I'm Führerious about this.

Oh no now I'll get locked up for 'wrong think' and telling jokes.

purplerat wrote:I suppose if he just dressed the dog as a Nazi or called it Hitler then maybe. But he is using the phrase "Gas the Jews". So unless you believe that he thinks gassing Jews is neutral (like eating ice cream) and not something terrible (like AIDS) then it's clear he's using the Nazi portrayal pejoratively.

No. It doesn't follow that because I believe or assume something about his mental state that what he's saying becomes a criticism.

As I recall we are discussing your contention that the video is more anti-Nazi than anti-Jew. Again, my view is that if we discuss someone laughing and saying "gas the Jews" 23 times in almost continuous succession it's extremely clear that it's more anti-Jew than anti-Nazi.

You're of course entitled to disagree and I think we're clear now that you do, fair enough.

purplerat wrote:To simplify:
AIDS = gay people = Offensive to gay people
Gas Jews = Nazis = Offensive to Nazis

You think Nazis are offended by being associated with gassing Jews?

I guess we disagree about that. Maybe that's the root cause of our disagreement. Fair enough.

CarlPierce wrote:I'm Führerious about this.

Oh no now I'll get locked up for 'wrong think' and telling jokes.

You won't though. I mean, we literally all know this is not going to happen.

Thommo wrote:

purplerat wrote:I suppose if he just dressed the dog as a Nazi or called it Hitler then maybe. But he is using the phrase "Gas the Jews". So unless you believe that he thinks gassing Jews is neutral (like eating ice cream) and not something terrible (like AIDS) then it's clear he's using the Nazi portrayal pejoratively.

No. It doesn't follow that because I believe or assume something about his mental state that what he's saying becomes a criticism.

As I recall we are discussing your contention that the video is more anti-Nazi than anti-Jew. Again, my view is that if we discuss someone laughing and saying "gas the Jews" 23 times in almost continuous succession it's extremely clear that it's more anti-Jew than anti-Nazi.

You're of course entitled to disagree and I think we're clear now that you do, fair enough.

purplerat wrote:To simplify:
AIDS = gay people = Offensive to gay people
Gas Jews = Nazis = Offensive to Nazis

You think Nazis are offended by being associated with gassing Jews?

I guess we disagree about that. Maybe that's the root cause of our disagreement. Fair enough.

Isn't holocaust denial a pretty big part of modern-day Nazism and anti-semitism in general? I would think pointing out their hideous past which they try to deny is a pretty good strike against them.

purplerat wrote:I'm sure you mean this in jest but here in the US we have a president who thinks not clapping for him is treasonous.

Of course, he says all kinds of shitty things that other people would like to see criminalized and that's the problem with criminalizing speech, you never know who's going to be the one deciding what is or isn't allowed.

Yes, I'm being completely ironic. This guy shouldn't have been prosecuted. But the slippery slope from here to political totalitarianism is a complete fiction. It just plain doesn't exist.

Totalitarian governments have arisen in all sorts of places, from the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Korea to less extreme examples like Russia or China (both of whom have a President for life) and in all these examples state control of propaganda, misinformation and information and curbs on free speech are an integral part.

However, the route by which you get these extreme and overt massive curtailments on free speech is not by 15 years after you make a law against disseminating hate speech prosecuting some idiot youtuber. This idea that a tiny gradual erosion of free speech leads to centralised absolute censorship has never, ever happened in the real world. Conversely there are lots of examples of how it can actually happen, in large sudden shifts that even use free speech and democracy to get a leg up to get there.

Thommo wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:I'm Führerious about this.

Oh no now I'll get locked up for 'wrong think' and telling jokes.

You won't though. I mean, we literally all know this is not going to happen.

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 ? This is an absolutely awful legal mistake. Legal action should start ONLY if I start comments that incite illegal acts.

purplerat wrote:Isn't holocaust denial a pretty big part of modern-day Nazism and anti-semitism in general? I would think pointing out their hideous past which they try to deny is a pretty good strike against them.

In some quarters. I believe it's a minority though. Is that wrong?

I don't recall ever having heard a Nazi claim to be offended by saying Nazis gassed the Jews, I'm sure it's not common.

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.

An additional contribution with a decent point that's deserving of a reply appeared, I'll reply to it:

CarlPierce wrote:Legal action should start ONLY if I start comments that incite illegal acts.

That would be the ideal, certainly. Unfortunately if you make the burden of proof that high, you give people like Anjem Choudary or Abu Hamza a clear path to continue hiding behind that defence for years and decades.

Maybe you think this is a lesser harm than Meechan's prosecution, or maybe you think there's a better law that could accomplish both. If there is such a law, then I think it would be an improvement, but I'm not sure what serious proposals (if any) there are on that front.

Thommo wrote:

purplerat wrote:I'm sure you mean this in jest but here in the US we have a president who thinks not clapping for him is treasonous.

Of course, he says all kinds of shitty things that other people would like to see criminalized and that's the problem with criminalizing speech, you never know who's going to be the one deciding what is or isn't allowed.

Yes, I'm being completely ironic. This guy shouldn't have been prosecuted. But the slippery slope from here to political totalitarianism is a complete fiction. It just plain doesn't exist.

Totalitarian governments have arisen in all sorts of places, from the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Korea to less extreme examples like Russia or China (both of whom have a President for life) and in all these examples state control of propaganda, misinformation and information and curbs on free speech are an integral part.

However, the route by which you get these extreme and overt massive curtailments on free speech is not by 15 years after you make a law against disseminating hate speech prosecuting some idiot youtuber. This idea that a tiny gradual erosion of free speech leads to centralised absolute censorship has never, ever happened in the real world. Conversely there are lots of examples of how it can actually happen, in large sudden shifts that even use free speech and democracy to get a leg up to get there.

You make good points and I think you're right that the gradual chipping away via a law like this is unlikely to happen. However, I do think that in those cases where there has been a sudden shift you'd likely find that there had been a lot of prior priming of the populous to get them comfortable with the idea that some speech should be outlawed simply because it's offensive.

That's why I think somebody like Ricky Gervais using his celebrity to call out a miscarriage of justice like this and get people thinking about why it's important to protect unpopular speech even if we don't like it or find it abhorrent is a good thing.

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.

If I started burning 'holy' books as a 'joke' I definitely would be. This law allowing people to be locked up for 'offense' stinks - thanks Labour. It is not justice because what is 'offensive' is entirely subjective.

Thommo wrote:

purplerat wrote:Isn't holocaust denial a pretty big part of modern-day Nazism and anti-semitism in general? I would think pointing out their hideous past which they try to deny is a pretty good strike against them.

In some quarters. I believe it's a minority though. Is that wrong?

I don't recall ever having heard a Nazi claim to be offended by saying Nazis gassed the Jews, I'm sure it's not common.

Well, I mean it's a big enough that Holecaust denial itself has been outlawed in some places.

purplerat wrote:That's why I think somebody like Ricky Gervais using his celebrity to call out a miscarriage of justice like this and get people thinking about why it's important to protect unpopular speech even if we don't like it or find it abhorrent is a good thing.

Yeah, I'd pretty well agree. Having a serious public conversation about these things is only likely to lead to scrutiny and more care.

And hopefully this idiot who should not have been convicted getting a lighter sentence or a successful appeal.

CarlPierce 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.

If I started burning 'holy' books as a 'joke' I definitely would be.

I doubt it. If you started filming it and uploading it to Youtube (which I'm assuming none of us are dumb enough to do) yeah, quite possibly.

I'm not going to participate in the party politicking though.

If you support this crap prosecution you probably support Russia locking up 'Pussy riot' for their antics. If not why not ? People were OFFENDED !!!!!!

Thommo wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:
If I started burning 'holy' books as a 'joke' I definitely would be.

I doubt it. If you started filming it and uploading it to Youtube (which I'm assuming none of us are dumb enough to do) yeah, quite possibly.

I find that more than a bit troubling.

Thommo wrote:

CarlPierce 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.

If I started burning 'holy' books as a 'joke' I definitely would be.

I doubt it. If you started filming it and uploading it to Youtube (which I'm assuming none of us are dumb enough to do) yeah, quite possibly.

I'm not going to participate in the party politicking though.

Wasn't that long ago you were locked up and worse for not attending religious services - people were OFFENDED !!!!!!

CarlPierce wrote:Wasn't that long ago you were locked up and worse for not attending religious services - people were OFFENDED !!!!!!

And now you aren't.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that supports my "it's risible to imply we're on a slippery slope" contention.

purplerat wrote:

Thommo wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:
If I started burning 'holy' books as a 'joke' I definitely would be.

I doubt it. If you started filming it and uploading it to Youtube (which I'm assuming none of us are dumb enough to do) yeah, quite possibly.

I find that more than a bit troubling.

So do I.
Youtube deciding to take the video down and close the hosting account? Fine. They've no obligation to provide anyone with a platform for whatever it is they want to show.

Being arrested for uploading such a video? That's a sign of things going very wrong with the sort of activities which have been criminalised.

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. 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.