Free Speech... or not thread

[CraigM]

‘You’re sitting on a gold mine Trebek’

[Timex]

[Guap]

This is terrible. Shame on Britain for turning into the real 1984. Talk about thought crimes.

Anyone calling for jail for him needs to take a good long look at themselves, because now you can’t even make a joke in England without being arrested. Who will be next?

And here I thought Jewish people were supposed to be funny.

Jon Stewart made self depreciating Jewish jokes all the time. Will he be arrested if he sets foot in England? Will I for making that lame joke? What if a Jewish person did this as satire? Is this about free speech or cultural appropriation?

Just a terrible move, England.

[BloodyBattleBrain]

On the other hand we did create Borat and Bruno…

[legowarrior]

I admire Will’s comic sense, but I think when he is cast against type are the best roles. He does great as the more serious roles, even in comedic movies.

Stranger then Fiction and Everything Must go come to mind.

[Scuzz]

@Timex

You mean because there’s not enough Will Ferrel?
That’s what you mean, right? Or are we gonna have ourselves…a problem?

Will Ferrel has done some funny stuff, but man he has done some horrific stuff as well. And as for Sandler, the world would be a better place if all his movies just disappeared one morning.

[Scuzz]

@Guap

Jon Stewart made self depreciating Jewish jokes all the time. Will he be arrested if he sets foot in England? Will I for making that lame joke? What if a Jewish person did this as satire? Is this about free speech or cultural appropriation?

So the country that produced Monty Python has lost it’s sense of humor, too bad.

[Ginger_Yellow]

@Guap

Jon Stewart made self depreciating Jewish jokes all the time. Will he be arrested if he sets foot in England? Will I for making that lame joke? What if a Jewish person did this as satire?

No.

As a matter of law, the test is not whether the video was offensive but whether it was grossly offensive. That standard is an objective one in which I must apply the standards of an open and just multi-racial society, taking account of context and the relevant circumstances, applying reasonably enlightened contemporary standards, considering whether the message is liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates: in this case, Jewish people. It is a high test. I concluded, applying these standards to the evidence, that your video was not just offensive but grossly so, as well as menacing, and that you knew that or at least recognised that risk.

Also, it’s Scotland. Entirely separate legal system.

[AntediluvianArk]

I love this part from the Sentencing Statement:

You intended the video to be as offensive as you could make it and you posted it on your own unrestricted publicly accessible video channel which on your own description: “provides offensive social comedy and skits that get people thrown in prison”.

[BloodyBattleBrain]

Imho it’s censorship and unwelcome

[Guap]

That judge is a pompous asshole. Shame on him and the entire UK.

The big thing is the judge didn’t find it funny. The “reasonable standard” does not apply here because it’s satire. A dog was taught to do a trick. Why isn’t the dog in jail? The same idiot’s logic applies to the dog.

Should we put PewPewDie in prison? He’s made all kinds of Nazi jokes. The punishment for him is to be ostracized and lose viewers. To call him an asshole and a social reject and an immature loser that isn’t funny and is a waste of time. That’s the punishment, social ostracization. Not jail! Totally ridiculous.

[playingwithknives]

Dankula is a far right icon and working closely with English ethno-nationalists/supremacists/Nazis, so fuck him, he can burn.

and its far more appropriate to transfer your rage to this case.

• Girl posts lyric to a rap song in rembrance of dead friend, on a private page.
• It contains the word nigga
• girl arrested for racist offence
• Unlike Dankula, where the police had to search for someone to be offended by his actions and found a Jewish couple, in this case the police couldn’t find any member of public who was offended.
• So used a black policewoman

Rap lyric Insta post 'a hate crime'

Same issue, but worse, and less Nazis to defend.

[Ginger_Yellow]

@Guap

The big thing is the judge didn’t find it funny

No, it isn’t. He explicitly states that isn’t the test, under the law.

“The fact that you claim in the video, and elsewhere, that the video was intended only to annoy your girlfriend and as a joke and that you did not intend to be racist is of little assistance to you. A joke can be grossly offensive. A racist joke or a grossly offensive video does not lose its racist or grossly offensive quality merely because the maker asserts he only wanted to get a laugh.

“In any event, that claim lacked credibility. You had no need to make a video if all you wanted to do was to train the dog to react to offensive commands. You had no need to post the video on your unrestricted, publicly accessible, video channel if all you wanted to do was annoy your girlfriend. Your girlfriend was not even a subscriber to your channel. You posted the video, then left the country, the video went viral and thousands viewed it before she had an inkling of what you were up to. You made no effort to restrict public access or take down the video.

“Finally, before turning to sentence, I should note that although I invited both legal representatives to make legal submissions during the trial about the law on freedom of expression, that was done only to a very limited extent. In the absence of focused submissions on that topic by either the Crown or the defence, all I can say is that, while that right is very important, in all modern democratic countries the law necessarily places some limits on that right.

“This trial, unusual though some aspects have been, was therefore concerned, ultimately, only with the narrow fact-based question of whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that your using a public communications network on one day to post the video onto your video channel, constituted an offence contrary to section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003. I found it proved on the evidence that it was. My finding establishes only your guilt of this offence. It establishes nothing else and sets no precedent.

[Timex]

@Guap

Should we put PewPewDie in prison?

I mean, technically, under the US Constitution, no…
But if I were king?

[Guap]

Would Blazing Saddles pass that test? It’s highly offensive. If it was remade today with the same dialog and themes, in the UK, would the director be arrested?

Poppycock on this “test”. It’s a ridiculous construct. It’s like saying “well, someone violated Sharia law in Saudi Arabia so they get what’s coming to them, a judge said so and he’s legally correct.”. It’s a terrible law written by terrible people enforced by a terrible system.

Also that judge is a complete idiot when it comes to the law. A complete idiot. Of course this sets precedent, you stupid judge. That’s what legal rulings do.

[BloodyBattleBrain]

@Guap

It’s a terrible law written by terrible people enforced by a terrible system.

Imho most laws are. They’re there to allow authorities to clamp down when they see fit.

[Ginger_Yellow]

Would Blazing Saddles pass that test? It’s highly offensive. If it was remade today with the same dialog and themes, in the UK, would the director be arrested?

No.

This isn’t to say the law is without issues. I would prefer it to have much narrower statutory language to be more clearly directed at threats, harrassment and overt hate speech. But a) the judge interpreted the statute that exists perfectly fairly in line with case law, b) both this ruling and the previous jurisprudence turn to a large degree on the “menacing” nature of the material, which could in no way be said to be true of Blazing Saddles, c) it’s far from clear that making a film would fall under the terms of the act at all, d) the guidelines of the Crown Prosecution Service (England & Wales only, admittedly) clearly state :

Against that background, prosecutors should only proceed with cases under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 where they are satisfied there is sufficient evidence that the communication in question is more than:

Offensive, shocking or disturbing; or
Satirical, iconoclastic or rude comment; or
The expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it.

e) even if it nevertheless did, and the maker (as opposed to the distributor) was somehow subject to prosecution, it would be open to Mel Brooks Mk. 2 to claim a defence under the Human Rights Act entitlement to freedom of expression, which apparently Meechan did not, for reasons best asked of his counsel.

[legowarrior]

That is not a world view I ascribe to, but I can see why people might think that.

[Fifth_Fret]

I’d just like to remark that the final sentence was an £800 fine (and a criminal record, and presumably court fees?).

I cannot help but feel that this was somewhat a waste of time.

(And the director’s of Blazing Saddles, unlikely as they would be to fall foul of this law, would be even less likely to be troubled by the law.)

[Fifth_Fret]

Damn, I missed this story.