Freedom of Expression

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Was it right to convict him under the Communications Act? Should he be jailed for this when he is sentenced? To what extent can we further regress as a "free" nation?

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

It is distasteful, I can for sure see how it would piss off people and it's really not to my taste. But if that's a criminal offence then Frankie Boyle and co are royally fucked.

 

[Benji]

How come genuine hate speech is harder to punish than bad comedy?

 

[Jockney]

It’s almost like this sort of stuff calls into question the legitimacy of the modern justice system and policing, eh, EG...

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Yes.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

As distasteful as the bloke's video is, it does set a worrying precedent.

 

[Abertawe]

it is quite obvious why he was convicted - run this town

 

[Renegade]

You've got to be kidding me.

I thought hate crimes had to be directed at someone specifically? He didn't train his dog to maul Jewish people or even to gesture at Jewish people. The judge declared it wasn't meant to be a joke, yet that's exactly what he explains at the start of the video. Intent and context do matter. Comedians are pretty fucked if this is considered a hate crime, it's pretty tame. The joke is in the absurdity of the situation, as is the case with pretty much all edgy comics.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The legislation itself is insane. Beggars belief how enough people thought it was a good idea to write this into law.

also

 

[Fompous Part]

The laws proscribing hate speech (not relevant to this case) and offensive/malicious communications all require reform (or perhaps should be repealed entirely); however, like many bad pieces of statue, they are based on good intentions. Their aim is to minimise harm.

And that's actually what makes cases like these so fucking stupid. By prosecuting something this daft and trivial you inevitably turn it into a cause célèbre. The upshot is that the 'offending' material is publicised to a much wider audience than it would have reached otherwise, which of course increases the potential for harm. An unintended consequence, perhaps, but entirely foreseeable and indicative of how these prosecutions are driven more by moral vanity (and underpinning political agendas) than any genuine concerns for public wellbeing.

Also worth noting that, according to Meechan's lawyer, no member of the public contacted Police Scotland to complain, the implication being that the complainer was probably, err, Police Scotland...

But we've been here before, right? Remember Liam Stacey? Paul Chambers? Matthew Woods? You probably don't. I confess I forgot their names and had to Google them. There's a pattern. A bunch of people react to these stories and express alarm about threats to free speech, but a week or two later it's forgotten about. The concern never hardens into a bipartisan movement to do anything about the relevant legislation.

How much further can we regress? I dunno. Further, I guess.

 

[Fompous Part]

Comedians are pretty fucked if this is considered a hate crime, it's pretty tame. The joke is in the absurdity of the situation, as is the case with pretty much all edgy comics.

As far as I can see, he wasn't convicted of a hate crime. Doesn't make it okay, of course, but worth noting.

Also worth noting, I think, that clause 127(4) of the Communications Act 2003 exempts those "providing a programming service" (as defined by the Broadcasting Act 1990), which probably explains why Frankie Boyle was never manhandled off the stage of Mock The Week, convicted and dumped in Barlinnie.

One of the problems with the 2003 Act (and IMO the same applies to various bits of Public Order law) is it was conceived before social media became huge (e.g. it predates the creation of Twitter and YouTube) and therefore fails to take into account how something like a tweet or a YouTube video by a relative nobody can go viral. The idea of YouTube* content as "publications" probably warrants further consideration.

*Or other video sharing website.

 

[PuB]

When the courts are deciding if something is funny or not you have a serious problem.

 

[Renegade]

As far as I can see, he wasn't convicted of a hate crime. Doesn't make it okay, of course, but worth noting.

Also worth noting, I think, that clause 127(4) of the Communications Act 2003 exempts those "providing a programming service" (as defined by the Broadcasting Act 1990), which probably explains why Frankie Boyle was never manhandled off the stage of Mock The Week, convicted and dumped in Barlinnie.

One of the problems with the 2003 Act (and IMO the same applies to various bits of Public Order law) is it was conceived before social media became huge (e.g. it predates the creation of Twitter and YouTube) and therefore fails to take into account how something like a tweet or a YouTube video by a relative nobody can go viral. The idea of YouTube* content as "publications" probably warrants further consideration.

*Or other video sharing website.

BBC reported he was convicted of a hate crime and that's what he was initially arrested for. I agree with everything else you said though, very well put. Of all of the incidents that might be considered hateful and interpreted as close to hate crime, it seems very capricious to make an example out of this man. People may not appreciate his humour, but he's clearly being daft and his intention is not to target anyone but his girlfriend.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

I can't watch the video (it's no longer available) but I have to say that I'm struggling to imagine a scenario in which an instruction to gas the Jews is remotely amusing and isn't grossly offensive. Not saying he should have been convicted; merely that I don't really have very much to go on. I think generally speaking the law has been notoriously slow to address some of the problems posed by online communication. The recent Cambride Analytica/Facebook scandal is a bit of a case in point, in the sense that current regulations seem an inadequate means of addressing privacy concerns. Similarly, our current rules on hate speech and malicious communications appear ineffective when it comes to the web, as evidenced by the fuckload of hateful bile that people are regularly subjected to, without consequence. With the blanket of anonymity too many people seem to view the internet as an opportunity to be cruel. Because it's such a difficult environment to regulate, there will, I think, be instances where the authorities are somewhat ham-fisted in their response. If these sort of cases jolt people into examining their online behaviour, rather than regarding the web a some sort of giant Battle Royale, then I'm not sure I'm overly concerned.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The video is still there.

 

[Nilsson]

I can't watch the video (it's no longer available) but I have to say that I'm struggling to imagine a scenario in which an instruction to gas the Jews is remotely amusing and isn't grossly offensive.

Because a pug responds to it by putting one of its paws in the air akin to a nazi salute. A cute little pug responding to such a monstrous phrase is funny to some people.

This is the best take.

 

[Jockney]

Because a pug responds to it by putting one of its paws in the air akin to a nazi salute. A cute little pug responding to such a monstrous phrase is funny to some people.

This is the best take.

The bloke taught the dog to respond to the lines. Not only not funny, but the lowest hanging fruit he could have imaginably reached for. He doesn’t deserve to be prosecuted, but it’s def one of those occasions when the twitter mob should have their day.

 

[Benji]

If you can be prosecuted for not being funny then I am in trouble.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The funny thing is there's an exception for broadcast media. So basically you can say something offensive but only if millions of people can see in on their TV.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Because a pug responds to it by putting one of its paws in the air akin to a nazi salute. A cute little pug responding to such a monstrous phrase is funny to some people.

This is the best take.

Gotta say I really dislike this guy's shtick* to the extent that I struggle to make it more than a minute in with any of his videos.

But yeah, I take the point. I do genuinely think it's silly, counter-productive and wrong-headed to prosecute this guy. I think I mostly just felt like playing devil's advocate and waffling a bit after a few pints if I'm quite honest.

*by which I mean Pie, not the Nazi dog fella, whose video I still haven't seen

As far as I can see, he wasn't convicted of a hate crime. Doesn't make it okay, of course, but worth noting.

Also worth noting, I think, that clause 127(4) of the Communications Act 2003 exempts those "providing a programming service" (as defined by the Broadcasting Act 1990), which probably explains why Frankie Boyle was never manhandled off the stage of Mock The Week, convicted and dumped in Barlinnie.

One of the problems with the 2003 Act (and IMO the same applies to various bits of Public Order law) is it was conceived before social media became huge (e.g. it predates the creation of Twitter and YouTube) and therefore fails to take into account how something like a tweet or a YouTube video by a relative nobody can go viral. The idea of YouTube* content as "publications" probably warrants further consideration.

*Or other video sharing website.

I'm wondering whether this may now be something particular to Scotland and/or N Ireland. Something I noted with interest earlier was that there were some revised DPP guidelines issued in the wake of the Paul Chambers case that you referenced above. It seems they've been updated so that communications that express "unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it" won't fall foul of the law, a sensible provision which suggests to me that this sort of case shouldn't, in theory, see the light of day in England & Wales. As the CPS has no jurisdiction in Scotland I'm assuming this wouldn't apply over the border? I confess that I'm quite ignorant when it comes to Scottish legal matters...

I think it's probably not an especially good law, partly because its origins go way back, and it seems to get hastily updated every so often in a doomed attempt to keep pace with technology. As you suggest, I think some of the cases prosecuted probably weren't anticipated when the Act came into being, as the internet was still in its infancy.

 

[silkyman]

Calling yourself 'Count Dankula' should be a criminal offence in itself.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Woman guilty of 'racist' Snap Dogg rap lyric Instagram post

Chelsea Russell, 19, argued the words were common in rap but a district judge said they had "no place in civil society"

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-who-posted-rap-lyrics-14543694

 

[PuB]

She was found to be so awful to society that she had to wear a tag for EIGHT weeks, and be home by 8pm.

Not really a story of interest is it, unless you have an alterior motive?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

She was found to be so awful to society that she had to wear a tag for EIGHT weeks, and be home by 8pm.

Not really a story of interest is it, unless you have an alterior motive?

That the state is criminalizing offensiveness? It cúnting well should be.

 

[PuB]

Then you might want to look at the use of the word n****r, and an incitement to steal and murder, more closely.

Not sure how anyone can defend that, especially given the extremely light punishment.

Mountain < molehill

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Then you might want to look at the use of the word n****r, and an incitement to steal and murder, more closely.

Not sure how anyone can defend that, especially given the extremely light punishment.

Not sure how anyone can defend the state going after a teenage girl for copy and pasting some rap lyrics. Maybe you should attempt it.

Mountain < molehill

A molehill is greater than a mountain?

 

[PuB]

Maybe you ought to tell me which thing about using an offensive racial slur (twice), then bigging up murder and robbery, isn't something to worry about?

Oh and, haha, typo etc...

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Maybe you ought to tell me which thing about using an offensive racial slur (twice), then bigging up murder and robbery, isn't something to worry about?

I think "something to worry about" is a wildly inappropriate threshold to set for criminalizing speech. She was not prosecuted for inciting racial hatred, violence or crime of any sort, she was prosecuting explicitly for "sending an offensive message".

We are regressing alarmingly quickly.

 

[PuB]

So you accept she sent an offensive message. What do you disagree with, her being on a tag for a few weeks, or not being able to use the 'n' word as freely as she'd like?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

So you accept she sent an offensive message. What do you disagree with, her being on a tag for a few weeks, or not being able to use the 'n' word as freely as she'd like?

The fact that the state can prosecute someone merely for saying something offensive. Genuinely surprised that anyone is openly defending it. Freedom of expression no longer exists in this country, if it ever did.