# one small goose-step closer to thirteen o'clock **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 23, 2018, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080 "2018-03-23T16:34:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/201 "2018-04-23T16:26:08Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > The judgement is fairly short and can easily be read in full. The text of the statement clearly shows the point I made above. The UK has criminalized opinions that the state finds “grossly offensive”. This clearly flies in the face of any idea of freedom of speech. And is a very good example why, for all its faults, the US concept of a small number of well defined rights protected unambiguously by a written constitution is a realy good one. Americans are not super awesome perfect free citizens who would never think of passing a law to ban free speech (the current president being a good example of why not), but if this law (or one like it) was passed in a US state it would struck down immediately. That makes the US system of government (in this instance) objectively better at protecting its citizen’s fundamental rights. He didn’t make a freedom of expression defence as the law in questions makes absolutely no exceptions for free of expression. So it would have been an exceptionally bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/202 "2018-04-23T16:42:12Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > The UK has criminalized opinions that the state finds “grossly offensive”. No, not “opinions” that the state finds “grossly offensive”: particular forms of expression of an opinion that are grossly offensive to enough of the population, in the particular context. He can hold whatever opinion he likes; but how, when, where and to whom he expresses it are not solely down to him to decide. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/203 "2018-04-23T18:23:09Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > No, not “opinions” that the state finds “grossly offensive”: particular forms of expression of an opinion that are grossly offensive to enough of the population, in the particular context. He can hold whatever opinion he likes; but how, when, where and to whom he expresses it are not solely down to him to decide. That is literally what is meant by criminalizing an opinion. Seeing as telepathy is not a thing a state criminalizes an opinion by making expressing that opinion a crime. Likewise when a state says “He can hold whatever religion he likes; but how, when, where and to whom he expresses it are not solely down to him to decide”, then that state has criminalized that religion. > [@PatrickLondon](#): > > Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. It is however freedom of consequences FROM THE STATE. That is what freedom of speech means, it is the freedom from being dragged into court and punished by the state for expressing an opinion. Freedom from that specific consequence is exactly what the term “freedom of speech” means. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2018, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/204 "2018-04-24T19:07:25Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Definitely no nights in jail. The question of whether he’ll have the conviction overturned etc. is still out, though–but given the fact that he didn’t base his defense on free speech, I’ll cast much less of a bet in that direction now. How would he have based a defense on free speech? There is no First Amendment in the UK. Would he have said that the law violates the unwritten UK constitution which contains freedom of speech? Isn’t Parliament supreme? By definition, it cannot pass an unconstitutional law. As such, I’m confused by the Judge’s comments. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2018, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/205 "2018-04-24T19:21:12Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > How would he have based a defense on free speech? There is no First Amendment in the UK. Would he have said that the law violates the unwritten UK constitution which contains freedom of speech? > > Isn’t Parliament supreme? By definition, it cannot pass an unconstitutional law. As such, I’m confused by the Judge’s comments. The EU Human Rights Act is part of UK law (for now, post Brexit). It is extremely verbose and the section on the right of free speech, is very vague and contains explicit exceptions Quite simply (as shown by this case) this passage is objectively worse at protecting the fundamental human rights in the UK: > [@](#): > > FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION > 1 > Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom tohold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interferenceby public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent Statesfrom requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. > 2 > The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities,may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as areprescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests ofnational security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorderor crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation orrights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence,or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Than this passage is at protecting fundamental rights in the US: > [@](#): > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2018, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/206 "2018-04-24T20:28:39Z")
But many of the exceptions explicit in the European provision have been “read in” to the First Amendment by U.S. courts over the years. Despite its categorical language, the courts have not found the First Amendment to be a categorical bar to espionage convictions (“in the interests of national security”), defamation lawsuits (“protection of the reputation or rights of others”), or the enforcement of non-disclosure agreements (“for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence”). We have licensing of broadcast radio and television stations under the FCC. Even licensing of movies by states and cities was considered constitutional by the Supreme Court from 1915 until 1952. [Cite.](https://censorshipinfilm.wordpress.com/category/film-censorship/) ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2018, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/207 "2018-04-24T20:43:12Z")
> [@John\_Bredin](#): > > But many of the exceptions explicit in the European provision have been “read in” to the First Amendment by U.S. courts over the years. Despite its categorical language, the courts have not found the First Amendment to be a categorical bar to espionage convictions (“in the interests of national security”), defamation lawsuits (“protection of the reputation or rights of others”), or the enforcement of non-disclosure agreements (“for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence”). We have licensing of broadcast radio and television stations under the FCC. Even licensing of movies by states and cities was considered constitutional by the Supreme Court from 1915 until 1952. [Cite.](https://censorshipinfilm.wordpress.com/category/film-censorship/) The US system isn’t perfect, and is not a cast iron guarantee no human rights are ever infringed upon. There are always going to be edge cases. But it is clearly better than the British system in this case. The law used in the OP doesn’t cover some edge case or a grey area. It is fundamental example of free speech (or the lack of it), if your definition of freedom of speech does not include protecting the right to express opinions that are considered “offensive” it is not a meaningful definition. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/208 "2018-04-25T16:16:01Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > The text of the statement clearly shows the point I made above. The UK has criminalized opinions that the state finds “grossly offensive”. This clearly flies in the face of any idea of freedom of speech. You don’t find advocating the mass murder of the Jews to be grossly offensive? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/209 "2018-04-25T16:20:53Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > You don’t find advocating the mass murder of the Jews to be grossly offensive? Jesus, will you read what he said? He never said that it was NOT grossly offensive. He was simply arguing against the idea that the state should get to criminalize opinions that IT finds grossly offensive. If you want me to make the distinction more clearly, here you go: I find the things this guy said to be pretty grossly offensive. I still don’t think it should be a criminal offense to say them. Also, despite the offensiveness of what he said, I don’t think he was seriously advocating mass murder. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/210 "2018-04-25T16:26:21Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > You don’t find advocating the mass murder of the Jews to be grossly offensive? Joking about the holocaust is completely grossly offensive. Unfortunately you cannot criminalize opinions that you think are grossly offensive and still claim to have freedom of speech. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/211 "2018-04-25T16:29:47Z")
But advocating genocide isn’t exactly the same thing as “expressing an opinion”, is it? It’s advocating murdering a whole bunch of people, isn’t it? Which is different than saying “I like my tea with milk and sugar”, isn’t it? Or even “Justin Bieber is a fine upstanding young man”. Advocating genocide is expressing an opinion, but isn’t not just expressing an opinion. It’s expressing an opinion that a whole bunch of people should be rounded up and killed. So it’s not just criminalizing “expressing an opinion”. Once again: he advocated genocide. Hah, hah, he was only joking! Tell you what, for your next joke go to the bank, tell them you have a bomb and to hand over all the money. I’m sure the cops will think it’s fucking hilarious that you expressed your opinion in this way. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/212 "2018-04-25T16:36:12Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Once again: he advocated genocide. Hah, hah, he was only joking! Tell you what, for your next joke go to the bank, tell them you have a bomb and to hand over all the money. I’m sure the cops will think it’s fucking hilarious that you expressed your opinion in this way. If you can’t grasp the fact that words also have context, and that reasonable people evaluate the words AND the context when determining the intent behind a statement, then this conversation isn’t even worth having. The guy was playing a stupid prank on his girlfriend, using her dog. He did it in a grossly offensive way, but if you think he was actually calling for the mass extermination of Jewish people in gas chambers, I have a large bridge for sale that you might be interested in. Also, some prime Florida swampland. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/213 "2018-04-25T16:39:20Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > But advocating genocide isn’t exactly the same thing as “expressing an opinion”, is it? It’s advocating murdering a whole bunch of people, isn’t it? Which is different than saying “I like my tea with milk and sugar”, isn’t it? Or even “Justin Bieber is a fine upstanding young man”. > > Advocating genocide is expressing an opinion, but isn’t not just expressing an opinion. It’s expressing an opinion that a whole bunch of people should be rounded up and killed. > > So it’s not just criminalizing “expressing an opinion”. > > Once again: he advocated genocide. Hah, hah, he was only joking! Tell you what, for your next joke go to the bank, tell them you have a bomb and to hand over all the money. I’m sure the cops will think it’s fucking hilarious that you expressed your opinion in this way. **No one** on either side of the trial thought he was genuine advocacy of genocide (the words were said to a DOG as a joke!) Nowhere in the judgement does it claim he advocating for any kind of violent action. And the law doesn’t require that for the speech to be illegal. The opinion expressed was found to be “grossly offensive”, that was all that was required for someone to be successfully prosecuted. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/214 "2018-04-25T19:23:18Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > The guy was playing a stupid prank on his girlfriend, using her dog. No he wasn’t. He was broadcasting antisemitic material under the guise of a joke. He tried to claim that it was a stupid prank on his girlfriend, but that claim didn’t wash. 1. He didn’t need to upload a video to annoy his girlfriend, he could have just done the routine with the dog in front of her. 2. His girlfriend didn’t know the video existed until after it had been widely viewed. 3. He told a reporter his aim was to make an offensive video. In the light of all the evidence presented in court, including his own, his defense of “It was just a joke” was found to be not credible. This case does raise free speech issues, but it is not about someone being prosecuted for a joke on their girlfriend. As you say, context matters. And the context here is that Meechan wanted to offend people and used violently racist tropes to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/215 "2018-04-25T19:24:20Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > The opinion expressed was found to be “grossly offensive”, that was all that was required for someone to be successfully prosecuted. What opinion did he express? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/216 "2018-04-25T19:29:52Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > And the context here is that Meechan wanted to offend people and used violently racist tropes to do so. I completely agree that he wanted to offend people, and that his language was offensive and racist. Still shouldn’t be criminal. And why don’t you address the central issue raised in my last post? Do you actually think that he was calling for actual violence against actual people? Do you think any reasonable person would have interpreted his video as an actual call for actual violence against actual people? ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/217 "2018-04-25T20:51:17Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > You don’t find advocating the mass murder of the Jews to be grossly offensive? Of course it is! You don’t _need_ to protect the right to say things everyone agrees with. Freedom of speech is _only_ for things people find offensive. If the state can punish you for saying offensive things, then you don’t have free speech at all. That’s what “free speech” means. That you’re allowed to be offensive, especially to those in power, so long as you limit your offenses to speech and not action. Nobody is defending genocide here. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/218 "2018-04-25T21:25:11Z")
Nobody is defending genocide, but they are defending advocating genocide. Advocating genocide is just speech! It’s not actions! Like, when I tell the bank teller I have a bomb, it’s just speech, not actions. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/219 "2018-04-25T21:55:50Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Nobody is defending genocide, but they are defending advocating genocide. Advocating genocide is just speech! It’s not actions! > > Like, when I tell the bank teller I have a bomb, it’s just speech, not actions. So point out the bit of the law (or this judgement that is based on it) that says it is only illegal if the speech in question is advocating violence. NOBODY involved in this case or its prosecution ever claimed it was a genuine advocacy of genocide. It wasn’t, it was joke spoken to a dog. Yup it was quite clearly a grossly offensive joke. Freedom of speech exists to protect opinions the state finds offensive. If it doesn’t do that, you don’t have freedom of speech. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2018, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080/220 "2018-04-25T22:05:52Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Nobody is defending genocide, but they are defending advocating genocide. Advocating genocide is just speech! It’s not actions! > > Like, when I tell the bank teller I have a bomb, it’s just speech, not actions. No, that’s robbing a bank. An _action_. But you should be able to post videos online saying “robbing banks is cool!” without fear of being arrested, as ignorant and wrong as that speech may be. Robbing banks is a crime. But _advocating_ the robbing of banks shouldn’t be. That’s the line we should draw. Look, I don’t like this guy. If I met him, I’d punch him in the nose and not feel bad about it. He’s a sick, racist piece of shit. There’s absolutely nothing defensible about what he said or what he made his dog do. But criminalizing his ignorant, racist video is a step too far. That’s how tyrannical governments are made. Being offensive, no matter to what degree, cannot be a crime in a free society. The remedy for offensive speech is clicking the “X” and closing the video. Or petitioning Youtube to take it down. Not sentencing the offending person to jail. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-small-goose-step-closer-to-thirteen-oclock/811080.md?page=12)