Guy from Scotland faces year in prison for training his dog (to do the Nazi salute)

[Manfred Belheim]

Acknowledging that hate speech is a crime, as you have...

I don't particularly think that it should be, but it is. I don't think that's up for debate is it?

You insist that this guy is not guilty based on the "just kidding" defense, which apparently most of us don't accept...at least in part because it opens the door to "Moderator Action: <snip> ...what a great idea!...just kidding."

It opens the doors for other jokes? Okay...

So you are being asked, "what would be something more practical and acceptable as a defining limit regarding what is or is not hate speech?"

Well I'm guessing that what's already written in law, as overbearing as that might be, is probably a good start. I don't know what that is, but something includes some soft of notion of "deliberately inciting harrassment or violence" or something would be good.

I mean this isn't even a joke about jews or nazis. The joke is just "I made my girlfriend's dog do something offensive and non-cute to annoy my girlfriend, because she's always going on about how cute he is". Nazis are the just go-to offensive thing because everybody knows and accepts that what they did is deeply offensive. The joke only works because it relies on a common (if not universal) understanding that nazis are bad, and that gassing jews is bad.

The question about "what if he took the dog to perform tricks outside a synagogue" just doesn't follow. I know you see it as an extrapolation or continuation of what he's already done, but it's not because the joke was never targetted at Jews in the first place, it was targetted at his girlfriend.

Moderator Action: Snipped the offensive joke that was quoted. Be careful what you quote. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The question about "what if he took the dog to perform tricks outside a synagogue" just doesn't follow. I know you see it as an extrapolation or continuation of what he's already done, but it's not because the joke was never targetted at Jews in the first place, it was targetted at his girlfriend. Suddenly going out of his way to specifically taunt Jews is a complete change of behaviour, and an invention on your part.

That "targeting" is exactly the point. How is it "targeting" his girlfriend when it is posted on the internet? Similarly, while it isn't going out of his way to specifically taunt jews, jews do have internet so posting his joke 'targeted' at his girlfriend he included them in the audience. That was his choice.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That "targeting" is exactly the point. How is it "targeting" his girlfriend when it is posted on the internet?

Lol... Jesus. Because it was her dog and she saw it doing these things in real life maybe? Posting a video of a prank on the internet, for the amusement of other people, doesn't change the target of the prank.

Similarly, while it isn't going out of his way to specifically taunt jews, jews do have internet so posting his joke 'targeted' at his girlfriend he included them in the audience. That was his choice.

Yes. So? It was a joke. They can probably deal with that. I mean it's the Nazis you should feel bad for really, given that the joke was painting them as the bad guys, not jews.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Lol... Jesus. Because it was her dog and she saw it doing these things in real life maybe? Posting a video of a prank on the internet, for the amusement of other people, doesn't change the target of the prank.

No, but as YOU just said "for the amusement of OTHER people" you are acknowledging that he did change his target audience. That was my point. Shifting from "prank on my girlfriend" to "amuse everyone including people who I know won't be amused" is where the line between legal and no longer legal was crossed.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Sorry but I don't agree that sharing a video of a non-criminal prank on Youtube suddenly makes it criminal. What would make it criminal would be if it was hate speech deliberately inciting hatred or violence. It isn't. It's a funny dog video. Not everyone finds it funny, but failing to amuse people is not a criminal act.

And I don't agree that there was any shifting of a target audience going on. He just played a prank on his girlfriend, and also filmed it and put it on his youtube channel. They're not mutually exclusive things.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sorry but I don't agree that sharing a video of a non-criminal prank on Youtube suddenly makes it criminal. What would make it criminal would be if it was hate speech deliberately inciting hatred or violence. It isn't. It's a funny dog video. Not everyone finds it funny, but failing to amuse people is not a criminal act.

And I don't agree that there was any shifting of a target audience going on. He just played a prank on his girlfriend, and also filmed it and put it on his youtube channel. They're not mutually exclusive things.

I hate the guy.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yeah obviously, but luckily that doesn't matter.

... although it would matter if someone decided to construe what you just said as hate speech and tried to prosecute you over it. I'd be against that too.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah obviously, but luckily that doesn't matter.

... although it would matter if someone decided to construe what you just said as hate speech and tried to prosecute you over it. I'd be against that too.

Before he posted his hate inciting video I'd never heard of him.

 

[inthesomeday]

Freeze peach activists remind me of a scrawny little kid in elementary school who calls you racial slurs behind the teachers back and then you hit him and the teacher sees so he cries alligator tears

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Before he posted his hate inciting video I'd never heard of him.

You mean the prank video?

But that's not surprising. Neither had I. And indeed for a long time after that. But what does that have to do with anything I said?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You mean the prank video?

But that's not surprising. Neither had I. And indeed for a long time after that. But what does that have to do with anything I said?

Because he expanded the audience to include me. You probably could have told the guy "dude, Tim is this 'dog's rights' freak and he is gonna absolutely despise you for this" because you know me, but he included me in the target audience for his joke with not even a suspicion about what hatreds it may incite towards him. There's no crime in that.

However, unless he lives under a rock he was well aware that there is this group called the alt-right who would also be inspired by his video. Not amused. Not entertained. Inspired. The reason you know about the guy, and the reason I know about the guy, is because the courts know about the guy. But the reason that the courts know about the guy is because his video splashed on the internet. It didn't splash because it was so widely thought to be hilarious that it went viral. It didn't splash because it was "a really great joke." It splashed because the dingbat internet "army" of nazi supporters thought it was "cool" and shared it around...they were inspired, and they are hateful. And that entirely predictable response is what he counted on to get him his fifteen milliseconds of internet stardom. It worked, and now he'll probably have to pay for it.

 

[Senethro]

Theres a couple of ways the "Just a prank" magical defense doesn't sit right with me.

1. Pranking someone by taking their car is still theft.

2. Ironic racism, where a person acts like a racist but doesn't "mean" it, is still actually racism. Its still being callous of the discriminated group instead of actively hateful.

So its still racism and it still contains the elements of a crime.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Because he expanded the audience to include me. You probably could have told the guy "dude, Tim is this 'dog's rights' freak and he is gonna absolutely despise you for this" because you know me, but he included me in the target audience for his joke with not even a suspicion about what hatreds it may incite towards him. There's no crime in that.

However, unless he lives under a rock he was well aware that there is this group called the alt-right who would also be inspired by his video. Not amused. Not entertained. Inspired. The reason you know about the guy, and the reason I know about the guy, is because the courts know about the guy. But the reason that the courts know about the guy is because his video splashed on the internet. It didn't splash because it was so widely thought to be hilarious that it went viral. It didn't splash because it was "a really great joke." It splashed because the dingbat internet "army" of nazi supporters thought it was "cool" and shared it around...they were inspired, and they are hateful. And that entirely predictable response is what he counted on to get him his fifteen milliseconds of internet stardom. It worked, and now he'll probably have to pay for it.

Sorry, don't buy it. If this alt-right crowd already hate jews this video did nothing. If other people didn't hate jews, this video did nothing. Either way, was the video intended to promote hateful attitudes or inspire violence? No. Is all that second paragraph speculation on your part?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Theres a couple of ways the "Just a prank" magical defense doesn't sit right with me.

1. Pranking someone by taking their car is still theft.

2. Ironic racism, where a person acts like a racist but doesn't "mean" it, is still actually racism. Its still being callous of the discriminated group instead of actively hateful.

So its still racism and it still contains the elements of a crime.

1. The prank didn't involve a crime, so not relevant.

2. Asking a dog if it wants to gas the Jews, even if asked in all earnestness, is not racism. Possibly a sign of mental illness, but not racism. The dog responding positively is also not racism because it doesn't understand words. I feel like the dog would feel at home in this thread.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sorry, don't buy it. If this alt-right crowd already hate jews this video did nothing. If other people didn't hate jews, this video did nothing. Either way, was the video intended to promote hateful attitudes or inspire violence? No. Is all that second paragraph speculation on your part?

Nope. Reading up on the case that is an accurate summary of how it became a case in the first place. The video spread across the internet through alt-right group endorsement and came to the attention of people who complained about the content to authorities.

Now, as to this defense that hate can't be inspired in people who already hate, so anything goes...in a word, bunk. If you want to continue down that line I'll expand, maybe, but I'm hoping you will recognize just from that rephrase that you have no path there.

 

[Senethro]

The dog is irrelevant. Saying it to a dog or saying it to a wall or the thin air, it doesn't matter. He recorded it and made it public. The hate speech in a public venue is the potential crime.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Nope. Reading up on the case that is an accurate summary of how it became a case in the first place. The video spread across the internet through alt-right group endorsement and came to the attention of people who complained about the content to authorities.

Now, as to this defense that hate can't be inspired in people who already hate, so anything goes...in a word, bunk. If you want to continue down that line I'll expand, maybe, but I'm hoping you will recognize just from that rephrase that you have no path there.

Hate can be inspired by anything. Was the video a deliberate attempt to inspire hate? No. This is like trying to explain the concept of humour to Mr Spock.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The dog is irrelevant. Saying it to a dog or saying it to a wall or the thin air, it doesn't matter. He recorded it and made it public. The hate speech in a public venue is the potential crime.

Do you want to gas the Jews?

 

[Senethro]

A friend of mine works on a campus in the American south. I forget when it was, but either on MLK day 2017 or the first day of Black History month a bunch of nooses and bananas were hung up early in the morning on the main entrance.

Prank or racism?

Is there any actual difference between the two really? How should a court of law determine?

 

[Kyriakos]

Do you want to gas the Jews?