Comment by zaroth | Hacker News Reader

Comment by zaroth | Hacker News Reader

In the video Mark prefaces the joke explaining that his girlfriend thinks her pug is the cutest thing in the world, and he’s clearly miffed by this (you can imagine the arguments between them) as his personal opinion is that pugs are the perfect example of why humans shouldn’t be trying to breed animals. So he set off to train the pug to do the most decidedly least cute thing possible, which was to raise its paw on the command of “Sieg Heil”. [1]

The concerning thing here is that the hate crime statute in the UK is based not on the intent of the speaker or the state of mind of the speaker, but how anyone hearing the speech decides that they feel about it. In fact, even lacking an actual complainant is no burden, the state merely claims that is could be offensive and concerns some community afforded special protection therefore it is hate speech.

You can argue about the comedic quality or value, but it’s pretty clear watching the video it’s highly sarcastic and dark humor and a hell of a prank, but not hate speech under any reasonable definition.

And this of course is exactly the problem with so-called “hate speech” and various laws (untested by the Supreme Court in the US as far as I’m aware) that have come up against it.

In the USA thank god we still have the right to offend, but clearly this is something which has been lost to the UK and appears to becoming weaponized to surpress political activism as well (see recent stories of Tommy Robinson at Speakers Corner).

This comes on the heels, earlier this week, the London Police had to amend their website after claiming that people can be “charged” with an “offence” if their actions are within the law but their “reasons for doing it” are perceived as illegal hate by others. Thankfully that’s not actually true under statute. But as we see here, the thought police is still alive and well.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus (NSFW - Viewer discretion advised)

I suggest that all HN readers in the UK go to their local stores containing DVDs/BluRays, find a copy of "The Producers", and then contact the police immediately because the movie concerns a group of crooked financiers that include Nazism to profit. Explain to the police that you are deeply offended that anyone would attempt to profit off of Nazism and that everyone associated with the movie and the people that own and run the store you found the DVD/BluRay in should be arrested and charged with offending you.

Don't forget to do the same for Hogan's Heroes.

Or Mel Brooks' 'Hitler Rap'. I Guess he's banned from Britain now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu2NqfISm9k

Except the producers is very clearly satirizing and criticizing Nazi propaganda and theater. The structure of these jokes are totally different.

It was clear to me that the video in question in the case was not glorifying Nazism - the person convicted stated he was sick of people saying his girlfriend's dog was cute so he trained the dog to do those things to both annoy his girlfriend as a joke and so people would stop thinking of the dog as cute because there's no less cute thing, in his mind, than a Nazi.

The fact that some neo-Nazis liked it is, in my mind, beside the point. I'm sure some neo-Nazis liked "The Producers" for, in their minds, showing that catering to the neo-Nazi crowd was profitable.

In the USA thank god we still have the right to offend, but clearly this is something which has been lost to the UK and appears to becoming weaponized to surpress political activism as well (see recent stories of Tommy Robinson at Speakers Corner).

You can’t lose what you never had, and the UK doesn’t have the 1st amendment. They don’t have freedom of speech and expression (at least not In such absolute terms) and never have.

For example, super-injunctions and (I shit you not) hyper-injunctions.

Ludicrous injunctions!

> In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act

But as you said, there are lots of exceptions and exclusions. Don't these exist for the 1st amendment as well though, e.g. shouting fire in a theatre?

They exist in two arenas, both (theoretically) subject to strict judicial oversight. The first as you reference is public safety, which includes inciting to violence, and other classic examples. The second is a bit murkier: national security.

That said, something like a super injunction for a celebrity’s sex life would be flat-out impossible and unconstitutional.

That's a strange way to think of it, that the state can supply that as a right. The people of the UK, and anywhere, have the freedom to say anything they'd like...if the state intervenes, they are removing the individual's existing liberty to do so. The first amendment is not a right provided to the people, but rather a restriction placed on the state, removing its own capability to impede upon an inherent liberty.

I never think it's a good idea to think of a state as affording you a liberty which you had to begin with.

In fact this is exactly the argument many of the framers had against the bill of rights — that they were so natural and inherently obviously not to be infringed that listing a few of them might make people think anything that might have been left out was not in fact a natural right of the people!

Can’t say how glad I am they decided it better to put a few key ones down on paper. Imagine if “they are so natural as to go unwritten” had won the day?

Free speech is a myth.

Downvoted. I can see people might disagree with this while other might not. Discussing it would be more interesting than downvoting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com