Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Man fined £800 after filming dog's 'Nazi salutes'


OverSword
 Share

Recommended Posts

I find it curious that certain posters in gun debates complain that non-Americans share their opinion "of a culture they no nothing about", yet feel free to dictate their opinions on 'free speech' about Nazi issues in Europe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

I have a particular connection to this story, so I have been interested in it. I also have a very real experience with the use of the term "free speech". 

It is odd to me, that people believe that because there  are consequences to the things they say, that thier freedom of speech has been violated. 

This man is still free to say what he wants to, but if it is deemed offensive, there are consequences.

I could walk up to somebody in the street and tell them they are so ugly it looked like thier mother was a camel and thier father a bag of rocks. I am free to say that, but I had better be prepared to face the consequences.

The speech is still free, just not responsibility and consequence free.

This guy was not protesting, he was not oppressed, he was just being a dink.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kismit said:

I have a particular connection to this story, so I have been interested in it. I also have a very real experience with the use of the term "free speech". 

It is odd to me, that people believe that because there  are consequences to the things they say, that thier freedom of speech has been violated. 

This man is still free to say what he wants to, but if it is deemed offensive, there are consequences.

I could walk up to somebody in the street and tell them they are so ugly it looked like thier mother was a camel and thier father a bag of rocks. I am free to say that, but I had better be prepared to face the consequences.

The speech is still free, just not responsibility and consequence free.

This guy was not protesting, he was not oppressed, he was just being a dink.

I suppose one has to have an ocean between one and the legacy of inhuman atrocity before one can see any humor in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kismit said:

I have a particular connection to this story, so I have been interested in it. I also have a very real experience with the use of the term "free speech". 

It is odd to me, that people believe that because there  are consequences to the things they say, that thier freedom of speech has been violated. 

This man is still free to say what he wants to, but if it is deemed offensive, there are consequences.

I could walk up to somebody in the street and tell them they are so ugly it looked like thier mother was a camel and thier father a bag of rocks. I am free to say that, but I had better be prepared to face the consequences.

The speech is still free, just not responsibility and consequence free.

This guy was not protesting, he was not oppressed, he was just being a dink.

This raises an interesting point.  Does or should freedom of speech excuse someone from punishment if what they say is deemed offensive?

Interestingly, it was not the Judge who ruled on the case that censored the video, it was You Tube that pulled it.  So as Alaric so eloquently tried to lambast the UK as a laughing stock, actually it was a US owned company that made that call, and actually Google, who own You Tube have quite an alarming history of censorship and compliance in censorship.

But that aside, I do not believe this guy was actually exercising a freedom of speech, there was no message, no ideas, beyond the fact that he believed it would upset his girlfriend, if he had at least provided the video as some sort of instructional dog training video that would have been something.  

There are multiple strands to this, that are not going to be resolved for a long time.  You have the freedom of speech strand, and I do genuinely understand the argument against the Judges ruling, but it is an absolute fallacy that there is anywhere in the world that has true freedom of speech, and just take for example the film classification system (BBFC in the UK), how many movies have been cut, edited, altered because they have been too offensive or graphic?  Well the answer to that is plenty, but that form of censorship I am sure is welcomed, particularly by parents I am sure.  And again we see hundreds of videos on You Tube pulled daily, another argument for another day on why You Tube pulls them, but very clearly this is a very subjective, very selective topic, so why are all the supporters of what's his name.... Count Dankula not using their public figure and influence to pressure these big, very subtle consistent practitioners of censorship, and instead focus on a single idiot who's only saving grace in this was that of ignorance?

The other strand of course is around your rights and what happens when in the course of exercising one right you then violate the right of another, I guess then it sits in court and someone qualified and capable of making a judgement decides, regardless of what their proscribed uniform may look like.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

I suppose one has to have an ocean between one and the legacy of inhuman atrocity before one can see any humor in it.

I have an ocean and still find no humour in it.

48 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

This raises an interesting point.  Does or should freedom of speech excuse someone from punishment if what they say is deemed offensive?

Interestingly, it was not the Judge who ruled on the case that censored the video, it was You Tube that pulled it.  So as Alaric so eloquently tried to lambast the UK as a laughing stock, actually it was a US owned company that made that call, and actually Google, who own You Tube have quite an alarming history of censorship and compliance in censorship.

But that aside, I do not believe this guy was actually exercising a freedom of speech, there was no message, no ideas, beyond the fact that he believed it would upset his girlfriend, if he had at least provided the video as some sort of instructional dog training video that would have been something.  

There are multiple strands to this, that are not going to be resolved for a long time.  You have the freedom of speech strand, and I do genuinely understand the argument against the Judges ruling, but it is an absolute fallacy that there is anywhere in the world that has true freedom of speech, and just take for example the film classification system (BBFC in the UK), how many movies have been cut, edited, altered because they have been too offensive or graphic?  Well the answer to that is plenty, but that form of censorship I am sure is welcomed, particularly by parents I am sure.  And again we see hundreds of videos on You Tube pulled daily, another argument for another day on why You Tube pulls them, but very clearly this is a very subjective, very selective topic, so why are all the supporters of what's his name.... Count Dankula not using their public figure and influence to pressure these big, very subtle consistent practitioners of censorship, and instead focus on a single idiot who's only saving grace in this was that of ignorance?

The other strand of course is around your rights and what happens when in the course of exercising one right you then violate the right of another, I guess then it sits in court and someone qualified and capable of making a judgement decides, regardless of what their proscribed uniform may look like.  

You tube maybe based in America but it is an international site, it has to cater to international standards.

As far as the history of censorship. I have seen some pretty dodgy claims like the recent Diamonds and Lace who claimed they had been censored, only they were not. It's just that claiming censorship panders to the crowed and gains them noterierty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kismit said:

I have an ocean and still find no humour in it.

You tube maybe based in America but it is an international site, it has to cater to international standards.

As far as the history of censorship. I have seen some pretty dodgy claims like the recent Diamonds and Lace who claimed they had been censored, only they were not. It's just that claiming censorship panders to the crowed and gains them noterierty.

Yes You Tube is international and must conform to the laws of the land it is viewed in, however the policy and administration is US based out of California.  You Tube could easily have left the video up in support of free speech. 

You Tube has taken down many videos by Game Critics who gave titles honest but unfavourable reviews.  As it is these instances have been instigated by the developers of said games utilising the copyright strike system, but the end result is the same, Video censored because they did not say what was expected.

Just one example: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131021/00080224939/copyright-as-censorship-again-game-developer-takes-down-scathing-youtube-review.shtml

Ironically the video linked in the article is unavailable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kismit said:

I have a particular connection to this story, so I have been interested in it. I also have a very real experience with the use of the term "free speech". 

It is odd to me, that people believe that because there  are consequences to the things they say, that thier freedom of speech has been violated. 

This man is still free to say what he wants to, but if it is deemed offensive, there are consequences.

I could walk up to somebody in the street and tell them they are so ugly it looked like thier mother was a camel and thier father a bag of rocks. I am free to say that, but I had better be prepared to face the consequences.

The speech is still free, just not responsibility and consequence free.

This guy was not protesting, he was not oppressed, he was just being a dink.

The distinction that has to be made here is that this wasn't a personal attack. Nobody was under any obligation to watch the YouTube video, and it wasn't targetting a specific individual.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the supposed "victims" who watched this video, with its unambiguous title, did so looking to be offended. That's the real issue in modern society; some people are actively seeking to be offended, and pouring through social media with a fine tooth comb looking for a cause.

If I see the title of something on YouTube that I think I'll find offensive, I don't watch it. Simple as that.

Google removing the video, within their policy for what is acceptable, was enough.

Had this man confronted a Jewish man or woman in the street, laughing and repeating "Gas the Jews", I'd agree with you, it would be an abusive and personal attack, with consequences.

We seem to be at a junction in Western society right now, with finding a balance between free, and being tolerant.

If we start trying to legislate for offensive material, which is completely subjective, we're on an utterly slippery slope where everything will become fair game; history, literature, art, music, education.

A society where people are told what and how they can think is ironically closer to the Nazi vision for the world, than the freedom our ancestors fought to protect.

The very manner in which these topics are discussed already tells me how dangerous this path would be. I somehow feel like I'm defending Nazism just by arguing for free speech, even though nothing could be further from the truth. The regime was abhorrent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, LV-426 said:

If we start trying to legislate for offensive material, which is completely subjective, we're on an utterly slippery slope where everything will become fair game; history, literature, art, music, education.

This is something ive been struggling with recently (sorry if this turns into a stream of consciousness) . I honor the first amendment here in the US but I don't know that racist speech should be covered under it. It adds no value to our society, it is not a legitimate position and it is not subjective as to its intent. 

My reasoning has nothing to do with being offended however. I was once a very angry young man who fell prey to the simplistic familial concepts put out by white supremacists. Back then they were the fringe, very easily identified and generally marginalized. They've learned since then, they have gone mainstream, they are no longer easily identifiable, they have infiltrated US law enforcement and military ranks at a disturbing level. Really the same can be said of any extremist group in the information age.  

My point is I am starting to feel this (here in the US anyways) is a national security issue and a battle for the soul of a nation.

Going back to the OP IDK that he should be punished for offending anyone. I do think perhaps he should face some punishment for the encouragement his video may have offered young people who don't yet possess the critical thinking to understand why what he was doing was offensive. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

This is something ive been struggling with recently (sorry if this turns into a stream of consciousness) . I honor the first amendment here in the US but I don't know that racist speech should be covered under it. It adds no value to our society, it is not a legitimate position and it is not subjective as to its intent. 

My reasoning has nothing to do with being offended however. I was once a very angry young man who fell prey to the simplistic familial concepts put out by white supremacists. Back then they were the fringe, very easily identified and generally marginalized. They've learned since then, they have gone mainstream, they are no longer easily identifiable, they have infiltrated US law enforcement and military ranks at a disturbing level. Really the same can be said of any extremist group in the information age.

I'd say you're a good example of how the system works. With the example you give here, and the example you gave in another thread on how you came to your stance on capital punishment, you've shown that with education and free thought you've drawn your own conclusions, and become a well-rounded individual - I'm not basing this on some of your conspiracy theories of course :lol:

;)

You can't eradicate unpopular ideas by forcably shutting them down. You just push them underground, where they grow and fester, and can't be openly challenged.

We, as a species, also can't manufacture this land of milk and honey where everyone lives in perfect harmony. We need to accept and deal with the darker side of our nature, so that we can appreciate and enjoy the lighter side.

As I said, the real danger is the slippery slope. Continue along this current path we're on and you'll not only see classic comedy such as Monty Python being banned, you'll see more recent shows such as Friends being banned:

Matt LeBlanc Denies “Friends” Was Homophobic, Politically Incorrect

"Matt LeBlanc is the host of BBC America’s car-enthusiast show Top Gear, but he’s addressing allegations his career-launching series, Friends, was racist and homophobic."

Like I say, I think we're at a crossroads, where we can learn from history, and remain a free and open society, or we can start forcably shutting down alternative views, and eventually pay the price.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

As I said, the real danger is the slippery slope. Continue along this current path we're on and you'll not only see classic comedy such as Monty Python being banned, you'll see more recent shows such as Friends being banned:

Matt LeBlanc Denies “Friends” Was Homophobic, Politically Incorrect

"Matt LeBlanc is the host of BBC America’s car-enthusiast show Top Gear, but he’s addressing allegations his career-launching series, Friends, was racist and homophobic."

You're definitely not wrong about the slippery slope and I'm not even sure that anything can or should be done, I'm just trying to find that ever elusive balance in a time when the scales are tipping in an unhealthy direction. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

Re: the bolded.

Not where you live.

This is very true. I live in a sane world where such nonsense doesn't take place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

This is very true. I live in a sane world where such nonsense doesn't take place.

Me too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

I don't believe there is anywhere in the world where speech is consequence or responsibility free. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

Me too.

I don't know about that. I saw some news stories from your country that cast doubt on how much free speech you have there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I don't know about that. I saw some news stories from your country that cast doubt on how much free speech you have there.

If you're not a belligerent opinionated racist ass, you go through life quite fine here actually.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

If you're not a belligerent opinionated racist ass, you go through life quite fine here actually.

No, you're labeled that if you don't agree with leftist control freaks. Just ask Antifa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/04/2018 at 6:10 PM, Piney said:

The way we Indians do? Because you can still "legally" mock us.? :lol:

Not me Bro, I would never mock my Blood Brother or my tribe, Indian/first nation racism is something I hate... catch you tomorrow "Tonto" lol...You know I love you really x lol 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2018 at 12:04 PM, Farmer77 said:

I don't know that racist speech should be covered under it. It adds no value to our society, it is not a legitimate position and it is not subjective as to its intent. 

But who gets decide what is racist and what isn't? Recent example is that girl who found a Chinese style dress she loved and wore it to her prom. She posted pics of her and her boyfriend  on her Facebook page and was blasted for being "racist" and "cultural appropriation". Should she be fined or punished?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't quantify  exemplify.

39 minutes ago, skliss said:

But who gets decide what is racist and what isn't? Recent example is that girl who found a Chinese style dress she loved and wore it to her prom. She posted pics of her and her boyfriend  on her Facebook page and was blasted for being "racist" and "cultural appropriation". Should she be fined or punished?

That was truly ridiculous, regarding the supercilious uproar.

No one worth a spit called her a racist, more people I believe supported her choice.

Edited by Likely Guy
Clarification.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2018 at 1:36 PM, LV-426 said:

 

If I see the title of something on YouTube that I think I'll find offensive, I don't watch it. Simple as that.

 

But isnt that the exact same argument as saying "if she didnt want to get raped she shouldn't have worn that" or "if he didnt want to get stabbed he shouldn't have been walking through that part of town."   Because thats essentially the argument you're making- "If you didn't want to be offended you shouldn't have watched it".

And if we're not allowing the former as a valid argument should we really be invoking it for the latter?  On the radio the other day I heard a comment which suggested that if you want to be on the internet but not get upset by the stuff other users say then you should toughen up, get thicker skin, and put your bigboy pants on.  Which is the same thing again - if its wrong to turn the victim into the cause of the crime in the one case why is it ok in the other? And vise versa...

I kind of agree that freedom should have consequences; you're free to murder someone if you're that way inclined.  You're also free to take the consequences and spend the rest of your life incarcerated. Or dead.  I recall something I read along time ago- I forget the source and I'm not entirely sure of the context ( some sort of ongoing political dispute back in the 60s IIRC) which went something like "I'll defend to the death you're right to say what you want, whilst at the same time punching you in the face repeatedly for saying things I think are abhorrent and am opposed to" or words to that effect.

You're free to say what you want, and free to take responsibility if it upsets people. Thing is I don't think you should be taking the consequences for doing something that has the potential to upset someone but hasn't actually upset someone - in the Count wossisname  case was anyone actually saying they were offended by the video, or was he fined for it being potentially offensive?   And how many people have to be offended by it for it to be offensive?  If only one person finds it offensive is it actually offensive or have we just found the person with the thinnest skin on the planet?  Shouldn't there at least be some sort of critical mass of people offended by it before we decide it is actually offensive?  

But there, I've erred. I basically just made the case that if you are found to have driven recklessly, dangerously, but didn't actually run over a bunch of people then everything is hunky dory, when it clearly isn't and you definitely need a harsh lesson in road safety...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Torchwood said:

But isnt that the exact same argument as saying "if she didnt want to get raped she shouldn't have worn that" or "if he didnt want to get stabbed he shouldn't have been walking through that part of town."   Because thats essentially the argument you're making- "If you didn't want to be offended you shouldn't have watched it".

 

Err no, with getting stabbed or raped there is a 3rd party involved that influences the final outcome. Me reading a title of a video, thinking "that is really going to wind me up" clicking play to find I was right. Is not the same as me putting on a mini skirt going out, then on the way home thinking "that short cut looks pretty shady I'll walk down there" then getting stabbed and raped. The criminal in this case is a third party, I had no control over those actions. In your scenario the video and its offensive content = the shady part of town. Not the criminal. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, skliss said:

But who gets decide what is racist and what isn't? Recent example is that girl who found a Chinese style dress she loved and wore it to her prom. She posted pics of her and her boyfriend  on her Facebook page and was blasted for being "racist" and "cultural appropriation". Should she be fined or punished?

Oh you're absolutely right about it being a slippery slope which is why I'm struggling with the whole thought process. It may be a slippery slope that is worth dancing along for the soul of our nation however. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Iilaa'mpuul'xem said:

Not me Bro, I would never mock my Blood Brother or my tribe, Indian/first nation racism is something I hate... catch you tomorrow "Tonto" lol...You know I love you really x lol 

Somebody has a bottle of good Scottish again......:lol:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Oh you're absolutely right about it being a slippery slope which is why I'm struggling with the whole thought process. It may be a slippery slope that is worth dancing along for the soul of our nation however. 

The problem for me is those who can pretend to be offended just to stick it to someone they may not like. It puts a whole lot of power in the hands of people who could exploit it for any number of reasons. It also takes the ability to choose away from people by only allowing one side to be heard. I know an a$$hat when I hear one, but it's my right to make that determination.  What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me"? And who's the a$$hat running around telling people life should be fair? No wonder they are up in arms and demanding fairness....making something fair for one might make it unfair for thousands. My mother always told us that life doesn't guarantee fairness..thats just a given. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, skliss said:

The problem for me is those who can pretend to be offended just to stick it to someone they may not like

People like that truly are why we cant have nice things. 

16 minutes ago, skliss said:

. I know an a$$hat when I hear one, but it's my right to make that determination.

 That's true, its not you I'm concerned about, its the 12-21 demographic that worries me.   

 

17 minutes ago, skliss said:

What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me"?

I think my concern is probably on a different level than the majority of folks'. I'm less concerned about the individual being offended and more concerned with the long term consequences of having a deeply divided nation.

I also would say for many racism hurts the racist in the long run much more than it does any of those they purport to hate. What makes me sad about that is so many are captured by those thought processes and that lifestyle in their vulnerable youth. That's done by design and now that they have fully figured out how to package their garbage as to make it palatable the line between legitimate political position and racist propaganda has become increasingly blurred leaving  those who are young, angry and feeling isolated extremely vulnerable to the warm and fuzzies of "nationalism" and "pride in heritage". 

I really feel like we're heading for some serious troubles if we cant find a way to unite the nation, I.E  I'm really curious as to what the racial minority reaction would be if Trump declared a draft. 

27 minutes ago, skliss said:

No wonder they are up in arms and demanding fairness....making something fair for one might make it unfair for thousands. My mother always told us that life doesn't guarantee fairness..thats just a given. 

My mother taught me that gay people are evil and molest children. Societies evolve, I don't think we should fault anyone for trying to make the world a better place. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.