This is frustrating if you cannot read the text I provide you with. I am out of here.
So why did you bother posting the text of the law?
Doesn’t matter if he made the false claim pre-emptively. It wasn’t a joke. It was an anti-Semitic video aggravated by religious prejudice.
On the evidence that we’ve seen, what makes you so sure that it wasn’t a joke?
Does his saying it’s a joke make it one? Or is there any other criteria to determine it was a joke?
No? Just the guy saying it makes it so?
And you don’t see any problem with that? Because I do.
No? Just the guy saying it makes it so?
And you don’t see any problem with that? Because I do.
[/QUOTE]
There should be a presumption of innocence surely? What have you seen that makes you sure it isn’t a joke?
I assume you are OK with the presumption of innocence?
It’s nothing to do with the evidence we’ve seen. We’ve seen almost no evidence. We are all in an incredibly poor position to decide what really happened in this case.
Luckily, there is a guy who has not only seen the evidence, but was actually paid to weigh it up and decide what the true facts of the matter were. His name was Sheriff Derek O’Carroll. His judgement on the basis of the totality of the evidence was that Meechan had not made the video only to annoy his girlfriend, that it was anti-Semitic and racist in nature and aggravated by religious prejudice.
Now, he may be wrong. We, had we had the opportunity to see and weigh all the evidence, may have to come a different conclusion. Or, we may have agreed with him. Maybe on appeal that finding could be overturned. But the critical point is that his ruling that this video constituted a crime was based on his finding that it was not a mere wind-up of the defendant’s girlfriend. Meechan was not convicted for a bad taste joke, much as it suits him to claim that this is what happened.
There’s plenty of room for concern about this case and the implications for voicing sincerely held opinions. But the considerable brouhaha around the idea that someone has been criminalised for joking is utterly misplaced, because the view of the Court is that this was not a joke.
ETA - presumption of innocence doesn’t apply here. Meechan had presumption of innocence at the start of the trial - that’s why he wasn’t summarily jailed. But after he was tried while presumed innocent, he was found guilty. That’s the point at which presumption of innocence no longer applies.
Exactly. I could not have summed it up more succinctly myself.
It Is precisely this that makes the UK an objectively less free more oppressive place. The fact it is possible for a judge* to convict someone because an opinion they expressed was “anti-Semitic and racist in nature” means the freedom of speech is not respected in UK society and laws.
In the US, for its faults, the constitution would stop this from happening.
- yes technically a Sherrif not a judge
I can easily think of some things that you could teach the parrot to say that might be a criminal offence. They would be the same things that, if said them, would likely get you arrested, and dissing me, Trump or the Pope is neither here nor there.
Subjectively, not objectively. Every society balances freedom of speech in their own way. The example in this thread is not a hill I’d die on, but I’d argue that UK limitations on speech are way better for the operation of the criminal justice system than seems to be the case in some other countries. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.
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.
Your argument seems to be:
- This dude isn’t of the opinion that Jews should be gassed; and
- He is being punished for being of the opinion that Jews should be gassed.
This is nonsense. There is a clear distinction between the expression of an idea and the possession of an idea. One can be outlawed without outlawing the other.
Your sense of what’s “objective” is similarly flawed.
It is not is not nonsense. The former is what is meant by “criminalizing opinions”. The state can prosecute you for purely expressing an opinion. If you criminalize opinions you cannot claim to have freedom of speech.
Saying you are free to think whatever opinions you want but just can’t express it out loud IS nonsense. Unless someone has developed telepathy technology without telling anyone.
Of course you can claim that. The idea that freedom of speech is binary, not a continuum, is gibberish.
That’s very silly. Of course you can have opinions without expressing them, and telepathy has fuckall to do with that–I don’t know why you’re so fascinated by ESP and keep bringing it up as though it’s somehow relevant.
Your statement, is what is completely irrelevant and nonsensical…
This is only a meaningful expression (w.r.t. the state prosecuting opinions) if the state had some means of prosecuting people for opinions they held but did not express out loud. Pretty sure that requires telepathy.
In the absence of telepathy this is completely meaningless distinction. The possession of an opinion in your head alone does not have the remotest bit of relevance to free speech unless is spoken or otherwise expressed.
If you criminalize expressing an opinion because you find it offensive (which is clearly what the 2003 Communications Act, section 128 does) you cannot claim, as a society, to have freedom of speech.
:rolleyes: Okay, champ.
It’s a meaningful distinction because people are perfectly capable of expressing opinions they don’t hold, and of holding opinions they don’t express. What’s penalized here is the advocacy of certain actions–specifically, the advocacy of genocidal murder.
Exploring whether it’s intended as satire or seriously would involve delving into someone’s past actions and statements–or, for a detective incompetent at drawing conclusions and understanding human behavior, might involve the usage of telepathy.
But fortunately, that’s not what’s happening. The advocacy of genocidal murder is taken at face value, and whether it’s a sincerely-held opinion or not is not explored. It’s the expression of the advocacy, not the belief in the advocacy, that’s criminalized.
But as it is not possible to magically detect an opinion that held by not expressed it has no bearing on freedom of speech at all, is not meaningful.
No that’s not the case at all. As pointed out by Stanislaus above the thing that was found to be illegal was speech that was “anti-Semitic and racist in nature and aggravated by religious prejudice” no threat, action or advocacy of action was found, nor was it needed for a successful prosecution. The law makes opinions illegal if they racist.
Then stop talking about opinions if they’re not meaningful, that’s the point. It’s the speech, not the opinions, that are criminalized, because under the strictest possible reading (an absurdly strict reading) it’s impossible to interrogate the opinions of a person except through speech.
But again, the distinction is important, because a person who has an opinion whose expression is criminalized has a binary choice with distinct outcomes:
- Express the opinion and be punished.
- Don’t express the opinion and don’t be punished.
“Gas the Jews” is advocacy of genocidal murder. You’re simply wrong in disputing my characterization of it.
Quite right. This is the EXACTLY what is meant by CRIMINALIZING AN OPINION. When the state does this society becomes objectively less free, more oppressive. It is saying preventing the offense caused by hearing an opinion is more important the right of free speech.
Likewise if the state says that:
A person who has an religion whose expression is criminalized has a binary choice with distinct outcomes:
- Express the religion and be punished.
- Don’t express the religion and don’t be punished
Then that state has abolished freedom of religion.
Even when it is said to a dog as a joke? But that’s irrelevant as that is not why the individual in the OP was convicted (and other cases prosecuted under this law). At no point was it required to show at threat, action or the an advocacy of action. Simply expressing an opinion that was “anti-Semitic and racist in nature and aggravated by religious prejudice” was enough for a successful prosecution.
For pity’s sake, that’s not what’s happening. But I feel like I’m explaining to you why the volume could be just as loud if it only went up to ten, so I don’t see the benefit of continuing.
Yes, even when said to a dog as a joke: then it’s a joking advocacy of genocidal murder.