Somebody informed the Jewish comedian David Baddiel that he'd have to be stupid not to realise Dankula's joke was some awful piece of Nazi or anti-Semitic propaganda (I don't think it's an anti-anything joke, just a deliberately edgy and poor-taste joke, but at the very most it's an anti-Nazi joke).

Matthew Shute wrote:

Thommo wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:Hang on what if I start making jokes about dentists in relation to Jews or taking showers (thinking them 'funny' somehow) at what point would the thought police come knocking ?

You're not getting arrested, and we both know it.

We know not what Carl may post, where he may post it, nor how offensive someone may decide that it is.

You mean other than him explictly saying exactly what he would be arrested for and what would happen next?

I admit I omitted the words "for that" after having made a succession of posts in which I was clear, but I think it's clear from context that I'm not claiming to know he isn't going to be convicted for things that have no bearing on the conversation.

Matthew Shute wrote:By necessity, there's no objective measure of offensiveness - it's down to the say-so of the "offended" parties. Doubtless Count Dankula "knew", or thought he did, that an edgy joke about a Nazi pug was highly unlikely to land him with a criminal conviction. Yet here we are.

I don't think it's as vague as all that. When your video gets millions of hits (which is wildly different to all your other videos) and people are expressing support for antisemitism in large numbers in response and you don't take it down after having it pointed out that it's offending a lot of people, it's a bit much to claim naivety.

Perhaps the second part of what you say here is correct - that he didn't think he would get convicted for what he did. But that pretty obviously doesn't mean Carl is going to be arrested for saying "I'm Führerious about this." or "making jokes about dentists in relation to Jews or taking showers".

If we're going to conduct this conversation on a reasonable basis, where we are all able to distinguish the context of the 23 repetitions of "gas the Jews" well enough to identify that it's a joke (noting that humour is just as subjective as offense), then it's honestly an insult to our collective intelligence to pretend we can't tell the difference between the context of the Youtube clip that led to this prosecution and Carl's pun.

If that doesn't convince you, then I'm more than happy to put my money where my mouth is and bet (say) that Carl won't be arrested for these forum posts within the next 12 months, and we can come back and review in a year.

Thommo wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:

Thommo wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:Hang on what if I start making jokes about dentists in relation to Jews or taking showers (thinking them 'funny' somehow) at what point would the thought police come knocking ?

You're not getting arrested, and we both know it.

We know not what Carl may post, where he may post it, nor how offensive someone may decide that it is.

You mean other than him explictly saying exactly what he would be arrested for and what would happen next?

I admit I omitted the words "for that" after having made a succession of posts in which I was clear, but I think it's clear from context that I'm not claiming to know he isn't going to be convicted for things that have no bearing on the conversation.

Matthew Shute wrote:By necessity, there's no objective measure of offensiveness - it's down to the say-so of the "offended" parties. Doubtless Count Dankula "knew", or thought he did, that an edgy joke about a Nazi pug was highly unlikely to land him with a criminal conviction. Yet here we are.

I don't think it's as vague as all that. When your video gets millions of hits (which is wildly different to all your other videos) and people are expressing support for antisemitism in large numbers in response and you don't take it down after having it pointed out that it's offending a lot of people, it's a bit much to claim naivety.

Perhaps the second part of what you say here is correct - that he didn't think he would get convicted for what he did. But that pretty obviously doesn't mean Carl is going to be arrested for saying "I'm Führerious about this." or "making jokes about dentists in relation to Jews or taking showers".

If we're going to conduct this conversation on a reasonable basis, where we are all able to distinguish the context of the 23 repetitions of "gas the Jews" well enough to identify that it's a joke (noting that humour is just as subjective as offense), then it's honestly an insult to our collective intelligence to pretend we can't tell the difference between the context of the Youtube clip that led to this prosecution and Carl's pun.

If that doesn't convince you, then I'm more than happy to put my money where my mouth is and bet (say) that Carl won't be arrested for these forum posts within the next 12 months, and we can come back and review in a year.

You’ve got a real problem here. Any group that needs protection, won’t have the power to get it. Any group that does, wouldn’t need it. Any kind of anti-discrimination law is always fundamentally catch-22.

Notice how all the Left’s insults are based on class - backwoods redneck, hillbilly, trailer trash, etc... That’s why they support censorship, because they’re the ones who are going to be doing the censorship. “Hate speech” is just a rhetorical tool for them to define however they need. Somehow Labor’s Tony Blair running around screaming about how we have to kill millions of Iraqis, and anyone else deemed an enemy of The Jewish State Of israel, that’s just plain old love speech.

Seriously, you wanted this YouTube guy to take down his video because it was offending people? Those people are supposed to be offended and they deserve a lot worse if they’re attempting to oppress our freedom. But really it’s the nanny state to blame for facilitating their bad behavior. You don’t like his video? Go hide in a hole, coward. You can’t even defend against fake internet Nazis. Pathetic.

Fascinating, please, do go on.

Matthew Shute wrote:Somebody informed the Jewish comedian David Baddiel that he'd have to be stupid not to realise Dankula's joke was some awful piece of Nazi or anti-Semitic propaganda (I don't think it's an anti-anything joke, just a deliberately edgy and poor-taste joke, but at the very most it's an anti-Nazi joke).

baddiel.JPG

I don't think Baddiel's point works either. He restricts Nazism to that particular WW2 epoch and its immediate culture and norms. Why do that when the discussion is about Nazism and anti-Semitism in a contemporary context where the culture and norms are different?

Spinozasgalt wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:Somebody informed the Jewish comedian David Baddiel that he'd have to be stupid not to realise Dankula's joke was some awful piece of Nazi or anti-Semitic propaganda (I don't think it's an anti-anything joke, just a deliberately edgy and poor-taste joke, but at the very most it's an anti-Nazi joke).

baddiel.JPG

I don't think Baddiel's point works either. He restricts Nazism to that particular WW2 epoch and its immediate culture and norms. Why do that when the discussion is about Nazism and anti-Semitism in a contemporary context where the culture and norms are different?

As bad as modern day Nazis are I'm quite certain they aren't "gassing Jews". The don't even openly advocate it as far as I can tell. So if somebody wants to take that particular line seriously then it really only would apply to the WW2 era Nazis.

purplerat wrote:
As bad as modern day Nazis are I'm quite certain they aren't "gassing Jews". The don't even openly advocate it as far as I can tell. So if somebody wants to take that particular line seriously then it really only would apply to the WW2 era Nazis.

Are you certain they wouldn't murder those they hate if they had the power? Also...as far as I'm aware the WWII era Nazis didn't openly advocate gassing Jews either.

purplerat wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:Somebody informed the Jewish comedian David Baddiel that he'd have to be stupid not to realise Dankula's joke was some awful piece of Nazi or anti-Semitic propaganda (I don't think it's an anti-anything joke, just a deliberately edgy and poor-taste joke, but at the very most it's an anti-Nazi joke).

baddiel.JPG

I don't think Baddiel's point works either. He restricts Nazism to that particular WW2 epoch and its immediate culture and norms. Why do that when the discussion is about Nazism and anti-Semitism in a contemporary context where the culture and norms are different?

As bad as modern day Nazis are I'm quite certain they aren't "gassing Jews". The don't even openly advocate it as far as I can tell. So if somebody wants to take that particular line seriously then it really only would apply to the WW2 era Nazis.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying to me. Baddiel's point doesn't seem to work. It's no essential part of today's Nazism and anti-Semitism that their purveyors be self-serious and austere. Whether you think this fellow from the OP is promoting those views or not, Baddiel's way isn't how you find that out.

When people from the 'offended' group start defending the comic i.e David Baddiel it is clear that there is more than enough reasonable doubt regarding the nature of the 'offense' even if giving 'offense' is somehow criminal. This conviction is unsafe as well as being unjust. Certainly NOT in the public interest either.

Briton wrote:

purplerat wrote:
As bad as modern day Nazis are I'm quite certain they aren't "gassing Jews". The don't even openly advocate it as far as I can tell. So if somebody wants to take that particular line seriously then it really only would apply to the WW2 era Nazis.

Are you certain they wouldn't murder those they hate if they had the power? Also...as far as I'm aware the WWII era Nazis didn't openly advocate gassing Jews either.

If modern day Nazis got power and started killing those they hate I would avoid making a video where I mock them using my dog.

purplerat wrote:

Briton wrote:

purplerat wrote:
As bad as modern day Nazis are I'm quite certain they aren't "gassing Jews". The don't even openly advocate it as far as I can tell. So if somebody wants to take that particular line seriously then it really only would apply to the WW2 era Nazis.

Are you certain they wouldn't murder those they hate if they had the power? Also...as far as I'm aware the WWII era Nazis didn't openly advocate gassing Jews either.

If modern day Nazis got power and started killing those they hate I would avoid making a video where I mock them using my dog.

Agreed.
I'd be worried about what they'd do to my dog.

purplerat wrote:

Briton wrote:

purplerat wrote:
As bad as modern day Nazis are I'm quite certain they aren't "gassing Jews". The don't even openly advocate it as far as I can tell. So if somebody wants to take that particular line seriously then it really only would apply to the WW2 era Nazis.

Are you certain they wouldn't murder those they hate if they had the power? Also...as far as I'm aware the WWII era Nazis didn't openly advocate gassing Jews either.

If modern day Nazis got power and started killing those they hate I would avoid making a video where I mock them using my dog.

Indeed; and if the dark day were to return, when offending Nazis is prohibited, those now making a brave stand against freedom of expression (when it comes to expressions they personally dislike) will have a tough time being taken seriously when, arguing from first principles, they complain about their rights being violated.

Principle #1: "The right to express yourself freely, with the exception of inciting violence, without legal persecution... meh. That right depends on whether the expression in question offends me/someone I think should be protected from offence. This human right can apply, or not, as a matter of expediency. Liberty shmiberty."

Human rights don't only apply to those we like or approve of. Or else they're not human rights at all, just special privileges for the right kinds of people, who express themselves within limits we deem acceptable. Any of us could find ourselves outside of those limits as the zeitgeist changes. If I don't support freedom of expression when it comes to Islamists, communists, fascists, Christian dominionists, and Scientologists, I'd be a raging hypocrite to object to the censoriousness of any of them, and I'd be affirming the principle they'd cite when silencing me.

"But he offended us! Grossly!"

The primary property of a dictaturship is that you do not discuss with authorities. So the complete idea that limiting liberties to defend democracy will somehow make it easier for dictators to suppress freedom is nonsense. Rather, what we have learned is that intolerance towards the intolerant is required to defend tolerance in the first place.

Matthew Shute wrote:Principle #1: "The right to express yourself freely, with the exception of inciting violence, without legal persecution... meh. That right depends on whether the expression in question offends me/someone I think should be protected from offence. This human right can apply, or not, as a matter of expediency. Liberty shmiberty."

I wonder if those making an argument in favour of this prosecution would think that's a fair representation of their argument.

purplerat wrote:

Briton wrote:

purplerat wrote:
As bad as modern day Nazis are I'm quite certain they aren't "gassing Jews". The don't even openly advocate it as far as I can tell. So if somebody wants to take that particular line seriously then it really only would apply to the WW2 era Nazis.

Are you certain they wouldn't murder those they hate if they had the power? Also...as far as I'm aware the WWII era Nazis didn't openly advocate gassing Jews either.

If modern day Nazis got power and started killing those they hate I would avoid making a video where I mock them using my dog.

You speak of such events as if they aren’t already happening.

Thommo wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:Principle #1: "The right to express yourself freely, with the exception of inciting violence, without legal persecution... meh. That right depends on whether the expression in question offends me/someone I think should be protected from offence. This human right can apply, or not, as a matter of expediency. Liberty shmiberty."

I wonder if those making an argument in favour of this prosecution would think that's a fair representation of their argument.

It's not a representation of an argument, but a principle. My principle is exactly the same, minus the caveat that this human right can be applied or removed, as suits someone in a position of authority.

Matthew Shute wrote:It's not a representation of an argument, but a principle. My principle is exactly the same, minus the caveat that this human right can be applied or removed, as suits someone in a position of authority.

Ok, I wonder if anyone holds this version of the principle as you have stated it.

I also wonder whether the value of being able to argue from what you called first principles is significant. All versions of the harm principle have caveats, even those as broad as Mill's conception.

Jonathan Pie's defending him.

Part of the problem I think is the power of communications technology like youtube. It's not like making a joke down your local pub. It's like making a joke in everyone's local pub, and town hall, and living rooms. It's difficult to know how to handle it the potential reach it has.

I read some thoughtful comments on this by Robin Ince here.

You are removing the context of a wind up directed at your girlfriend at the moment of making it public.

You are removing your friends’ knowledge that you are a decent liberal guy. You are now someone sat opposite a dog saying “gas the Jews” for a laugh. To this new audience, you may no longer be the man you know you are.
You are in an arena filled with anti-semitic abuse and heavy with holocaust denial.