General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMan faces hate crime charge in Scotland over dog's 'Nazi salute'
The 28-year-old, from Coatbridge in North Lanarkshire, faces hate crime charges over the video, Police Scotland said. The clip allegedly shows a pug sitting in front of a screen showing footage of Adolf Hitler and appearing to make Nazi salutes.
Officers said the video had been shared online and caused offence and hurt to many people in our community.
....
DI David Cockburn said: Posting offensive material online or in any other capacity will not be tolerated and police will act swiftly to tackle hate crimes that are motivated by malice or ill-will because of faith, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability. This clip has been shared and viewed online, which ultimately has caused offence and hurt to many people in our community. There is no place for hate crime in Scotland and police take all reports of incidents seriously.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/09/nazi-salute-dog-man-faces-hate-crime-charge-scotland
Seems to me that the Scottish police have a bit too much time on their hands.
Initech
(100,155 posts)Jeffersons Ghost
(15,235 posts)Too much time on their hands and overly sensitive to public opinion.
edbermac
(15,953 posts)FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)linuxman
(2,337 posts)Glad I live in a place where I'm not worried about going to jail for offending someone with dark or crass humor.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)or "unkind", on the internet.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-35946349
For someone in the US who is accustomed to having a First Amendment, this kind of thing is indeed amazing.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)Ilsa
(61,721 posts)thoughtfulness, and honesty on the internet. But this idea that the police could "pay a visit" is certainly a way to cut free speech and intimidate anyone wanting to post about political or religious beliefs.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)progree
(10,958 posts)Last edited Wed May 11, 2016, 02:33 AM - Edit history (1)
A dog doing a Nazi salute is kind of funny. But virtually the entire controversial film clip is getting the dog to react to "Gas the Jews?"
Here it is.
So yes, I found it deeply offensive and hateful. "Gas The Jews?" was said 22 times.
What's next? "Lynch the n_____s"? "Hose the bitches"? 22 times? Ha ha ha?
I thought so too when I read your OP. But not after looking at the clip.
This is NOT "The Producers", which I thought was hilarious. As well as most every "Hitler Reacts To" piece I've seen.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I saw this.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/9/markus-meechan-faces-hate-crime-charges-in-scotlan/
Honestly, I dont hate anyone, the whole purpose of this was just to annoy my girlfriend, he said in a YouTube video. I am so sorry to the Jewish community for any offense I have caused them. This was never my intention and I apologize.
And while distasteful I think that was the intent and I get it.
Don't think it is a hate crime just a tasteless joke on his girlfriend that went viral. Mostly because he posted an apology a month before being arrested.
Maybe he has more history that would change my opinion, but without knowing more like who posted it online and how was it posted.
I am leaning to the
progree
(10,958 posts)I don't think he belongs in prison, but a little probation and community service and a cultural sensitivity class or something would be about right.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Bad taste but when done to annoy someone as a prank I don't think it rises to the level of hate crime or even arrest worthy. He basically filmed himself training his girlfriends dog. What he did with the video after that would likely determine how I ultimately felt about it.
If he posted it to www.kkk.com or something then I am with you.
But then I saw this and I don't think that is the case.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)(And now Scotland goes down the rabbit hole, here, because they apparently do.)
I mean, the 1st Amendment is clear, someone can be a bigoted fuckhat, a racist shitheel, a flaming hemorrhoid of neonaziism, even, and yet they still have the constitutional right to spew their nasty-ass mouth flatulence and let everyone else know exactly what the everlovin' fuck is wrong with their particular head.
Which is, to my mind, as it should be. Even though such expressions are foul and worthy of universal condemnation. Beyond that, so much of "hate" has to do with intent, and it's pretty damn hard to distinguish between someone saying "&$&*%&(% the (%*(*@#*($" because they mean it, or saying it ironically, or just saying it to get a rise out of their girlfriend.
NutmegYankee
(16,207 posts)God forbid a liberal support the concept of not being punished for freely expressing ideas.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Good God, the people who wanted to argue up and down that it was against the law to draw "blasphemous" cartoons, because they're convinced there's some sort of 1st Amendment exception for "things that might make someone real mad"
it boggles.
progree
(10,958 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)You dont have to like it, but the principle that protects the worst speech also protects the best and most important.
progree
(10,958 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Justice Robert H Jackson.
Then answer it with unhateful speech.
Censorship is worse than hate speech.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)They don't comprehend that when you turn over control of what is offensive speech to the government, that government might just decide their opinions are offensive.
Idiots.
progree
(10,958 posts)FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)One who doesn't understand free speech, but go ahead and turn over your right to speech on any topic to government review since you'll feel safe and never hear anything that might offend you.
progree
(10,958 posts)threaten politicians (there's no "except if it's a threat" limitation clause in the First Amendment), be publicly loud, obscene, and abusive on public transit, etc.? If that makes me a "safe zone" liberal, than I am 100% perfectly fine with that.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Last edited Wed May 11, 2016, 10:08 AM - Edit history (1)
And think any limitation means it's open season for the government to judge all speech.
If you really would like to learn, start with studying the Supreme Court cast of Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.
You don't know what you are talking about right now.
beevul
(12,194 posts)The first amendment wasn't intended to protect popular speech - because popular speech by definition doesn't need protection.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)and it's also incorrect.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
So let me flip it back on you, with the point I was making originally that you responded to- do you think it should be illegal for people to draw "blasphemous" cartoons?
NYC Liberal
(20,140 posts)I wonder how many posters citing it realize that.
NutmegYankee
(16,207 posts)There is absolutely nothing liberal about censorship.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And I get tired of refuting the same points over and over, don't you?
NutmegYankee
(16,207 posts)It's been 47 years since that ruling was overturned!
progree
(10,958 posts)Last edited Wed May 11, 2016, 09:08 AM - Edit history (1)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3507478/Ole-Miss-ex-student-plead-guilty-tying-noose-statue.html
Prosecutors said another former student, Graeme Phillip Harris, hatched the plan to place the noose and flag on the statue after a night of drinking with Edenfield and a third freshman in the Sigma Phil Epsilon fraternity house on campus.
They said Edenfield actually tied the noose on Meredith's statue after Harris couldn't do it.
Harris, who is also from Georgia, was sentenced to six months in prison, followed by 12 months of supervised release.
All three of the students withdrew from Ole Miss, and the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity closed its chapter.
Austin Reed Edenfield will be sentenced on July 21, and faces up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine. The government has recommended probation. (Edenfield is the one who actually tied the noose)
For First Amendment absolutists, there is no "except if it is a threat" clause in it. By that logic, jailing that poor white guy above is a violation of his First Amendment rights. So is punishing people for threats against Obama or Hillary.
And "Gas The Jews" 22 times is pretty threatening.
Also you can be arrested and jailed for loud, abusive, obscene language. Or crying "fire" in a crowded theater.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Youre wrong, and im not going to sit here all day again explaining how you are wrong. And before we get into it, I come from a family that had victims in the Holocaust. I also know why the ACLU defended the Nazis right to march in Skokie.
Free speech is a greater enemy of everything they stand for than censorship ever could be.
progree
(10,958 posts)Or marching through a black neighborhood chanting "lynch the n__ers"
A mighty fine line between uploading a video "gas the Jews" 22 times, and a noose around the statue of a black person.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Maybe in Scotland, yes, but in the US, no.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,787 posts)Good morning, progree.
Department of Justice
U.S. Attorneys Office
Northern District of Mississippi
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Second Man Pleads Guilty to Tying Rope Around Neck of James Meredith Statue on Ole Miss Campus
WASHINGTON A second man pleaded guilty to a federal civil rights crime for tying a rope and Confederate flag around the neck of the James Meredith Statue at the University of Mississippi. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Justice Departments Civil Rights Division, U.S. Attorney Felicia C. Adams of the Northern District of Mississippi and Special Agent in Charge Donald Alway of the FBIs Jackson, Mississippi, Division made the announcement.
Austin Reed Edenfield, of Kennesaw, Georgia, pleaded guilty to one count of using a threat of force to intimidate African-American students and employees because of their race or color. Edenfield was charged by information shortly before the plea. His sentencing date has not yet been set.
IANAL, but I think this is the specific statute:
Federal Civil Rights Statutes
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245
Federally Protected Activities
1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as:
a) A voter, or person qualifying to vote...;
b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;
c) an applicant for federal employment or an employee by the federal government;
d) a juror or prospective juror in federal court; and
e) a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
2) Prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because of his/her activity as:
a) A student or applicant for admission to any public school or public college;
b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by a state or local government;
c) an applicant for private or state employment, private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in any labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through any employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall;
d) a juror or prospective juror in state court;
e) a traveler or user of any facility of interstate commerce or common carrier; or
f) a patron of any public accommodation, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters...or any other establishment which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises.
It's going to take more time than I have right now, but I suspect that others who have faced this charge and have been convicted have filed appeals. I'm further guessing that some of those appeals were based on the argument that the activities were protected speech. How those appeals turned out, I do not know, but Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245 seems still to be in place.
You know how much I like to link to Federal documents, so here is a link to that:
18 U.S.C. 245 - Federally protected activities
Scroll down to "CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS (sections 241 - 249)."
Best wishes.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,787 posts)progree
(10,958 posts)Basically. OK. I get it.
"Lynch the n__s" is OK too, if just to annoy someone's girlfriend. 22 times. And uploading to Youtube for millions to see.
He uploaded it to YouTube -- a website viewed by countless millions.
But its OK on YouTube. Got it.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)They are not the same.
You just said those things, AND you're arguing that context shouldnt matter.
By your own logic, you want to arrest yourself.
progree
(10,958 posts)Explaining why something is offensive by analogy is a lot different than saying, "oh, it was just to annoy my girlfriend"
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But as a legal standard for determining when the government should be allowed to censor speech, it is doomed to failure.
progree
(10,958 posts)Where did I confuse the two?
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)While I find hate speech reprehensible it isn't and shouldn't be criminalized.
Also you can be arrested for loud abusive obscene language. Or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
And if you are a First Amendment absolutist, there is no "except if it is a threat" clause in it.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Censorship is generally far more offensive than hate speech is capable of being.
NYC Liberal
(20,140 posts)That analogy was used by the Supreme Court to justify the arrest of anti-war protesters during WWI. You really agree with that?
Thankfully, that ruling was overturned a long time ago.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)The girlfriend claims he didn't upload it to you tube for everyone to see his friend did and it was not intended for anyone but those in on the "joke"
I get it it's offensive. I am not in any way trying to deny that. Hate crime? Assuming the girlfriends story is correct, I don't think so.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)progree
(10,958 posts)If a threat then it isn't protected, otherwise you can be as racist or mysogynistic as you please.
progree
(10,958 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)It has to be a credible threat, and I doubt a judge could be convinced that the person was seriously advocating building a gas chamber and using it to murder Jews.
As an example of what could be prosecuted, pointing to a Jewish person on the street and yelling "kill that Jew" would not be protected speech.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Sad to see such sentiments on DU.
melm00se
(4,998 posts)Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)slippery slope. Be warned America!
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Hate speech is Constitutionally protected? Usually it's the cancerous conservatives who try to hide behind the Constitution to excuse their vile behavior.
'If government gets to decide what is and isn't offensive, your opinion might be next.'
Yeah, that's only if we elect more cancerous conservatives into office.
There's a big difference between 'End all racism' and 'kill all n***ers.' Those who think it's just a matter of opinion, I can't help you.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Simple.
Throd
(7,208 posts)What makes you think that won't happen?
Those who think it's just a matter of opinion couldn't care less about your help.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The 1st Amendment was put first for a reason.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Infant America was trying to be the opposite of Great Britain. The First Amendment was created so Americans didn't have to live in fear of being punished for criticizing American politicians, the way criticizing British royalty could land you in jail in jolly ol Britain.
It was not NOT created to protect racist assholes.
beevul
(12,194 posts)The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. Ones right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court 1943
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)The same reason gun owners tend to be self-appointed experts on the Constitution, because 'Who the fuck cares how many die to gun violence every year, as long as I get to go plinking on Saturday? The Second Amendment says so.'
beevul
(12,194 posts)To everyone else, not so much.
Yes, justice Jackson was just a plant, put on the Supreme Court court by selfish gun owners.
Do try to stay on topic. This is about speech, not guns.
NutmegYankee
(16,207 posts)"People who believe in individual liberties are 'selfish'." I guess you are an orphan here. It is the position of the Democratic Party of the USA to uphold our civil and political liberties enshrined in the Constitution.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)People justifying their vile behavior in the name of 'freedum' is amazing shit. I'm not doing that. However, it's a popular justification with among conservatives. Hmm...
Egnever
(21,506 posts)We are in big trouble
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)As long as they get to spread their vile messages.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Not just conservatives.
What is offensive is different depending on your point of view. I am not comfortable with anyone deciding what should be offensive to me or that I can be jailed because I say something offensive to them.
If that is a republican value only then we are fucked.
NutmegYankee
(16,207 posts)With views as authoritarian as yours you are in no position to make accusations of who holds conservative views. Hello totalitarian autocracy...
There is a HUGE difference between believing in Government to solve social problems like healthcare and food insecurity and crushing dissenting opinions, even if they are disgusting. That's a job for society. Government should only enforce fair and equal treatment of all persons in the economic and legal arena.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)protecting the popular ones tends to be easy.
The way to answer racist asshole speech is with more speech.
NutmegYankee
(16,207 posts)Hate speech laws are used world wide to censor and punish them for daring to state that religion is a fantasy story. There is nothing liberal about supporting censorship. NOTHING.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Or they'd be passing bullshit laws here too.
Offend someone....go to jail. Imagine how many prisons we'd have to build.
Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
madville
(7,413 posts)He loves his Hilter jokes, "The more I read about that Hitler fella, the less I like him....., he seems like a real Jerk!!!".