How Do You Feel About Gender Identity Hw ?

[Hassknecht]

Does the guy have all that? He's in a party that involves some very questionable people, but is still a legal and existing party.
That's reason enough to apply the law differently to him?
Conjuring up a swastika-tattoo-sporting, Holocaust-denying, Klan-member strawman is, well, A HUGE FUCKING STRAWMAN.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

That's reason enough to apply the law differently to him?

I don't think anyone is saying that the Law treats anyone differently? I provided the evidence that the court used to reject his appeal, and why they convicted him in the first place. Are you stating that you disagree with the courts' decisions?

As I say, even without context, the man broke the Law. It was him, and his friends, who decided to turn it into a crisis of free speech. If it was a far-left person, I and I'm sure everyone would be equally condemnatory.

What I have said is that 1.I am not going to be outraged by this decision, as R.Graves was when he brought this up. And 2. that the court took such context into it's decision, and perhaps was proved right when the people who Arnust proved he more than 'might possibly know' decided to try and mass support to intimidate the court?

 

[Hassknecht]

A law against "gross offence" is a gross offence itself, and using it to crack down on a rando who taught a trick to his dog is just crap.
And yeah, if he had been a left-wing activist his appeal would have likely gone through, since he'd be carrying the correct card.
Of course you're not going to be outraged by the decision, but that's mostly because you think it won't happen to you.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

His appeal did gone through, though. It just went for charging a fine for the bother, which he oh so proudly declined to then use up 250 times more money exclusively crowdfunded (c'mon dude wouldn't you even put in a bit) for "setting an example" (yeah an example of people with enough of a following really trying to get away with anything that much is right).

The one thing I'd somewhat consider supporting Is that the overfunding would go for "charity". It doesn't specify which ones would those be, probably not immigrant related ones. I could just go buy shit from Humble Bundle at the max charity profit cut and get games in the way rather than paying for a manchild's irresponsibleness and posterior ego.

Of course you're not going to be outraged by the decision, but that's mostly because you think it won't happen to you.

And all I gotta do is not spout hate speech on a microphone to hundreds of thousands of people, or not violate the TOS of the platform itself even before breaking any laws or not. Truly nightmarish.

Another thing is that, you gotta imagine what does this stand really mean, especially when considering the politics he backs. I'm sure that a UKIP ruled UK would have nooo possible pushbacks on personal liberties and thus freedom of expression of a different subset of people, and the majority when it comes to "joking" about certain topics. It's just ironic to me to decry the alleged corruption of an undemocratic system when vouching for one, that's all.

 

[Hassknecht]

His appeal did gone through, though. It just went for charging a fine for the bother, which he oh so proudly declined to then use up 250 times more money exclusively crowdfunded (c'mon dude wouldn't you even put in a bit) for "setting an example" (yeah an example of people with enough of a following really trying to get away with anything that much is right).

The one thing I'd somewhat consider supporting Is that the overfunding would go for "charity". It doesn't specify which ones would those be, probably not immigrant related ones. I could just go buy shit from Humble Bundle at the max charity profit cut and get games in the way rather than paying for a manchild's irresponsibleness and posterior ego.


And all I gotta do is not spout hate speech on a microphone to hundreds of thousands of people, or not violate the TOS of the platform itself even before breaking any laws or not. Truly nightmarish.

Another thing is that, you gotta imagine what does this stand really mean, especially when considering the politics he backs. I'm sure that a UKIP ruled UK would have nooo possible pushbacks on personal liberties and thus freedom of expression of a different subset of people, and the majority when it comes to "joking" about certain topics. It's just ironic to me to decry the alleged corruption of an undemocratic system when vouching for one, that's all.

How cute, you actually think you can get through by just keeping your head down and your mouth shut. But even the best allies fall from grace eventually. It'll be fun.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

A law against "gross offence" is a gross offence itself, and using it to crack down on a rando who taught a trick to his dog is just crap.
And yeah, if he had been a left-wing activist his appeal would have likely gone through, since he'd be carrying the correct card.
Of course you're not going to be outraged by the decision, but that's mostly because you think it won't happen to you.

Okay, so you do disagree with the courts decision. Thanks for making that clear.

I would appreciate an example in Britain to show me that a left-wing activist would get dissimilar treatment (I appreciate that I sound like a lefty at this point, I certainly don't think of myself as one.) but I would be more convinced if that was the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...minal-inquiry-into-labour-antisemitism-claims

Here is an example that may prove my point. Many of the examples provided are from online accounts, a similar form of gross offence to the case we have seen, this time on the left. Police investigate both. If they don't get prosecuted and/or the case is fudged, I'll agree with you.

I'm not outraged by this decision because I don't think it'll happen to me, in fact, I very much believe that it might happen to me and worse if justice was corrupt, as it was in certain European countries at a certain time. I'm just happy that for now, that British Judges and courts feel that, in an age of rising Neo-Nazism and antisemitism, what this man did was not acceptable. Any form of adhering to any form of Nazi ideology for any positive benefit worries me. Am I wrong to therefore be glad that the man got a slap on the wrist and told his behaviour was not acceptable? It's only him and his friends that are making a big deal over this.

How cute, you actually think you can get through by just keeping your head down and your mouth shut. But even the best allies fall from grace eventually. It'll be fun.

So what to do instead?

 

[Deleted member 93956]

How cute, you actually think you can get through by just keeping your head down and your mouth shut. But even the best allies fall from grace eventually. It'll be fun.

The thing is we on Spain have had an arguably way more baffling set of cases of such sort of laws punishing people for "arguably" inoffensive things, like rappers shitting on the Virgin Mary, baby Jesus and the Spanish crown, or a comedian improvising and using a national flag to pretend-blow their nose on. It's those cases you see as oh-so-unlikely of "leftist" motions getting this treatment. On those cases I can empathize and see the unfairness of it because they weren't hurting anyone, AND posteriorly weren't really given a proper room to explain or make amends. This fucking moron gets to be an alt right mouth piece with an "ironic" pretense and pay 800 bucks with no other real impediment than the short lived media attention and the initial arrest while rappers here are in prison because of being mean to a fictional figure, while it's the exact thing he is supporting and vouching for.

The problem here is the clarity and transparency of the proceedings about it, not that the meanie bo boo gubmint don't let me sieg heil. There's assloads of cases that get dismissed after a solicitation from your local police and then an amount of people legitimately stirring up hate and violence on others getting what they should.

For you and clearly all those backers, the problem is that somehow you could be traced and kept on record for literally anything you may or may not say, on an allegedly leftist dominated environment such as his, when the only real examples we've ever had of this were, le gasp, authoritarian regimes all across history and today, because it turns out it's a lot easier to accidentally slip and not endorse your government cracking down on the ginger genocide when you're being monitored at all times than it is to not let yourself become newsworthy by publicly embarrassing yourself when trying to jerk off reactionaries. It's not like it makes any difference to them or their following anyway, considering state law and platform TOS are of essentially equal weight to them.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I think I will never understand why people confuse 'free speech' with 'freedom from consequences'.

 

[R.Graves]

i can't say im surprised that arnie would outright dismiss what he's being prosecuted for becuase "he's associated with an association that racists associate with!"

full fucking retard.

naw this man wasn't wronged. because "he got money"

yeah... for lawyers. he's been trying to appeal the case because it sets an absolutely horrible precedent where a man can be arrested and convicted over a joke and then have all context of what sparked the arrest completely ignored.

also he's on full record of saying that whatever gofundme money is left after all this he'll donate to charity and post the proof. its not about the money. its about basic human rights and how they've blatantly been violated for all the world to see and still... fucking still we've got asshats trying to justify this mistreatment. christ you wanna defend sharia law too?

I think I will never understand why people confuse 'free speech' with 'freedom from consequences'.

freedom of speech means one thing. if you're not inciting violence or conspiracy then there will be no LEGAL consequences to anything you say.

there may be physical consequences. there may be social consequences. but you'll never be arrested for speech.

i shudder to think what "freedom" of speech means to you people across the pond.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

i shudder to think what "freedom" of speech means to you people across the pond.

'Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2.The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.'

That's what it means to the UK. Perhaps more restrictive than the US first amendment, but there we are. Think the 'protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others'-was that man's undoing perhaps, though I've already cited the exact Laws he violated.

As I say, irrespective of context, the man broke the Law-thus he should have been prosecuted.

The UK is not naturally suspicious of it's government, and generally (up until present crisis) has trusted it and the legal system to do the right thing. Given the system keeps these people posting Nazi stuff online, as well as investigating racist and anti-semitic stuff, it works just fine.

Is the difference between us and you that you would rather such people be kept on the streets for their freedoms, and we're not exactly gonna get up in arms about it? The Law functioned as it should do.

 

[R.Graves]

love how the second bullet is basically "jk you don't actually have the rights in the first bullet if we decide you don't for literally whatever reason we choose to give"

that's totally how rights should be laid out to the public.

As I say, irrespective of context, the man broke the Law-thus he should have been prosecuted.

any country where this:



violates the law is a country is in desperate need of some kind of reform.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

jk you don't actually have the rights in the first bullet if we decide you don't for literally whatever reason we choose to give"

Again, it's just a different way of doing Laws. UK has never had an extremist government that would change this stuff. We don't exist in fear of our government, or our police service (which is why it's unarmed, mostly.) The judiciary is independent (the supreme court judges are not political appointments, unlike some countries.) and speech is free except for people like this guy above, who are people who we could do without, to put it mildly. It isn't perfect, but it has worked for longer than the USA has existed.

If you want a reformed English system-you live there! I'll say that I would rather have this guy punished than the stuff that the USA allows on our streets. No comparison.

http://time.com/5249811/neo-nazis-burn-swastika-georgia/

 

[R.Graves]

Again, it's just a different way of doing Laws.

no its very blatantly a loophole put there on purpose so they can fuck you over if they so choose.

who are people who we could do without, to put it mildly

oh noes an edgy comedian? LOCK EM UP. MAKE EM UNEMPLOYABLE FOR 2+ YEARS! HE DESERVED IT!!! HE MADE A MEAN JOKE!!!

seriously dude? seriously?

(which is why it's unarmed, mostly.

what good does calling police do if you're both equally unarmed?

We don't exist in fear of our government,

well you definitely should. its idiotic not to. especially with the shit its pulling.

I'll say that I would rather have this guy punished than the stuff that the USA allows on our streets. No comparison.

"group of racist scum get together; hurt no one"

they broke no laws. there's literally nothing wrong with that assembly save for we disagree with their views. and again they didn't hurt anyone or incite any violence. is that it then? they should be arrested for what? being racist? you'll note that the assembly was allowed to take place despite every congressman condemning it. see that's thing, in america the government doesn't force its own beliefs and standards onto the american public. law enforcement's one and only aim here is to uphold the peace. not arrest citizens for wrongthink.

compare that to a situation where a man was arrested and dragged through the courts for teaching his dog a trick, and i think its clear which one is worse.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

o its very blatantly a loophole put there on purpose so they can fuck you over if they so choose

Given our Laws have endured centuries without ever being tested in this way, bar one exception, then perhaps we don't see the loophole as you do. We have never had a revolution, have never had huge riots or speeches about this. Nobody in any great number has ever seen fit to complain about this.

The government does not influence the judiciary except for changing Laws, and the laws have not changed in much substance for centuries as I say again. We do not elect extremist parties who would change them in addition. Thus, not a lot of reason to worry, eh?

oh noes an edgy comedian? LOCK EM UP. MAKE EM UNEMPLOYABLE FOR 2+ YEARS! HE DESERVED IT!!! HE MADE A MEAN JOKE!!!

seriously dude? seriously?

If you really care for this guys welfare (and I for one, do not) then the publicity and support this guy has will guarantee himself a nice slice of the alt-right pie for some time. He won't starve.

what good does calling police do if you're both equally unarmed?

The criminals are unarmed too? We have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. And if they are armed somehow, we call in specialist teams who train for years. I would rather have rigorously trained firearms officers rather than handing every officer with a gun. Again, that's just part of the culture.

well you definitely should. its idiotic not to. especially with the shit its pulling.

That's what the USA was formed out of-fear of an oppressive government (ours). We apparently failed to notice that our government was tyrannical at the same time you did, and we still haven't.

"group of racist scum get together; hurt no one"

Charlottsville= group of racist scum get together-people get hurt and killed. I'm sorry I did not use that example, sorry.

This describes the difference between the cultures quite well.



This describes our culture quite well- 'My dear fellow it's a contradiction in terms, you can be open or you can have government.' And this on one of the most beloved British comedies in the 1980's.

 

[R.Graves]

Given our Laws have endured centuries without ever being tested in this way, bar one exception, then perhaps we don't see the loophole as you do. We have never had a revolution, have never had huge riots or speeches about this. Nobody in any great number has ever seen fit to complain about this

except for that one time when people did that and it resulted in an entirely new country.

If you really care for this guys welfare (and I for one, do not) then the publicity and support this guy has will guarantee himself a nice slice of the alt-right pie for some time. He won't starve.

two things.
1. he's not alt-rght
2. what if he didn't have patreon to fall back on? this could happen to ANYONE. even you. the precedent has been set that context can be freely ignored in court.

The criminals are unarmed too? We have some of the strictest gun laws in the world.

why in the holy hell would a criminal be unarmed? "strict gun laws"
right because if there's one thing murderers and criminals are known for its obeying the law.

Charlottsville= group of racist scum get together-people get hurt and killed.

charlottseville is a specific case where a bunch people got together to protest the removing of a statue. then antifa showed up and incited violence. so yeah... that one's on antifa.

 

[yfk12]

charlottseville is a specific case where a bunch people got together to protest the removing of a statue. then antifa showed up and incited violence. so yeah... that one's on antifa.

Funny, I wasn't aware that protesting the removal of a statue involved chanting "Jews will not replace us"

 

[R.Graves]

Funny, I wasn't aware that protesting the removal of a statue involved chanting "Jews will not replace us"

lets say it doesn't. what does gathering together in a nonviolent way and chanting dumbass phrases do to violate the law?

anyways you're missing the point of that response. which is:

then antifa showed up and incited violence. so yeah... that one's on antifa.

 

[yfk12]

lets say it doesn't. what does gathering together in a nonviolent way and chanting dumbass phrases do to violate the law?

Because one of the protesters decided to drive into a group of counter-protesters. Last I checked, that doesn't qualify as gathering in a non-violent way.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

except for that one time when people did that and it resulted in an entirely new country

Was not what I was referring to, and yeah fine, we taxed colonies, as empires do. We did not agree however that our government was tyrannical however.

two things.
1. he's not alt-rght
2. what if he didn't have patreon to fall back on? this could happen to ANYONE. even you. the precedent has been set that context can be freely ignored in court.

If he isn't then he's far right at the very least, having done the stuff for UKIP that Arnust stated earlier. Also, given most of the people who supported him are there, he could very likely find a home amongst them.

and 2. I'm not gonna post 'grossly offensive' stuff online, particularly Nazi stuff for obvious reasons. Why on earth would I want to do that?
Secondly, again, the Laws have functioned as intended. This is without even getting into the preservation of public morality that the Law seeks to preserve, and which is part of the culture that the far-right tends to want to preserve against supposed outsiders. The Law applies to all regardless of political affiliation, as I've shown.

why in the holy hell would a criminal be unarmed? "strict gun laws"
right because if there's one thing murderers and criminals are known for its obeying the law.

It's very difficult to smuggle guns into the country. Criminals tend to have knives instead. You may wish to read up on this stuff instead of forcing me to have to explain this to you, but I'm happy to keep doing so.

harlottseville is a specific case where a bunch people got together to protest the removing of a statue. then antifa showed up and incited violence. so yeah... that one's on antifa.

Well, I disagree with this but that issue tends to be rather charged, which is why I avoided it as it may cloud the issue. Let's try this instead. How is this a good thing?
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...ate-speech-enjoys-broad-protection/573232001/

'With rare exceptions, the Supreme Court has protected the free speech rights of even those bearing reprehensible messages. In National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, it didn't fault neo-Nazis who targeted a Chicago suburb inhabited by Holocaust survivors. In Snyder v. Phelps, it let protesters interrupt a fallen Marine's funeral by shouting homophobic slurs.'

I think perhaps Holocaust survivors may enjoy the right to not be 'grossly offended' by Neo-Nazis, surely? This might be the other side of the coin to the 'one man getting fined over a youtube video' yes?

 

[R.Graves]

Because one of the protesters decided to drive into a group of counter-protesters. Last I checked, that doesn't qualify as gathering in a non-violent way.

its almost like you're incapable of understanding sequence of events.

1. peaceful protest
2. literal domestic terorrists show up
3. violence ensues

no one should've been surprised. whenever antifa shows up people get hurt.

Well, I disagree with this but that issue tends to be rather charged, which is why I avoided it as it may cloud the issue. Let's try this instead. How is this a good thing?

because there's nothing physically harmful about any of that. Americans value freedom above all else. that includes the freedoms to hold any opinion no matter how despicable it may be.

This might be the other side of the coin to the 'one man getting fined over a youtube video' yes?

lol at the comparison of showing up to a funeral and berating grieving families to uploading a video of your dog doing tricks as a giggle.

you people across the pond don't seem to understand what a false equivalency is.


and honestly im surprised that stuff doesn't fall under some law about disturbing the peace.