Hacker News Reader

Comment by blfr | Hacker News Reader

Britain is famous for convicting a guy who got his dog to do the nazi salute. And they just don't stop, they arrested a tweeter the other day along with a guy who filmed the first arrest.

https://fee.org/articles/uk-man-arrested-for-malicious-commu...

View on HN

BBC government media used to have Monty Python doing satirical nazi salutes on prime time television. Shows how easily standards can change without constitutional protections.

Someone should report this guy to them https://images.thewest.com.au/publication/CD15E5C4C89CE4DA25...

They exiled him to Canada, no?

Kind of how they exiled King Edward VIII to the Bahamas.

> One of the officers says

> “Someone has been caused anxiety based on your social media post. And that is why you’re being arrested.”

I cannot believe I am reading this.

The nazi dog was in Scotland, this is in England. they are different legal jurisdictions.

Edit: England, not Britain.

Scotland occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain.

Solid pedantry attempt, but missed the mark.

Scotland is a part of Britain. Scotland is not part of England nor Wales, but Scotland, England, and Wales are all part of (Great) Britain.

Appreciate the gotcha, nearly as fun to post as pedantry. I only made the same mistake OP did, however.

The actual point still stands. If you're going to take a dig at a legal system, country, or culture, don't try to back up your point with an example from a different one.

Scotland is not England legally or culturally, and the scots will be the first to make that point clear.

Please explain how the difference in these legal systems is worth the pedantry.

Sure, although this does feel like it's becoming painfully drawn out. Let's use a simple parallel example: If someone's having a laugh at, say, Trump. Then they use that as an example of how those those silly Canadians are always electing daft politicians. You're probably going to point out that Trump was not in fact the president of Canada. That the example is not relevant.

Likewise, it is a mistake to lump the Nazi dog case in with the other case. One occurred under Scottish legal jurisdiction, the other under English legal jurisdiction. The example is not relevant.

In both cases the relevant law was Section 127 of the Communications Act of the United Kingdom.

That is a very fair point and rebuttal, thank you.

Ah, poor Wales. You'd have to murder your wife to sit on the throne there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com