Brexit

[Ex-California]

Monty- lets put this case and its specifics on the side burner for a second

Do you actually think speech that's in poor taste or offensive should be illegal?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Disregard the specifics is the first step to becoming an ideologue.

Don't fall for it Monte!

*requisite Admiral Ackbar meme*

[Montegriffo]

Disregard the specifics is the first step to becoming an ideologue.

Don't fall for it Monte!

*requisite Admiral Ackbar meme*

Sage advice as ever HM, however, I consider myself too wise a pragmatist to fall for it.
Simple truth is that he was warned by the police that his video broke the law and was given the opportunity to take it down. Rather than do that, he was egged on by extremists, including Tommy Robinson (not his real name), with their own agendas on hate speech and ended up in court.
He achieved the notoriety he craved all for the low price of £900.
You are not imune from prosecution just because you don't agree with the law or because ''it was only a joke''.

[Otern]

You are not imune from prosecution just because you don't agree with the law or because ''it was only a joke''.

True. But that doesn't make the law right. I'd expect better in a western democracy, than fining someone for making an offensive video.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

In a western democracy, those who feel the law is unjust can use their newfound notoriety (cool grand for the havin') to agitate for better free speech protection in the UK... civilized liberalism marches ever forward, for the betterment of mankind, to the chagrin of reactionaries round the world.

[Montegriffo]

You are not imune from prosecution just because you don't agree with the law or because ''it was only a joke''.

True. But that doesn't make the law right. I'd expect better in a western democracy, than fining someone for making an offensive video.

The law was crafted by our elected representatives and passed in Parliament after amendments from the House of Lords. In the UK that is the ''right'' way to make new laws.
There would have been no prosecution and no fine if the perpetrator had taken it down after he was ordered to do so by the authorities.
He chose fame and a fine instead.

[Ph64]

In a western democracy, those who feel the law is unjust can use their newfound notoriety (cool grand for the havin') to agitate for better free speech protection in the UK... civilized liberalism marches ever forward, for the betterment of mankind, to the chagrin of reactionaries round the world.

True. And yet, as he does so he is continually referred to as a "criminal" and accused of being "far right" (never mind his hammer & sycle tattoo) and of "promoting hate speech", and has the media (and probably police) following and analyzing his every utterance.

Thus why it's silly to apologize for such things. All that does is get taken as an admission of guilt, you are guilty of the "original sin" of saying something someone (anyone) has found offensive in any way, only in the "new religion" of social justice there is no redemption. The "victims" of your "gross offense" must be allowed to continually stay victims.

[Montegriffo]

In a western democracy, those who feel the law is unjust can use their newfound notoriety (cool grand for the havin') to agitate for better free speech protection in the UK... civilized liberalism marches ever forward, for the betterment of mankind, to the chagrin of reactionaries round the world.

True. And yet, as he does so he is continually referred to as a "criminal" and accused of being "far right" (never mind his hammer & sycle tattoo) and of "promoting hate speech", and has the media (and probably police) following and analyzing his every utterance.

Thus why it's silly to apologize for such things. All that does is get taken as an admission of guilt, you are guilty of the "original sin" of saying something someone (anyone) has found offensive in any way, only in the "new religion" of social justice there is no redemption. The "victims" of your "gross offense" must be allowed to continually stay victims.

Not ''saying something someone (anyone) has found offensive in any way''.
Saying something the legal system has judged to be grossly offensive (a crime in UK law).
If you wish to contest the decision you have the right to appeal all the way up to the highest court (the European court of human rights).
This is how the legal system works in a functioning Western democracy.

[clubgop]

It's a joke'' can never be an excuse for breaking the law or no law can ever be prosecuted

If your law depends on whether it is a joke or not then your law sucks. Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. Am willing to bet he wont get prosecuted and when he doesn't will you concede it was just a joke or are you already drawing a conclusion?

What is the exact law he broke anyways? Do Brits really have laws against saying something mean?

Basically yes, and Monty loves it he'll try to throw all these caveats in there but broad strokes yes, someone he dont like says something he dont like = please government of aforementioned welfare family I insulted get him but not me because that is somehow different.

[clubgop]

In a western democracy, those who feel the law is unjust can use their newfound notoriety (cool grand for the havin') to agitate for better free speech protection in the UK... civilized liberalism marches ever forward, for the betterment of mankind, to the chagrin of reactionaries round the world.

True. And yet, as he does so he is continually referred to as a "criminal" and accused of being "far right" (never mind his hammer & sycle tattoo) and of "promoting hate speech", and has the media (and probably police) following and analyzing his every utterance.

Thus why it's silly to apologize for such things. All that does is get taken as an admission of guilt, you are guilty of the "original sin" of saying something someone (anyone) has found offensive in any way, only in the "new religion" of social justice there is no redemption. The "victims" of your "gross offense" must be allowed to continually stay victims.

Not ''saying something someone (anyone) has found offensive in any way''.
Saying something the legal system has judged to be grossly offensive (a crime in UK law).
If you wish to contest the decision you have the right to appeal all the way up to the highest court (the European court of human rights).
This is how the legal system works in a functioning Western democracy.

A court and legal system appointed by the welfare family you insulted, yeah that's functioning all right. See the lack of principle here, no standards. Total leftist.

Why are news corparations allowed to repeat said offensive messages to further spread them? What are they exempt? Do you require another personal lesson in the Streisand effect, because I'll do it if I have to.