Free speech or hate speech?

[Observe]

I watched the video up to the part where the guy started talking.

[Chips]

A few points about his video. He says it is ok to admit you agree with someone even if you disagree on every other point. Yes, to a point though. Why? Because if you're an influencer (or influential for whatever reason) and you lend your voice and credence to one point being made, it can be perceived to lend weight to the other opinions that individual spouts unless you clearly delineate the differences. You don't necessarily have a responsibility to clarify that, but if it were me, I'd be damned sure to clarify that. His scenario is the reverse though, so was a bit odd how he went on about that point.

Having them speak up in his defence, however, doesn't undermine or de-value his defence. That's the point I'd have thought he'd have been making. Otherwise if he pointed to a blue car and said "it's blue" we'd all be having to claim it's pink, just because... you know...

The other point is about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is something a lot of people use as a defence to say anything they like. It isn't, it's written and enshrined in law (Freedom of Expression), and there are caveats around it. Deal with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_o ... ed_Kingdom

His real defence is that it was obviously a joke - but as previously said, if you share it to a wider audience than intended and do not attempt to prevent that, then don't be surprised if some take it otherwise. That's where it ends up with the courts having to make a ruling.

Still positive he won't get any custodial sentence, and if "appeal" is by jury rather than just 3-5 magistrates, it may well get overturned. I still think he's a class 1 idiot who could have avoided all this before it got this far. After all, he calls himself a "s**t poster", meaning he posts stuff to intentionally wind people up and get a reaction. Then he gets a bigger reaction than he hoped, and complains.

It really isn't an interesting story at all

This whole thing does remind me of "Ed" (tv series about a lawyer) whereby in one episode a prosecution is going far far harder than they ever should simply because they're running for office and need to make their name; the case they picked was just an unfortunate casualty of their political aspirations

[Morkonan]

....
The other point is about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is something a lot of people use as a defence to say anything they like. It isn't, it's written and enshrined in law (Freedom of Expression), and there are caveats around it. Deal with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_o ... ed_Kingdom

His real defence is that it was obviously a joke - but as previously said, if you share it to a wider audience than intended and do not attempt to prevent that, then don't be surprised if some take it otherwise. That's where it ends up with the courts having to make a ruling.
...

But, isn't "intent" a critical part of UK law in this regard? It doesn't seem to be about witnesses being "offended" as much as it is about the "intent" of the person committing the act.

If that is true and intent is of paramount importance, then how can it be interpreted that his intent was to offend or denigrate people? His actions in teaching the dog to respond on que didn't seem focused on insulting viewers or even his girlfriend. That doesn't seem to be what his "intent" was.

If we change the circumstances to insert some other trick that could be considered offensive to some group of people, then what do we get? If he had taught his dog to respond to "Are you stupid" by nodding its head, would that have been a direct and intentional insult and have offended stupid people?

Or, is it simply that the subject matter is, itself, considered inflammatory and that is why, at least to me, intent doesn't seem to matter, here?

According to the law, would the directors and cast members of "The Producers" be subject to this punishment?

The Producers - Musical Scene

If so, then everyone at the Brentwood Theatre needs to hire an attorney: The Brentwood: March 20-24'th "The Producers".

Do they need to hire attorneys, now? It's a serious question.

[Chips]

But, isn't "intent" a critical part of UK law in this regard?

Nope. At least, not as far as I am aware. You can be racist without intending to cause distress... it's still being racist (otherwise no convictions for hate preachers peddling hate inside closed doors would be possible). Think the "intent" is related to direct sending of material via post/email/forums/twitter, but not sure, no legal eagle, but that's causing distress to an individual without having to be along religious/ethnic lines.

According to the law, would the directors and cast members of "The Producers" be subject to this punishment?

Nope.

As the defendant himself has already stated - it was intended to cause offence - albeit to his girlfriend. But he states right at the very start of the video his intent. The whole purpose of his video was to upset and offend. His repeated admissions his channel is just for that reason... provides intent. Whether that intent should be sufficient to break the law and result in the conviction is the actual point in question. Personally, no, but i'm not a judge. As said, he was seeking reactions and he got more than he bargained for - and wants to retreat under "free speech". The court will (has, so far) determined that's not acceptable defence. Wouldn't be too surprised if it goes other way on appeal.

The "but but x mentions hitler in y production, surely that's offensive and they'd all be locked up" that has been trotted out a few times is the sort of attempts to argue/discuss that a small child would bring forth. I mean, come on...

[Morkonan]

But, isn't "intent" a critical part of UK law in this regard?

Nope. At least, not as far as I am aware.

But, that's what the entry in the Wiki that you posted directly states.

You can be racist without intending to cause distress... it's still being racist (otherwise no convictions for hate preachers peddling hate inside closed doors would be possible).

Is being a "racist" a crime?

What if one is a racist, but doesn't promote racism or incite others to racism? Is that, then, still a crime?

Think the "intent" is related to direct sending of material via post/email/forums/twitter, but not sure, no legal eagle, but that's causing distress to an individual without having to be along religious/ethnic lines.

That's an "action", not an "intent." For instance, you might be offended at something I wrote. But, it was never, ever, nor has ever been, an intent of mine to offend anyone nor to purposefully post anything offensive.

If someone is offended by someone, does that make the person they were offended by a criminal, regardless of that person's intent?

According to the law, would the directors and cast members of "The Producers" be subject to this punishment?

Nope.

As the defendant himself has already stated - it was intended to cause offence - albeit to his girlfriend. But he states right at the very start of the video his intent.

I suffered through his whole video. His declaration of desiring to "piss off" his girlfriend is qualified, later, and specifically applied to the video.

The whole purpose of his video was to upset and offend. His repeated admissions his channel is just for that reason... provides intent. Whether that intent should be sufficient to break the law and result in the conviction is the actual point in question.

As he said, "it was a joke." His intent was to make a joke. In "bad taste?" Perhaps, but that's only a component of the "joke."

However, I don't think he has any right to claim any sort of "higher purpose" like attempting to gain legitimacy by claiming "free speech." That's like posting pictures of naked boobies and then claiming "free speech." There's obviously a difference in defining such things and I don't mean that the results must always be agreeable. It's just obvious that titillation for its own sake is different, in my opinion, than "free speech." But, how would that be considered in a broader context? What were the desired results?

Personally, no, but i'm not a judge. As said, he was seeking reactions and he got more than he bargained for - and wants to retreat under "free speech". The court will (has, so far) determined that's not acceptable defence. Wouldn't be too surprised if it goes other way on appeal.

I would agree that trying to seek safe harbor beneath the shelter of "free speech" was probably not a good example of what that phrase stands for. But, then again, what other option did he have? Instead of trying to focus on the particulars of the case and his intent in both the act and in posting the vid, maybe his attorney decided that the only way to open the window of victory was to throw the brick of "Freedom of Speech" at it and hope for the best? They may have thought that attempting to address more readily discernible facts would have been "uncomfortable" in court, rather than sticking to something a bit more patriotic... IOW - If you spend your time denying you're a racist for eight hours, or whatever, then it doesn't matter how good your argument is - Everyone is going to associate you with being a racist. If he spent all that time talking about Hitler, Nazis and doing reprehensible things to Jews, all in the context of not intending to offend anyone or to incite anything... Probably not a good legal strategy.

The "but but x mentions hitler in y production, surely that's offensive and they'd all be locked up" that has been trotted out a few times is the sort of attempts to argue/discuss that a small child would bring forth. I mean, come on...

No.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with it. Here's the wiki entry on the original. It was made into a play/musical and then remade into a newer theatrical version. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Producers_(1968_film)

There are layers of "intent" here, just as there are, at least in his presumed defense, in his work.

The first layer is fictional and deals with a producer attempting to bilk huge sums of money from rich patrons in order to finance a play, but one that he knows will certainly fail, thus enabling him to pocket the money without having to pay out any net gains from production. Who's going to doubt that the most terrible play he could think of producing would fail and not make any money? He'll pocket the left-over production money he raised and retire a wealthy huckster and fraud.

The fictional character's intent is to defraud investors.

He lies to investors, saying that his intent is to produce a wonderful play, sure to make great profits.

But, his intent with actually showing the play is to offend so many people that the play fails on its opening night.

However, that's the "story." What is the "real life" intent of those producing the "real life" play or screening the movies?

Their intent is show a comedy - A "Joke." They're not espousing the fictional motives and intents of the characters in the play or movie, simply showing its content as a comedy.

To wit: If he had written a script and then filmed it, with the intent to demonstrate something outrageous, as comedy, would he then have been found guilty by the court?

This is a much more deeper comparison than a "small child" would make. Jumping at the opportunity to make such a claim, simply because "Hitler" is, on the other hand...

[clakclak]

But, isn't "intent" a critical part of UK law in this regard?

Nope. At least, not as far as I am aware.

But, that's what the entry in the Wiki that you posted directly states.[...]

[...]words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace[...]

[Morkonan]

But, isn't "intent" a critical part of UK law in this regard?

Nope. At least, not as far as I am aware.

But, that's what the entry in the Wiki that you posted directly states.[...]

[...]words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace[...]

Yes, "intent or likely." That "or likely" relies on the defendant's own interpretation, doesn't it?

His intent and the obvious interpretation of his own actions inasmuch as what he thought the result would be is... "a joke." He obviously didn't "likely" think that posting it would be harassment, alarm, distress, etc...

I have no working, colloquial, familiarity with the word "cheeky" and its use in the UK. I've heard it, of course, in many movies and have read it in several forms, but I'm not intimate with its interpretation. Here's a standard: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/cheeky I assume that's basically a correct interpretation?

If that is the case, then couldn't this behavior, isolated in context between himself and his girlfriend, be considered "cheeky behavior" and it's intent not to actually result in some hefty negative repercussions, but just as a bit of an intimate joke? I assume he wasn't trying to get rid of her.

I still think it was a dumb thing to do. I wholeheartedly agree that he was stupid. I also hope that his girlfriend slapped him in her outrage... (Not promoting assault or abuse! ) And, I really don't understand why anyone watches his youtube channel. I'm also not trying to actively defend him, since I, too, have emotions and enjoy, somewhat, seeing him get his comeuppance...

But, it is a case of law. The government, apparently, considers this a crime worthy of punishment and I do find that concerning. I'm also trying to understand how those who are more intimate with those laws and used to their specific implementation feel about this. :This constitutes my "disclaimer" for presenting an opposing argument.

[Rapier]

...That "or likely" relies on the defendant's own interpretation, doesn't it?

No, it relies on the Judge's or jury's interpretation (depending on how the case is being heard) but very often will be based on case law (ie precedent). Although not law itself, the phrase 'Ignorance is no defense in the eyes of the law' applies - just because the perpetrator was ignorant of the likelihood of the impact of their actions does not bean they get away with doing anything they want.

[Observe]

I can see how actions displaying a lack of sensitivity to others in the community, could be construed as a 'hate crime' for various and obvious reasons.

[Observe]

Meanwhile, a different case, but similar in some respects relating to free speech:

French Man Praises Police Death, Is Arrested For Apologizing For Terrorism

It seems the French have a law 'prohibiting apologizing for terrorism' punishable by a fine of $120,000 USD and seven years in prison.

[RegisterMe]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-43864133

[Morkonan]

HOW CAN HE BE GUILTY OF A HATE CRIME WHEN IT WAS COMMITTED BY HIS DOG?

(I bet it really wasn't the dog's fault, either. Likely it was some cat that misinformed the dog, leading it astray from its Good Boy path... Gotta be the cat's fault.)

Isn't the state guilty of a hate crime against Nazis? They should sue!

And, what about that newspaper? Looks like a "biased article" to me and I am an expert on such things because I said so. So, they need to be investigated, too. (Probably committed numerous hate crimes, since if you connect certain letters together in their weekly crossword puzzles, you can spell "communist donkey lovur!" I think they intentionally misspelled "lover" in hopes of throwing people off or so they could have a ready explanation.)

And, I wonder - Why do I appear to hate Nazis and stand up for them at the same time, all the while blaming cats for the original problem and then speaking out against communist donkeys? I SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOR TEH HATEZ CRIMEZ! Oh noes!

[RegisterMe]

Careful Mork, I might have to edit my sig .

[clakclak]

Looking back in this story everything around it seems stupid.

[Ketraar]

Looking back in this story everything around it seems stupid.

Sums up pretty much my stance on this. But I will add that I rather have a stupid guy be able to post stupid videos about nazis and how he likes them, then not. Doesn't mean others cant then call them out on their stupidity in the same form.

I understand some countries have laws that prevent advocating for some types of regime, like here in Portugal its not allowed to promote for fascism, so any rally like in Charlottesville would be considered illegal.

MFG

Ketraar

PS.: As I was reading through the topic I found this rather funny.

Basically Observe a man who is known by his youtube name as Count Dankula

So Observe is Count Dankula?
Lack of punctuation gives me the freedom to read it as I fit.

[Skism]

Looking back in this story everything around it seems stupid.

Sums up pretty much my stance on this. But I will add that I rather have a stupid guy be able to post stupid videos about nazis and how he likes them, then not. Doesn't mean others cant then call them out on their stupidity in the same form.

I understand some countries have laws that prevent advocating for some types of regime, like here in Portugal its not allowed to promote for fascism, so any rally like in Charlottesville would be considered illegal.

MFG

Ketraar

PS.: As I was reading through the topic I found this rather funny.

Basically Observe a man who is known by his youtube name as Count Dankula

So Observe is Count Dankula?
Lack of punctuation gives me the freedom to read it as I fit.

Punctuation? This IEH tTEH INTERNET!!

You are lucky if you get spelling much less coherence....And you are asking for the moon with concise accurate decent points....

Btw

Lack of punctuation gives me the freedom to read it as I fit.

That should say" Lack of punctuation gives me the freedom to read it as I see fit."






There are two problems here one is how we deal with Neo- Nazis how their ilk.

The other how much we are willing to bend principles like freedom of speech to allow things like it - and what we sacrifice both by cracking down on Neo Nazis or alternatively by allowing them.

[Ketraar]

The other how much we are willing to bend principles like freedom of speech to allow things like it - and what we sacrifice both by cracking down on Neo Nazis or alternatively by allowing them.

This are two distinct and not mutually exclusive notions.

1. you dont bend freedom of expression, you regulate it just like any other social concept. You define its parameters and act on it, revisit it periodically and adjust it, as societies evolve so it fits the standards of the times.

2. You dont tolerate the existence of people that go beyond established basic rights. You call them out and if they break the law then the law takes care of it.

Its rather simple.

MFG

Ketraar

PS.: As for the spelling, it was a joke...