Freedom of speech officially dead in Scotland

[Admiral X]

youtu.be/1KCzbVtxkso

[Steve]

This man is an idiot.

But calling this a hate crime is really stretching the term.

[Robovski]

Most days I'm glad to have left Scotland. Today is another one of those.

[SuccubusYuri]

Is there a real story for this? One where, you know, a legal term might be used, a police officer questioned, a judge's opinion transcripted?

[TGLS]

From http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-gla ... t-43478925

Sheriff Derek O'Carroll found him guilty of a charge under the Communications Act that he posted a video on social media and YouTube which was grossly offensive because it was "anti-semitic and racist in nature" and was aggravated by religious prejudice.

Sheriff O'Carroll told the court he did not believe Meechan had made the video only to annoy his girlfriend and ruled it was anti-Semitic.

He also said he believed Meechan - who was supported at court by Tommy Robinson, former leader of far-right group the English Defence League (EDL) - left the video on YouTube to drive traffic to other material he had on there.

He added: "In my view it is a reasonable conclusion that the video is grossly offensive

"The description of the video as humorous is no magic wand.

"This court has taken the freedom of expression into consideration.

"But the right to freedom of expression also comes with responsibility."

[Darth Wedgius]

Thank you, Scotland, for saving the west from the scourge of stupid pet tricks. If you hadn't stopped this, the next YouTube video might have been cute little pugs driving into Poland in cute little tanks.

[Karha of Honor]

This man is an idiot.

But calling this a hate crime is really stretching the term.

Why have said category?

[SuccubusYuri]

This man is an idiot.

But calling this a hate crime is really stretching the term.

Why have said category?

Because hate crimes aren't crimes targeted at individuals, they're targeted at groups. When you beat up a Jewish man and leave him bloody in the streets of Austin, it is not because he slept with your girlfriend or his dog barking next door annoyed you, you did it as a message to all the Jewish people who see him that they are unwelcome, and should expect more of the same. And if there's one thing we hate it's that demographics of society be scared into not shopping or patronizing bars.

That is why the article TGLS kindly provided us made special note it was deemed not just to annoy his girlfriend, because that's the crux of the issue, typically, if it was for personal or political reasons.

To whit, I've never heard of this jackass, but his channel seems harmless enough. I mean he's a major moron, or putting on a bit (seriously I didn't think the "Bernie-to-Trump supporter" existed), so it wouldn't even be like, based on his channel, right? Like I could see the argument "He used a video of a cute dog responding positively to Hitler to direct traffic to his wholly anti-semitic channel", but that doesn't really appear to be the case (though I've only breezed through like three videos and just skimmed another three, ain't no one got time for his channel history).

That said a number of people seem to require a dictionary because they are interpreting "grossly" incorrectly, like he had a video of himself picking his nose or something, when that's clearly not how it's being employed.

It IS amusing to see Carlgon taking an interest since he likes to wrap up most of his news stories with "well here's another one for the gas chambers".

[Karha of Honor]

This man is an idiot.

But calling this a hate crime is really stretching the term.

Why have said category?

Because hate crimes aren't crimes targeted at individuals, they're targeted at groups. When you beat up a Jewish man and leave him bloody in the streets of Austin, it is not because he slept with your girlfriend or his dog barking next door annoyed you, you did it as a message to all the Jewish people who see him that they are unwelcome, and should expect more of the same. And if there's one thing we hate it's that demographics of society be scared into not shopping or patronizing bars.

Okay, why cannot be treated like regular crime regardless of motivation?

[Fixer]

Because hate crimes aren't crimes targeted at individuals, they're targeted at groups. When you beat up a Jewish man and leave him bloody in the streets of Austin, it is not because he slept with your girlfriend or his dog barking next door annoyed you, you did it as a message to all the Jewish people who see him that they are unwelcome, and should expect more of the same. And if there's one thing we hate it's that demographics of society be scared into not shopping or patronizing bars.

That is why the article TGLS kindly provided us made special note it was deemed not just to annoy his girlfriend, because that's the crux of the issue, typically, if it was for personal or political reasons.

To whit, I've never heard of this jackass, but his channel seems harmless enough. I mean he's a major moron, or putting on a bit (seriously I didn't think the "Bernie-to-Trump supporter" existed), so it wouldn't even be like, based on his channel, right? Like I could see the argument "He used a video of a cute dog responding positively to Hitler to direct traffic to his wholly anti-semitic channel", but that doesn't really appear to be the case (though I've only breezed through like three videos and just skimmed another three, ain't no one got time for his channel history).

That said a number of people seem to require a dictionary because they are interpreting "grossly" incorrectly, like he had a video of himself picking his nose or something, when that's clearly not how it's being employed.

It IS amusing to see Carlgon taking an interest since he likes to wrap up most of his news stories with "well here's another one for the gas chambers".

There was a link to the video in one of the long twitter threads I followed so had a quick watch of that Yesterday.

To sum it up. The guy starts off saying his girlfriend thinks the pug is the cutest thing ever, so he intends to teach it to do the least cute thing possible to annoy her. Proceeds to train the dog to react to saying "Gas the jews" and make a nazi salute.

Then I learned that apparently this court case has been going on for two years?

Obviously I'm going to have to do a lot of reading to find out what has been going on but the very principle of the matter is deeply concerning. This is based off a 2003 communications law which is extremely vague and nebulous.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).

By this law it's possible to argue for convicting anyone for simply annoying someone via a posted message on the internet and proving they had the intent to do that. So I'm afraid all you guys that Rickrolled others are criminals now. Since he expressly stated he had the intent to annoy his girlfriend he was still be liable under this law.

This obviously sets a bad precedent. The part of the law that he was convicted under was causing gross offence. Nobody reported this to the police. A police officer discovered it and declared it offensive. This means we now have case law allowing the police to determine what is or is not acceptable, then punish you for it.

It's no wonder that so many comedians are concerned about where this is leading.