I be taken there to defend freedom, with concerns of the decay of western democracy or otherwise.

The nazi’s had big ideas about the way the world should be, that it should yield to some insanity of humans, like reality was the work of minds, that it should be mostly.

I’m here to tell you it’s not.

For some reality, think about and enjoy what isn’t the work of minds, and it’s that which keeps most people out of trouble, or from causing others trouble.

Esselte disagrees without saying why.

Is that better?

Tau.Neutrino said:

esselte said:

Thanks for the replies. I basically disagree with everything you all have said in this thread. It’s understandable but still unfortunate that most of the people who chose to comment were also unable to actually watch the video, but to keep things simple I’ll link another video of the excellent Jonathan Pie commenting on this case. He covers pretty much all the points that are important to me. I think this is a frightening development in a Western democracy which needs to be addressed.

Warning video contains lots of swearing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2bVS40cz0

Tell us what you think.

1. The content of the video was clearly meant as a joke, not as Nazi propaganda. If anything, it was mocking Nazi’s.
2. The convicted could conceivably be gaoled for a joke. Regardless of punishment, he now has a permanent criminal record.
3. The conviction is based on the idiotic premise “we are not allowed to make fun of Nazi’s, in case it is misinterpreted”.
4. The conviction is based on the judges stated position that context and intention are irrelevant in cases like this.
5. Gas the jews! If context and intention are irrlelevant, if I was living in Scotland, the sentence I just typed would be considered a crime warranting conviction and a possible gaol sentence. Heil Hitler – oh shit I’m going away for life!
6. The rights of citizens in most Western democracies have been granted to those citizens. Conceivably, rights granted can also be rescinded.
7. If social authorities in Western democracies did wish to begin restricting the rights of their citizens they would need to do so incrementally to let the people get used to their new-found restrictions on freedom a bit at a time . Criminalising and gaoling people for making offensive jokes feels very much like an early “bit”; it is an indirect attack on the freedom of people to express themselves. This attack on the freedom of people to speak rides to acceptance on politically correct mantras promulgated by a putrid extremist authoritarian element of the modern social justice movement, a cadre of slimy evil characters usually known disparagingly on the internet as Social Justice Warriors, whom increasingly are infiltrating the institutions of modern society. It is potentially the first step in establishing an Orwelian control of the language that people use. It’s a wrongheaded ideology that is now noticeably infiltrating social institutions (in this case the Scottish courts) that have the capability to oppress you and I, or at least our Scottish counterparts.
8. There are safeties built in to most democracies to keep dangerous ideologies out of authority. Many of those safeties are failing right now and we are quickly approaching the fall-back position where the citizens actually have to do something. The UK doesn’t have a US gun culture, so they have to stop this kind of thing before it gets to the shooting stage. In the case of the Nazi pug, the citizens of the UK must demand that the law which allowed this ruling be re-written reflect a better balance of the right to offend vs the right to not be offended. Anyone gaoled under the old version of the law must be released or face a re-trial. Those who are released should be compensated by the government. Methods should be introduced by which the general public can more easily audit the performance of public servants, especially those public servants that wield power such as the ability to send someone to prison.
9. Don’t think similar things can’t happen in Australia. There has never been a system of government that has remained stable indefinitely. Things will change, and it seems both the extreme Left and the extreme Right think they have all the answers and that the time for that change is now. The moderate majority needs to be vigilant and ensure that neither sides extremists/ideologies are allowed to take root in the institutions that govern our lives.

>So I agree with Esselte and Jonathon Pie.
>I don’t think I’ve had the opportunity to say that before.

Haha. I trust points 7 and 8 puts us back on an even keel? The hyperbole was just for you :)

“For some reality, think about and enjoy what isn’t the work of minds, and it’s that which keeps most people out of trouble, or from causing others trouble.”

———————————————————————————————————————————

You just want me to come and dig post-holes for you, I reckon. Even though I have post-hole shovels and crow bars, I’m not! Stamps foot.

Unless you pay lots.

:)

Michael V said:

“For some reality, think about and enjoy what isn’t the work of minds, and it’s that which keeps most people out of trouble, or from causing others trouble.”

———————————————————————————————————————————

You just want me to come and dig post-holes for you, I reckon. Even though I have post-hole shovels and crow bars, I’m not! Stamps foot.

Unless you pay lots.

:)

:)

>I didn’t watch the video because I don’t find the idea of a dog being trained to do nazi salutes etc the least bit entertaining, I refuse to indulge it for entertainment.

I clicked on it but it was just some Scottish boofhead saying “gas the Jews” over and over again, so I refused to waste further time on it.

How would would the same Judge see this video?
Monty Python – Mr. Hilter

>>>1. The content of the video was clearly meant as a joke, not as Nazi propaganda. If anything, it was mocking Nazi’s.

yes, its mocking Nazis, but its also mocking Jews, which is the reason why I didn’t find the joke funny.

However the pug trying to salute is funny.

Tau.Neutrino said:

>>>1. The content of the video was clearly meant as a joke, not as Nazi propaganda. If anything, it was mocking Nazi’s.

yes, its mocking Nazis, but its also mocking Jews, which is the reason why I didn’t find the joke funny.

However the pug trying to salute is funny.

Yes I can see it as joke, but its a bit off.

I tend to agree with what you are saying.

Looking at it now a bit more, I can its unfair and the judge has made a serious error.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

>>>1. The content of the video was clearly meant as a joke, not as Nazi propaganda. If anything, it was mocking Nazi’s.

yes, its mocking Nazis, but its also mocking Jews, which is the reason why I didn’t find the joke funny.

However the pug trying to salute is funny.

Yes I can see it as joke, but its a bit off.

I tend to agree with what you are saying.

Looking at it now a bit more, I can its unfair and the judge has made a serious error.

opps

Looking at it now a bit more, I can see its unfair and the judge has made a serious error.

I’d be looking at petitions for an appeal or something like that.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

>>>1. The content of the video was clearly meant as a joke, not as Nazi propaganda. If anything, it was mocking Nazi’s.

yes, its mocking Nazis, but its also mocking Jews, which is the reason why I didn’t find the joke funny.

However the pug trying to salute is funny.

Yes I can see it as joke, but its a bit off.

I tend to agree with what you are saying.

Looking at it now a bit more, I can its unfair and the judge has made a serious error.

The perpetrator forgot two ask himself the two first and foremost questions of comedy and satire:

what or who are we poking fun at with this joke?

does the joke make our intended target clear to the audience?

Don’t put any joke, pun, stunt, whatever in your routine until you know the answers to those questions.

captain_spalding said:

The perpetrator forgot two ask himself the two first and foremost questions of comedy and satire:

what or who are we poking fun at with this joke?

does the joke make our intended target clear to the audience?

Don’t put any joke, pun, stunt, whatever in your routine until you know the answers to those questions.

Huh? The video literally opens with him specifying the target (his girlfriend), and stating that the intention is to poke fun at her cutesy attitude towards the dog.

esselte said:

captain_spalding said:

The perpetrator forgot two ask himself the two first and foremost questions of comedy and satire:

what or who are we poking fun at with this joke?

does the joke make our intended target clear to the audience?

Don’t put any joke, pun, stunt, whatever in your routine until you know the answers to those questions.

Huh? The video literally opens with him specifying the target (his girlfriend), and stating that the intention is to poke fun at her cutesy attitude towards the dog.

That’s well and good, but comedians and satirists need to always be on guard for the fact that some of (possibly many of) the audience who hear/see the (obviously poor-taste) joke won’t really be paying attention, or have their own agenda, and will either accidentally or deliberately overlook any disclaimers.

If you don’t want to put up with the kind of hoo-ha that this wally has copped, then you have to be aware of that, and ask yourself if it’s worth it.

If you say ‘yes’, then go ahead, spread the joke as far and wide as you like, and brace yourself for the reaction.

If you say ‘no’, then don’t plaster the joke onto a world-wide medium.

captain_spalding said:

esselte said:

captain_spalding said:

The perpetrator forgot two ask himself the two first and foremost questions of comedy and satire:

what or who are we poking fun at with this joke?

does the joke make our intended target clear to the audience?

Don’t put any joke, pun, stunt, whatever in your routine until you know the answers to those questions.

Huh? The video literally opens with him specifying the target (his girlfriend), and stating that the intention is to poke fun at her cutesy attitude towards the dog.

That’s well and good, but comedians and satirists need to always be on guard for the fact that some of (possibly many of) the audience who hear/see the (obviously poor-taste) joke won’t really be paying attention, or have their own agenda, and will either accidentally or deliberately overlook any disclaimers.

If you don’t want to put up with the kind of hoo-ha that this wally has copped, then you have to be aware of that, and ask yourself if it’s worth it.

If you say ‘yes’, then go ahead, spread the joke as far and wide as you like, and brace yourself for the reaction.

If you say ‘no’, then don’t plaster the joke onto a world-wide medium.

The question is not whether there should have been a hoo-ha. It is whether he should have been prosecuted, let alone found guilty.

If the answer is that the prosecution and conviction were reasonable, why is no-one pressing for he prosecution of the many other people who have performed in humour involving Nazis and Jews, including John Cleese, and now Jonathon Pie?

If the answer is that the intent of the performance is in fact relevant (and the judge was therefore wrong), then the conviction should be reviewed and reversed.

And another thing, how come YouTube haven’t been charged for publishing this video?

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

esselte said:

Huh? The video literally opens with him specifying the target (his girlfriend), and stating that the intention is to poke fun at her cutesy attitude towards the dog.

That’s well and good, but comedians and satirists need to always be on guard for the fact that some of (possibly many of) the audience who hear/see the (obviously poor-taste) joke won’t really be paying attention, or have their own agenda, and will either accidentally or deliberately overlook any disclaimers.

If you don’t want to put up with the kind of hoo-ha that this wally has copped, then you have to be aware of that, and ask yourself if it’s worth it.

If you say ‘yes’, then go ahead, spread the joke as far and wide as you like, and brace yourself for the reaction.

If you say ‘no’, then don’t plaster the joke onto a world-wide medium.

The question is not whether there should have been a hoo-ha. It is whether he should have been prosecuted, let alone found guilty.

If the answer is that the prosecution and conviction were reasonable, why is no-one pressing for he prosecution of the many other people who have performed in humour involving Nazis and Jews, including John Cleese, and now Jonathon Pie?

If the answer is that the intent of the performance is in fact relevant (and the judge was therefore wrong), then the conviction should be reviewed and reversed.

And another thing, how come YouTube haven’t been charged for publishing this video?

I agree with all that you say, Rev. It seems to have been a huge over-reaction by the court.

On the other hand, i always recall what a Holocaust survivor said to me decades back in Sydney (we’d been talking about just this sort of thing).

He said ‘oh, the Nazis were a joke, no doubt about it. That’s how history will see them, eventually. But, they’re not a joke we can afford to laugh at, yet”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

esselte said:

Huh? The video literally opens with him specifying the target (his girlfriend), and stating that the intention is to poke fun at her cutesy attitude towards the dog.

That’s well and good, but comedians and satirists need to always be on guard for the fact that some of (possibly many of) the audience who hear/see the (obviously poor-taste) joke won’t really be paying attention, or have their own agenda, and will either accidentally or deliberately overlook any disclaimers.

If you don’t want to put up with the kind of hoo-ha that this wally has copped, then you have to be aware of that, and ask yourself if it’s worth it.

If you say ‘yes’, then go ahead, spread the joke as far and wide as you like, and brace yourself for the reaction.

If you say ‘no’, then don’t plaster the joke onto a world-wide medium.

The question is not whether there should have been a hoo-ha. It is whether he should have been prosecuted, let alone found guilty.

If the answer is that the prosecution and conviction were reasonable, why is no-one pressing for he prosecution of the many other people who have performed in humour involving Nazis and Jews, including John Cleese, and now Jonathon Pie?

If the answer is that the intent of the performance is in fact relevant (and the judge was therefore wrong), then the conviction should be reviewed and reversed.

And another thing, how come YouTube haven’t been charged for publishing this video?

All this talk about it being “just a joke” is perhaps somewhat coy. Apparently this fellow is a good friend of the chap who calls himself “Tommy Robinson”, former head of the EDL (English Defence League, a quasi-Nazi outfit). Also, his Choob gear is filled with anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-“political correctness” stuff etc. And the loudest voices defending him are all “alt-right” bloggers.

Bubblecar said:

All this talk about it being “just a joke” is perhaps somewhat coy. Apparently this fellow is a good friend of the chap who calls himself “Tommy Robinson”, former head of the EDL (English Defence League, a quasi-Nazi outfit). Also, his Choob gear is filled with anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-“political correctness” stuff etc. And the loudest voices defending him are all “alt-right” bloggers.

The court decision was silly, in that it’s given him a kind of martyrdom.

If the judge had just fined him a good whack, and told him to stop being such a little shit, justice would have been better served, i think.

captain_spalding said:

Bubblecar said:

All this talk about it being “just a joke” is perhaps somewhat coy. Apparently this fellow is a good friend of the chap who calls himself “Tommy Robinson”, former head of the EDL (English Defence League, a quasi-Nazi outfit). Also, his Choob gear is filled with anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-“political correctness” stuff etc. And the loudest voices defending him are all “alt-right” bloggers.

The court decision was silly, in that it’s given him a kind of martyrdom.

If the judge had just fined him a good whack, and told him to stop being such a little shit, justice would have been better served, i think.

He hasn’t been sentenced yet, it probably will just be a fine. But the judge can’t fine him without finding him guilty.

Bubblecar said:

captain_spalding said:

Bubblecar said:

All this talk about it being “just a joke” is perhaps somewhat coy. Apparently this fellow is a good friend of the chap who calls himself “Tommy Robinson”, former head of the EDL (English Defence League, a quasi-Nazi outfit). Also, his Choob gear is filled with anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-“political correctness” stuff etc. And the loudest voices defending him are all “alt-right” bloggers.

The court decision was silly, in that it’s given him a kind of martyrdom.

If the judge had just fined him a good whack, and told him to stop being such a little shit, justice would have been better served, i think.

He hasn’t been sentenced yet, it probably will just be a fine. But the judge can’t fine him without finding him guilty.

The longer he drags it out the stricter the sentence as you get leniency for early pleas of guilty as it saves time and money and the victims (if any) don’t have to appear

Bubblecar said:

He hasn’t been sentenced yet, it probably will just be a fine. But the judge can’t fine him without finding him guilty.

OK, find him guilty, give him a good lecture that ridicules him and his ideas, fine him to the point where it hurts, and throw him back into obscurity.

captain_spalding said:

Bubblecar said:

He hasn’t been sentenced yet, it probably will just be a fine. But the judge can’t fine him without finding him guilty.

OK, find him guilty, give him a good lecture that ridicules him and his ideas, fine him to the point where it hurts, and throw him back into obscurity.

That appears to be what’s happening.

Why Alt-Right Vloggers Are in Scotland to Defend a Nazi Dog

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/bjydeq/why-alt-right-vloggers-are-in-scotland-to-defend-a-nazi-dog

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

That’s well and good, but comedians and satirists need to always be on guard for the fact that some of (possibly many of) the audience who hear/see the (obviously poor-taste) joke won’t really be paying attention, or have their own agenda, and will either accidentally or deliberately overlook any disclaimers.

If you don’t want to put up with the kind of hoo-ha that this wally has copped, then you have to be aware of that, and ask yourself if it’s worth it.

If you say ‘yes’, then go ahead, spread the joke as far and wide as you like, and brace yourself for the reaction.

If you say ‘no’, then don’t plaster the joke onto a world-wide medium.

The question is not whether there should have been a hoo-ha. It is whether he should have been prosecuted, let alone found guilty.

If the answer is that the prosecution and conviction were reasonable, why is no-one pressing for he prosecution of the many other people who have performed in humour involving Nazis and Jews, including John Cleese, and now Jonathon Pie?

If the answer is that the intent of the performance is in fact relevant (and the judge was therefore wrong), then the conviction should be reviewed and reversed.

And another thing, how come YouTube haven’t been charged for publishing this video?

All this talk about it being “just a joke” is perhaps somewhat coy. Apparently this fellow is a good friend of the chap who calls himself “Tommy Robinson”, former head of the EDL (English Defence League, a quasi-Nazi outfit). Also, his Choob gear is filled with anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-“political correctness” stuff etc. And the loudest voices defending him are all “alt-right” bloggers.

No, it isn’t “coy” at all. If this guy’s political opinions are seen as being relevant to his conviction, then that reinforces the Esselte/Jonathon Pie position that this case is more than just an unfortunate one-off, and is in fact a cause for real concern about limitations on free expression.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The question is not whether there should have been a hoo-ha. It is whether he should have been prosecuted, let alone found guilty.

If the answer is that the prosecution and conviction were reasonable, why is no-one pressing for he prosecution of the many other people who have performed in humour involving Nazis and Jews, including John Cleese, and now Jonathon Pie?

If the answer is that the intent of the performance is in fact relevant (and the judge was therefore wrong), then the conviction should be reviewed and reversed.

And another thing, how come YouTube haven’t been charged for publishing this video?

All this talk about it being “just a joke” is perhaps somewhat coy. Apparently this fellow is a good friend of the chap who calls himself “Tommy Robinson”, former head of the EDL (English Defence League, a quasi-Nazi outfit). Also, his Choob gear is filled with anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-“political correctness” stuff etc. And the loudest voices defending him are all “alt-right” bloggers.

No, it isn’t “coy” at all. If this guy’s political opinions are seen as being relevant to his conviction, then that reinforces the Esselte/Jonathon Pie position that this case is more than just an unfortunate one-off, and is in fact a cause for real concern about limitations on free expression.

Some political views are clearly hateful – should they be allowed full and free expression?

Ultimately it’s a matter of whether or not you support anti-hate laws.

But even if you don’t, the fact is they’re currently on the statute books, so the courts are actually obliged to enforce them.

And I wouldn’t say the judge convicted him for his political views.

His defence seems to be: “I was trying to upset people* with hateful Nazi stuff, but I’m not actually a Nazi.”

*specifically his girlfriend, but inevitably other viewers as well.

The judged found him guilty of “trying to upset people with hateful Nazi stuff”, not of being a Nazi.

Bubblecar said:

Some political views are clearly hateful – should they be allowed full and free expression?

Unless you are an authoritarian the answer is clearly “yes”. “Expression” doesn’t mean we have to allow incitement to violence or anything like that. But if I want to come out here and now and say “I think Hitler was a good guy who just wanted to genocide Jews, gays, communists and gypsies and we should probably look at doing the same kind of thing here in Australia today. Only thing wrong with that is he didn’t finish the job” why shouldn’t I be able to say that without fearing arrest? Imagine those two sentences being presented to a judge without the context of this entire thread; or worse the context is presented to a judge who has clearly stated that context and intent don’t matter in his court. I’d be right fucked.

Who gets to decide what is hateful enough to be subject to criminal prosecution by the government?

Pro-choice? Any ideology that tolerates the murder of unborn children is a hateful ideology, clearly.

Pro-gay? You realize you are destroying one of the most important institutions of civilization (the nuclear family) with all this gay marriage stuff, right? You must hate civilization, clearly.

Pro-multiculturalism? Multiculturalism denies the scientific facts surrounding in-group preferences and in so doing leads to societies with increased levels of internal violence and distrust. Multiculturalism will destroy Australia. You must hate Australia, clearly.

Pro-secular government? You must hate religious people a lot, clearly.

Should God-hating baby-murdering un-Australian fag-enabling authoritarians be allowed full and free expression, Bubblecar?

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

All this talk about it being “just a joke” is perhaps somewhat coy. Apparently this fellow is a good friend of the chap who calls himself “Tommy Robinson”, former head of the EDL (English Defence League, a quasi-Nazi outfit). Also, his Choob gear is filled with anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-“political correctness” stuff etc. And the loudest voices defending him are all “alt-right” bloggers.

No, it isn’t “coy” at all. If this guy’s political opinions are seen as being relevant to his conviction, then that reinforces the Esselte/Jonathon Pie position that this case is more than just an unfortunate one-off, and is in fact a cause for real concern about limitations on free expression.

Some political views are clearly hateful – should they be allowed full and free expression?

Ultimately it’s a matter of whether or not you support anti-hate laws.

But even if you don’t, the fact is they’re currently on the statute books, so the courts are actually obliged to enforce them.

It seems I disagree with both you and esselte on this.

The question is not whether anti-hate laws are supportable; quite obviously they are.

The only question is where upon the continuum from love to hate do we draw the dividing line. I am confident that there is absolutely nothing on the UK statute books that required the judge to reach the decision he did.

Quite simply he got it wrong.

esselte said:

Bubblecar said:

Some political views are clearly hateful – should they be allowed full and free expression?

Unless you are an authoritarian the answer is clearly “yes”. “Expression” doesn’t mean we have to allow incitement to violence or anything like that. But if I want to come out here and now and say “I think Hitler was a good guy who just wanted to genocide Jews, gays, communists and gypsies and we should probably look at doing the same kind of thing here in Australia today. Only thing wrong with that is he didn’t finish the job” why shouldn’t I be able to say that without fearing arrest? Imagine those two sentences being presented to a judge without the context of this entire thread; or worse the context is presented to a judge who has clearly stated that context and intent don’t matter in his court. I’d be right fucked.

Who gets to decide what is hateful enough to be subject to criminal prosecution by the government?

Pro-choice? Any ideology that tolerates the murder of unborn children is a hateful ideology, clearly.

Pro-gay? You realize you are destroying one of the most important institutions of civilization (the nuclear family) with all this gay marriage stuff, right? You must hate civilization, clearly.

Pro-multiculturalism? Multiculturalism denies the scientific facts surrounding in-group preferences and in so doing leads to societies with increased levels of internal violence and distrust. Multiculturalism will destroy Australia. You must hate Australia, clearly.

Pro-secular government? You must hate religious people a lot, clearly.

Should God-hating baby-murdering un-Australian fag-enabling authoritarians be allowed full and free expression, Bubblecar?

If you want to promote Nazi ideology, then you’ll probably have to campaign for changes to hate speech laws.

I don’t want to promote Nazi ideology so I have no such motivation.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No, it isn’t “coy” at all. If this guy’s political opinions are seen as being relevant to his conviction, then that reinforces the Esselte/Jonathon Pie position that this case is more than just an unfortunate one-off, and is in fact a cause for real concern about limitations on free expression.

Some political views are clearly hateful – should they be allowed full and free expression?

Ultimately it’s a matter of whether or not you support anti-hate laws.

But even if you don’t, the fact is they’re currently on the statute books, so the courts are actually obliged to enforce them.

It seems I disagree with both you and esselte on this.

The question is not whether anti-hate laws are supportable; quite obviously they are.

The only question is where upon the continuum from love to hate do we draw the dividing line. I am confident that there is absolutely nothing on the UK statute books that required the judge to reach the decision he did.

Quite simply he got it wrong.

hate speech laws in the UK include: Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Some political views are clearly hateful – should they be allowed full and free expression?

Ultimately it’s a matter of whether or not you support anti-hate laws.

But even if you don’t, the fact is they’re currently on the statute books, so the courts are actually obliged to enforce them.

It seems I disagree with both you and esselte on this.

The question is not whether anti-hate laws are supportable; quite obviously they are.

The only question is where upon the continuum from love to hate do we draw the dividing line. I am confident that there is absolutely nothing on the UK statute books that required the judge to reach the decision he did.

Quite simply he got it wrong.

hate speech laws in the UK include: Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.

Yes, that’s why the judge got it wrong. He said the intent of the video was irrelevant.

Arts said:

hate speech laws in the UK include: Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.

Seems a bit open ended and open to subjective interpretation.

sibeen said:

Arts said:

hate speech laws in the UK include: Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.

Seems a bit open ended and open to subjective interpretation.

As any such law must necessarily be.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yes, that’s why the judge got it wrong. He said the intent of the video was irrelevant.

But by his express admission, his intention was to upset his girlfriend (and anyone else watching it who would be likely to get upset).

Apparently this is the nature of the man’s “humour” – he thinks upsetting non-right-wing people is funny.

sibeen said:

Arts said:

hate speech laws in the UK include: Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.

Seems a bit open ended and open to subjective interpretation.

well, you have to prove intent, but yeah the legal system anywhere is interpretive to the trier of fact

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yes, that’s why the judge got it wrong. He said the intent of the video was irrelevant.

But by his express admission, his intention was to upset his girlfriend (and anyone else watching it who would be likely to get upset).

Apparently this is the nature of the man’s “humour” – he thinks upsetting non-right-wing people is funny.

So the question is, is making a video intended to annoy a specific person a criminal offense?

Obviously it depends on the nature of the annoyance.

In this case the intended annoyance was clearly so far from criminal it’s not funny.

I think what the judge meant was the fact that the intent was “humorous” is irrelevant, and in this instance I’m inclined to agree.

Is there really any ethical difference between these two statements?

“I made a video full of hateful Nazi stuff to upset people.”

…and

“I made a video full of hateful Nazi stuff to upset people, for a laugh.”

Bubblecar said:

I think what the judge meant was the fact that the intent was “humorous” is irrelevant, and in this instance I’m inclined to agree.

Is there really any ethical difference between these two statements?

“I made a video full of hateful Nazi stuff to upset people.”

…and

“I made a video full of hateful Nazi stuff to upset people, for a laugh.”

Something like that. or you rephrase the last one ever more harshly like “I made a video full of hateful Nazi stuff because I think it is funny to upset people”.

Bubblecar said:

If you want to promote Nazi ideology, then you’ll probably have to campaign for changes to hate speech laws.

OK, and if part of that campaign involves me teaching a pug the Nazi salute and putting it on Youtube I should be able to do that without fear of arrest, don’t you think? I mean, if I am campaigning for Nazi ideology I’m obviously going to have to say out loud some ideologically Nazi sounding things. If I can’t say those things without being arrested then I am not free to campaign for Nazism. I do not want to live in a country where the government can tell me I am not allowed to publicly campaign for political change. My freedom to espouse “bad” ideologies is premised on exactly the same freedoms afforded to people to encourage “good” ideologies. The alternative, to deny some citizens legal freedoms which are afforded to all other citizens based on political leanings is to start locking people up for thought crimes. One of the greatest things about western democracies is that they do not lock you up if you happen to think democracy isn’t the greatest political system ever devised. I would like to keep it that way.

>If I can’t say those things without being arrested then I am not free to campaign for Nazism.

As I say, I don’t want to promote Nazi ideology and would much rather other people didn’t, either. So I’m happy with laws curtailing their ability to do so.

Bubblecar said:

I think what the judge meant was the fact that the intent was “humorous” is irrelevant, and in this instance I’m inclined to agree.

Is there really any ethical difference between these two statements?

“I made a video full of hateful Nazi stuff to upset people.”

…and

“I made a video full of hateful Nazi stuff to upset people, for a laugh.”

It entirely depends on the nature of the upsetting that was caused or likely to be caused.

So if the nature of the hateful Nazi stuff was praising the Nazis, and urging people to do more of the same, then that is one thing.

If the nature of the upsetting stuff was in fact mocking the Nazis, with not the least hint that what they did was good, or even not bad, then that is something entirely different.

That is why both John Cleese and Jonathon Pie can be pretty sure they won’t be prosecuted, and the guy who made this video should have been equally confident.

>If the nature of the upsetting stuff was in fact mocking the Nazis, with not the least hint that what they did was good, or even not bad, then that is something entirely different.

There was plenty of hinting that what they did – “gas the Jews” – was funny, something suitable for hilarity. And he made that decision because he knew it would upset a lot of people, and he thinks upsetting people – especially Jews, in this instance – is a funny thing to do.

Bubblecar said:

As I say, I don’t want to promote Nazi ideology and would much rather other people didn’t, either. So I’m happy with laws curtailing their ability to do so.

Do you agree that the laws of a country should apply equally to all adult citizens of that country, regardless of their political views?

Bubblecar said:

>If the nature of the upsetting stuff was in fact mocking the Nazis, with not the least hint that what they did was good, or even not bad, then that is something entirely different.

There was plenty of hinting that what they did – “gas the Jews” – was funny, something suitable for hilarity. And he made that decision because he knew it would upset a lot of people, and he thinks upsetting people – especially Jews, in this instance – is a funny thing to do.

Supposing that is all true (which neither of us can know, one way or the other), what I said remains true.

What he did is hugely ethically different from making a video praising the Nazis, and encouraging Nazi type activity.

esselte said:

Bubblecar said:

As I say, I don’t want to promote Nazi ideology and would much rather other people didn’t, either. So I’m happy with laws curtailing their ability to do so.

Do you agree that the laws of a country should apply equally to all adult citizens of that country, regardless of their political views?

Hate speech laws that get in the way of people promoting Nazi ideology do apply equally to all citizens.

Bubblecar said:

There was plenty of hinting that what they did – “gas the Jews” – was funny, something suitable for hilarity. And he made that decision because he knew it would upset a lot of people, and he thinks upsetting people – especially Jews, in this instance – is a funny thing to do.

His youtube channel had 10 subscribers when he posted the video. He posted it for friends and family to view. One of them linked the video to 4chan, from whence it went viral.

Meechan had no associations with Tommy Robinson or any other prominent Nazis/Alt-righters prior to his arrest. As Jonathan Pie pointed out, unfortunately, these nasty people are the only ones right now who are holding the mantle for freedom of speech. The “good” guys think it’s fine to curtail the ability of people to publicly express themselves, just like you do. The alt-right offered him support because they depend on freedom of speech to spout their nasty ideologies, and can see this conviction for the attack on freedom of speech that it is. No “good guys” offered him any support.

The joke is the contrast between the cute, innocent little pug dog and the horribleness of Nazism. It might not be to your tastes, but we don’t fucking turn people in to criminals because Bubblecar doesn’t get the joke. There is no evidence or demonstrable reason to think that Meechan had the intention of upsetting Jews with his joke, unless his girlfriend is Jewish.

Bubblecar said:

Hate speech laws that get in the way of people promoting Nazi ideology do apply equally to all citizens.

Do you agree that they should, or do you think right-thinkers deserve more protection under the law than wrong-thinkers?

esselte said:

Bubblecar said:

There was plenty of hinting that what they did – “gas the Jews” – was funny, something suitable for hilarity. And he made that decision because he knew it would upset a lot of people, and he thinks upsetting people – especially Jews, in this instance – is a funny thing to do.

His youtube channel had 10 subscribers when he posted the video. He posted it for friends and family to view. One of them linked the video to 4chan, from whence it went viral.

Meechan had no associations with Tommy Robinson or any other prominent Nazis/Alt-righters prior to his arrest. As Jonathan Pie pointed out, unfortunately, these nasty people are the only ones right now who are holding the mantle for freedom of speech. The “good” guys think it’s fine to curtail the ability of people to publicly express themselves, just like you do. The alt-right offered him support because they depend on freedom of speech to spout their nasty ideologies, and can see this conviction for the attack on freedom of speech that it is. No “good guys” offered him any support.

The joke is the contrast between the cute, innocent little pug dog and the horribleness of Nazism. It might not be to your tastes, but we don’t fucking turn people in to criminals because Bubblecar doesn’t get the joke. There is no evidence or demonstrable reason to think that Meechan had the intention of upsetting Jews with his joke, unless his girlfriend is Jewish.

The so-called “alt-right” don’t support absolute freedom of speech any more than anybody else does.

If the video was a pug and “bomb the Christians” and some Islamic slogan, I’m pretty sure they’d take a different view of the maker being charged.

Also not true that “ No “good guys” offered him any support. Jonathon Pie did for one.

>but we don’t fucking turn people in to criminals because Bubblecar doesn’t get the joke

steady now, it’s another country.

i’ll tell you how unfunny the joke is, really.

lots of good people were murdered during WW2, extinguished, and in the dumb instincts of many ordinary men (perhaps women too, of humans), is to do just that, further extinguish those that came to a horrible, premature, unnatural end.

the Nazis made casual horrors, and of men today the same potential persists.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The so-called “alt-right” don’t support absolute freedom of speech any more than anybody else does.

As I said, they currently support freedom of speech because their entire movement depends upon it. They abuse free speech and I have little doubt were they to get in to power they would be pretty quick to stamp the authoritarian boot down on it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Also not true that “ No “good guys” offered him any support. Jonathon Pie did for one.

Did Pie comment prior to the conviction? Regardless, Pie himself makes the same point as I did – “Where are the artists, where are the comedians…” so let’s not get too pedantic.

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The so-called “alt-right” don’t support absolute freedom of speech any more than anybody else does.

As I said, they currently support freedom of speech because their entire movement depends upon it

That’s incorrect. They actually seem to be phenomenally sensitive about criticism.

transition said:

i’ll tell you how unfunny the joke is, really.

It’s entirely irrelevant to this conversation whether the joke is objectively funny or not. We shouldn’t endorse criminal conviction of an individual because they are bad at telling jokes or because they tell shitty jokes which offend people.

dv said:

That’s incorrect. They actually seem to be phenomenally sensitive about criticism.

Liberal application of the principle of freedom of speech is the only thing that allows the alt-right to say so many shitty things out loud. For the alt-right to campaign against freedom of speech would be for them to campaign against their own ability to say the things they want to say. They have to support it or else their entire movement would be shut down.

They are also sensitive to criticism and would probably curtail freedom of speech were they to ever gain a position powerful enough that they could do that.

There is no dichotomy statements made in these two paragraphs that I can see.

esselte said:

Notice that they were challenging religious ideas, not laughing at people being gassed.

There’s no real solution to the problems of the tyranny of the majority.

>We shouldn’t endorse criminal conviction

I never did, but plenty of things get tested.

Bubblecar said:

Notice that they were challenging religious ideas, not laughing at people being gassed.

In your world we don’t care about context or intent. I am offended. Lock ‘em up!

Bubblecar said:

esselte said:

Notice that they were challenging religious ideas, not laughing at people being gassed.

Think they would have something special worked out for those guys.