What Is The Cost Of Free Speech? £800, According To Scottish Law

in #news6 years ago

c8e955d75630a4c7-1024x512.jpg

For the last few weeks there's been a YouTuber (Count Dankula) waiting to be charged with a hate crime for training his dog to do Nazi salutes as a joke to annoy his girlfriend, filming it, and posting the video on his channel.

There was a lot of uncertainty about what was going to happen to him, and there have been a lot of free speech activists who have jumped into the corner of the Count to defend his right to make a joke, no matter how offensive other people might find it.

Well, Dankula has been sentenced in court.

The Verdict


club-2492011_1280.jpg

COUNT DANKULA SENTENCE: YOUTUBER AVOIDS JAIL AFTER CONVICTION FOR TEACHING PET PUG NAZI SALUTE

A Scottish YouTuber, convicted of a hate crime after uploading a video of him teaching his girlfriend’s dog to give a Nazi salute, has avoided a prison sentence.

Mark Meechan, 30, from North Lanarkshire, Scotland, was fined £800 ($1117) after he was found guilty following a trial in March in connection to the video, which he uploaded in 2016.

In the clip, Meechan, better known as Count Dankula, told viewers how he wanted to annoy his girlfriend as a joke so decided to turn her pet pug, Buddha, into the "least cute thing I could think of.”

So, he didn't go to jail, thankfully, but he has suffered a ridiculous fine.

Here's what the judge had to say.

“The evidence before this court was that the video was viewed as grossly offensive within Jewish communities in Scotland and that such material tended to normalize anti-Semitic attitudes and provoke further unpleasant anti-Semitic messages and as such, this video using menacing language, led to great concern. "

Not just "offensive", but "GROSLY offensive".

It's nice that the state gets to define what other people consider offensive, because from what I've seen there was no complaint to YouTube about the video until it became a huge sensation over the legality of speech.

Judge continues:

“I also found it proved that the video contained anti-Semitic, and racist material, in that it explicitly and exclusively referred to Jews, the Holocaust and the role of the Nazis in the death of six million Jews in a grossly offensive manner. You knew or must have known that."

He laid out the context of the joke directly -- speaking directly to the camera -- before the content of the video ran, to fascist freak judge. He knew what the context was, and so did you, because he told you exactly what it was before he did it. Not that he even needed to, but he did anyway. That's what makes this whole case so aggravating to me.

Judge continues:

“As a matter of law, the test is not whether the video was offensive but whether it was grossly offensive. I concluded….that your video was not just offensive but grossly so, as well as menacing, and that you knew that or at least recognized that risk.”

The risk of grossly offending something, which is a category of offense that is determined AFTER THE FACT, is the metric by which you do or do not have freedom of speech in Scotland.

What did the Count have to say?


question-2736480_1280.jpg

During the trial, Meechan denied he was anti-Semitic and reiterated that the video was nothing more than a joke to annoy his girlfriend and should not be considered a hate crime.

That's exactly right. There was no otherwise defined crime committed. He said something that some people didn't like. It didn't hurt them. It didn't defraud them. It didn't destroy their property. They just didn't like it, so they convicted him of a crime.

Speaking outside the Airdrie Sheriff Court following his conviction in March, Meechan said the guilty verdict raises serious questions of freedom of speech.

He said: “I think there’s been a huge miscarriage of justice, it’s a very dark day with regards to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. What is most worrying is that one of the primary things to be considered in any action is context and intent and today context and content was completely disregarded.

And perhaps the most terrifying part about this authoritarian creep into our basic freedoms was perfectly articulated by Dankula here:

“For the system to disregard things like that means your actions no longer matter, they decide what your context and intent is.”

The cost of freedom is £800 today, but what will it be tomorrow?


statue-of-liberty-2629937_1280.jpg

These basic freedoms are more delicate than they seem.

Today, the cost of freedom of speech is £800 to be paid by a YouTube edgy boi.

Tomorrow, who knows what the cost of freedom will be.

Blood has ben spilled for centuries, millions of lives have been lost in brutal battle, simply so that we could enjoy the freedom to say whatever offensive thing we want to say without the controlling political authority squashing us for saying it.

Keep these words in mind:

34919-Thomas-Jefferson-Quote-The-tree-of-liberty-must-be-refreshed-from.jpg

What do you think?


office-2463928_1280.jpg

I view freedom of speech from the non-aggression principle, which is

an ethical stance that asserts that aggression is inherently wrong. In this context, "aggression" is defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.

Making a joke in a video format which anyone can choose to view or ignore at any time they like, and also stop any time they like, does not IN ANY WAY CONCEIVABLE qualify as the initiation of forcible interference with an individual or an individual's property.

But what do you think?

Let me know in the comments.

Images are public domain or from https://pixabay.com

Follow me @shayne

Sort:  

Yes I think that about sums it up all. Pretty much tells you that we are all little girls and shouldn't hurt each other's feelings.
Frankly I wouldn't have had problem - even with a decision as stupid as this but for the fact that it was based on hurting feelings rather than actual issue of the crime. I mean this guys is not even a public comedian - the dude's just trying to make his girl laugh. WTF!!!!!!!!!!
You know I am getting more and more worked up as I type. Gotta go and take a dump- maybe that'd calm me down. Would probably smoke a joint too and while I am at it I am going to record hate speech and make myself listen to it just for f***'s sake.
My frontal lobe doesn't like uncivilized things like racism and hate speech. But there is a deeper part of my brain - the primal part and it plain doesn't like bull shit. I know I should edit this comment and remove the profanities.............

Say whatever you want. I don't care lol

I relate to the feeling of rejecting even the idea that I am legally not allowed to say something. It makes me want to say it more.

well say something really bad then... something you're not allowed to. Lets hear it.

Oh poop! 💩

What else can you expect from the UK if weeks ago Lauren Southern was stopped from entering England -and as far I understand, banned for life- because of "racist propaganda". She was handling flyers that said "Allah is Gay", which can be considered offensive by muslims, but never racist.

Yes, just like you, I believe in the NAP. There is not a right to not be offended.

This is the kind of world we're heading. As a reverend, friend of mine, said: "When did we get flooded with idiots?"

They cover it by saying "No no no, it's not illegal to offend someone: we're talking about gross offense! GROSS. What does that mean? Uh, well... you'll know when it happens. it's gross."

The whole repugnant idea itself is grossly offensive to me. Perhaps that could put the UK judge under charges.

Who even knows any more. Laws are just randomly selected crap that people make up when it suits their narrative. It's just evil.

judges have too much power they are not supposed to rule by how pissed off they get they are supposed to rule based off of what the law says

Upvoted. This ridiculous ruling would not have been dared to be put forward in any court in the western world just thirty years ago.

I guess this is what the progressives consider progress?!?!?.

Aghhhhhhh!

it is nonsense to punish someone for a joke you don't like, I wonder what the penalty would be for teaching a dog to be used in an attack manner would be....

"Grossly offensive", who carry out the trial? Roland Freisler?

I wonder if the justice in the United Kingdom is selective, because when PewDiePie made its "nazi jokes" a few months ago nobody tried to put him in jail. I guess it's a kind of popular justice.

You know it's dark times when a man can't talk freely without being afraid to go to prison.

follows us @sarcasms for our global news update

You're gonna kill your reputation doing this.