This calls for public shunning, rotten eggs, tomatoes and a boycott of his act. Not jail time.
Huh? You in the UK have different problems, but are you seriously implying this pug case is a significant problem compared to Brexit, anti-immigration racism, Russians assassinating folks in your country, and so on and so forth?
Your clarification leaves me even more bewildered as to what the hell you’re getting at.
Sorry, but no.
You claimed
You need to show the overwhelming predominance of such complaints here and on Fox News are as you describe. You also need to show that objecting to violence on campus and silencing speakers there is “trifling”.
Regards,
Shodan
Cool, dude. I don’t think you genuinely doubt what I said, and if you somehow do, I don’t think you’re persuadable by any means within the reach of a person without two weeks and a professional staff of assistants, so we’re basically done with this. Whatever victory you need to claim, go ahead.
You take a lot of words to say “I got nothing”.
Maybe this comedian will teach the dog to sit up and beg, and then he can be prosecuted for non-consensual BDSM. “What do you mean Heil - I thought you said Heel!”
Regards,
Shodan
Cops beating people up because they mouth off isn’t backed up by courts or the public. You don’t get charged with insubordination, sedition, being grossly offensive, “hate speech” or whatever clever terminology you can come up with when you mouth off to a police officer. A cop who cites a guy for an offense he would let another more polite person get away with isn’t a free speech violation. Your analogy fails LHOD.
No. I’m saying it’s a serious free speech problem for the UK. As far as free speech in the UK is concerned, this case isn’t trifling shit. It actually sets a very troubling precedent. None of the other stuff you mentioned has anything to do with free speech in the UK so it’s not relevant.
So what American problems were you talking about in this post?
Also, as i said, no-one has said that the case itself is a trifling issue; we have been discussing it precisely because free speech is an important issue.
I love it when a prediction comes together! 
This is yet another non sequitur. Sure, a cop beating someone up for mouthing off isn’t “backed up by the courts,” but it’s a government action that stifles speech, and is a far more serious problem, and a far more serious consequence for speech, than getting hauled before a court for teaching a pug to be a Nazi.
Is this case some trivial shit? I’m not entirely sure. If, as I suspect, this dude gets off with a warning or a dozen hours of community service or something, I really am not too upset over it. I mean, it’s a bad law, or a bad decision based on a mediocre law, but it’s not “goose-stepping toward thirteen o’clock” or anything. If he spends time in jail? Okay, then we’re talking about something worse. (edit: I did, above, refer to this case as “trifling shit,” so mhendo, at least someone in this thread did!)
All the same, I’m a lot more concerned over police abusing their power to harass, arrest, or beat down people who are rude to them. That, in my opinion, is a much more serious abuse of government power than is charging the doofus who teaches a pug to be a Nazi.
Here i’m going to disagree with you.
I’m not disagreeing with your opinion of police who “harass, arrest, or beat down people who are rude to them.” I completely agree that this is a serious breach of their duty to the public.
But the reason for my disagreement is right their in your post: abusing their power.
In most cases, if a cop harasses, arrests, or beats down someone who is rude to them, they are, in fact, violating department policies and violating the law. It might be that they are not always called to account, and it might be that the punishment they get is often a slap on the wrist, like a paid suspension.
But the fact is that the law itself does not support or condone or allow the practice of harassing, arresting, or beating civilians just for being rude. By contrast, the arrest and prosecution in this thread were well within the boundaries prescribed by British law. That is, in fact, what makes this case so important: that the law itself is so bad.
Yes, it might be worse to be beaten or harassed by a cop for being rude if you are the person being beaten or harassed. And we need to do everything possible to hold accountable cops who abuse their power. But i think that laws like this one, which compromise and constrain basic rights with little or no valid justification, are just as serious and just as problematic.
There are some semantics going on here, but ultimately the state is what the state does, not what the state says it does; and an abuse of power by an agent of the state has the same effect on the victim whether it’s in accordance with or in contrast to what the state says it’ll do. So I don’t agree that this case is somehow more important. On the contrary, because this case represents people constraining themselves according to democratic structures, it’s even less bad. If the populace as a whole wants this state behavior changed, it’s an easy fix to change it.
While the semantics might not matter to the victim at the time, they matter in principle, and in terms of redress. When the state sanctions a law that violates fundamental freedoms, like freedom of speech, it’s a major fucking problem. This guy can go to prison for posting a video. If you don’t think that’s serious, then we really have nothing more to discuss.
I’d be interested to know whether you would apply this principle to all laws. Were Jim Crow laws “less bad” because they were democratically supported by the people in the states that passed them? Were anti-gay laws OK because, for a long time, they were supported by a numerical majority of the people? After all, those laws simply required racial minorities and LGBT folks to “constrain themselves according to democratic structures.”
If he goes to prison for it, I’ll think it’s serious. I am, in this case and in all cases, concerned about what actually happens.
Yes, it applies. Jim Crow laws, democratically passed, were less bad than racist extrajudicial police actions. Both were shitty, but the latter–all else being equal–were shittier.
So if the legislature passed a law allowing police to harass, arrest, or beat down someone who is rude to them, this would be better, in your estimation, than a situation where police are not allowed to do these things, but where some police do these things in violation of the law?
You’re really reaching here, and ignoring what I said: I’m interested in what actually happens.
Situation A: Three people a week are getting beaten by the cops. It’s happening despite a law that prevents it, and there appears to be no effort within the government to stop it.
Situation B: Three people a week are getting beaten by the cops. It’s happening because there’s a law that allows it, and there appears to be no effort within the government to stop it.
Situation B is a better situation than situation A, because it’s easier for the public to do something about it.
I like the way you put “harassing, arresting, or beating civilians” all together like they are the same thing.
Do you think police should not be allowed to arrest anyone?
I assure you that the police in USA kill far far more people unjustifiably that most anywhere else.
How much freedom does a dead body have? None, they took away everything.
So rah rah rah freedom? Is that freedom?
Our Commonwealth legal systems are generally pretty good. If it was a guy just making a harmless joke, the law will respond accordingly. If not, the system will respond as we have come to feel is appropriate.
Utterly ridiculous. It’s an obvious gag, not an intent to harass or intimidate.
Cite.
Well, he’s been convicted. And the judge said he didn’t believe it was a joke, and that even if it were humorous, it didn’t protect him. Which is pretty much unanswerable - how do you prove that something is a joke? De minimis non curat lex takes another poke in the eye, and not from Larry, Moe, or Curly.
Regards,
Shodan