What are people's opinions of the successful procescusion of the Youtuber who trained his girlfriend's dog to do a NAZI salute on command to wind up his girlfriend who thinks her pug dog was so adorable?
Just to add context that may have been missed in some of the media's reporting he states the reason for the video in the video is purely to wind up his girlfriend. He makes it clear he neither supports or believes in any of NAZI ideology. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Another ill thought out escapade in poor taste. It wasn't in any way supporting anti-semitic groups or views. Farcical waste of tax payers money in prosecuting it and a dangerous precedent has been set by it as the judge ruled that context is NOT important!!!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Another ill thought out escapade in poor taste. It wasn't in any way supporting anti-semitic groups or views. Farcical waste of tax payers money in prosecuting it and a dangerous precedent has been set by it as the judge ruled that context is NOT important!!! "
That for me was a worrying precedent set. The police went through is electronic devices and internet history and found no sign of him having any far right interest or history. In fact there was no evidence at all that indicated that he had any beliefs or intent or history that indicated that he was anything but anti NAZI. Yet the (single) Judge residing over case said that context was irrelevant. So he was still prosecuted and is now a convicted criminal. Surely context and intent is everything? This saying context is irrelevant is very worrying, it means basicly that as long as someone, somewhere is offended by you, you could get a criminal record regardless of your intent. That to me is fucked up and is open to so much potential for abuse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Another ill thought out escapade in poor taste. It wasn't in any way supporting anti-semitic groups or views. Farcical waste of tax payers money in prosecuting it and a dangerous precedent has been set by it as the judge ruled that context is NOT important!!!
That for me was a worrying precedent set. The police went through is electronic devices and internet history and found no sign of him having any far right interest or history. In fact there was no evidence at all that indicated that he had any beliefs or intent or history that indicated that he was anything but anti NAZI. Yet the (single) Judge residing over case said that context was irrelevant. So he was still prosecuted and is now a convicted criminal. Surely context and intent is everything? This saying context is irrelevant is very worrying, it means basicly that as long as someone, somewhere is offended by you, you could get a criminal record regardless of your intent. That to me is fucked up and is open to so much potential for abuse."
But surely as long as someone’s not committing hate crimes or spreading malicious or material that incites such, they can hold whatever political or racial or religious view they want can’t they?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *r.BlondeMan
over a year ago
Chester/Wirral |
"Another ill thought out escapade in poor taste. It wasn't in any way supporting anti-semitic groups or views. Farcical waste of tax payers money in prosecuting it and a dangerous precedent has been set by it as the judge ruled that context is NOT important!!!
That for me was a worrying precedent set. The police went through is electronic devices and internet history and found no sign of him having any far right interest or history. In fact there was no evidence at all that indicated that he had any beliefs or intent or history that indicated that he was anything but anti NAZI. Yet the (single) Judge residing over case said that context was irrelevant. So he was still prosecuted and is now a convicted criminal. Surely context and intent is everything? This saying context is irrelevant is very worrying, it means basicly that as long as someone, somewhere is offended by you, you could get a criminal record regardless of your intent. That to me is fucked up and is open to so much potential for abuse."
Yeah like a totalitarian state. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
He posted himself on YouTube saying to the dog " do you want to gas the Jews" over and over.
This is very similar to the wankers posting the burning of the Grenfell tower effigy the other day.
By posting your content online you then open yourself up for all sorts of problems you wouldn't of thought of at the time. Mainly public disorder offences. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
This one resonates with something I thought about in another thread.
20 years ago, none of us would be any the wiser because these things happened behind closed doors.
Now everyone wants to every daft prank to the internet so the whole world can see.
I remember another case in Newcastle or somewhere.
A house party, some idiot swallowed a goldfish, regurgitated it and spat down the toilet.
All filmed and uploaded to the internet.
He was prosecuted for animal cruelty.
I had no idea of the threshold for animal cruelty until I read about the case.
In law, if it has a backbone, it is protected. If it doesn't have a backbone, it's not. Basically.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Another ill thought out escapade in poor taste. It wasn't in any way supporting anti-semitic groups or views. Farcical waste of tax payers money in prosecuting it and a dangerous precedent has been set by it as the judge ruled that context is NOT important!!!
That for me was a worrying precedent set. The police went through is electronic devices and internet history and found no sign of him having any far right interest or history. In fact there was no evidence at all that indicated that he had any beliefs or intent or history that indicated that he was anything but anti NAZI. Yet the (single) Judge residing over case said that context was irrelevant. So he was still prosecuted and is now a convicted criminal. Surely context and intent is everything? This saying context is irrelevant is very worrying, it means basicly that as long as someone, somewhere is offended by you, you could get a criminal record regardless of your intent. That to me is fucked up and is open to so much potential for abuse.
But surely as long as someone’s not committing hate crimes or spreading malicious or material that incites such, they can hold whatever political or racial or religious view they want can’t they?
"
Is it a hate crime if the context and intent is not intended as hateful? And who is the arbiter of what is or isn't malicious or hateful when no evidence exists to show the person spreading it had any malicious or hateful intent?
The really worrying thing is that context was ruled irrelevant to the case. That is what is so dangerous in terms of the policing of any laws that can acted on as a result of the way we express our selfs verbally and artistically. Surely this is a very dark and dangerous abuse of vague and subjective laws? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And who is the arbiter of what is or isn't malicious or hateful...?"
Whoever is hurt by it.
Which is fine. It's quite easy not to be a prick in daily life. Had loads of dogs, not once have they goosestepped about while harping on about gassing Jews. Any and all slippery slope arguing from thereon in is idiotic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And who is the arbiter of what is or isn't malicious or hateful...?
Whoever is hurt by it.
Which is fine. It's quite easy not to be a prick in daily life. Had loads of dogs, not once have they goosestepped about while harping on about gassing Jews. Any and all slippery slope arguing from thereon in is idiotic."
The judge in the case made this point:
"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."
The trouble I find with that is if we rule intent irrelevant then we potentially open up a lot of comic and artistic output liable to procesuction. The likes of Chris Morris, Ricky Gervais, Frankie Boyle could all end up with a a criminal record. I'm sure most of us have enjoyed the likes of stand up comedians on tv who have said some close to the bone jokes about dark subjects that have no doubt caused offence to some people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""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."
The trouble I find with that is if we rule intent irrelevant then we potentially open up a lot of comic and artistic output liable to procesuction. The likes of Chris Morris, Ricky Gervais, Frankie Boyle could all end up with a a criminal record. I'm sure most of us have enjoyed the likes of stand up comedians on tv who have said some close to the bone jokes about dark subjects that have no doubt caused offence to some people."
If any of the comics above put a candid video online, of them being offensive, they should be pulled for public order. That's the law. Personally I think it needs a little refining but it's at least fairly upheld.
I watched the Nazi dog video for context and the thing that swings it for me is that it's 1) candid and 2) not a joke. There's no craft or wit to it - it's a prick on the internet.
Whether you like them or not, the comics you've listed are definitely in the joke business. Might not be to everyone's taste but there's a craft on display and an artistic licence will always be carried through. Pulling someone up for being a stupid dick and not knowing the law won't damage them in any way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""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."
The trouble I find with that is if we rule intent irrelevant then we potentially open up a lot of comic and artistic output liable to procesuction. The likes of Chris Morris, Ricky Gervais, Frankie Boyle could all end up with a a criminal record. I'm sure most of us have enjoyed the likes of stand up comedians on tv who have said some close to the bone jokes about dark subjects that have no doubt caused offence to some people.
If any of the comics above put a candid video online, of them being offensive, they should be pulled for public order. That's the law. Personally I think it needs a little refining but it's at least fairly upheld.
I watched the Nazi dog video for context and the thing that swings it for me is that it's 1) candid and 2) not a joke. There's no craft or wit to it - it's a prick on the internet.
Whether you like them or not, the comics you've listed are definitely in the joke business. Might not be to everyone's taste but there's a craft on display and an artistic licence will always be carried through. Pulling someone up for being a stupid dick and not knowing the law won't damage them in any way."
The guy in question is a prolific comic YouTuber with a catalogue of comic videos. He specialises in videos that have a amature video feel. No evidence was found to indicate any malicious or hateful intent or a history of it. Are you saying that you should only get away with it if you are popular comedian who restricts their content to live show, tv or DVD? But if your a regular YouTube comic (of any quality or not) then it's not ok? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Are you saying that you should only get away with it if...content to live show, tv or DVD?"
I'm saying that what he did is a public order offence, and he's been done for that, so all is well. There's no controversy to be had. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does that mean I should be prosecuted because my dog "salutes" when I say paw!?! ffs!!!
No. Nobody said that."
I think that was a fun dig at the subjectivity of the law. After all if remove context and intent from consideration as in this case what if someone was to take offence that the dog raising it's paw looks like a NAZI salute? Therefore to film and publish your dog doing such an action could be a public order offence by the same measure if we start saying that the actions and words are the offence not the intent or intent behind them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Therefore to film and publish your dog doing such an action could be a public order offence by the same measure if we start saying that the actions and words are the offence not the intent or intent behind them?"
If you film it and broadcast it on the internet, while saying Jews should be gassed, yes.
You, me, that guy, anyone gets pulled for that as a public order offence, because that's the law.
If you want to dress your beagle up as Himmler and feed him sausages while waltzing to Threnody, in the privacy of your own home, you're allowed to. You're also allowed to teach your dog to raise its paw without you having to post bail.
If it's really that important to you to make public pronouncements about genocide then I guess you just need to move someplace else. Laws are what they are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There’s no question it was in poor taste. In my time as a dog trainer I met loads of people who had (albeit inadvertently) trained their dogs to do something that annoyed their spouse. None of them did a sieg heil. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does that mean I should be prosecuted because my dog "salutes" when I say paw!?! ffs!!!
"
How silly.
Filming yourself saying what he did and posting it world wide then yes |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Another ill thought out escapade in poor taste. It wasn't in any way supporting anti-semitic groups or views. Farcical waste of tax payers money in prosecuting it and a dangerous precedent has been set by it as the judge ruled that context is NOT important!!!
That for me was a worrying precedent set. The police went through is electronic devices and internet history and found no sign of him having any far right interest or history. In fact there was no evidence at all that indicated that he had any beliefs or intent or history that indicated that he was anything but anti NAZI. Yet the (single) Judge residing over case said that context was irrelevant. So he was still prosecuted and is now a convicted criminal. Surely context and intent is everything? This saying context is irrelevant is very worrying, it means basicly that as long as someone, somewhere is offended by you, you could get a criminal record regardless of your intent. That to me is fucked up and is open to so much potential for abuse."
Sadly this is the age we live in, if you are accused of something the police have the powers to go through all your devices for information. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
