Man in Scotland arrested over dog's 'Nazi salute'.
Discussion
Stumbled across this, will be interesting to see the excuse given when the information isn't forthcoming:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/amount_of_m...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/amount_of_m...
Order66 said:
The real tragedy of this case is that the PF office and sheriff seem to have accepted the context and that Dankula was not a Nazi sympathiser, but they have ruled on the basis that the context is irrelevant and that the interpretation by the supposed victim is all that is important. This is a very dangerous road to walk down.
Indeed - something like Faulty Towers "The Germans" episode could never be made today if that rule was applied universally.Order66 said:
audidoody said:
You'd have to be hugely simple not to understand that Mark Meechan's saluting pug was in the same context.
I would have thought it was pretty obvious to anyone with a functioning synapse that he wasn't literally attempting to incite the nation's pugs to go out and gas Jews.
I believe him when he explained he was using the abomination of Nazi Germany to make his girlfriend realise the dog wasn't the cutest thing on earth. And to illustrate (INMHO) how German citizens could be hypnotised into participating in the most gruesome event in world history.
The real tragedy of this case is that the PF office and sheriff seem to have accepted the context and that Dankula was not a Nazi sympathiser, but they have ruled on the basis that the context is irrelevant and that the interpretation by the supposed victim is all that is important. This is a very dangerous road to walk down.I would have thought it was pretty obvious to anyone with a functioning synapse that he wasn't literally attempting to incite the nation's pugs to go out and gas Jews.
I believe him when he explained he was using the abomination of Nazi Germany to make his girlfriend realise the dog wasn't the cutest thing on earth. And to illustrate (INMHO) how German citizens could be hypnotised into participating in the most gruesome event in world history.
Instead he ran the risk of someone being offended and reporting him for it. Which they were and which they did. That is the joy of social media.
sugerbear said:
The difference is that he chose to publish it. If he wanted to prove something to his girlfriend he could quite easily have done that without needing to publish his "findings" worldwide. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
Instead he ran the risk of someone being offended and reporting him for it. Which they were and which they did. That is the joy of social media.
I don't really understand your point. Yes, he published it - so what? Are you saying that because it was on social media then context is irrelevant? and that the court was correct?Instead he ran the risk of someone being offended and reporting him for it. Which they were and which they did. That is the joy of social media.
sugerbear said:
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
This is a tired old cliche that has very little meaning. If the government/legal system impose consequences on speech then you do not have freedom of speech.Patrick Bateman said:
The joy?
Anyone offended should do what any normal person would do, stop looking at whatever it is.
This sets a dangerous precedent, much like the woman who posted rap lyrics being charged.
It only sets a precedent for morons publishing offensive content on the internet. Anyone can still criticize and make fun of people, the government, the world leaders and so on. Anyone offended should do what any normal person would do, stop looking at whatever it is.
This sets a dangerous precedent, much like the woman who posted rap lyrics being charged.
The piece I read in the independent is pretty much as expected, it wasn't just the dog saluting it was the whole context of the video.
sugerbear said:
Patrick Bateman said:
The joy?
Anyone offended should do what any normal person would do, stop looking at whatever it is.
This sets a dangerous precedent, much like the woman who posted rap lyrics being charged.
It only sets a precedent for morons publishing offensive content on the internet. Anyone can still criticize and make fun of people, the government, the world leaders and so on. Anyone offended should do what any normal person would do, stop looking at whatever it is.
This sets a dangerous precedent, much like the woman who posted rap lyrics being charged.
The piece I read in the independent is pretty much as expected, it wasn't just the dog saluting it was the whole context of the video.
Did you actually watch the video? Feel free to explain what you think the whole context was.
Nice video of him putting a Sky journalist in his place
https://twitter.com/MossadJack/status/988398772614...
https://twitter.com/MossadJack/status/988398772614...
Order66 said:
The real tragedy of this case is that the PF office and sheriff seem to have accepted the context and that Dankula was not a Nazi sympathiser, but they have ruled on the basis that the context is irrelevant and that the interpretation by the supposed victim is all that is important. This is a very dangerous road to walk down.
And the tragedy is compounded by the fact that THERE WAS NO VICTIM. Three million people viewed the video. Not one person lodged a complaint. Jewish people don't need the Scottish cops to patronise them. They know the real danger is not coming from an eccentric Scottish comic but from something a lot more sinister happening within the fabric of the Labour Party.
FWIW I find Frankie Boyle's "humour' infinitely more offensive than that of 'Count Dankula'. But I accept Boyle's right to be an offensive t
t without fear of protection.sugerbear said:
It only sets a precedent for morons publishing offensive content on the internet. Anyone can still criticize and make fun of people, the government, the world leaders and so on.
The piece I read in the independent is pretty much as expected, it wasn't just the dog saluting it was the whole context of the video.
So 'morons' shouldn't be able to publish 'offensive content'?The piece I read in the independent is pretty much as expected, it wasn't just the dog saluting it was the whole context of the video.
Who should be the arbiter who decides what is and isn't offensive and what crosses a line?
Offence is taken, not given. Plenty of what I would consider completely rational views will be grossly offensive to someone
Order66 said:
sugerbear said:
The difference is that he chose to publish it. If he wanted to prove something to his girlfriend he could quite easily have done that without needing to publish his "findings" worldwide. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
Instead he ran the risk of someone being offended and reporting him for it. Which they were and which they did. That is the joy of social media.
I don't really understand your point. Yes, he published it - so what? Are you saying that because it was on social media then context is irrelevant? and that the court was correct?Instead he ran the risk of someone being offended and reporting him for it. Which they were and which they did. That is the joy of social media.
sugerbear said:
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
This is a tired old cliche that has very little meaning. If the government/legal system impose consequences on speech then you do not have freedom of speech.Nice Twitter video there, these media types are really stuck in the narrative.
audidoody said:
Jewish people don't need the Scottish cops to patronise them. They know the real danger is not coming from an eccentric Scottish comic but from something a lot more sinister happening within the fabric of the Labour Party.
Well quite. If Dankulas attempt at humour is criminally offensive, what's this?
Order66 said:
The real tragedy of this case is that the PF office and sheriff seem to have accepted the context and that Dankula was not a Nazi sympathiser, but they have ruled on the basis that the context is irrelevant and that the interpretation by the supposed victim is all that is important. This is a very dangerous road to walk down.
Too true.IIRC, Dankula alluded to the very same thing in one of his pre-trial videos where it was mentioned that - effectively - context is nothing; it's the perception of a given "crime" is everything.
irocfan said:
fblm said:
irocfan said:
Well I guess that no one has complained about it yet
I don't think anyone complained about Dankula did they?I like the 'interview' with the Sky reporter, 'but you said gas the jews' - 'er, yeah, and so have you...just.'
andy_s said:
IIRC there was just one from a rabbi or representative of some Jewish organisation.
Initially there were no complaints - the Police took this upon themselves to arrest and begin the prosecution. They (the legal system) then went and showed the video the director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (SCoJeC) in order to get them to be the "offended party" witness.It was a show-trial from start to finish.
audidoody said:
Order66 said:
The real tragedy of this case is that the PF office and sheriff seem to have accepted the context and that Dankula was not a Nazi sympathiser, but they have ruled on the basis that the context is irrelevant and that the interpretation by the supposed victim is all that is important. This is a very dangerous road to walk down.
And the tragedy is compounded by the fact that THERE WAS NO VICTIM. Three million people viewed the video. Not one person lodged a complaint. Jewish people don't need the Scottish cops to patronise them. They know the real danger is not coming from an eccentric Scottish comic but from something a lot more sinister happening within the fabric of the Labour Party.
FWIW I find Frankie Boyle's "humour' infinitely more offensive than that of 'Count Dankula'. But I accept Boyle's right to be an offensive t
t without fear of protection.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff