5 ms·

No not at all. The Chelsea Russell case 17 year old girl on facebook posted rap lyrics, we also have the 'Count Dankula' case which the Scottish court decided i

• DanBC 7y ago
  Chelsea Russell: not convicted. Count Dankula: broadcast the phrase "gas the jews", then did not use a freedom of speech argument in court, instead saying "it was just a joke". His "I am using this to annoy my girlfriend" defence failed because there's no evidence she even saw the video, and if he was just doing it to annoy her there was no need to broadcast it to his youtube channel. > I believe there is also a case where some Grime rappers were charged with hate speech for their songs It's pretty hard to have this conversation with someone who admits they don't know what they're talking about.
  • davesmith1983 7y ago
    > Chelsea Russell: not convicted. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921 Yes she was. It was only overturned later because she has (I believe) autism. The whole point I was making is that it should not happen in the first place. Do you think we should be dragging autistic teenage girls through court because of rap lyric posted on facebook? I think it is ridiculous. > Count Dankula: broadcast the phrase "gas the jews", then did not use a freedom of speech argument in court, instead saying "it was just a joke". His "I am using this to annoy my girlfriend" defence failed because there's no evidence she even saw the video, and if he was just doing it to annoy her there was no need to broadcast it to his youtube channel. The video was obviously a joke and if you just repeat the phrases said on their own without context they don't sound funny. The whole joke is that he is getting his dog which has no idea what those phrases mean to react to them. It is a really old gag that you do something stupid in front of an animal because they are the ultimate dead-pan actor. As to why his girlfriend didn't see it, it went viral (via reddit) before he had the chance to show her. The reason why it was on Youtube is because they have a night where they just watch Youtube video together and he wanted it to be like a surprise prank. At the time (I know because I followed the case since he got arrested) he had 8 subscribers on his account. His story has been consistent from day one before he lawyered up. Again he should have never been arrested over what was clearly intended as a joke. MPs in the House of Commons admitted that the law should be under review because of his case. The way you tell the situation doesn't give full picture. Almost every-time someone just cherry picks phrases from the video like you did I know they are being disingenuous. > It's pretty hard to have this conversation with someone who admits they don't know what they're talking about. The point is that you shouldn't have any legal proceeding against you because of a song. London Grime much like heavy metal (70s) and gangsta rap (80s and 90s) before them is being demonised by the moral puritans. I suspect they will take another run at violent video games once Doom Eternal comes out or GTA6. This again is disingenuous of you. This makes it pretty obvious you aren't speaking in good faith. Bye.
    • DanBC 7y ago
      > It was only overturned later. You realise that winning on appeal means the original conviction didn't happen right? > The video was obviously a joke First of all you claimed he was imprisoned for this, and he wasn't. This is yet another case that you don't understand that you think supports your point when it really doesn't. He had a trial. He could have used a free speech defence. He chose not to. Importantly he was invited by the judge to make a freedom of speech (article 10) defence, and he chose not to. > [11] Prior to being addressed by the petitioner at the conclusion of the trial, the sheriff had noticed that a written argument had been lodged by the petitioner,but not yet touched upon. In it, there was an oblique reference to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of Expression). This had asserted that the petitioner’s actions were “entirely compliant” with that article and that the exceptions in Article 10(2) were not applicable. There had been no other analysis. There was no reference to any compatibility issue. At the stage of submissions, the sheriff had specifically asked parties whether they intended to address him on freedom of expression at common law or in terms of the European Convention. > [12] Despite the sheriff’s express invitation, which included mention of M’bala M’balav France, unreported,10November 2015, App No. 25239/13,there was no reference in the defence address to Article10. All that had been said by the petitioner about freedom of expression was that the court should be jealous to guard it. There was no compatibility minute, which, if such an issue were to be raised, ought to have been lodged in advance of the trial (Act of Adjournal (Criminal Procedure Rules) 1996, rules40.3 and 40.6). He chose to use the "it was just a joke bro" defence, and failed because he couldn't show that she had even seen the video, and if he was pranking her there was no need to broadcast "gas the Jews" to his YouTube followers. He then tried this defence again for his appeal, and that failed too. > he had 8 subscribers on his account. He uploaded it to Youtube with the intent that it would be seen by other people, thus completing the crime. He could have made it a private video, he could have not uploaded it to YouTube. He communicated the video to other people and he had the intent that it would be seen by other people. > “20... the primary purpose of the [petitioner] making the video was not to annoy [his girlfriend]: it was to make a highly offensive video for sharing on his You Tube channel for consumption by him and his subscribers; the [petitioner] willing (sic)for the video to be shared and viewed by anyone in the world”. This is what was found at his original trial. He has not appealed against this finding. > The way you tell the situation doesn't give full picture You claimed he'd been imprisoned for it and he hasn't. But he uploaded a video containing Nazi imagery while he said, more than 20 times, "Gas The Jews". He knew this would cause offence. Causing offence was his intention. What have I missed out? For you to claim that these 2 cases equate to widespread human rights abuse in China is laughable. > The point is that you shouldn't have any legal proceeding against you because of a song You still haven't named the cases. You're getting the genre wrong btw, it's drill not grime, and they were imprisoned for breaking an injunction that was aimed at tackling gang violence: they made credible death threats to other members of gangs.