Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Montegriffo]

Neo Nazi bigots don't like hate speech laws. Who would have guessed.
Radical Islam hates them too.
Dumb fucks trying to get rich off offensive you tube videos not too keen either.
My heart bleeds.

[Otern]

Neo Nazi bigots don't like hate speech laws. Who would have guessed.
Radical Islam hates them too.
Dumb fucks trying to get rich off offensive you tube videos not too keen either.
My heart bleeds.

Dude. You're not an unreasonable man, but now you're more wrong than you've ever been. And this is why I react so strongly as to how you can defend this conviction. Because it's CLEARLY not hate speech. I get that we disagree on if hate speech laws should exist, and what the ramification of those should be.

But in this thread, I haven't really been objecting to the concept of hate speech laws, as they were originally formulated, or their intent. Because hate speech laws DO have a reasonable foundation to build upon. But in this specific case, it goes to show how they can be misused, and I really hoped you'd at least see that, even though you wouldn't have to reject the concept of hate speech laws in general. I'm trying to get through to you, without telling you to abandon your support of hate speech laws.

Hate speech laws are there to stop people from riling up hatred to specific groups or individuals, in the cases where the people riling up hate aren't breaking any other speech laws, like incitement to violence, harassment, stalking and so on. For example, if someone has a large following of extremists, and they're constantly talking of other people, them be muslims, jews, or whatever, like they're subhuman, or otherwise lesser people, and being able to rile up people to hate them to such an extent they can go out and cause harm on other people on their own accord. This is the foundation of hate speech laws. Now, I disagree with that foundation, but let's suppose for the sake of argument that I support hate speech laws instead.

If that scotsman had gone out, in public, and started shouting "gas the jews". There's two cases where the original intent of laws limiting speech would apply. First would be if he went to areas where he could reasonably expect there to be jews, having to listen to his hateful rhetoric. In that case, it would certainly be harassment, and hate speech laws could be reasonably enforced. Or, he could be going to a place where he's expecting to meet a lot of antisemites, and have enough influence over them, that it could be expected they would act on the emotions he manages to rile up through his speech. That's also a case where hate speech laws could be reasonably enforced.

What he did do, was make a video. Where he trains his dog through Pavlovian conditioning to react to the phrase "gas the jews", and teaches it to raise it paw to the phrase "Sieg Heil". He mentions his choice for these words because it's the "least cutest thing he could think of", thereby declaring his intent to combine the most offensive thing he could think of anyone saying, with a cute dog. And he ends it with with reinforcing his intent that it's just for the sake of comedy, and he does not actually have these inclinations towards nazism himself.

So, he did say "gas the jews" multiple times. And he did post it on a website where millions could, and did, watch it. So, does he meet the criteria for hate speech, where it's specified he need to have INTENT to cause hate? Hell no. He didn't push the video on any jewish community out there. And he didn't make it, or share it for nazis or anti-semites, or post it on an anti semitic forum or anything. He made it accessible for millions, nazis, jews, and other people alike. But if making the video accessible for millions, I am as guilty, for posting the link to the video here. And so is youtube, for still keeping the video up. And every news outlet that posted the video, or even described it in detail.

Basically, none of what he did, constitutes "hate speech". People could be offended, sure. But in no way does "being offended" make you a victim of hate speech, unless other criteria are met. And they're not met in this case, as he didn't rile up hate, or intend to rile up hate.

Prosecuting him, has led to more hate and anti-semitism than what just making the video, and putting it on youtube has done. Now, the prosecutors didn't INTEND for this to happen, but it did happen. The hate didn't come to fruition before that. The scotsman made a video, without the intent to cause hatred, and which didn't cause hatred. At that point, there's no reason to even bring in hate speech laws. As hate have not been caused, or intended to be caused. Afterwards, hate where caused, but triggered by the prosecution of this scotsman.

If there's anyone that should be prosecuted for a hate crime, if we really are going to say that intent doesn't matter, it's the prosecution. Because that's when people were riled up.

If you don't like the video, sure, that's ok. Tell youtube to take it down. Call him an ass for making light of one of the most horrible events in recent memory.

But criminal prosecution? Fuck no. Unless you want fascists, because this is how you get fascists.

[Montegriffo]

I get that this case is right on the border of what should be prosecuted. The fact that Tommy Robinson turned up probably didn't help this idiot's cause.
However, intent is not required in law for an offence to be committed. I don't need to intend to cause an accident for me to get nicked for texting while driving, nor do I need to even cause an accident.
Nor should precident be set that " it's just a joke" is a valid defence.
However, this guy must have known that what he was doing was going to upset a lot of people and he still posted the video. Then he made up a story about it just being a joke for his girlfriend. The judge didn't fall for it and in his statement said that he thought it was done to get hits for his comedy channel.
If you accept that the UK has hate speech laws then you have to accept that people will be prosecuted for falling foul of those laws.
At the end of the day these laws are there to stop radical preachers and racists in groups such as the EDL from spreading their message to a large audience. I am not going to call for a law I agree with to be abolished just because some dickhead who isn't a Nazi thinks " do you want to gas the Jews" is funny. It's not and never will be unless you are a bigot.

[Okeefenokee]

He is fucking miles away from reasonable.

I'm glad the rest of y'all are figuring this out now, but he's been railing against free speech in here for years.

Y'all should have done like the rest of us, and took him seriously before someone got convicted.

We spotted it. Y'all missed it.

[Zlaxer]

He is fucking miles away from reasonable.

I'm glad the rest of y'all are figuring this out now, but he's been railing against free speech in here for years.

Y'all should have done like the rest of us, and took him seriously before someone got convicted.

We spotted it. Y'all missed it.

:Rollyclown:

[Otern]

However, intent is not required in law for an offence to be committed. I don't need to intend to cause an accident for me to get nicked for texting while driving, nor do I need to even cause an accident.

For the last time; when it comes to hate speech laws, intent is absolutely required. Otherwise any word or phrase that gets to be taken out of context, will constitute hate speech. For example, there's a lot of people having a Hitler-Jugend haircut today. Even british police. They don't INTEND to look like nazis, they probably don't even know its historical connotations. Is that shit illegal too? No, because their INTENTION is not to be fucking nazis.

How the fuck do you not understand this? Hate speech laws HAS to be policing intentional malicious speech, or EVERYTHING is hate speech, if anyone chooses to complain, or be offended. As someone who supports hate speech laws, you should be enraged by this, since this is not what hate speech laws are supposed to police.

Texting while driving is a straw man argument, and you know it. If not, you've officially lost all common sense and reason.

[Otern]

He is fucking miles away from reasonable.

I'm glad the rest of y'all are figuring this out now, but he's been railing against free speech in here for years.

Y'all should have done like the rest of us, and took him seriously before someone got convicted.

We spotted it. Y'all missed it.

It scares me that people blatantly opposing free speech are actually voting. They simply do not see how these kinds of laws can, and WILL be turned against them if the wrong people get in power.

Fuck, there's been so few famous people speaking out against this too. Stephen Fry, Ricky Gervais, and a handful more did. The rest of them stick their head in the ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
I think this is fitting for the situation. It's all just "fuck that guy", without having the mental capacity to realize where this kind of shit lead to. And no, I don't think the Conservatives or Labour will round up muslims in camps. But this kind of abuse of fundamental rights, is what will make it way too easy for the ones that do want to put them in camps to do so.

Nazis and islamists are being used as an excuse to turn the whole of Europe into a totalitarian state, in their pursuit of utopia. And they do it while thinking they're the good guys. Fascism is not only on the alt right these days, but also among the so called "moderates". Fuck them.

[Zlaxer]

It scares me that people blatantly opposing free speech are actually voting. They simply do not see how these kinds of laws can, and WILL be turned against them if the wrong people get in power.

The average person is simply incapable of self-governance....always has been....most likely always will be for the foreseeable future...

You just need to realize that most people are fucking dumber than a box of rocks....what we're witnessing is what happens when suffrage is expanded to the uneducated....

Those who cannot implement their utopiastic plans by convincing the educated pro-liberty crowd have resorted to expanding suffrage to gain power through mob rule.....

[Zlaxer]

And no - I would not consider most college graduates these days to be "educated"....

[de officiis]

He is fucking miles away from reasonable.

I'm glad the rest of y'all are figuring this out now, but he's been railing against free speech in here for years.

Y'all should have done like the rest of us, and took him seriously before someone got convicted.

We spotted it. Y'all missed it.

It scares me that people blatantly opposing free speech are actually voting. They simply do not see how these kinds of laws can, and WILL be turned against them if the wrong people get in power.

Fuck, there's been so few famous people speaking out against this too. Stephen Fry, Ricky Gervais, and a handful more did. The rest of them stick their head in the ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
I think this is fitting for the situation. It's all just "fuck that guy", without having the mental capacity to realize where this kind of shit lead to. And no, I don't think the Conservatives or Labour will round up muslims in camps. But this kind of abuse of fundamental rights, is what will make it way too easy for the ones that do want to put them in camps to do so.

Nazis and islamists are being used as an excuse to turn the whole of Europe into a totalitarian state, in their pursuit of utopia. And they do it while thinking they're the good guys. Fascism is not only on the alt right these days, but also among the so called "moderates". Fuck them.

Fortunately, in the States you can’t vote away the First Amendment.