I think the dog should stand trial at the Hague international criminal court.
That isn’t what I said or implied. All I said was that I didn’t find it funny. I recognize that it’s somewhat offensive (by design) and potentially problematic (as the alleged comedian is discovering), but I don’t see the value in criminally prosecuting it, despite me being Jewish.
By way of disclosure, I am amused by cats that look like Hitler.
I feel the exact same way about those dumb SERVER AT RESTAURANT IS LEFT AN OFFENSIVE TIP stories since I think there’s only been one or two legit ones of the dozens that have come out. And yet people here and everywhere else are the quickest to post them the moment they spring up.
If I told a deeply racist joke that falls foul of applicable hate speeech laws should the fact that its a joke exempt me from prosecution?
Maybe you’re tempted to answer yes. What if I wrote a racist article, got called on it and in response called it satire? Should I escape prosecution merely because I asserted it was humour?
yes
yes
You’re right - I inadvertently conflated your views with WOOKINPANUB.
That’s one person who I’ll never add to my Facebook!
Well maybe, but offhand I would have expected that the standard of free speech and hate-crime owes more to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights than to actual UK ideas, and that enforcement is surging as part of the post-brexit reaction.
Ok, I’m going to take a wild guess here and assert that you don’t believe that hate speech, however defined, should ever be the subject of criminal prosecution.
Am i correct, and if not, could you briefly outline your position?
:groan:
I don’t know that hate speech should be subject to prosecution. But any other crime, where there is a hate component should be subject to a “hate crime” add-on. If I vandalize your garage with a seven letter word that starts with “A” and ends with “hole” that’s vandalism and should be prosecuted. If, on the other hand, I spray paint what has, in polite society come to be called the “N” word, it’s still vandalism, but now you are no longer the only victim. Every black person in my town who hears about it is victimized as well. (And so is every white person who is tacitly judged as complicit.)
In his house, between only his household, he’s welcome to his douchebag excuse, “it’s a joke!”
But in countries with hate speech laws, once he posts it on social media is does violate the hate speech law. Shrug.
But he knew that, I expect. I hope he enjoys his 15 minutes.
What do you mean “however defined”? surely the definition is the important part? Do you include direct threats to a person in your definition? Ridicule? Mockery? If hatred is contained in a religious or political text do they get a free pass?
In general I don’t think that hate speech laws are a positive thing. We already have laws that relate to harassment and threats and I think that everyone is equal before the law.
I have not once argued that this case was incorrectly decided under British law.
I’m willing to accept, for the purposes of this discussion, that the Communications Act of 2003 applies in this case, and was correctly interpreted by the court. In fact, a reading of the Act suggests that this is, in fact, the case. The Act does, in fact, provide for criminal penalties for publishing content on the Internet that is “grossly offensive” or “of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.” I’m happy to concede that this guy’s speech falls is pretty well described by at least some of those terms.
I am, and always have been, very troubled by the notion of hate speech.
Despite my ambivalence, I’m willing to countenance the idea of hate speech enhancements to other criminal penalties. That is, if you physically assault or attack somebody, or commit some other specific crime, and that crime is associated with hate speech that suggests a specific motive for committing the crime, I don’t have too much objection to the notion that your hate speech and your motive can be taken into account when you are punished for the crime. I’m not sure that it’s necessary, but I understand it, and I understand why many people think it is a good idea.
But when it comes to the concept of hate speech qua hate speech, with no associated criminal action, I don’t like it at all, and object to the very concept, at least as a legal concept. I think it is perfectly reasonable to talk about hate speech in general terms, and to point it out and condemn it when we see it; but that is a quite different from instituting criminal punishments for the simple act of speech, no matter how grossly offensive or indecent or obscene it may be. I would make an exception for menacing, but the legal definition of menacing should be limited to cases of direct threats of harm, not simply a catch-all for speech that some people find unpleasant.
I have no trouble saying that this guy is probably an asshole, and possibly a contemptible anti-Semite. I also have no trouble with the concept that he can be judged in the court of public opinion, and suffer social and cultural opprobrium and disgust as a result of his speech. I do not, however, believe that his speech, by itself, should constitute a criminal offense.
As I have already made clear, I’m not disputing that this case was accurately and properly decided under current law. What I’m disputing is the notion that the law itself is a reasonable law. Do you understand the concept?
That is, I don’t give a flying fuck if the law was violated or not. The law itself is bullshit. It flies in the face of any reasonable conception of free speech. Is that clear enough for you?
If you shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and people get hurt in the ensuing panic, you can be prosecuted for hurting those people.
If you advocate violence, and your readers get violent, you can be prosecuted for inciting the violence.
But to be prosecuted for speech or writing because your political opponents deem it to be hateful . . . that is far too vague. Such a standard can easily be abused.
What you can do to people you disapprove of, when your party is in power, can be done to you, when your opponents are in power.
Different countries have different hate speech laws and thus are defined differently. That is all. My question had nothing to do with any idiosyncratic definition and I wanted to clarify whether you objected to hate speech as a concept, not just the current UK/Scottish laws.
Your statement that all we really need to know about this case can be obtained from watching the video could certainly be reasonably interpreted as implying that the case was wrongly decided.
Your clarification is noted and appreciated.
Amazingly, the avoidance of pitifully ridiculous strawmen clarifies rather then obfuscates your position.
I’m generally opposed to criminalizing offensive speech. Under U.S. law – which of course doesn’t apply in this case – this would be protected speech, and I agree with that. Moreover, the protection isn’t based on an analysis of whether he was joking. [Note: I’m not a lawyer.] In some cases, a joke might be treated differently, e.g., it matters if something is a “true threat”, or if a potentially slanderous statement is clearly too absurd to be believed, but when it comes to just saying something racist, the courts aren’t asked to peer into the defendant’s mind to see if he really meant it. And that is, in my view, a good thing.
As for the quality of the joke, I’m really weary of the genre of humor consisting of: “I said something racist on the internet, and it’s funny because of course I don’t mean it (unlike numerous other people on the internet saying the same thing).” I don’t think adding a cute dog to the mix does much to improve the joke. And I say that as someone who is generally in favor of adding cute dogs to pretty much everything. (Maybe not meat pies.)
Clarifying: The [U.S.] courts aren’t asked to do this, because “saying something racist” isn’t against the law at all. So maybe that’s not the best example of anything.
But my point was just, I don’t think a court can reasonably be expected to distinguish “said something racist and meant it” vs. “said something racist and pretended it was a joke” vs. “said something racist that was intended as a joke, but the joke is only funny because you’re actually a racist” vs. “said something racist that non-racists might find genuinely funny as an example of transgressive humor or of parody, but you intended it as a funny because it’s true kind of joke, because you’re a racist.”
So, these “clearly he’s joking” defenses seem not very relevant to me. Either we should ban expressing racism, or we shouldn’t, but “we should ban it except when it’s obviously a joke to 51% of the internet” doesn’t seem like a very viable middle ground.
“I was just obeying commands.”
Only if your interpretation ignores the fact that people can analyze the results of court cases in a moral and ethical and principled framework, rather than a strictly legalistic one.