5 ms·

England has hate speech laws that produce _ridiculous_ outcomes, like a guy getting fined because he made a dumb gif of his dog Sig Heiling.

jamespo 8y ago
If that's the only example it's not doing too badly
ummonk 8y ago
Well, England is technically a monarchy...
- samstave 8y ago
  I honestly can't understand this. They have a queen and a royal family which, AFAIK, literally do nothing meaningful, aren't running the country, don't produce anything of value (from what I can see) and yet are paid billions (land holdings etc) and are forcing populous to pay fealty to them in many respects... I just don't understand why... The only thing I can see is "Because I said so, that's why", which doesn't seem to be a sound basis for government.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    The most popular argument I’ve heard is that the royal family actually makes more money for the UK than they cost, although those arguments seem to assume that abolishing royalty would mean bulldozing the artifacts and architecture which are the real revenue source. I think the real reason why is that the aristocracy does actually run a lot of things, if a bit indirectly. The House of Lords is a powerful, rich group of people, and who hands out the honors thst enobled them? How many in the House of Commoms aim to become lords and retire? Would they really vote to dismantle the institution which might make them lords?
  - scrame 8y ago
    I saw it once described as "the perfect split of politics and patriotism". People can love the queen and hate the PM.
  - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
    > They have a queen and a royal family which, AFAIK, literally do nothing meaningful, aren't running the country, don't produce anything of value (from what I can see) and yet are paid billions (land holdings etc) and are forcing populous to pay fealty to them in many respects... I think that's kind of a backwards view of how it works these days. If anything, the royal family are a bunch of mascots that not only bring in billions to the UK, but also, for better or for worse, serve as a unifying identity for millions of people. If anything, I think most celebrities in the US serve as a bunch of vacuous narcissists, while at least the royal family understands "noblesse oblige" and their jobs basically involve making non-stop charity appearances.
pjc50 8y ago
http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meechan http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meecha... "Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to use a public communications network to send certain types of messages including those that are grossly offensive or threatening. The prosecution argued that by posting your video entitled “M8 Yer dug’s a Naazi” on to the Internet, you committed that offence. “The centrepiece of your video consists of you repeating the phrase “Gas the Jews” over and over again as a command to a dog which then reacts. Sometimes the phrase is “You want to Gas the Jews”. You recite “Gas the Jews” in a variety of dramatic ways. “Gas the Jews” in one form or another is repeated by you 23 times within a few minutes. “On the whole evidence, including your own, applying the law as made by Parliament and interpreted by the most senior courts in this land, I found it proved that the video you posted, using a public communications network, was grossly offensive and contained menacing, anti-Semitic and racist material. “You deliberately chose the Holocaust as the theme of the video. You purposely used the command “Gas the Jews” as the centrepiece of what you called the entire joke, surrounding the “Gas the Jews” centrepiece with Nazi imagery and the Sieg Heil command so there could be no doubt what historical events you were referring to."
- jrs95 8y ago
  Personally I find this legislation grossly offensive and threatening.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- praneshp 8y ago
  Thanks for the link, as well as the quote! Now watch people fall over each other to defend Nazi-themed dog gifs.
  - pathseeker 8y ago
    Defending free speech is not the same as defending or supporting the content itself. Free speech wouldn't need to be a right in the US constitution if it only applied to stuff that wasn't offensive to someone. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
gnarbarian 8y ago
here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus
odessacubbage 8y ago
i mean when you think about it, isn't being unjustly punished for speech the most english value of all?

jamespo 8y ago

If that's the only example it's not doing too badly

ummonk 8y ago

Well, England is technically a monarchy...

samstave 8y ago
I honestly can't understand this. They have a queen and a royal family which, AFAIK, literally do nothing meaningful, aren't running the country, don't produce anything of value (from what I can see) and yet are paid billions (land holdings etc) and are forcing populous to pay fealty to them in many respects... I just don't understand why... The only thing I can see is "Because I said so, that's why", which doesn't seem to be a sound basis for government.
- GW150914 8y ago
  The most popular argument I’ve heard is that the royal family actually makes more money for the UK than they cost, although those arguments seem to assume that abolishing royalty would mean bulldozing the artifacts and architecture which are the real revenue source. I think the real reason why is that the aristocracy does actually run a lot of things, if a bit indirectly. The House of Lords is a powerful, rich group of people, and who hands out the honors thst enobled them? How many in the House of Commoms aim to become lords and retire? Would they really vote to dismantle the institution which might make them lords?
- scrame 8y ago
  I saw it once described as "the perfect split of politics and patriotism". People can love the queen and hate the PM.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  > They have a queen and a royal family which, AFAIK, literally do nothing meaningful, aren't running the country, don't produce anything of value (from what I can see) and yet are paid billions (land holdings etc) and are forcing populous to pay fealty to them in many respects... I think that's kind of a backwards view of how it works these days. If anything, the royal family are a bunch of mascots that not only bring in billions to the UK, but also, for better or for worse, serve as a unifying identity for millions of people. If anything, I think most celebrities in the US serve as a bunch of vacuous narcissists, while at least the royal family understands "noblesse oblige" and their jobs basically involve making non-stop charity appearances.

pjc50 8y ago

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meechan http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meecha... "Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to use a public communications network to send certain types of messages including those that are grossly offensive or threatening. The prosecution argued that by posting your video entitled “M8 Yer dug’s a Naazi” on to the Internet, you committed that offence. “The centrepiece of your video consists of you repeating the phrase “Gas the Jews” over and over again as a command to a dog which then reacts. Sometimes the phrase is “You want to Gas the Jews”. You recite “Gas the Jews” in a variety of dramatic ways. “Gas the Jews” in one form or another is repeated by you 23 times within a few minutes. “On the whole evidence, including your own, applying the law as made by Parliament and interpreted by the most senior courts in this land, I found it proved that the video you posted, using a public communications network, was grossly offensive and contained menacing, anti-Semitic and racist material. “You deliberately chose the Holocaust as the theme of the video. You purposely used the command “Gas the Jews” as the centrepiece of what you called the entire joke, surrounding the “Gas the Jews” centrepiece with Nazi imagery and the Sieg Heil command so there could be no doubt what historical events you were referring to."

jrs95 8y ago
Personally I find this legislation grossly offensive and threatening.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
praneshp 8y ago
Thanks for the link, as well as the quote! Now watch people fall over each other to defend Nazi-themed dog gifs.
- pathseeker 8y ago
  Defending free speech is not the same as defending or supporting the content itself. Free speech wouldn't need to be a right in the US constitution if it only applied to stuff that wasn't offensive to someone. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

gnarbarian 8y ago

here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYslEzHbpus

odessacubbage 8y ago

i mean when you think about it, isn't being unjustly punished for speech the most english value of all?