4 ms·

> Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute? Why did you post it? Because you know it's controversial and w

> Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute? Why did you post it? Because you know it's controversial and would create engagement. If the nazi salute wasn't controversial (and rightfully considered hate crime) you would have ignored it. BTW the first amendment does not condone hate speech. Because even USA understands that there is a limit on everything.

jigglesniggle 7y ago
The original statement by a justice implying restriction on freedom of expression was later recanted (note it was not directly a precedent setting ruling either). There are people in the US that see any restriction, even for hate speech or incitement of violence, as against the first amendment. You might think they are extreme in their views but rulings restricting speech are very, very rare.
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  > You might think they are extreme in their views but rulings restricting speech are very, very rare. And that has severe consequences as you see. Popper said it many years ago.
- SpelingBeeChamp 7y ago
  I don’t believe that is accurate. Courts routinely issue gag orders.
foobarandgrill 7y ago
The first amendment doesn't condone hate speech, nor does it disallow it
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
The last time I came across someone referring to that case here on HN, I went away and read the judgement. It took the story from being surprising to a perfectly restrained, considered and reasonable verdict. Mainly as the defendant hadn't, despite the judge's specific encouragement, bothered to submit a proper defence or explore freedom of expression. So it could only be decided purely on the breach of the law. Then there were all the surrounding circumstances of how he set this up. http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meechan http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meecha...
- homonculus1 7y ago
  Prudent defense or not, no law should be written in the first place so as to criminalize a joke YouTube video under its letter. Nor should citizens (or subjects in this case) be compelled to explore the necessities of free expression as a criminal defense for making a simple joke. Thankfully in the US we have already codified free speech into law. Unfortunately there are still many who do not consider the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights to be a settled issue.

jigglesniggle 7y ago

The original statement by a justice implying restriction on freedom of expression was later recanted (note it was not directly a precedent setting ruling either). There are people in the US that see any restriction, even for hate speech or incitement of violence, as against the first amendment. You might think they are extreme in their views but rulings restricting speech are very, very rare.

lostjohnny 7y ago
> You might think they are extreme in their views but rulings restricting speech are very, very rare. And that has severe consequences as you see. Popper said it many years ago.
SpelingBeeChamp 7y ago
I don’t believe that is accurate. Courts routinely issue gag orders.

foobarandgrill 7y ago

The first amendment doesn't condone hate speech, nor does it disallow it

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

The last time I came across someone referring to that case here on HN, I went away and read the judgement. It took the story from being surprising to a perfectly restrained, considered and reasonable verdict. Mainly as the defendant hadn't, despite the judge's specific encouragement, bothered to submit a proper defence or explore freedom of expression. So it could only be decided purely on the breach of the law. Then there were all the surrounding circumstances of how he set this up. http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meechan http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meecha...

homonculus1 7y ago
Prudent defense or not, no law should be written in the first place so as to criminalize a joke YouTube video under its letter. Nor should citizens (or subjects in this case) be compelled to explore the necessities of free expression as a criminal defense for making a simple joke. Thankfully in the US we have already codified free speech into law. Unfortunately there are still many who do not consider the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights to be a settled issue.