5 ms·

They arrested a person for making a video of his dog doing nazi salutes. It's not that the royal family is singularly fragile about being upset by other peoples

They arrested a person for making a video of his dog doing nazi salutes. It's not that the royal family is singularly fragile about being upset by other peoples' expression, the whole of the UK is like that.

lupire 4y ago
Fragile, civilized. Potato, potato.
alasdair_ 4y ago
> They arrested a person for making a video of his dog doing nazi salutes. It's not that the royal family is singularly fragile about being upset by other peoples' expression, the whole of the UK is like that. And yet at the same time one of the biggest movies in the cinema was a Nazi spoof comedy with jokes in far poorer taste. But the movie producers have money.
- gambiting 4y ago
  That's like complaining that you will get arrested for having sex in the middle of the street, but sex in a film is somehow fine(surely it's because movie producers have money and are in cahoots with the government, and not for any other, more logical reason, like the fact that art forms, no matter how poor in taste, are protected by society).
  - wutbrodo 4y ago
    In what legal sense is the YouTuber with the pug less protected by the "art form" argument than the movie production? Did the latter get a permit for Nazi jokes? (Sincere question, maybe they did: UK speech norms and laws are incredibly alien to me)
    - type0 4y ago
      > In what legal sense is the YouTuber with the pug less protected by the "art form" The rules are different for regular plebs, that's as simple as that. And the lesson is that everyone should know their place.
    - gambiting 4y ago
      In terms of legal sense, since you asked about that specifically - all films shown in the UK(in theatres or released on home media, or for streaming/download) have to be approved by the British Film Commission. If something is approved for release, anyone would have an extremely hard time getting the author arrested for the content - they can still be sued for a number of different reasons, but making a nazi salute in a film with nazis would be allowed for artistic purposes. A random guy making a nazi salute for a joke and uploading it on youtube is more like documentary evidence of a crime, not an art form. There is a reason promoting nazi salutes is a crime in most of Europe, and it really doesn't matter he did it as a joke - it's simply not a laughing matter. Yes to American ears it might sound weird - that there is a topic that cannot even be joked about or you risk getting arrested. I don't really have a reply for that, other than the fact that it feels right to me, given the attrocities comitted by Nazis against our people - I think doing a nazi salute publicly(and I count uploading videos on youtube as "public"), even as a joke, is not acceptable at all.
      - wutbrodo 4y ago
        > Yes to American ears it might sound weird - that there is a topic that cannot even be joked about or you risk getting arrested. I don't really have a reply for that, other than the fact that it feels right to me Sure, this is a difference in norms (and law) that I'm intentionally taking for granted, and trying to further understand. If equally-applied, it's a little more comprehensible to me (eg Germany requiring massive game studios to censor Nazi symbolism in WW2 games). But I have a much stronger revulsion reaction to the idea that the govt should be in the business of deciding whose expression is "actually" art, and inconsistently allowing well-connected creators latitude that nobodies aren't privy to. I don't doubt that there are many people find the Nazi pug funnier than the Father Ted joke (and vice versa); the idea that the latter is uniquely acceptable because a _British govt agency_ decided it was funny is astonishing to me.
  - samatman 4y ago
    The clip of the dog doing a Nazi salute was on YouTube, so by your logic, as they are both art forms in poor taste, they should both be protected. Not what happened though.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      The mindset is alien to me. The idea that a person should be locked up for making a joke, but a corporation should have the right to do whatever it likes. It doesn't even seem like it's ever in question just stated like a fact that the wealthy and powerful should have more rights. Perhaps that's the British psyche of meek subservience to the ruling class. The really funny thing is that poor pleb is branded a "fascist", while the powerful people who came after him are considered brave and valiant freedom fighters for doing so. I mean it would be funny if it wasn't terrifying and Orwellian.
      - gambiting 4y ago
        >>The idea that a person should be locked up for making a joke, but a corporation should have the right to do whatever it likes. I don't think anyone has this kind of mindset - at least I certainly don't. Anyone should be arrested for joking with nazi salutes, no matter if they are rich or poor. Not sure why you think that corporations get away with it - is there any corporation out there that uploads "joke" nazi salutes to youtube and gets away with it? If you mean films specifically, then films get approval of the British Film Comission which judges anything submited based on artistic merit. We can disagree with its rulings, but it's not like a corporation has "the right to do whatever it likes" as you put it. Quite the opposite in fact. >>The really funny thing is that poor pleb is branded a "fascist" I don't find this funny at all, glorifying nazi imagery(and yes, "joke" nazi salutes achieve exactly that) is no laughing matter. >>while the powerful people who came after him are considered brave and valiant freedom fighters for doing so You mean....the police? I think people here just don't get it - making Nazi salutes even as a joke is not acceptable in European societies. The horrors of WW2 are still too fresh and the pain too great to allow it - we have made these laws to make sure that nazis don't come back, and anything associated with them is banned. You might think "well what sort of harm does a single youtube video do, the guy was clearly joking". And yeah, it's obvious to you and me - but to some, that will be a "funny" thing to repeat. After all, they are only joking, they don't mean it really, it's fine, right? No, it's not, and unfortunately it has to be stomped out as early as possible. Again, I understand that this might sound alien especially to American readers, but I don't have anything else to say on that matter, other that it feels like the right thing to do, given the topic.

lupire 4y ago

Fragile, civilized. Potato, potato.

alasdair_ 4y ago

> They arrested a person for making a video of his dog doing nazi salutes. It's not that the royal family is singularly fragile about being upset by other peoples' expression, the whole of the UK is like that. And yet at the same time one of the biggest movies in the cinema was a Nazi spoof comedy with jokes in far poorer taste. But the movie producers have money.

gambiting 4y ago
That's like complaining that you will get arrested for having sex in the middle of the street, but sex in a film is somehow fine(surely it's because movie producers have money and are in cahoots with the government, and not for any other, more logical reason, like the fact that art forms, no matter how poor in taste, are protected by society).
- wutbrodo 4y ago
  In what legal sense is the YouTuber with the pug less protected by the "art form" argument than the movie production? Did the latter get a permit for Nazi jokes? (Sincere question, maybe they did: UK speech norms and laws are incredibly alien to me)
  - type0 4y ago
    > In what legal sense is the YouTuber with the pug less protected by the "art form" The rules are different for regular plebs, that's as simple as that. And the lesson is that everyone should know their place.
  - gambiting 4y ago
    In terms of legal sense, since you asked about that specifically - all films shown in the UK(in theatres or released on home media, or for streaming/download) have to be approved by the British Film Commission. If something is approved for release, anyone would have an extremely hard time getting the author arrested for the content - they can still be sued for a number of different reasons, but making a nazi salute in a film with nazis would be allowed for artistic purposes. A random guy making a nazi salute for a joke and uploading it on youtube is more like documentary evidence of a crime, not an art form. There is a reason promoting nazi salutes is a crime in most of Europe, and it really doesn't matter he did it as a joke - it's simply not a laughing matter. Yes to American ears it might sound weird - that there is a topic that cannot even be joked about or you risk getting arrested. I don't really have a reply for that, other than the fact that it feels right to me, given the attrocities comitted by Nazis against our people - I think doing a nazi salute publicly(and I count uploading videos on youtube as "public"), even as a joke, is not acceptable at all.
    - wutbrodo 4y ago
      > Yes to American ears it might sound weird - that there is a topic that cannot even be joked about or you risk getting arrested. I don't really have a reply for that, other than the fact that it feels right to me Sure, this is a difference in norms (and law) that I'm intentionally taking for granted, and trying to further understand. If equally-applied, it's a little more comprehensible to me (eg Germany requiring massive game studios to censor Nazi symbolism in WW2 games). But I have a much stronger revulsion reaction to the idea that the govt should be in the business of deciding whose expression is "actually" art, and inconsistently allowing well-connected creators latitude that nobodies aren't privy to. I don't doubt that there are many people find the Nazi pug funnier than the Father Ted joke (and vice versa); the idea that the latter is uniquely acceptable because a _British govt agency_ decided it was funny is astonishing to me.
- samatman 4y ago
  The clip of the dog doing a Nazi salute was on YouTube, so by your logic, as they are both art forms in poor taste, they should both be protected. Not what happened though.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    The mindset is alien to me. The idea that a person should be locked up for making a joke, but a corporation should have the right to do whatever it likes. It doesn't even seem like it's ever in question just stated like a fact that the wealthy and powerful should have more rights. Perhaps that's the British psyche of meek subservience to the ruling class. The really funny thing is that poor pleb is branded a "fascist", while the powerful people who came after him are considered brave and valiant freedom fighters for doing so. I mean it would be funny if it wasn't terrifying and Orwellian.
    - gambiting 4y ago
      >>The idea that a person should be locked up for making a joke, but a corporation should have the right to do whatever it likes. I don't think anyone has this kind of mindset - at least I certainly don't. Anyone should be arrested for joking with nazi salutes, no matter if they are rich or poor. Not sure why you think that corporations get away with it - is there any corporation out there that uploads "joke" nazi salutes to youtube and gets away with it? If you mean films specifically, then films get approval of the British Film Comission which judges anything submited based on artistic merit. We can disagree with its rulings, but it's not like a corporation has "the right to do whatever it likes" as you put it. Quite the opposite in fact. >>The really funny thing is that poor pleb is branded a "fascist" I don't find this funny at all, glorifying nazi imagery(and yes, "joke" nazi salutes achieve exactly that) is no laughing matter. >>while the powerful people who came after him are considered brave and valiant freedom fighters for doing so You mean....the police? I think people here just don't get it - making Nazi salutes even as a joke is not acceptable in European societies. The horrors of WW2 are still too fresh and the pain too great to allow it - we have made these laws to make sure that nazis don't come back, and anything associated with them is banned. You might think "well what sort of harm does a single youtube video do, the guy was clearly joking". And yeah, it's obvious to you and me - but to some, that will be a "funny" thing to repeat. After all, they are only joking, they don't mean it really, it's fine, right? No, it's not, and unfortunately it has to be stomped out as early as possible. Again, I understand that this might sound alien especially to American readers, but I don't have anything else to say on that matter, other that it feels like the right thing to do, given the topic.