one small goose-step closer to thirteen o'clock

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

AFAICT, the relevant statute is this:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he-
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

So, the “grossly offensive” part is probably what we’re dealing with here. Advocating genocidal murder is a pretty good example of something that’s grossly offensive.

Other stuff I’m finding about the law makes this prosecution look like a bad idea (and lest it get lost in all the bullshit, I don’t think this prosecution is a good idea, I just don’t think it’s the big deal folks are making it out to be).

@Wikipedia

On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted. Communications that express an “unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it” will not. Communications that are merely “grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false” will be prosecuted only when it can be shown to be necessary and proportionate.
…
Revisions to the interim guidelines were issued on 20 June 2013 following a public consultation.[14] The revisions specified that prosecutors should consider:

whether messages were aggravated by references to race, religion or other minorities, and whether they breached existing rules to counter harassment or stalking; and
the age and maturity of any wrongdoer should be taken into account and given great weight.

The revisions also clarified that criminal prosecutions were “unlikely”:

when the author of the message had "expressed genuine remorse";
when "swift and effective action ... to remove the communication" was taken; or
when messages were not intended for a wide audience.

If I were a betting man, I’d bet that this dude finds his conviction overturned, vacated, or otherwise rendered moot, and that he does not spend a night in jail for it.

[Isamu]

@griffin1977

No objectively. In as much as the statement has any meaning when talking about societies (you could argue that a country that murders its citizens based on race or religion is not objectively any less free or oppressive than one that doesn’t, but that would be pedantic IMO)

A country that criminalizes opinions (because they are rude to the royal family, or racist) is objectively less free and more oppressive than one that protects those opinions, and cannot claim to have freedom of speech in any meaningful form.

Americans let their own government kill its own citizens via the death penalty. So you are much less free than the UK. Objectively.

[Magiver]

@Isamu

Americans let their own government kill its own citizens via the death penalty. So you are much less free than the UK. Objectively.

Americans want their government to kill murderers. So, your post makes no sense.

Oh, and we’ll kill non-citizens too for the same crimes.

[Isamu]

@Magiver

Americans want their government to kill murderers. So, your post makes no sense.

Oh, and we’ll kill non-citizens too for the same crimes.

The UK wants their government to limit hate speech, so everything you said in this thread makes no sense. See how that works?

[griffin1977]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

AFAICT, the relevant statute is this:

So, the “grossly offensive” part is probably what we’re dealing with here.

Yup that’s the one. I linked to it above.

You’ll note nothing about threats, actions, or advocating violent actions. If the judge thinks your opinion is “grossly offensive” you have committed a crime.

But don’t worry because…

The revisions also clarified that criminal prosecutions were “unlikely”

PHEW! No worries then. They can prosecute for any opinion they think is offensive. But its pretty unlikely they will prosecute you personally for that. So nothing to worry about. Carry on!

[griffin1977]

@Isamu

Americans let their own government kill its own citizens via the death penalty. So you are much less free than the UK. Objectively.

Yup. no argument there.

The difference to me is that this is that the laws in the OP are becoming MORE oppressive and less free with time.

80 years ago most western countries had the death penalty. Thankfully all of them except America now do not (and IMO America will follow suit within the next 20 years ago)

The removal of free speech described in laws like the 2003 Communications Act are a recent regression. That is far more disturbing, and much greater threat to freedom, than a few die hard “hang em high” enthusiasts.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@griffin1977

You’ll note nothing about threats, actions, or advocating violent actions.

This is an error of category. “Grossly offensive” is a huge category. One subcategory of “grossly offensive” is “advocate genocidal murder.” Advocacy of genocidal murder isn’t specifically called out in the statute because it’s subsumed under “grossly offensive.”

[griffin1977]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

This is an error of category. “Grossly offensive” is a huge category. One subcategory of “grossly offensive” is “advocate genocidal murder.” Advocacy of genocidal murder isn’t specifically called out in the statute because it’s subsumed under “grossly offensive.”

You might think that somehow something said to a dog in a joke video was an actual genuine advocacy of genocide. But NO ONE on either side of this trial ever made that claim, or had to defend against it.

The fact is the prosecution didn’t need to. As clearly shown by the text of the law. All they needed to show in order was that the opinions expressed in the video were “offensive”. There is nothing in the law that says the communication has to be a threat, or an advocacy of a violent action. It quite clearly and unambiguously outlaws opinions that are found to be offensive. That is completely contradictory to the concept of free speech. Inoffensive opinions do not require protecting, no one is going criminalize them.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@griffin1977

You might think that somehow something said to a dog in a joke video was an actual genuine advocacy of genocide.

Or I might not. I might even have said

@me

when said to a dog as a joke: then it’s a joking advocacy of genocidal murder.

I might even have said that IN THIS THREAD. Have you checked?

[griffin1977]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Or I might not. I might even have said

I might even have said that IN THIS THREAD. Have you checked?

Yup I checked. And I think you’ll find you answered "Yes’ to the question of whether you thought it was “advocacy of genocidal murder”:

Yes, even when said to a dog as a joke

But as I pointed it, the fact you think that is irrelevant. Sheriff and other officials clearly did not think that it was “advocacy of genocidal murder”, and the accused never had to deny that.

The only thing that was required for someone to be successfully prosecuted was to show that the opinion was “offensive”. That is completely contradictory to the concept of free speech.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@griffin1977

Yup I checked. And I think you’ll find you answered "Yes’ to the question of whether you thought it was “advocacy of genocidal murder”:

“Gas the Jews” has no other interpretation. It may be said jokingly or seriously, but that just applies an adverb to the advocacy. It’s not some sort of sneaky dog-whistle, some sort of pomo syntagmatic enigma. Come the fuck on here.

But as I pointed it, the fact you think that is irrelevant. Sheriff and other officials clearly did not think that it was “advocacy of genocidal murder”

Bullshit. There’s no “clearly” about your claim; rather, it’s likely that it never occurred to them that anyone would doubt that “gas the Jews” was an advocacy (serious or joking) of genocidal murder, so nobody ever discussed that. Come, again, the fuck on.

The only thing that was required for someone to be successfully prosecuted was to show that the opinion was “offensive”. That is completely contradictory to the concept of free speech.

Given our own nation’s obscenity laws, you must believe we have zero free speech here either. Is that the case?

[Magiver]

@Isamu

The UK wants their government to limit hate speech, so everything you said in this thread makes no sense. See how that works?

No it doesn’t make sense. Not even a little.

[elbows]

Why are Americans so rabidly invested in stamping their collective feet and demanding other countries conduct their democracies exactly as they do?

Other countries happen to feel differently, specifically about the free spreading of hate. Just as y’all feel differently about everybody having access to guns. Sure, the whole world might think you’re nuts for insisting on such a thing in the face of evidence it damages your democracy and hurts your citizens, but ultimately, they acknowledge that it’s your country, knock yourselves out!

And, just as many nations are NOT on the same page as you in regards to gun access, many are not on the same page in regards to the spreading of hate. It’s not affecting your freedom of speech, and it’s what the citizens of these countries want so what’s it to you?

Is it that every different choice, from those made in America, is seen as an indictment of American choices? Or maybe just ‘We are the MOST free!’, because America is number 1 ? You can go ahead and scream about how you are ‘most free’, all you want, it won’t change what the rest of the world sees when they currently look at the state of America.

[Ludovic]

@elbows

Is it that every different choice, from those made in America, is seen as an indictment of American choices? Or maybe just ‘We are the MOST free!’, because America is number 1 ? You can go ahead and scream about how you are ‘most free’, all you want, it won’t change what the rest of the world sees when they currently look at the state of America.

Criticizing one element of a different society doesn’t mean that you think your own society is perfect and the other is inferior overall. In this instance, my opinion is ambiguous about this specific case but would tend to favor the American free speech approach here, but I would enthusiastically follow others’ examples in health care and, to a lesser degree of enthusiasm, gun laws.

If I had posted here saying “eh, I guess they shouldn’t have been prosecuted” and had not offered that caveat, would it have been fair to assume that I also hated their health care system and gun laws?

[Isamu]

@griffin1977

opinions are a sub-set of speech.

Oh yeah, that’s the toddler model. Say anything, think later.

[elbows]

@Ludovic

Criticizing one element of a different society doesn’t mean that you think your own society is perfect and the other is inferior overall. In this instance, my opinion is ambiguous about this specific case but would tend to favor the American free speech approach here, but I would enthusiastically follow others’ examples in health care and, to a lesser degree of enthusiasm, gun laws.

If I had posted here saying “eh, I guess they shouldn’t have been prosecuted” and had not offered that caveat, would it have been fair to assume that I also hated their health care system and gun laws?

My point was, ‘most free’, is an ambiguous boast. Many nations measure ‘free’ in ways beyond being able to say any offensive thing. For other countries being free, also means fair access to education, healthcare, and even freedom from unending gun violence in schools. That’s all. But I suspect you knew as much, all along.

[griffin1977]

@elbows

Why are Americans so rabidly invested in stamping their collective feet and demanding other countries conduct their democracies exactly as they do?

Other countries happen to feel differently, specifically about the free spreading of hate. Just as y’all feel differently about everybody having access to guns. Sure, the whole world might think you’re nuts for insisting on such a thing in the face of evidence it damages your democracy and hurts your citizens, but ultimately, they acknowledge that it’s your country, knock yourselves out!

And, just as many nations are NOT on the same page as you in regards to gun access, many are not on the same page in regards to the spreading of hate. It’s not affecting your freedom of speech, and it’s what the citizens of these countries want so what’s it to you?

Is it that every different choice, from those made in America, is seen as an indictment of American choices? Or maybe just ‘We are the MOST free!’, because America is number 1 ? You can go ahead and scream about how you are ‘most free’, all you want, it won’t change what the rest of the world sees when they currently look at the state of America.

Why are you so rabidly invested in in the assumption that all the people pointing out that this law is an egregious violation of speech:

A) Are America.
B) Think that because in this one respect (having a small, well defined set of rights protected by a written constitution) the US form of government is objectively superior to other countries, then the US form of everything is the awesome-ist most free-ist it could possibly be.

NEITHER of these are true.

[Stanislaus]

*You boy, what day is it?

What day is it sir? Why it’s Count Dankula’s Sentencing Day, of course!*

Sentence: £800 fine, payable within 6 months. No jail time.

Sentencing statement in which Sheriff O’Carrol lays out both his findings of fact, and reasoning for both conviction and sentencing, can be found here.

[Stanislaus]

The judgement is fairly short and can easily be read in full.

Some excerpts covering points raised in this thread:

1. Can the phrase “gas the Jews” be both grossly offensive *and *intended as a joke, or does the fact that it was intended as a joke mean that it can’t be offensive?

You said you used the phrase “Gas the Jews” because it was so extreme. You said the video content was horrific, but not when used as a joke. You told a newspaper reporter that the video was very offensive. You intended the video to be as offensive as you could make it and you posted it on your own unrestricted publicly accessible video channel which on your own description: “provides offensive social comedy and skits that get people thrown in prison”

“The fact that you claim in the video, and elsewhere, that the video was intended only to annoy your girlfriend and as a joke and that you did not intend to be racist is of little assistance to you. A joke can be grossly offensive. A racist joke or a grossly offensive video does not lose its racist or grossly offensive quality merely because the maker asserts he only wanted to get a laugh."

2. Was it just a joke? Wasn’t Meechan just trying to wind up his girlfriend?

In any event, that claim [that the video was intended only to annoy Meechan’s girlfriend and as a joke] lacked credibility. You had no need to make a video if all you wanted to do was to train the dog to react to offensive commands. You had no need to post the video on your unrestricted, publicly accessible, video channel if all you wanted to do was annoy your girlfriend. Your girlfriend was not even a subscriber to your channel. You posted the video, then left the country, the video went viral and thousands viewed it before she had an inkling of what you were up to. You made no effort to restrict public access or take down the video.

3. What does “grossly offensive” mean here? What was “grossly offensive” about the video?

The evidence before this court was that the video was viewed as grossly offensive within Jewish communities in Scotland and that such material tended to normalise anti-Semitic attitudes and provoke further unpleasant anti-Semitic messages and as such, this video using menacing language, led to great concern. The reaction by employers in the local area suggests that not only Jewish people found this material highly offensive: you say you lost a number of jobs as a result.

“I also found it proved that the video contained anti-Semitic, and racist material, in that it explicitly and exclusively referred to Jews, the Holocaust and the role of the Nazis in the death of 6 million Jews in a grossly offensive manner. You knew or must have known that. You knew or must have known of the risk that the video, especially the repeated use of the command phrase “Gas the Jews” together with Nazi imagery, was liable to cause gross offence to Jewish people.

“As a matter of law, the test is not whether the video was offensive but whether it was grossly offensive. That standard is an objective one in which I must apply the standards of an open and just multi-racial society, taking account of context and the relevant circumstances, applying reasonably enlightened contemporary standards, considering whether the message is liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates: in this case, Jewish people. It is a high test. I concluded, applying these standards to the evidence, that your video was not just offensive but grossly so, as well as menacing, and that you knew that or at least recognised that risk.

4. What does this trial imply for freedom of speech in the UK. What precedent has been set?

“Finally, before turning to sentence, I should note that although I invited both legal representatives to make legal submissions during the trial about the law on freedom of expression, that was done only to a very limited extent. In the absence of focused submissions on that topic by either the Crown or the defence, all I can say is that, while that right is very important, in all modern democratic countries the law necessarily places some limits on that right.

“This trial, unusual though some aspects have been, was therefore concerned, ultimately, only with the narrow fact-based question of whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that your using a public communications network on one day to post the video onto your video channel, constituted an offence contrary to section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003. I found it proved on the evidence that it was. My finding establishes only your guilt of this offence. It establishes nothing else and sets no precedent.

I think the last part is the really interesting one. If Meechan *had *run a freedom of expression defence, the case may have gone differently and its repercussions would have been more serious. But that is not the defence he relied on. He ran on “It was just a joke between me and my girlfriend” and that was found to be “not credible”. Or to freely translate from the legalese, a load of bollocks.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

If I were a betting man, I’d bet that this dude finds his conviction overturned, vacated, or otherwise rendered moot, and that he does not spend a night in jail for it.

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.