-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Youtuber Count Dankula found guilty of hate speech according to Scottish court
- Thread starter Gormless Noodle
- Start date
infinitys_7th
Member
Appeal to emotion? You are the one who set up the logical maxim:
IF someone is a dumbass THEN they should rot in prison for a non-crime.
Based off a stream where Dankula talked with a ephobophile and groomer who sees no problem with beating dogs to death, nonetheless. I merely said that you better hope no one every considers you a "dumbass", lest your maxim bite you in the ass.
And obviously I may be killed "just living in the house", but he is going into jail on a charge of a hate crime. He'll have a target on his back for a sharpened pork chop bone. Sort of ups the probability of him getting killed a bit.
"Why are you mad that I threw you into a lion's pit? You could get hit by a car tomorrow. Same thing, I'm not moved."
Last edited:
Relativ9
Member
When I talked to friends about the troubling transformation the west has gone through lately, they didn't believe me. They didn't think that former bastions of free speech are crumbling, they didn't think there's a sizable minority of young college-educated adults who believe that someone's right not to be offended trumps another persons right to think and speak freely.
It's not that they didn't fundamentally agree with me, they did. It's that they thought I was paying undue attention to the issue, and that I was making a strawman out of my ideological opponent. To them, there was no way that a law preventing Neo Nazi's from marching in the streets and spewing their hate could ever impact regular normal people who just liked making risky jokes once in a while. Then a prominent politician in Norway who's now in line to be our next Prime Minister said "Some speech shouldn't be acceptable, and both sides are to blame for this tragedy" after the Charlie Hebdo attack. Then Cathy Newman asked her asinine question that prompted Jordan Peterson to say "gotcha" and her considerable fanbase ate it up as if it wasn't disturbingly Orwellian. And then an amateur comedian from Scotland actually gets convicted for making a Nazi joke, even though he isn't even remotely a Nazi sympathizer and was actually making a joke at the expense of Nazi's.
Now my friends are starting to come around, they're starting to see the absurdity of the worlds direction the way I have for the past few years, and they're shitting themselves. But you're celebrating it...
Last edited:
MajinSweet4
Member
Hell, Family Guy used to do Hitler/Nazi jokes all the damn time. Guess all the people behind that show should be locked up.
camelCase
Member
What do you mean by "never have a platform?" People should be free to say whatever racist nonsense they want and others should be free to shout back. Plainly, being a racist doesn't inherently disenfranchise you of the freedom of expression that everyone agrees that everyone should have. There should be no off limits topics for discussion or joke. There are tons of assholes who have mean things to say but it is laughable, stupid, and childish to think that putting those people in jail is the way to go.
What is being saved by having less ideas that you don't like? We lose a lot more than whatever false sense of security (racism can still exist even if you don't see it) you gain from such a law. What even do you gain, a more inclusive atmosphere? How is that more valuable to you than freedom of speech/expression.
And Mel Brooks (Jewish) made a career out of making light of Nazism.
Last edited:
lifa-cobex
Member
I too want to know if this will be investigated.
I want to know how much fucking time, money and effort will be put towards crucifying these people under the guise of keeping everyone safe.
I want to know how much of a fucking mistake you can make without looking back on the journey and realising this is not what the law is for.
I want the MET to go after more and more comedians until the penny finally drops and the relies "oh...uhh I think we fucked up. They keep calling us uhh fascists, and we don't know why".
I want to be their at that moment and just laugh hysterically.
I want these things just as much as the MET wants control what individuals say to one another.
Clearly we cannot take responsibility on how we think and these dangerous ppl are a major influence in destroying the utopia they have in mind for us.
strange headache
Banned
Polygon's original article:
Cound Dankula calls them out on their bullsh*t:
Polygon's revised article:
And people wonder why nobody takes Polygon seriously anymore.
Cound Dankula calls them out on their bullsh*t:
Polygon's revised article:
And people wonder why nobody takes Polygon seriously anymore.
Kadayi
Banned
J Bro
Banned
"But I don't like him" is the general sentiment of people who don't mind the conviction.
CyberMoose
Neo Member
I lol'd.
Gormless Noodle
Member
Updated the OP with the latest information.
Count Dankula has been fined 800 British Pounds and has not received jail time. He will appeal this decision as he feels it sets a very dangerous precedent in the UK for free speech.
Count Dankula has been fined 800 British Pounds and has not received jail time. He will appeal this decision as he feels it sets a very dangerous precedent in the UK for free speech.
Orpheum
Member
simply the fact he's getting fined is wrong in my opinion. Be it 800 bucks or jail time, makes no difference...this is ridiculous
Grinchy
Banned
I just can't imagine how pissed I'd be if I had to spend many months of my life paying lawyer fees and court costs on top of having to actually go into court and missing out on work hours while facing these costs....all because of a youtube video.
Even if he was found not guilty, this would have still all gone too far. It's unreal what's happening in the world with political correctness.
NiiloPielinen
Member
Hulk_Smash
Banned
This goes doubly for things you personally hate or find offensive. You should defend the right of those who are in strong opposition to you no matter what. I’m a conservative Christian but defend the right for a gay couple to get married and express their views. Not because I agree with them but BECAUSE I disagree with them BUT see no harm in allowing them to live their lives without the law breathing down their necks. And like you said, the power we give to the government to wield against those we disagree with, can and eventually will be used against you.
Last edited:
MultiCore
Member
This is just the beginning.
strange headache
Banned
Turns out, there has been a very similar precedent during WW II. A Finnish dog which gave Nazi salutes so annoyed Germany's World War II government that it launched a campaign against its owner:
The German embassy didn't take kindly to Mr. Borg's nazi-saluting dog and brought him in for questioning:
But contrary to the UK government, the Nazis decided not to press charges:
The historian who discovered the incident, Klaus Hillenbrand, had this to say:
So yeah, Dankula's joke would have been considered an affront to actual Nazis. What's even worse is the fact that the Nazi regime had the hindsight to drop the case after 3 months, while the UK government went through with it and fined Dankula 800£ after dragging the case out for like two years while making him unemployable. *slowclap*
The German embassy didn't take kindly to Mr. Borg's nazi-saluting dog and brought him in for questioning:
But contrary to the UK government, the Nazis decided not to press charges:
The historian who discovered the incident, Klaus Hillenbrand, had this to say:
So yeah, Dankula's joke would have been considered an affront to actual Nazis. What's even worse is the fact that the Nazi regime had the hindsight to drop the case after 3 months, while the UK government went through with it and fined Dankula 800£ after dragging the case out for like two years while making him unemployable. *slowclap*
Last edited:
ruvikx
Banned
It's worth noting (for the sake of balance here) the fact many laws exist in the western world whereby insulting the national flag, president, national anthem & state symbols are punished to varying degrees. In France for example it's totally illegal to publically disrespect the flag & anthem. Those who do so receive heavy fines & even jail time: http://www.la-raudiere.com/lng_FR_s...-drapeau-ou-a-l-hymne-national-sera-puni.html
So in historical terms a little perspective in such cases is necessary.
strange headache
Banned
I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here, since Dankula isn't french and neither did he insult his national flag, nor his anthem. Also you are linking to the personal blog of a french delegate who is proposing an amendment to an existing law, while said amendment never came to fruition.
Furthermore, the law she is referencing, which forbids insulting the national anthem and flag, has been voted in 2003, before that committing insult to national symbols wasn't a criminal offense in France. Moreover, the law only applies to protests and not individual works of expressions and/or art.
Such cases are incredibly rare and hardly ever prosecuted. The case that the french delegate was referencing happened in 2010 when during a public competition a photographer submitted a picture of somebody wiping his butt with the French flag, causing outrage. The case was dismissed, but after much public discussion, the government made a decree to counteract such offense only in reference of the French flag. It should be said, that a decree is not the same thing as a law in France, since only the parliament and not the government has any kind of legislative power.
In Germany, only the burning of German flags is forbidden, but while it is frowned upon, it is hardly ever enforced since differentiating between incitement and symbolic or political reasons (for example during anti-war protests) is nigh impossible. In Austria the burning of flags is not explicitly forbidden and insulting the symbols of the state is only considered an offense when it causes widespread public outrage during public events or when malicious intent can be proven. In Belgium, no such law exists.
As for Dankula's particular situation, in the UK 'lèse-majesty' was abolished in 2010, while the last prosecution happened in 1715! Furthermore these is no law in the UK that forbids the desecration of a flag.
What you are saying is neither historically nor factually correct and it certainly doesn't apply in this case. So I'm not really sure what kind of "balance" I didn't respect in this regard?
Last edited:
ruvikx
Banned
I clicked on the first link on Google because I couldn't be bothered to delve deeper, but, if your French was any better (or even understood this country) you'd realize it is in fact A REAL LAW: http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/artic...ricolore-a-nouveau-penalise_1391793_3224.html
A few years back a man was given a suspended prison sentence for vandalizing a French flag: http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-dive...ge-au-drapeau-francais-22-12-2010-1201250.php
So before proclaiming my post "neither factually nor historically correct", do your homework. As for my initial point, I'll spell it out: the post I responded to insinuated "the Nazis" were somewhat unique with their views vis-à-vis punishing those who insult their nation/symbols/leader, whereas in reality such laws have existed throughout time & continue to today.
It has nothing to do with Dankula per se, but rather the notion 1940's Germany was a sort of 'special case' in terms of cracking down on such behaviour when in effect it's par of the course in most nations. France was merely the example I chose to demonstrate this point.
BANGS
Banned
strange headache
Banned
In case you didn't notice, but I explicitly referenced and explained said law (from 2003) in my post above.The law and the decree I referenced are absolutely not the same thing. That's why I find it kind of ironic that you're blaming my reading comprehension, when there's really no need to be so insultingly condescending on your part.
The title of the article you posted states, that it was the first ever conviction of this kind and it happened in 2010! Also the accused broke in a fit of rage the flagstaff of a French flag that was public property while aggressively resisting the two police officers that tried to detain him.
As I tried to explain, you are comparing apples to oranges, so why even bring this up in the first place?
Last edited:
ruvikx
Banned
Do you really want me to siphon through the Internet & post absolutely every misdemeanour (because that's what we're talking about here) in which someone 'insulted' a western nation in various ways & has received either a fine, or prison as a result? Because such cases are numerous & I know how the law works here. In historical terms each nation & people have at various points in time defined acceptable & legal behaviors. In the Third Reich? "Don't insult ze Fuhrer!". In the French Republic? "Don't insult our flag!". In 'political correctness gone mad' modern UK? "Don't make a Nazi joke!".
etc. etc.
These aren't "apples & oranges", they're real laws born from mindsets which have dominated a particular era/people & can absolutely be compared with each other.
strange headache
Banned
I'm just trying to explain to you that the examples you give directly contradict the argument you're trying to make. That isn't as simple in the case of Europe as you're trying to imply because of its diverse legislation and cultural history. Also France is a very bad example since it doesn't have a history in regards to what you're claiming since the law came into existence in 2003 and the first ever case was convicted in 2010, as was stated by the very same sources you linked to!
And yes, what you're talking about is comparing apples to oranges since Dankula's case is completely different in a country that doesn't even have the laws you're trying to reference.
dragonfart28
Banned
A fine is appropriate.
People need to consider not just the act itself, but also the forum in which it was delivered and the likelihood of intentional provocation.
It's obvious that this guy meant to mislead about what his true intentions were and he knew that many people wouldn't register it as a joke.
People need to consider not just the act itself, but also the forum in which it was delivered and the likelihood of intentional provocation.
It's obvious that this guy meant to mislead about what his true intentions were and he knew that many people wouldn't register it as a joke.
Last edited:
Dr. Claus
Banned
No, a fine is not appropriate. This was a joke that a few people didn't find funny and failed to understand simple context. Just because a few morons exist does not mean that he shouldn't have made the joke or that he deserves two years of legal battles and a fine. This sets a horrible precedent.
dragonfart28
Banned
No, it doesn't. There are plenty of people who will think twice before they post something on youtube that can easily be interpreted to support Nazism in order to avoid a fairly minimal fee.
This just helps to find the line for what is acceptable and determining proportional consequences for nefarious content.
There is certainly a line but we haven't crossed it here.
Last edited:
The only line for what is acceptable in speech is obvious promotion of the use of violence. Anything else, if you don't like it turn it off or leave.
Papa
Banned
Your lack of critical thought offends me. I think a fine is appropriate.
dragonfart28
Banned
That's your opinion but what is acceptable changes over time.
If there is more harm done than good in maintaining the status quo, then reasonable moderation is justified.
That's why we have hate speech laws.
We can't be afraid to figure this out.
Last edited:
Papa
Banned
Many of us are against hate speech laws in the first place for that very reason: what is socially acceptable speech changes over time. Laws lag behind culture, and what you define as harm, others won’t. It is entirely subjective.
That isn't opinion. The problem with your idea is that what is hate speech can be interpreted differently by each person, even based on the laws in the countries that have them. What is acceptable today might not be tomorrow, but as some have mentioned in other threads, some words that could and actually have been considered hate speech, are becoming acceptable. what happens to the people that were fined today for a word that is ok tomorrow?
Another problem with hate speech laws is vagueness. I have yet to read a hate speech law that outlined exactly what was hate speech. As in which words were not ok. How can you know what is illegal to say without it being explicitly outlined. Otherwise any word or words could be deemed hate speech by the ones in power at the time.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
While I disagree, perhaps we could at least agree that if we do have to figure it out, imprisonment sentences are not the place to start figuring it out.
Papa
Banned
I believe the definition of hate speech is anything said by the alt-right.
LegendOfKage
Member
Queued up to some of the strongest parts of this argument, ones that I'd hope you can appreciate.
I want you to think of your 10 closest friends, family members, or even people you think highly of but don't personally know. These should all be people who you think of as good people and like-minded. If I gave each of them 10 examples of possibly offensive speech, what are the chances that this group of people that you yourself picked would all have the same answers for what did and did not constitute hate speech?
Law is based on precedent, and societal acceptance of values is a social pendulum. For example, if you study history you'll find plenty of times where open and free sexuality was followed by a period of strong sexual repression, and vise versa. It's already been noticed by some that the next generation will be far more conservative than the last. After giving the government this power, who would you trust with it, and how would you ensure that it would never be used against you or an opinion you had? Or your children had? Or your children's children? Would you be happy with our current administration holding such power?
strange headache
Banned
The Crown cometh for its coin:
After they destroyed that guy's life over a joke, threatened his girlfriend with arrest if she didn't testify against him, tipped off the press to publicly drag him through the mud and pretty much made him unemployable, they are now coming for their measly £800.
After they destroyed that guy's life over a joke, threatened his girlfriend with arrest if she didn't testify against him, tipped off the press to publicly drag him through the mud and pretty much made him unemployable, they are now coming for their measly £800.
Domisto
Member
Damn this story is frustrating and depressing. Wondered when an update would come. I expect tales of bailiffs next. Could be prison after that.
If this is our future, policing speech, I 'm out. They can have this shitty world.
Then 10 years from now, I'll be in the supermarket. Getting my groceries. The self service is out of order. I go to the counter. The checkout clerk greets me. I say nothing. He runs the items through the scanner. I pack my bag in silence and avoid eye contact. He asks how I'll be paying. With a blank expression I show him my card. Tap. He thanks me and says goodbye. When I get to the exit the security guard stops me. She says the clerk has made a complaint against me. My unresponsive and sullen mood was oppressive and caused him distress while he was attempting to carry out his duties. The police will have to be called. A fine will probably be issued. There will be forms to fill in. I sit and wait while my ice cream melts.
If this is our future, policing speech, I 'm out. They can have this shitty world.
Then 10 years from now, I'll be in the supermarket. Getting my groceries. The self service is out of order. I go to the counter. The checkout clerk greets me. I say nothing. He runs the items through the scanner. I pack my bag in silence and avoid eye contact. He asks how I'll be paying. With a blank expression I show him my card. Tap. He thanks me and says goodbye. When I get to the exit the security guard stops me. She says the clerk has made a complaint against me. My unresponsive and sullen mood was oppressive and caused him distress while he was attempting to carry out his duties. The police will have to be called. A fine will probably be issued. There will be forms to fill in. I sit and wait while my ice cream melts.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Well, you know that old saying ...... "stick and stones....."
Might as well stricken that out from public knowledge.
Might as well stricken that out from public knowledge.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
I don't know many Scottish people, but my impressions from them (as well as general attitudes), is a place full of people who don't take shit, can take a joke, and people who can roll up their sleeves and be ballsy.
Looks like the gov wants to put duct tape around their mouths. Oh well, that's the world we live in.
But good for him for making big money on his gofundmepage. Silver lining after all.