America - The Official Thread

[Scaff]

It's a dog...

The dog could talk......wow.

 

[ryzno]

The dog could talk......wow.

No, he taught the dog a command, that might be rude...

 

[Corsa]

Question for American friends that comes fro discussion in the British Thread.

Could you walk down a street in America saying ''Gas the Jews" and escape all punishment under freedom of speech laws?

Context. Scottish man posts video of Pug doing Nazi salute and is trained to do so in response to the command 'gas the jews'. Many American commentators have jumped on the guilty verdict as an affront to free speech.

I would say it largely depends where you are.
If your in NYC or LA probably not very wise and you would be pursued via law enforcement for disturbing the peace, or an angry mob looking to injure.
If you are where I live in the mountains of Tennessee the vast majority would write it off as some guy drunk on shine. That is, unless you were talking about the baby Jesus then there would be pitchforks.
Which is why I avoid religion altogether and join my modern atheist friends at the local starbucks in the big city of Chattanooga.

 

[Scaff]

No, he taught the dog a command, that might be rude...

And the words he used to trigger that command were part of the charge.

So unless the dog said them you can't ignore them.

 

[ryzno]

And the words he used to trigger that command were part of the charge.

So unless the dog said them you can't ignore them.

How is it hate speech if it isn't directed/ said to anyone?

 

[Scaff]

How is it hate speech if it isn't directed/ said to anyone?

I would say that social media is a pretty large 'anyone'.

 

[ryzno]

I would say that social media is a pretty large 'anyone'.

In the video is he talking to anyone besides the dog?
People post stupid videos every day. We should lock up the tide pod idiots.

 

[Scaff]

In the video is he talking to anyone besides the dog?
People post stupid videos every day. We should lock up the tide pod idiots.

If you broadcast something, then your talking to an audience.

 

[ryzno]

If you broadcast something, then your talking to an audience.

I guess we look at things differently.

 

[Scaff]

I guess we look at things differently.

I guess we do, however given the person in this case ran an active youtube channel that they were pushing hard, he's talking to an audience.

Its not as if its a video someone posted on facebook and forgot to make friends only.

 

[ryzno]

I guess we do, however given the person in this case ran an active youtube channel that they were pushing hard, he's talking to an audience.

Its not as if its a video someone posted on facebook and forgot to make friends only.

I'm sure. So as I said he did it for the laughs or in this case clicks...

 

[Scaff]

I'm sure. So as I said he did it for the laughs or in this case clicks...

Which would only come about from talking to an audience.

 

[ryzno]

Which would only come about from talking to an audience.

If I post a video of me cussing out my car, am I talking to the audience or the car?

My point is it's not a video of just him yelling at the camera "gas the Jews". and we all know a dog is to stupid to differentiate a Jew.
It was a video for laughs, as usual people now a days find anything offensive.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If I post a video of me cussing out my car, am I talking to the audience

The audience - why else would you post it?

 

[TexRex]

How is it hate speech if it isn't directed/ said to anyone?

I'd argue that hate speech is hate speech regardless of the motivation behind it and/or target audience.

I should also add presumed/implied illegality or subjective humor notwithstanding...

Hate speech is hate speech is hate speech.

 

[Imari]

I'd argue that hate speech is hate speech regardless of the motivation behind it and/or target audience.

Perhaps. But do you apply the same punishment to someone legitimately trying to raise a mob to gas Jews as to someone who thinks teaching a dog inappropriate commands is funny?

I guess we do, however given the person in this case ran an active youtube channel that they were pushing hard, he's talking to an audience.

To my understanding it wasn't being pushed hard before this went viral, it was a random channel for him, his friends and a few likeminded people. I could be wrong though.

Hate speech is hate speech is hate speech.

Again, perhaps so. On the other hand, if you prohibit any language that falls under that definition then it becomes very boring, very quickly.

I'm of two minds on hate speech. On one hand, it's important that people don't feel threatened or in danger when going to public places. On the other hand, sticks and stones may break my bones but words tend not to really do that much damage.

I feel like there's definitely value in preventing large scale discrimination against groups of people. I also feel like if one person wants to be a racist or a bigot, there shouldn't be a law against that any more than there should be a law against being a knobhead. Clearly then there's a point in between where the law should start caring, and that's going to be by nature somewhat fuzzy and decided case by case. It rather seems to me that we're falling well on the special snowflake side of the spectrum with this case rather than the freedom of speech side.

Then again, the world does seem to be turning towards a more authoritarian political climate again so I shouldn't be terribly surprised. Having to hear things that you disagree with can be tough, and it can be even more tough to defend the right of the person to say them even if you don't agree. While I suspect most people will say that they subscribe to that old mantra, I think if placed in that situation in reality (for example, with this Count Dankula thing) there's more than a few who are ready to throw him under the bus.

This thread and the Britain one are good examples, there seems to be a fairly even distribution between those that think the punishment is insane and those who support it.

 

[UKMikey]

While I suspect most people will say that they subscribe to that old mantra, I think if placed in that situation in reality (for examp

Cut off mid sentence... that whole authoritarian thing really is coming into play if it's affecting GTP posts now.

 

[Imari]

Cut off mid sentence... that whole authoritarian thing really is coming into play if it's affecting GTP posts now.

Lol, now I have to try and remember what I wrote.

NSA, if you could leave it alone this time plskthx.

 

[Scaff]

To my understanding it wasn't being pushed hard before this went viral, it was a random channel for him, his friends and a few likeminded people. I could be wrong though.

He has a patron account, which would suggest an attempt to monetize thing, and a push for viewers.

That said even if he wasn't he's still broadcasting publicly.

I have no desire to make money off my own channel, yet I still consider what I'm saying and how it may come across.

 

[TexRex]

Perhaps. But do you apply the same punishment to someone legitimately trying to raise a mob to gas Jews as to someone who thinks teaching a dog inappropriate commands is funny?

presumed/implied illegality or subjective humor notwithstanding

The language used is the language used, regardless of the motivation or what may result from use.

 

[Imari]

He has a patron account, which would suggest an attempt to monetize thing, and a push for viewers.

That said even if he wasn't he's still broadcasting publicly.

I have no desire to make money off my own channel, yet I still consider what I'm saying and how it may come across.

He has a patreon account, but did he have one when he posted it? Or are we also considering his actions after making the video?

The language used is the language used, regardless of the motivation or what may result from use.

That wasn't the question though. I conceded that perhaps he might be guilty of hate speech under that very broad definition. The interesting question is do you apply the same punishment regardless of intent?

 

[KingFrog]

Perhaps. But do you apply the same punishment to someone legitimately trying to raise a mob to gas Jews as to someone who thinks teaching a dog inappropriate commands is funny?



To my understanding it wasn't being pushed hard before this went viral, it was a random channel for him, his friends and a few likeminded people. I could be wrong though.



Again, perhaps so. On the other hand, if you prohibit any language that falls under that definition then it becomes very boring, very quickly.

I'm of two minds on hate speech. On one hand, it's important that people don't feel threatened or in danger when going to public places. On the other hand, sticks and stones may break my bones but words tend not to really do that much damage.

I feel like there's definitely value in preventing large scale discrimination against groups of people. I also feel like if one person wants to be a racist or a bigot, there shouldn't be a law against that any more than there should be a law against being a knobhead. Clearly then there's a point in between where the law should start caring, and that's going to be by nature somewhat fuzzy and decided case by case. It rather seems to me that we're falling well on the special snowflake side of the spectrum with this case rather than the freedom of speech side.

Then again, the world does seem to be turning towards a more authoritarian political climate again so I shouldn't be terribly surprised. Having to hear things that you disagree with can be tough, and it can be even more tough to defend the right of the person to say them even if you don't agree. While I suspect most people will say that they subscribe to that old mantra, I think if placed in that situation in reality (for example, with this Count Dankula thing) there's more than a few who are ready to throw him under the bus.

This thread and the Britain one are good examples, there seems to be a fairly even distribution between those that think the punishment is insane and those who support it.

I know this might sound dumb, but hate speech laws seem to be aimed at targeting the poor and uneducated. It's a form of academic elitism. I don't buy into the logic behind it, but if I DID, it's clearly aimed at the " plebians" who aren't educated enough to know that certain words hurt others. Honestly its a shame the law allows you to be punished without proving intent. I'm a first-year law student, and intent is its cornerstone. I mean unless it's a strict liability law, which I usually disagree with on a personal level.

I don't believe ANYONE should be criminally charged for teaching a dog to do what he did, even if it's incredibly offensive. Because if that's how it's going to be, everyone is going to be a criminal. This is very much a " he who is without sin, cast the first stone " situation. I'm sure we have all said something that could be seen as " hate speech" at one point in our life.
We live in a multicultural, globally connected society. what the heck do people expect ?

 

[Scaff]

He has a patreon account, but did he have one when he posted it? Or are we also considering his actions after making the video?

I have no idea, however I have already addressed that side of things.

"That said even if he wasn't he's still broadcasting publicly.

I have no desire to make money off my own channel, yet I still consider what I'm saying and how it may come across."

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Facebook has lost more money (valuation) this morning in 2 hours of trading than I could earn in 370,000 years at my current (comfortably middle class, I might add) salary.

edit: and now it's back up. The volatility in the market is pretty astounding these last few weeks.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I'd argue that hate speech is hate speech regardless of the motivation behind it and/or target audience.

Is it? Saying gas the Jews is hate speech regardless of context or intent? Oops, I suppose I’m going to be locked up now.

Is it hate speech even when mocking Nazis is the context and the intended joke? Context I might add @ExigeEvan has completely thrown out of the window with his example.

 

[UKMikey]

Is it hate speech even when mocking Nazis is the context and the intended joke? Context I might add @ExigeEvan has completely thrown out of the window with his example.

I wondered when these two threads were going to collide.

I thought mocking his girlfriend was the intended joke.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gas-Jews-23-times-teaching-dog-Nazi-heil.html

 

[Spurgy 777]

I wondered when these two threads were going to collide.

I thought mocking his girlfriend was the intended joke.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gas-Jews-23-times-teaching-dog-Nazi-heil.html

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.

 

[UKMikey]

Moved back to British thread.

 

[TexRex]

Saying gas the Jews is hate speech regardless of context or intent? Oops, I suppose I’m going to be locked up now.

Yep, the term is very clearly defined.

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.

 

[huskeR32]

It's fascinating to see the double standards from the left wing media when it comes to threats of physical violence against someone they don't like.

Being the president gives one's words a little more weight. He commands the world's most powerful army. His tweets have proved capable of immediately causing a company's stock value to plummet by hundreds of millions of dollars. Considering the potential power of his every word, I'm okay holding him to a little higher standard.