Free Speech in the UK

[midnightblack]

My thoughts on the matter are mostly summed up by the Sheriff:

“But the right to freedom of expression also comes with responsibility.”

I believe that before doing or saying something that is ultimately extremely stupid, it's best to think about it several times over and then not do it. Especially on the Internet, where the inescapable outcome is that it will find a way to swing around and blow in your face.

Also, I'd like to add that the dog lacks the intellectual capacity to understand the significance of the action in question and to defend itself. Training it to do such an awful thing is just miserable.

[Lustful Bride]

I feel like much of this also has to do with how we interpret the freedom of speech and its use. Which makes it difficult to legislate and discuss topics like this.

I wonder if a good comparison might be in how we do have the freedom to speak, but it is still a crime to yell fire in theater when there is none.

Side note:
I like how we are having a civilized discussion. I love that this site allows us to do so for most of our talks and we can have mature I intellectual discussions without breaking down into the usual toxicity as see on the internet.

Even if we don't fully agree on topics we can still respect each other.

[Zero]

While I sit a little on the fence on this topic, I'll try to weigh in a little from an American point of view. Hate Speech is not a crime in America, and American's given our violent history have been wary of granting the government any ability to overreach (until recently...). That said, I do think the issue is specifically hinged upon the definition and reach of the government when it comes to the censorship of speech.

Hate speech not "speech someone doesn't like". Hate speech is "speech that might get someone killed".

So, no, no one's going to come and censor your unpopular ideas... unless your ideas happen to also be about advocating genocide. But in that case, whether they're popular or not won't matter one whit.

I can speak mostly to what's happening in the United States, but there has been a strong move by hate groups in the United States in sanitizing their speech. There becomes much less of a call for outright killing or harming minority groups, but instead roundabout ways to put or keep these groups from having the same opportunities as others. Discussions of segregation, talks of removing the social safety net for minorities and attempts at rationalizing the behavior of police towards minorities have all begun to spring up in more than just fringe groups at this point. Even those attempting to argue that Voter ID laws do not disproportionally affect minorities I think has started become relatively popular among mainstream conservative groups.

So I suppose the question is, if this type of speech is removing access to livelihoods for certain groups of people and harming them not physically but I might even contend, harming a group of people in a very large scale, should this type of speech be in play to be censored?

[Roleplay Frog]

This topic is more of an americans vs european customs than the actual content matter, propably because a majority of europeans do not see the pug thing as a big deal. Historical differences. Nazi-germany was a quite real fact of Europe.

I think the easiest equivalent in america is the N-word. Just like you might be bewildered by the Pug-Story, europeans are often bewildered at america struggling with racial-migration issues. For example, I grew up calling these things:


Negerküsse. Thats Kisses in german at the end, guess the first part. And.. I thought nothing wrong of it, conversly, I was raised to know that shouting 'Sieg Heil' randomly is a serious nono. (Germany has arguably even more extreme hate-speech laws than the UK)

So yeah, imagine the pug had been trained to respond to Equally despicable phrases inspired by the KKK and whatnot and imagine the if not judical, at least social outlash at that, as sensibilities of the times shifted.

should this type of speech be in play to be censored?

Also. People keep talking about censoring. To be arrogant, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Censoring means you actively suppress information. That's not whats happening here. A certain set of phrases that are known to incite violence against certain groups are criminalized. You can still say them, no one will stop you, but if you use words with a not just subjective but objectively observable potential to cause harm you can be penalized just as well as you can for other things that can harm another.

[elone]

This all kinds of reminds me of "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me."

In the US as far as I know, we can say what we want unless we cross the boundaries of slander, libel, or causing harm like yelling fire in a theater. I am sure there are others.

And censorship of hateful ideas does work. The evidence is in. At the very least, it makes life better for the victims, because they don't have to hear the hate all the time. But it also disrupts the ability for hate to spread, fester, and grow. Most haters are cowards, and wouldn't dare to flaunt their hate if there were actual social or legal consequences.

So who decides this? Totalitarian governments and those that colonize others and repress them or wish to fight new ideas do this. Who decides what is hateful? Is it hateful to oppose abortion by calling those who get them killers. Is it hateful to call Republicans idiots? Is it hateful to oppose Zionism, or Nazism, or Racism, or Sexism, or any other ism? Which one is it okay to defame? Which one is it okay to defend? Is it hateful to call liberals assholes?  All kind of depends on who is making the judgement. Are those in power the ones to make the decisions as to what is against the law or allowed?

Hate speech not "speech someone doesn't like". Hate speech is "speech that might get someone killed".

Might get someone killed? Again, who determines this. If I were to say "I think Hitler was right, all Jews should be done away with." is that a criminal offense? If I say "White people are racist bigots and should be shot" is that hate speech? What about "Blacks are lazy and ignorant and should be sent back to Africa." Is that a criminal offense? Yes, all of these are offensive, but when is it decided that it is going to get someone killed? Who decides that saying these things are criminal?

Things that get people killed are dangers to a person or persons directly. Hate speech, while offensive, does not rise to the occasion of imminent danger.

Personally, I am not ready to give up my freedom of speech no matter how offensive it might be or even it it seems to incite others to bad deeds. My speech is my speech. If others are going out and acting badly for it, then they should be the ones prosecuted, not me for raising my voice.

[Orval Wintermute]

In the US as far as I know, we can say what we want unless we cross the boundaries of slander, libel, or causing harm like yelling fire in a theater. I am sure there are others.

Under UK law there is no specific crime of 'hate speech' but there are a number of offenses that have grouped together as 'hate crimes' as a short hand. The Britain First leaders weren't jailed for 'hate speech' but 'religiously aggravated harassment' they were actively trying intimidate by shouting "pedophilia" at people because the color of their skin. I'm not sure that there's any kind of free speech defense for those kinds of actions.

Might get someone killed? Again, who determines this. If I were to say "I think Hitler was right, all Jews should be done away with." is that a criminal offense? If I say "White people are racist bigots and should be shot" is that hate speech? What about "Blacks are lazy and ignorant and should be sent back to Africa." Is that a criminal offense? Yes, all of these are offensive, but when is it decided that it is going to get someone killed? Who decides that saying these things are criminal?

With all of those examples it depends on the context, so are they criminal offenses? Possibly.
Mark Meechan wasn't convicted of 'hate speech' but a breech of 'The Communications Act 2003' he said something that grossly offensive and it was communicated publicly. I've lost the link that explains this properly, but the offense has it's origins in the Dark Ages when you needed an operator to connect phone calls, to deter random abuse of operators this laws predecessor was created.
If Meechan had trained the dog but not put it on YouTube there wouldn't have been a problem, if he'd trained the dog put it on stage and got it to salute in front of an audience that also would be legal because the theater\comedy club etc. would have been a private venue. It has ended up with a bizarre situation when because Meechan was arrested, prosecuted and found guilty more people have seen the video (and possibly been offended by that video) than if the police had just had quiet word and got Meechan to delete it.
So if you said "Hitler was right..." at home you're not doing anything illegal, stand in the middle of the street and shout it through a megaphone you're going to be trouble.

Personally, I am not ready to give up my freedom of speech no matter how offensive it might be or even it it seems to incite others to bad deeds. My speech is my speech. If others are going out and acting badly for it, then they should be the ones prosecuted, not me for raising my voice.

Problem with that is it's the defense used by leaders of violent extremist groups of all types to protect themselves. If you announce to your followers that they should go out, buy a gun and shoot the first police officer they see; then you share the responsibility when one of your followers does exactly that, if you hadn't said anything then police officer wouldn't have been shot. "I was just following orders" isn't a defense, "I was just giving orders" isn't one either.

[Giantmutantcrab]

I saw the video.

The man is an imbecile.

First off, anyone who takes that amount of time and effort to train a dog for thr SOLE purpose of pissing off his significant other is mind-numbingly stupid and/or shows how little he thinks of said significant other's feelings. That is some

What he did is worthy of ridicule and mockery. I'm not sure it's worthy of a prison sentence.

[elone]

Problem with that is it's the defense used by leaders of violent extremist groups of all types to protect themselves. If you announce to your followers that they should go out, buy a gun and shoot the first police officer they see; then you share the responsibility when one of your followers does exactly that, if you hadn't said anything then police officer wouldn't have been shot. "I was just following orders" isn't a defense, "I was just giving orders" isn't one either.

I would like to change my mind after reading this. I just thought of Charles Manson in the US and others who were jailed for getting others to do something nefarious even though they may not have been directly involved in taking action. Conspiracy. They are extreme examples but good ones. I still think we have to be very careful about curtailing speech that may be offensive but does not rise to the occasion of criminality.

[Quick Ben]

Personally, I am not ready to give up my freedom of speech no matter how offensive it might be or even it it seems to incite others to bad deeds. My speech is my speech. If others are going out and acting badly for it, then they should be the ones prosecuted, not me for raising my voice.

This, pretty much. Although, I'm a hard-line constitutionalist so my wording would be significantly stronger. I understand another country's laws are their laws, but that to me doesn't change the grotesque nature of any government-induced law that alienates a natural right.

[Orval Wintermute]

What he did is worthy of ridicule and mockery. I'm not sure it's worthy of a prison sentence.

Depends on how you look at it. Strictly speaking he broke the law, so is worthy of a prison sentence but that he broke the law is problematic. Like I said before if he'd done it on stage, legally he'd be fine but if a video of that performance is posted online then he's in trouble. As it stands his actions are worthy of a prison sentence the bigger problem is the law he broke.

This, pretty much. Although, I'm a hard-line constitutionalist so my wording would be significantly stronger. I understand another country's laws are their laws, but that to me doesn't change the grotesque nature of any government-induced law that alienates a natural right.

If you think free speech is a natural right that the Government shouldn't alienate then:
What if someone came up to you at started shouting abuse in your face?
What if that person kept doing it for an hour?
What if when they got bored, somebody else took over?
What if it was kept going 24/7/365, so you couldn't eat,sleep,work without someone shouting abuse in your face?

You'd be OK will all of this because if at any point you or the Government did anything to stop or prevent any of these actions then you are denying someone their natural rights, which in you said would be grotesque.
While the ranting assholes above might have a right to free speech, you have the right not to be harnessed, the right to privacy etc. The Government's job is decide what happens when those rights clash and there is nothing grotesque about it.

[Iniquitous]

I will say it again.

Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from consequences.  Say what you want, when you want, how you want, where you want.  Just be ready to accept the consequences, good or bad, that come from it.

This moron got his just rewards. As pointed out, he broke the law. Now he goes to jail. Ergo - he got to "say" what he wanted, now he faces the consequence.

As to what Orval just posted... there is a saying: Your rights end where mine begin.

[Vergil Tanner]

As to what Orval just posted... there is a saying: Your rights end where mine begin.

You don't have a right to not be offended.

Offence is, by its very nature, entirely subjective. If this man deserves prison because he violated your "Right To Not Be Offended," then the next time you violate somebodies right to not be offended, we should punish you in exactly the same manner. What's good for the gander is good for the goose, as they say.

I will say it again.

Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from consequences.  Say what you want, when you want, how you want, where you want.  Just be ready to accept the consequences, good or bad, that come from it.

This moron got his just rewards. As pointed out, he broke the law. Now he goes to jail. Ergo - he got to "say" what he wanted, now he faces the consequence.

Yeah, freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences. But the consequences should be proportional to the actions, and when you have the government actively punishing certain speech that is not actively inciting violence or causing direct harm, then that is no longer freedom of speech.

Are you honestly saying that the punishment for making a poor-taste joke should be prison?

If so, then I'm honestly speechless because I can guarantee that almost everybody has - in their life - made a joke that somebody else would consider to be in poor taste.

[Vergil Tanner]

If you only believe in freedom of speech when it's somebody you agree with / support and not when somebody you disagree with or dislike is the subject of debate, then you do not believe in freedom of speech at all. It's that simple.

As soon as the government steps in to punish certain speech over others when said speech has no demonstrable harm past upsetting a few people, then that is no longer in the spirit of freedom of speech and should be fought against, tooth and nail. And, as somebody has already pointed out, the judge basically said that context doesn't matter. That it was a joke doesn't matter.
The judge practically said context doesn't matter.

Why are more people not concerned about the fact that a court can sentence a man to prison without a jury, and completely dismiss any context given by the sole discretion of the judge?

[Regina Minx]

I don’t buy the idea that just because something’s a joke we should let it pass. Nor do I think we can afford to treat hate speech as if it should be celebrated as the by-product of a healthy culture of free speech. That seems particularly unwise in a world where, for instance, the UN recently cited Facebook as having had a role in the spreading of hate against the Rohingya people in Myanmar.

I don't know what the solution is. But the inconsistent approach to handling the issue of offensive behavior in the UK (where last month the Parliment voted to repeal the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act) makes it look like we're flailing. It seems to me that they know there is a problem but have no answer, especially when it comes to more complex cultural expressions like comedy.

But I don't buy this as a joke for one instant. Having owned and trained dogs, I know how difficult it is to get them to master basic ideas like "sit", let alone an unnatural gesture like the one that Meechan did. This was a task that took him weeks, if not months to accomplish, and any claim that it was "just" a joke evaporated the moment it went to his YouTube channel. Then it became a provocative act meant to drive traffic in the same sort of ill-conceived gesture that PewDiePie engaged in.

I'm an advocate of free speech generally, but this is not the hill I chose to die on.

[Orval Wintermute]

If this man deserves prison because he violated your "Right To Not Be Offended," ......

But that's not what he did. Look at the relevant law

127 Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
'sends by means of a public electronic communications network' he posted the video on YouTube so he ticks that box.
'message or other matter that is grossly offensive' admittedly this is where this become problematic, but the judge decided that he'd cross the line into grossly offensive speech. How is the judge meant to decide what isn't just offensive but grossly offensive. The only thing I could find was from a 2006 case that went to appeal

“the defendant must intend his words to be grossly offensive to those to whom they relate, or be aware that they may be taken to be so.”

http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2006/8/article101.en.html
I think most people would be aware that Jewish people would be extremely offended by anyone saying 'Gas the Jews' regardless of the context. So by the strictest interpretation of the law he's guilty and maybe the law does need looking at but the flip side is then how to deal with people who are being intentionally offensive but defend it by claiming 'it was only a joke that people didn't find funny'.

[Silk]

For me I think it's a pretty simple clear cut issue.

What he did was a dumb-ass move, but it shouldn't be a crime, allow the social sphere to deal with the repercussions of the issue. There has been more than one Youtube personality that did something so brain dead that it killed their channels, if the populace felt the same regarding it, let his fall the same way. But the government stepping in to deal with what is otherwise a social issue, is just the opposite of a social hate mob coming after someone who committed a crime. One should be left to the social sphere, the other to the police. For me, this is a very worrying case of Government overreach.

[Saria]

I can speak mostly to what's happening in the United States, but there has been a strong move by hate groups in the United States in sanitizing their speech. There becomes much less of a call for outright killing or harming minority groups, but instead roundabout ways to put or keep these groups from having the same opportunities as others. Discussions of segregation, talks of removing the social safety net for minorities and attempts at rationalizing the behavior of police towards minorities have all begun to spring up in more than just fringe groups at this point. Even those attempting to argue that Voter ID laws do not disproportionally affect minorities I think has started become relatively popular among mainstream conservative groups.

So I suppose the question is, if this type of speech is removing access to livelihoods for certain groups of people and harming them not physically but I might even contend, harming a group of people in a very large scale, should this type of speech be in play to be censored?

That's actually happening everywhere, so far as I can see. And I think it's an inevitable result of censoring - either legally or socially - the worst of the hate speech. When there's absolutely no consequences to throwing out racial slurs and ranting about lynching or gassing groups, that's what racists will do... but when there are consequences, racists find other ways to get their message out, using euphemisms, double speak, and dog whistles.

I see that as a vast improvement. Being racist by proxy (for example, by pushing "tough on crime" laws even though those laws disproportionately harm minorities) is still bad, but it's nowhere near as bad as being openly racist (for example, by pushing Jim Crow laws). Minorities and their allies still have to struggle against the inequities and the discrimination... but at least they no longer have to spend all their time and energy justifying their existences.

It's not a complete leap to "everything's fixed". But it's at least a step towards it.

My answer to the question is: no, that type of speech shouldn't be censored. I am very wary of censoring too much. It's a powerful tool, and it's effective, but like any powerful tool it should be used cautiously. Bigotry that directly targets people is safe to censor, because there's no conceivable benefit to it - not socially, not intellectually, not in any way. But the stuff you're talking about is not necessarily useless. For example, the discussion about whether to have more "tough on crime" laws could... in theory... be a legitimate discussion that isn't just a smokescreen for racism. Same goes for discussions of voter ID laws, and so on.

If the bigotry itself is banned and stigmatized, that's enough. Because if you do that, then when someone tries to use some sleight of hand trick to disguise their racism, all you need to do is point out the underlying racism. In other words, you don't need to censor discussion of voter ID laws, you just need to censor blatant racism... and then if voter ID laws are being used as a dog whistle, all you need to do is point that out. If you can make a reasonable case of that, you win - you've connected your opponent's position to racism, so they'll either have to prove it's not, find a way to fix it so it isn't racially discriminatory, double down on it (and skirt ever closer to the point of no return), or give up. Any one of those options would be an improvement. That's good enough, I think.

So you just need to ban the really bad stuff, and the peripherally bad stuff will be stigmatized by association. That's how it traditionally worked in politics, too - parties would be very careful not to be associated with the most bigoted or insane positions, so they would tend to drift away from the extremes. That's at least how it worked before the modern right lost all sense of shame and dignity.

This all kinds of reminds me of "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me."

That's a child's nursery rhyme. It has about as much legitimacy in the real world as "the bad guy always gets punished in the end". Adults know that words can harm people. You literally list some examples of that in your very next paragraph.

So who decides this? Totalitarian governments and those that colonize others and repress them or wish to fight new ideas do this. Who decides what is hateful? Is it hateful to oppose abortion by calling those who get them killers. Is it hateful to call Republicans idiots? Is it hateful to oppose Zionism, or Nazism, or Racism, or Sexism, or any other ism? Which one is it okay to defame? Which one is it okay to defend? Is it hateful to call liberals assholes?  All kind of depends on who is making the judgement. Are those in power the ones to make the decisions as to what is against the law or allowed?

Might get someone killed? Again, who determines this. If I were to say "I think Hitler was right, all Jews should be done away with." is that a criminal offense? If I say "White people are racist bigots and should be shot" is that hate speech? What about "Blacks are lazy and ignorant and should be sent back to Africa." Is that a criminal offense? Yes, all of these are offensive, but when is it decided that it is going to get someone killed? Who decides that saying these things are criminal?

What you're doing is called "JAQing off", where "JAQ" is short for "just asking questions". You don't really want answers to those questions... in fact, you've assumed that there are no answers. There are answers to all those questions, but because these are complex topics, while you can easily fire off dozens of JAQ-off questions without effort, responding to them takes time and care. (Usually. Some of the questions are just plain silly, and don't really require much of an answer, nor do they deserve one.)

So I'm not going to bother answering all your questions in detail, because I don't believe they were asked in good faith. I will just answer a few of the whoppers.

Let's start with "who decides what is hateful?". The first problem here is that while you quoted my explanation of what hate speech is, you clearly didn't understand it. Hate speech isn't just "speech that involves hate". You can say "I hate Jews" publicly in Canada; that's not hate speech. In fact, there was a famous case where a guy said that Hitler saved Germany and the world from the Jews, called them a "disease", and justified the Holocaust as a perfectly legitimate way to deal with the problem... and the courts ruled that wasn't hate speech. The legal reason was subtle, but important: the guy wasn't advocating for the murder of Jewish people... he was merely sharing his (ignorant and despicable) opinions about the past. He wasn't saying "Jews should be killed", he was just talking about why he thought Hitler - specifically dealing with his situation in his time - wasn't all that wrong to do it.

His words were undoubtedly offensive. They were undeniably hateful. But... and this is the key point... they weren't threatening. They weren't saying such-and-such group should be harmed. Thus they weren't hate speech.

So while it may be "hateful" to call Republicans idiots, it is not calling for harm to come them. Thus it is not hate speech.

Similarly, you can rant all you want about Nazism, Zionism, or whatever. You can even use inflammatory rhetoric like calling for Nazism to be "murdered" and Zionism to be "immolated" or whatever. (Not a fan of that kind of language, but it's legal.) Those are just ideologies, so you can't harm them. But it would be crossing the line to advocate for followers of Nazism to be murdered, or for adherents of Zionism to be immolated.

But now let's get to the real heart of your question: the "who" part of "who decides what is hateful?".

I don't think you understand how the laws you live under actually work. Because the short answer to just about every time you used "who" is: a judge. I mean, obviously.

Our entire legal system - and I say "our" because I don't even need to know where in the world you live; this concept is pretty universal - our entire legal system is predicated on the notion of a reasonable person. It pops up everywhere. You've probably heard that criminal convictions must be "beyond reasonable doubt"... not "beyond all doubt", and I doubt it ever occurred to you to ask "beyond whose reasonable doubt?", but there it is. The reasonable person standard is super obvious in negligence cases.

So when someone is charged with hate speech, a judge - possibly via a jury - determines whether a reasonable person - an intelligent, informed, rational person taking into account social knowledge, conventions, and context (and social knowledge, conventions, and context always matter: painting a swastika on a synagogue, bad... on a Hindu temple, meh) - would consider it to meet all the criteria of being hate speech. That's... kinda how it works for all criminal cases, yanno. You can replace "hate speech" with "murder" or "rape" in this paragraph's first sentence. That's how justice works.

Things that get people killed are dangers to a person or persons directly. Hate speech, while offensive, does not rise to the occasion of imminent danger.

That depends on your definition of "directly" and "imminent". And in any case, "imminent" is a nonsensical standard. If it's only a crime to cause imminent harm, then I can build a bomb with a timer of 10 years and hide it in a school. Hey man, no one was in any imminent danger when I planted it, and no one was in any direct danger either because they'd all be graduated when it went off (and the people who were blown up hadn't been born when I planted the bomb, so there's no way you could sensibly say I directly targeted them), thus no crime.

Personally, I am not ready to give up my freedom of speech no matter how offensive it might be or even it it seems to incite others to bad deeds.

I find it fascinating that you're okay with giving up your free speech to protect someone's reputation (slander, libel), but totally against doing to protect minorities' lives.

If others are going out and acting badly for it, then they should be the ones prosecuted, not me for raising my voice.

Like most free speech absolutists who make this argument, I don't think you've really thought it through.

Let's imagine I want to murder you and get away with it under your rules. All I'd have to do is one of the following:

• Hire someone else to do it. Yes, under your "logic", hiring a hitman is perfectly legit. After all, I didn't cause you any harm. All I did was use my freedom of speech (and remember, in the US, money is speech!) to convince someone else to go do it. The hitman is guilty, but I walk away scot-free. Or if I want to save a few bucks, I could...
• Threaten someone to do it. Once again, I didn't lift a finger. You didn't mention whether threats are okay by your standard of free speech or not. Remember, hate speech is ultimately threatening speech, although usually indirect threats. Ah, but maybe you're willing to exclude direct ("I will hurt you") threats from free speech, but not indirect ("someone should hurt you") threats. Fine then, I'll just...
• Indirectly threaten someone to do it. I can quite easily threaten to harm someone or something they care about, rather than them directly. Or I can make truly indirect threats, mobster-style: "Would be a shame for something to happen to that nice family you have." Note that I never actually said I'd harm anybody. If I am convincing enough, I wouldn't even need to intend to harm anyone - I just need to make some sucker believe I intended to. But if threatening isn't my style, then I'll...
• Trick someone into doing it. Under your strict free speech standards, all I'd need to do is find someone who wants to kill, and convince them that you are the target they're looking for. I could manipulate them, or just simply lie to them. Either way, little old innocent me is just using my speech, not actually doing you any harm. And if I can't find someone already looking to kill, then I could...
• Take advantage of a vulnerable person to do my dirty work. This is an even more insidious twist on the previous case. In the previous case, even if I've fooled someone into killing you for me, they're still a murderer. I walk free... but they go to prison. In this variant, I find a mentally disturbed person, or a person with mental disabilities, or even just a child, and I set them up to murder you. Once again, I didn't lift a finger to harm you - I just used speech and persuasion. But this time, the person who ultimately killed you also can't be convicted of murder. So your murder goes completely unpunished.

Now, under my standards of free speech, I'd be guilty in every one of those cases. Because in every one of those cases, any reasonable person could see that harm would be caused by my speech, even if I wasn't the one who was causing the harm, even if I wasn't present when the harm was caused, and even if didn't even know for sure the harm was going to be caused. In every case, I should have known that harm was a reasonable, expected outcome from my speech. And that makes me guilty. I can't just shrug it off by saying "sure, I bought, loaded, and aimed the gun... but I didn't pull the trigger."

The common thread in all those cases is that I successfully carried out a very specific, very targeted murder using only words. And those are just the most simplistic of scenarios. Someone very eloquent and charismatic could quite possibly - using nothing but words - convince you to kill yourself. That's how cults work, and if you think you're immune... you're not.

Given enough time, resources, and effort, do not doubt that I - or anyone, really - could eventually psychologically abuse you to the point that you would kill yourself. And that's the thing about being a targeted minority - it's not one person out to get you, it's an entire society, and while each single person on their own is relatively harmless, the endless, perpetual, drip-drip-drip of degradation, devaluation, and dehumanization takes a toll.

So you keep playing with your sticks and stones if you think those are all you'll need to defend yourself; me, I'll use my words and raise a fucking army. By the time you realize you didn't really think your free speech standards through all the way, it'll be too late.

The sticks and stones might help a bit then, I guess?

[elone]

Now I know why people avoid this forum like the plague. Of course words can harm people, however, we are talking about a man who is being called out/arrested, whatever for training a dog. Get a grip.

You don't really want answers to those questions... in fact, you've assumed that there are no answers. (Usually. Some of the questions are just plain silly, and don't really require much of an answer, nor do they deserve one.)

So I'm not going to bother answering all your questions in detail, because I don't believe they were asked in good faith. I will just answer a few of the whoppers.

"JAQing off" Cute. Of course my questions were written in good faith, Who the hell are you to judge my motives?

If my questions seem silly and don't require an answer, why are you spending so much time and effort to talk at them? Obviously they are not silly because you have spent so much time on this  as well as telling me what I know, and what I think, and what you believe to be true. Frankly, I don't give a crap about what you think or believe.

I don't think you understand how the laws you live under actually work. Because the short answer to just about every time you used "who" is: a judge. I mean, obviously.

Obviously I know that there are laws governing speech, again, we are talking about a dog being trained and the abuse of power by anyone who would prosecute that action.

And in any case, "imminent" is a nonsensical standard. If it's only a crime to cause imminent harm, then I can build a bomb with a timer of 10 years and hide it in a school. Hey man, no one was in any imminent danger when I planted it, and no one was in any direct danger either because they'd all be graduated when it went off (and the people who were blown up hadn't been born when I planted the bomb, so there's no way you could sensibly say I directly targeted them), thus no crime.

Imminent peril, or imminent danger, is an American legal concept where Imminent peril is "certain danger, immediate, and impending; menacingly close at hand, and threatening. Hardly nonsensical. Maybe in your world this is not a legal concept.

I find it fascinating that you're okay with giving up your free speech to protect someone's reputation (slander, libel), but totally against doing to protect minorities' lives.

Obviously you are not acquainted with the laws of libel and slander. Tell me again, how minorities lives are at stake by a dog saluting.

Like most free speech absolutists who make this argument, I don't think you've really thought it through.

Why do you assume I am a free speech absolutist. I already gave examples of how speech can be against the law and prosecuted. This would be like me assuming you are a totalitarian who believes government should control every aspect of our lives. Are you?

Let's imagine I want to murder you and get away with it under your rules. All I'd have to do is one of the following:

Hire someone else to do it. Yes, under your "logic", hiring a hitman is perfectly legit. After all, I didn't cause you any harm. All I did was use my freedom of speech (and remember, in the US, money is speech!) to convince someone else to go do it. The hitman is guilty, but I walk away scot-free. Or if I want to save a few bucks, I could...
Threaten someone to do it. Once again, I didn't lift a finger. You didn't mention whether threats are okay by your standard of free speech or not. Remember, hate speech is ultimately threatening speech, although usually indirect threats. Ah, but maybe you're willing to exclude direct ("I will hurt you") threats from free speech, but not indirect ("someone should hurt you") threats. Fine then, I'll just...
Indirectly threaten someone to do it. I can quite easily threaten to harm someone or something they care about, rather than them directly. Or I can make truly indirect threats, mobster-style: "Would be a shame for something to happen to that nice family you have." Note that I never actually said I'd harm anybody. If I am convincing enough, I wouldn't even need to intend to harm anyone - I just need to make some sucker believe I intended to. But if threatening isn't my style, then I'll...
Trick someone into doing it. Under your strict free speech standards, all I'd need to do is find someone who wants to kill, and convince them that you are the target they're looking for. I could manipulate them, or just simply lie to them. Either way, little old innocent me is just using my speech, not actually doing you any harm. And if I can't find someone already looking to kill, then I could...
Take advantage of a vulnerable person to do my dirty work. This is an even more insidious twist on the previous case. In the previous case, even if I've fooled someone into killing you for me, they're still a murderer. I walk free... but they go to prison. In this variant, I find a mentally disturbed person, or a person with mental disabilities, or even just a child, and I set them up to murder you. Once again, I didn't lift a finger to harm you - I just used speech and persuasion. But this time, the person who ultimately killed you also can't be convicted of murder. So your murder goes completely unpunished.

Utter nonsense.
1. Hiring a hitman is illegal and has nothing to do with free speech.
2. Threatening someone is also illegal, and the threat would not kill me, which is your premise, being your desire to murder me.
3. Again, solicitation of murder is a criminal offense, nothing to do with free speech.
4. Conspiracy to commit murder also illegal. Again, not a freedom of speech issue.

The common thread in all those cases is that I successfully carried out a very specific, very targeted murder using only words. And those are just the most simplistic of scenarios. Someone very eloquent and charismatic could quite possibly - using nothing but words - convince you to kill yourself. That's how cults work, and if you think you're immune... you're not.

The common thread in those cases is that they are all illegal under the law and have nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech. And yes, I am immune to cults, no cult is going to convince me to commit suicide. Not only do you have no idea who I am,  but I find it insulting that you could make such an assumption. Are you so easily swayed?

And that's the thing about being a targeted minority - it's not one person out to get you, it's an entire society, and while each single person on their own is relatively harmless, the endless, perpetual, drip-drip-drip of degradation, devaluation, and dehumanization takes a toll.

What targeted minority are you talking about. There are an awful lot of minorities out there. I am sure that almost everyone can find someone in their background that was targeted at one time or another. Flippant of me, perhaps, but no more so than everything you have said, as in the following.

So you keep playing with your sticks and stones if you think those are all you'll need to defend yourself; me, I'll use my words and raise a fucking army. By the time you realize you didn't really think your free speech standards through all the way, it'll be too late.

So you will use your freedom of speech to influence others to do me or others harm? Wouldn't that be illegal? I have been in the army. trust me, no one would follow you. Leaders have to gain the respect of the soldiers who serve under them.

[Iniquitous]

Mark Meechan wasn't convicted of 'hate speech' but a breech of 'The Communications Act 2003' he said something that grossly offensive and it was communicated publicly. I've lost the link that explains this properly, but the offense has it's origins in the Dark Ages when you needed an operator to connect phone calls, to deter random abuse of operators this laws predecessor was created.
If Meechan had trained the dog but not put it on YouTube there wouldn't have been a problem, if he'd trained the dog put it on stage and got it to salute in front of an audience that also would be legal because the theater\comedy club etc. would have been a private venue. It has ended up with a bizarre situation when because Meechan was arrested, prosecuted and found guilty more people have seen the video (and possibly been offended by that video) than if the police had just had quiet word and got Meechan to delete it.
So if you said "Hitler was right..." at home you're not doing anything illegal, stand in the middle of the street and shout it through a megaphone you're going to be trouble.
Problem with that is it's the defense used by leaders of violent extremist groups of all types to protect themselves. If you announce to your followers that they should go out, buy a gun and shoot the first police officer they see; then you share the responsibility when one of your followers does exactly that, if you hadn't said anything then police officer wouldn't have been shot. "I was just following orders" isn't a defense, "I was just giving orders" isn't one either.

Bold part mine.

Now. All this bickering is pointless because it is not a free speech issue and the UK is not censoring anyone. Dude violated an on the books law. You break the law, you get jailed. That is how laws work. Period.

[Vergil Tanner]

Bold part mine.

Now. All this bickering is pointless because it is not a free speech issue and the UK is not censoring anyone. Dude violated an on the books law. You break the law, you get jailed. That is how laws work. Period.

I think you're missing the point here.

The question isn't "Did he violate a law," it's "Is the law a violation of free speech and should it even exist in the form that it currently does?"

THAT is the point, and there are people on both sides. Personally, I think that it is - at best - a poorly worded law that is open to abuse and leads to exactly this kind of situation; a situation where a man has been punished for a joke with - potentially - prison.

People can argue about laws that are currently on the books. Or are you suggesting that once a law has been passed, it is then above reproach and can never be questioned ever again? Because that's stupid.

You're welcome to have no interest in this discussion. But being dismissive and condescending towards people who do have an interest in it? Yeah, that's kind of a dick move. You're more than welcome to have no interest in the discussion. But other people are welcome to have an interest in it. If you don't think the discussion is worth anything...don't join in. Simple as.

[Iniquitous]

I am not missing the point at all.  I am pointing out the law.  This is not hate speech and it is not a violation of free speech.  As was pointed out, if the idiot had trained the dog as purely a joke (I do not buy that it was a joke at all) and never put it on youtube, he would not have run afoul of the law.  He could have even hosted a party at the local pub and shown off this trick to everyone in the city, including the cops, and not been in any trouble.  The minute he posted it online, it ran afoul of the law.

Now, if anyone had bothered to research that particular law, they would have found this:

The act had a large number of provisions, including the following:

• Obtaining access to the Internet with no intention to pay for the service was made a criminal offence.


• Sending a malicious communication using social media was made a criminal offence.


• The Independent Television Commission, Radio Authority, Office of Telecommunications, and Radiocommunications Agency were merged into Ofcom


• The telecommunications licensing regime was replaced by a general authorisation for companies to provide telecommunications services subject to general conditions of entitlement, while BT retained its universal service obligation.


• It was declared an offence to "persistently make use of a public electronic communications network for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety".


• Ofcom subsequently developed policies to reduce the number of silent telephone calls.


• The public service remit for Channel 4 was revised.


• Broadcasters were required to make a proportion of television programmes outside the London area (defined as outside the M25).


• Restrictions on ITV company ownership were lifted, aside from "public interest" test that was added as an amendment in the House of Lords. The result was the formation of a single entity ITV plc controlling all of the ITV franchises in England and Wales in February 2004.


• The limit on the proportion of ITN that any ITV operating company could own was abolished.


• Broadcasters were required to carry a "suitable quantity and range of programmes" dealing with religion and other beliefs, as part of their public service broadcasting.
  Political advertising on television or radio was prohibited.


• The Gaelic Media Service was created to decide on the future development of Gaelic Broadcasting services.


• Community radio stations were recognised as a distinct third tier of radio alongside BBC Radio and commercial radio.


• The authority for the BBC to collect the licence fee was set out.


• Provision was made for the requirements for blind and deaf television viewers. This has subsequently included sign language, subtitles and audio description.


• The Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice was established as the regulatory body ensuring that advertising on radio and television is not misleading, harmful, offensive, or beyond the boundaries of taste and decency.

Two things in that law that this idiot ran afoul of.  Two things that made it so that the Judge determined that what he did was reasonably against the law as it is written.  You can all bicker over whether this is taking away free speech, but I can assure you that there is no such thing as true free speech.  There are restrictions on speech, even in the United States.  And honestly, those restrictions are needed because we humans can be pure, unadulterated hateful SOBs and we need those restrictions to keep us acting somewhat adult like.[/list]

[Vergil Tanner]

Honestly? None of that is in any way relevant to the discussion. I don't care about that law. I think it's a stupidly worded law if it could be used to arrest and prosecute somebody for a joke, since now - as has been pointed out - this law could be used to justify the arrest of any Comedian who releases a Youtube Video or DVD of him making an obscene joke.

And yes, I fully buy that it was a joke. You can not believe it, that's fine, but I think you're wrong. The context of the video was obviously a joke; he prefaces the video by saying "I'm doing it to annoy my girlfriend because she thinks anything her dog does is cute, so I turned him into the least cute thing I could think of." The name of his channel is Count Dankula for fucks sake. If you want to claim that he didn't do it as a joke and that he is genuinely a Nazi who was subtly trying to spread hate speech and propaganda...you have to prove it. That's an accusation that you have to demonstrate.

In any case, you are missing the point. I disagree with the law as written, and the discussion is whether freedom of speech should include things like what this person is being prosecuted for. You can repeat the law to me until you're blue in the face. I disagree that he violated the law - since there is no evidence that the intent was malicious - but I also disagree with the wording of the law and the decision of the judge.

I ALSO disagree with how it was handled, since he could be sent to prison after a trial without a jury, which in my mind is just abhorrent.

[Oniya]

Honestly? None of that is in any way relevant to the discussion. I don't care about that law.

I could say that I 'don't care' about the law that requires me to wear a seat belt - it's not going to stop a policeman for citing me (or anyone else) for breaking it, or prevent me (or that person) from having to pay the legal penalty for breaking it.

[Vergil Tanner]

I could say that I 'don't care' about the law that requires me to wear a seat belt - it's not going to stop a policeman for citing me (or anyone else) for breaking it, or prevent me (or that person) from having to pay the legal penalty for breaking it.

Come on, Oniya. That's a blatant strawman and a complete misrepresentation of what I just said. Good job quoting me out of context. >.>

Full Context:

"I don't care about that law. I think it's a stupidly worded law if it could be used to arrest and prosecute somebody for a joke, since now - as has been pointed out - this law could be used to justify the arrest of any Comedian who releases a Youtube Video or DVD of him making an obscene joke."

I was making the point that I don't care if it's already a law, that doesn't stop me from disagreeing with it and thinking that it should be either amended or repealed. She was making the point that because it's a law, the argument is pointless. I was making the counterpoint that the discussion was whether the law should exist in the first place.

I was not saying that "I don't care about the law, therefore we shouldn't follow it."

But thanks for trying to misrepresent my position.

[Nachtmahr]

Two things in that law that this idiot ran afoul of.  Two things that made it so that the Judge determined that what he did was reasonably against the law as it is written.  You can all bicker over whether this is taking away free speech, but I can assure you that there is no such thing as true free speech.  There are restrictions on speech, even in the United States.  And honestly, those restrictions are needed because we humans can be pure, unadulterated hateful SOBs and we need those restrictions to keep us acting somewhat adult like.[/list]

Not only do I disagree that we need the government to tell us what to say and do because, as you're asserting, we can't possibly hope to do that job ourselves - But I also strongly disagree with the notion that this man ran afoul of the highlighted article on that list. First of all, it was not an advertisement, and it was aired on YouTube - Not on any conventional TV or radio channel. You can be as combative as you want with your language (which I will argue doesn't add anything positive to the discussion)

In case of the other highlighted article on the list - I frankly don't believe it was done with malicious intent. Now, you can say that you don't buy that, but unless you have anything concrete that proves that this person is a raging anti-Semite who wanted to spread anti-Semitic propaganda through the use of a dog and a phrase that, while it is certainly crass, wouldn't lie beyond the vocabulary of your everyday comedian, I frankly don't see how what you, or anyone, thinks about his actions matters. Cases like these are the exact result of legislation becoming emotional rather than rational. There is no reason to assume that he meant to communicate an anti-Semitic message. Much like with the "Violence in videogames causes violence in real life"-argument, there is also no reason to assume that this would at all be an effective way of spreading anti-Semitic views, should that be his intention.

I would also have to argue that you've misunderstood the concept of free speech.

Here is the deal. 

You can say whatever you want. That does not mean you are free from consequences for what you said.  There are consequences for everything.

You're absolutely right in that nothing exists in a vacuum, but where I strongly disagree is with the idea that the consequences should be enforced by the state, unless any provable physical or psychological harm has come of the abuse. Simply trying to regulate what is or isn't considered offensive is never going to work, because everyone disagree. You might find it sickening that some people would joke about the Holocaust - I'm certainly not going to argue that that isn't a totally valid stance to take! But is it something that someone should serve time in a prison for? I certainly don't think so. And there is a very powerful slippery slope argument to be made, and unless you can be certain that everything you every say is always appropriate and inoffensive to everyone, then a law like that could eventually be used against you. Would you be as accepting of it if you made an offhand remark on Facebook, Twitter, or even here on E that someone deemed offensive, and you were dragged to court as a result? Would you accept a possible prison sentence if, say, you were writing a story with a consenting partner, and said story involved a historically accurate use of, say, racial slurs, which someone reported you to the police over because they found them offensive?

You might argue that you'd have to remove the use of such language from any kind of appropriate context in order to find it offensive if that was the case, but isn't that exactly what you're doing when you're denying to even give this man the benefit of the doubt regarding his intentions? It seems to me like you've jumped straight to malice, given the following quote:

This is not hate speech and it is not a violation of free speech.  As was pointed out, if the idiot had trained the dog as purely a joke (I do not buy that it was a joke at all) and never put it on youtube, he would not have run afoul of the law.

I also take issue with your argument that this is not censorship. I'd say that punishing people with time spent in jail for crass jokes is very much something you would do in an effort suppress certain content.

I will reiterate that I don't think any kind of speech, unless demonstrably harmful (Not offensive, but provably, tangibly harmful, like slander, threats of death, physical violence or anything similar that might otherwise harm you in a tangible way, or excessive targeted abuse to the point where it might do real harm to someone's mental health), should be regulated by the state. I think the social sanctions that come with producing and distributing this kind of content are more than enough. I will refer back to my point about this in no way being demonstrably harmful. And no, being offended is not the same as having your physical or mental health temporarily or permanently damaged as a result of a targeted harassment campaign or physical assault.

You're right that some people can be jerks - In my experience, most people are perfectly decent though. But ultimately, we are all people, and sometimes people make mistakes. And, of course, some people are just bad. But I ultimately just don't want to live in a world where being obnoxious is something that's going to get you locked in prison. I think it's an absolutely abhorrent and grossly authoritarian thing to start locking people up for jokes. This is the sort of thing we frown at when it happens in the Middle East or Asia - Yet now there are actually people not only calling for it, but actively clamoring for this kind of legislation to be introduced on the west. It frankly disturbs me to no end that it's arguably even become trendy to be in favor of selective censorship, and for someone's emotions to get hurt to be considered paramount to assault. Before the end, I do honestly fear that we might end up in a situation where looking at someone the wrong way might just land you in handcuffs.

In conclusion, unless you can demonstrate the genuinely harmful effects of this video, beyond making someone feel offended while watching it, I frankly don't see any remotely argument for why he should face legal action over it, beyond; "Well, that's the law they've made now, so that's that!"
I don't think that anything that sickens you should be considered illegal just because it sickens you. I, for one, don't think this is sickening. I don't find it anymore offensive than any episode of classic hit-sitcom 'Allo 'Allo, and I frankly don't think anyone would have batted an eye at this if it had been a regular comedian doing it just 5-10 years ago. I think we're in a period of such political calamity that everyone is looking for extreme solutions to non-issues, and for unrelated causes they can fight for while they pretend to be tackling a real issue.

And until proven otherwise, I will not speculate on the creator of this video's intentions, because none of us can now them. It doesn't add anything to the discussion to argue that it was either malicious or joke, but I personally cannot identify the malice. The crassness, of course, but not the malice.