Britain - The Official Thread

[Biggles]

Jail the dog.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I am? That's the first time I've said something not relevant to his specific defence so no idea how that counts as repeatedly.

Apologies, it was Northstar that had previously gone off point.

 

[Famine]

Except in this instance the charge was that he caused harm and that was upheld by evidence in court.

Nope. He was charged under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which states:

127 Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b) causes such a message to be sent; or
(c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act
1990 (c. 42)).

He was convicted by the Sheriff of posting a video that was “anti-Semitic and racist in nature” and "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" (oooh, that's the exact wording of Section 127, 1a, of the Communications Act). And the irony of subsection 4 means he could have done it on Mock the Week, legally!


So where was he charged with causing harm and/or convicted of causing harm?

Obviously

Apparently not obviously, given that in your previous post you claimed that "Inserting the word 'accesible' doesn't make a difference.", when it does.

A public place and a publicly accessible place are legally distinct entities.

But we're not talking traffic offences. If I carry an offensive weapon on the street it's a criminal offence. If I carry an offensive weapon in a pub it's the same offence.

That's because that offence is a public order offence, under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (section 139). That Act includes text that specifically classes a publicly accessible place and a public place as the same for the purposes of the Act. That's specific to that Act (and others), but does not mean that a public place and a publicly accessible place can always be conflated - only where an Act specifically treats them as the same.

Crucially, for what appears to be your argument that it would have been fine on Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp, section 127 of the Communications Act contains no distinction of this kind. In fact it uses the term "public electronic communications network" and this has a very specific meaning.

Section 32 of the Act defines an "electronic communications network" as:
(a) a transmission system for the conveyance, by the use of electrical, magnetic or electro-magnetic energy, of signals of any description; and
(b) such of the following as are used, by the person providing the system and in association with it, for the conveyance of the signals—
(i) apparatus comprised in the system;
(ii) apparatus used for the switching or routing of the signals; and
(iii) software and stored data.

While Section 151 defines a "public electronic communications network" as:
“public electronic communications network” means an electronic communications network provided wholly or mainly for the purpose of making electronic communications services available to members of the public;

This means that any network made available to members of the general public - anything which has the general public as customers - is a public electronic communications network. This includes Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Vibr, Snapchat and GTPlanet.

Excluded are things like private networks, such as those within an office environment where the users are employees.

Which rather neatly answers my own question, I'm aware. But then I had a bunch of stories about people using WhatsApp to distribute child porn and plan terrorist acts lined up, because I already knew that there wasn't a difference...



And ultimately we're still left with a man being convicted of a crime that caused no harm for a video people had to choose to see. And didn't, until all of the publicity in the world happened.

Incidentally, if you believe he's a right-winger (which I assume means "white supremacist/fascist" in this context, rather than "fiscally conservative"), you should see his video where he said a white genocide simulator video game would be funny. Although I guess that wasn't "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" enough for the Scottish courts.


While it's clear to see that he's an absolute dick, and an "edgelord", and, as you say, "professional **** poster", that's not enough to send someone to prison. Or rather it shouldn't be.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Nope. He was charged under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which states:
....

So where was he charged with causing harm and/or convicted of causing harm?

A complaint was made by a member of the public that had seen the video (as is reported).

I'll concede it wasn't the crux of the prosecution.

Apparently not obviously, given that in your previous post you claimed that "Inserting the word 'accesible' doesn't make a difference.", when it does.

A public place and a publicly accessible place are legally distinct entities.

They're legally distinct in respect to ownership and liability but it still stands as a legal definition of a public place in regards to the location of an offence. You can argue whether it's specifically stated in a relevant Act but it remains applicable in the context of this case.

Crucially, for what appears to be your argument that it would have been fine on Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp, section 127 of the Communications Act contains no private/public distinction. In fact it uses the term "public electronic communications network" and this has a very specific meaning.

Except guidelines have been issued and ammended to the Act:

The revisions also clarified that criminal prosecutions were "unlikely":

• when the author of the message had "expressed genuine remorse";
• when "swift and effective action ... to remove the communication" was taken; or
• when messages were not intended for a wide audience.

It's not lost on me that our technology laws are written by non-technical people.

I've made no judgement on his character or beliefs, I don't need to. And those are his own words, not mine.

 

[ExigeEvan]

*Duplicate*

 

[Famine]

They're legally distinct in respect to ownership and liability but it still stands as a legal definition of a public place in regards to the location of an offence.

Not really - it's offence-specific.

You can argue whether it's specifically stated in a relevant Act but it remains applicable in the context of this case.

It's not applicable in this case at all - hence my question why you seemed to be saying it would have been okay to send the video to his girlfriend on WhatsApp or FB Messenger, when it wouldn't.

Except guidelines have been issued and ammended to the Act:

Prosecution guidelines are not part of the letter of the law, or the Act.

Heading back to roads for a moment, if you exceed the speed limit by 1mph, you have broken the section of the Road Traffic Act that deals with speed limits (whatever it is... I don't care). However the police will routinely not bother to prosecute you for it, because the guidelines suggest that a prosecution is unlikely to succeed (read: they will spend money and time on lawyers and getting the police officer in question to court to testify rather than doing their job) unless the speed is above +10% +2mph. Prosecutions have succeeded on less, but they are unlikely to succeed below this mark.

Keir Starmer, then Director of Public Prosecutions and Head of the Crown Prosecution Service - the guy who is "The Crown vs." in all criminal cases and essentially tells the police what to try to prosecute with and what not to try - issued the guidelines you quote in 2013. This followed a conviction in 2010 of an accountant - Paul Chambers - who said he was going to blow up an airport in a Tweet that read:

"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your **** together otherwise I am blowing the airport sky high!!"

The DPP went ahead with that prosecution, and Chambers was convicted. However, the case proved wildly unpopular and the conviction was quashed in 2012, with the court commenting that it was clearly a (bad) joke and neither a serious threat nor sent with menace.

Starmer subsequently issued the guidelines to limit any similar cases being taken as far in the future - the case cost £18,000 to bring and resulted in the CPS (the taxpayer) having to pay Chambers' legal costs and, I would assume, quite a bit of compensation as his arrest cost him his job.

The guidelines are not part of any law. They are advice for the police that they are unlikely to secure a conviction over malicious communications when certain conditions are met - as you say, if the author of the message had "expressed genuine remorse", where "swift and effective action ... to remove the communication" was taken, or when messages were not intended for a wide audience. For the last point, Starmer specifically cited social media posts where users had a small number of followers (define "small"; he's only got 129k subscribers now, and the video was posted in April 2016).

 

[Imari]

Scenario.

I verbally abuse you and then hit you across the head with a comedy baseball bat.

But it's just a joke right?

If you intended it to be one, then yes. That's not to say that something being a joke is a get out of jail free card for any consequences that might ensue. You've just assaulted me.

Well done avoiding the question though. I was asking what you

Sorry if I wasn't clear, the comedy baseball bat was made of steel.

Generally a "comedy" baseball bat is one that would not injure. You're just talking about hitting someone with a baseball bat. Again, that's assault, possible murder if you get unlucky. The joke doesn't even come into it, there's clear harm that has been caused by your physical actions.

Do you really want to try and argue that hitting someone with a baseball bat is in anyway comparable to any set of words you could possibly say?

That said, you'll note that even killing someone depends on the intentionality of the action. An intentional killing is treated differently to an unintentional one. Likewise with speech, intentionally inciting hatred is generally treated differently to just saying something that some would find unpleasant with no particular malice intended.

But hey, lock him up. He's clearly a danger to society and needs to be removed. That's what we have gaols for, right? So that those that are a true danger to the public can be segregated. It sure is a good use of the taxpayer's money to pay for him living in prison for the next year.

 

[Dennisch]

He's clearly a danger to society and needs to be removed.

This really is one of those facepalm moments in life. Words in a bad joke are dangerous for society.

As if the man was summoning the Nazis to actually go out and gas the jews.

 

[Northstar]

Jail the dog.

That’s just not fair. He didn’t choose the pug life, the pug life chose him!


... I’ll get my coat.

 

[Whitestar]

Had to check the date when I first saw this news. Nope, not April 1st yet.
How anyone can defend this man going to jail over this joke is beyond me.

 

[Spurgy 777]

A relevant video from Johnathan Pie, funny yet on point as always.

Language warning.

 

[UKMikey]

I doubt they're going to come after Pie just because of precedent. It's a dodgy decision and I think that the internet twit has grounds for appeal but the country isn't going to hell in a handbasket because of it.

People's senses of humour are very different from one another as this video proves to me, but I don't feel sorry for say Jo Marney after her leaked tweets revealed to be one of the nasty people. I would rather not make hate speech a custodial offence though. Right of reply should be enough to counter their poisonous opinons.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I doubt they're going to come after Pie just because of precedent. It's a dodgy decision and I think that the internet twit has grounds for appeal but the country isn't going to hell in a handbasket because of it.

People's senses of humour are very different from one another as this video proves to me, but I don't feel sorry for say Jo Marney after her leaked tweets revealed to be one of the nasty people. I would rather not make hate speech a custodial offence though. Right of reply should be enough to counter their poisonous opinons.

I think the point is that if context of a joke is irrelevant, when it is the most important factor, then there's no reason they couldn't go after him, not that they're likely to as you'll probably find that in reality context is only irrelevant when they see fit. His video is just as guilty of a hate crime as Meechan's by the prosecution's and judge's reasoning which makes a mockery of our justice system.

 

[UKMikey]

I think the point is that if context of a joke is irrelevant, when it is the most important factor, then there's no reason they couldn't go after him, not that they're likely to as you'll probably find that in reality context is only irrelevant when they see fit. His video is just as guilty of a hate crime as Meechan's by the prosecution's and judge's reasoning which makes a mockery of our justice system.

Do you think they'll go after him? I don't think they will. It sounds like the YouTube guy had a terrible defence lawyer. The decision seemed to be based on the judge not believing the video was a joke.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Do you think they'll go after him? I don't think they will. It sounds like the YouTube guy had a terrible defence lawyer. The decision seemed to be based on the judge not believing the video was a joke.

not that they're likely to

No, I don't think they will, but as I said, that's not the point. The point is that being convicted for what Meechan did and potentially being sent to jail shouldn't even be a possibility no matter how bad your lawyer is. Frankly anyone that convicts someone for what they've said whilst ignoring context and intent like that judge should be kept as far away from the justice system as possible, might as well have engineers who build bridges whilst ignoring gravity, it's dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to happen.

 

[UKMikey]

Frankly anyone that convicts someone for what they've said whilst ignoring context and intent like that judge should be kept as far away from the justice system as possible, might as well have engineers who build bridges whilst ignoring gravity, it's dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Should be a fairly easy appeal then.

 

[UKMikey]

Apologies for double post... moved from America thread.

I’d argue that annoying his girlfriend was the point of making the joke, not what makes the joke funny, or the point of the joke. What is meant to make the joke funny is representing something as evil as the Nazis using something as small, cute and completely unthreatening as a pug. It’s funny to see an evil ideology degraded into something pathetic and harmless. And if that isn’t mocking the Nazis I don’t know what is.

I can't speak for the people who were offended and tell them what they should or shouldn't find funny as it's a matter of opinion. Personally I can only go by the views of this representative of the Jewish community and don't think it's my place to tell him how he should have responded instead.

During the trial, Ephraim Borowski, director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (SCoJeC) told the court the video was extremely offensive.

“In many ways, the bit I found most offensive was the repetition of ‘gas the Jews’ rather than the dog itself”, he said.

“The other thing that struck me was the explicit statement that this was intended to give offence and intended to be the most offensive thing he could think of and then he says he isn’t a racist. But unfortunately we hear that all the time from people.

“I’m no historian but it is the marching signal of the Nazi stormtroopers who contributed and supported the murder of six million Jews, including members of my own family, and I take this all slightly personally”, Mr Borowski continued, adding that the SCoJeC website had been “bombarded with abusive comments” after the video appeared online.

“Material of this kind goes to normalise the antisemitic views that frankly we thought we had seen the last of”, he said.

“The Holocaust is not a subject for jocular content.”

 

[ExigeEvan]

@Spurgy 777 - It's not that I choose to ignore context, it's that I choose not to accept his version of the context.

Saying something is a joke doesn't make it a joke. Putting a pug in a video doesn't make it a joke. The saluting pug doesn't bother me in the slightest.

It's the repeated use of a very inflammatory comment being thinly veiled by the actions above, followed by claims it was a private joke that he subsequently posted on public media, and topped off by his complete lack of action following the event.

 

[Imari]

Putting a pug in a video doesn't make it a joke.

Why do you keep posting this strawman?

It's the repeated use of a very inflammatory comment being thinly veiled by the actions above...

"Gas the Jews" is "very inflammatory comment"? Perhaps, but he's not inciting anything. No reasonable person could watch the video and actually think that this is incitement to go out and gas Jews. On the other hand, as the video above points out it could be considered pretty searing mockery of Nazis and the Nazi system, and the people most offended by that would be Nazis and Nazi sympathisers.

What actual negative consequence is there of allowing videos with pugs being trained to respond to Nazi catch phrases? That people will associate pugs with Nazis? That people will think "heh, that's funny, better go gas some Jews before dinner"? That some people who would be offended if someone offered them a free lunch will continue to be offended?

Or is this another one of your "comedy" steel baseball bats? Joke or not, you've failed to demonstrate any significant harm that would warrant a person having their freedom removed. You've done about as much wrong as CountDankula, and I rather suspect you'd resent it if someone suggested you be locked up for posting on GTPlanet.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Why do you keep posting this strawman?

Please explain to me how it's a strawman.

"Gas the Jews" is "very inflammatory comment"? Perhaps, but he's not inciting anything. No reasonable person could watch the video and actually think that this is incitement to go out and gas Jews.

It doesn't have to be taken literally to be inflammatory.

On the other hand, as the video above points out it could be considered pretty searing mockery of Nazis and the Nazi system, and the people most offended by that would be Nazis and Nazi sympathisers.

What actual negative consequence is there of allowing videos with pugs being trained to respond to Nazi catch phrases? That people will associate pugs with Nazis? That people will think "heh, that's funny, better go gas some Jews before dinner"? That some people who would be offended if someone offered them a free lunch will continue to be offended?

IMO the pug has no bearing on this.

Or is this another one of your "comedy" steel baseball bats? Joke or not, you've failed to demonstrate any significant harm that would warrant a person having their freedom removed. You've done about as much wrong as CountDankula, and I rather suspect you'd resent it if someone suggested you be locked up for posting on GTPlanet.

Why is GTPlanet not subject to the same laws as other places?

A bomb threat or a threat of violence to a person or people should be ignored because it's on GTPlanet?

You're welcome to try my 'scenario' in the courts, let's see if it passed the threshold.

And to clarify, I've made no comment on his sentencing, only his guilt. I personally knew the bloke (though I wouldn't have considered him a friend even before) that went to prison for the Fabrice Muamba comments and even I believe he was harshly dealt with as an example to others.

 

[Touring Mars]

I agree with the idea that posting something intentionally offensive on YouTube (and making that video accessible to everyone) is asking for trouble, so the guy is a bit of a fool for doing so - but I also agree with the fact that it is, quite clearly, a joke. If the guy had posted a rant or comments of himself seriously expressing a desire to gas Jews, then that would (IMO) constitute racial hatred/incitement, but it isn't 'harmful' simply because some people found it juvenile, cretinous, distasteful, insensitive or offensive (and I suspect that covers most people). It sets a pretty worrying precedent when the powers-that-be cannot decipher between a crass joke and 'hate speech' (or whatever), but unfortunately it is clearly a matter of opinion as to where the line is on these issues, and that means it is a very risky business broadcasting to the world the phrase 'Gas the Jews!' in a way that could (evidently) be construed as hateful.

 

[Whitestar]

and topped off by his complete lack of action following the event.

He did post an apology. (Although he shouldn't have had to IMO).

Please explain to me how it's a strawman.

Nobody is arguing that putting a pug in a video automatically makes it a joke. What's being argued is that intent (and also context) makes it a joke.

And to clarify, I've made no comment on his sentencing, only his guilt.

Yep, and that's where we disagree.

 

[TexRex]

He did post an apology. (Although he shouldn't have had to IMO).

Why did he "have to?"

 

[Imari]

Why is GTPlanet not subject to the same laws as other places?

It is. That's the point.

Are you also guilty of hate speech for your communications here?
Do you think you should be?
Should I be for attempting to defend someone who posted a video that included the phrase "gas the Jews" multiple times?

A bomb threat or a threat of violence to a person or people should be ignored because it's on GTPlanet?

Are you again seriously trying to equate actual threats of violence to a dog video? That's almost as bad as when you tried to equate it to assaulting someone with a baseball bat.

Read the book 1984. Get yourself an appreciation for what thoughtcrime actually entails. See if you still think that speech is equivalent to physical violence or overt threats of physical violence.

You're welcome to try my 'scenario' in the courts, let's see if it passed the threshold.

The point is that your case shouldn't, and it has about as much merit as CountDankula.

And to clarify, I've made no comment on his sentencing, only his guilt.

Yet you struggle to explain what actual harm he's guilty of, or why it's beneficial to society to imprison people such as him.

 

[Mr Tree]

@Spurgy 777 - It's not that I choose to ignore context, it's that I choose not to accept his version of the context.

Saying something is a joke doesn't make it a joke. Putting a pug in a video doesn't make it a joke. The saluting pug doesn't bother me in the slightest.

It's the repeated use of a very inflammatory comment being thinly veiled by the actions above, followed by claims it was a private joke that he subsequently posted on public media, and topped off by his complete lack of action following the event.

I'm sorry but what makes a joke a joke?

I most of the time lean rather left, yet I am the imature guy who found this funny. I also get why one wouldn't find it funny but to do that you have to actively diminish the relevance of the role of the pug in the video.

You question if it was just to be able to sell it of as a joke means you have to be able to prove his intent was to justify those offensive lines of text rather then to make joke.

I really don't get this policing of speech because someone dislikes it. I find anti-gay posts to be highly offensive. I find people who say their opinion is 'gays shouldn't be able to get married' to be offensive speech. Are we now going to ban all religions or organisations that exist if they use that language anywhere in public? I sure hope not!

Quite a bit of people think it's funny, so it's a joke.

And imo the entire issue with this hatespeech is that the term hatespeech clearly isn't defined properly. What is hatespeech for me is your opinion for you. This means igmf you want an honnest judicial system you need to clarify what makes something categorised as hatespeech. And that is something I believe to be impossible. We can't people expect the game to be played fair if we don't clearly explain the rules first.

 

[TexRex]

the term hatespeech clearly isn't defined properly

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.

That definition seems reasonable to me, to say nothing of intent behind or laws against such a thing.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Are you again seriously trying to equate actual threats of violence to a dog video? That's almost as bad as when you tried to equate it to assaulting someone with a baseball bat.

Nope. And I haven't.

Read the book 1984. Get yourself an appreciation for what thoughtcrime actually entails. See if you still think that speech is equivalent to physical violence or overt threats of physical violence.

Again, where have I claimed equivalence?

Yet you struggle to explain what actual harm he's guilty of, or why it's beneficial to society to imprison people such as him.

I've made no mention of imprisonment anywhere.

Stop trying to extrapolate wildly from what I've said, it's unnecessary and does nothing for the discussion.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I'm sorry but what makes a joke a joke?

...

Quite a bit of people think it's funny, so it's a joke.

It's a great question and one that is incredibly hard to answer.

But as a start, a representative of the Jewish community didn't find it funny. A Jewish comedian did.

 

[TexRex]

And I haven't.

*cough*

Scenario.

I verbally abuse you and then hit you across the head with a comedy baseball bat.

But it's just a joke right?

 

[Spurgy 777]

I can't speak for the people who were offended and tell them what they should or shouldn't find funny as it's a matter of opinion. Personally I can only go by the views of this representative of the Jewish community and don't think it's my place to tell him how he should have responded instead.

Just to clarify I wasn't saying why people should have found it funny, I was explaining how it was an attempt to be funny to the best of my understanding. Whether you actually found it funny or offensive is obviously down to the opinion of each individual.

But then that brings me onto the opinion of Ephraim Borowski that you've quoted, why should it be relevant to the trial? Whether or not someone is offended by what you say is of no importance to the context or intent of what was said or if it was hate speech. Hell someone feeling threatened or abused by what you said shouldn't even be enough to clearly state something as hate speech, let alone just being offended, as you can easily misunderstand the meaning of what someone else is saying.

Yep, the term is very clearly defined.

Well you don't seem to be reading the definition very well then as hate speech has to be abusive or threatening by the definition you linked and the context in which you use words is critical to determining their meaning, or in other words whether they're abusive or threatening. So how is it that you can determine if what someone says, in this case gas the Jews, is abusive or threatening if you ignore context? I'd hope you'd agree that I haven't been abusive or threatening to Jewish people by saying it, and if you do, how did you come to that conclusion if you ignored the context in which I was saying it?

That said, I believe it falls well within one's right to speak freely, which is why I've added "presumed/implied illegality or subjective humor notwithstanding" and "regardless of...what may result from use"; both of which appear on the same page as the post of mine that you quoted, but I've linked to the posts for convenience.

I did read those two posts but I must be confused with what exactly you're saying as I took those posts as you essentially repeating that certain language is hate speech regardless of context or intent.

@Spurgy 777 - It's not that I choose to ignore context, it's that I choose not to accept his version of the context.

No idea why you wouldn't, I would have thought the context would be fairly obvious. He thought it would be funny to make a dog act like a Nazi by making it react to things a Nazi might say, and that that would annoy his girlfriend. You don't seriously think that he was secretly using it as an excuse to say gas the Jews do you? Might want to take your tin foil hat off if you do.

Saying something is a joke doesn't make it a joke. Putting a pug in a video doesn't make it a joke. The saluting pug doesn't bother me in the slightest.

The sky is blue, water is wet. Why are you mentioning this?

It's the repeated use of a very inflammatory comment being thinly veiled by the actions above, followed by claims it was a private joke that he subsequently posted on public media, and topped off by his complete lack of action following the event.

Oh so you do think it was all just an excuse to let out his secret Nazi views. Well Nazis are well known for mocking themselves by getting a pug to mimic them. Do you actually have any reasoning for thinking that because I've not seen any evidence to suggest it wasn't a joke.

But as a start, a representative of the Jewish community didn't find it funny. A Jewish comedian did.

How is that a start? Whether people find your joke funny has no relevance as to whether it's actually a joke or not.