Man guilty of owning racist dog [merged]

[Zetetic]

I don't know whether this should be the fault of the person producing the creative work though.

If you post it to Twitter? Maybe.

In the early days of the internet, when it was chat rooms and specialist forums (like this one) people searched for and found these areas, and knew what they were getting.

Certainly I think one of the problems is that we're not talking clearly enough about the differences between public and private spaces on the internet and places like this that fall somewhere in between.

I do worry that's going to screw places like this over at some point. (At the very least we can envision a regulatory capture scenario where it's basically impossible to operate a moderately unfocused social space online except as a commercial enterprise, and possibly except as a multi-million pound commercial enterprise. Consider the machine-learning ISIS-video-identification stuff commissioned by the Home Office - intended to prevent the latter scenario in order to reinforce the former.)

[Twed]

Twitter complicates this - it's deliberately a space in which people can trivially spread snippets like this (moreso than Facebook statuses, or posts on Cookdandbombd) and its built around that concept.

I don't think it's true that "nobody was exposed to this against their will" other than in a very weak sense.

Yeah, I never buy that argument. I wouldn't see xkcd comics all the time if I could control what I am exposed to.

[biggytitbo]

It's a public space where people are encouraged to gather together in corners in little like minded groups and throw turds and wasps at each other.

[Noodle Lizard]

Twitter complicates this - it's deliberately a space in which people can trivially spread snippets like this (moreso than Facebook statuses, or posts on Cookdandbombd) and its built around that concept.

I don't think it's true that "nobody was exposed to this against their will" other than in a very weak sense.

Do we know how popular the video was before all this mess?  I'm sure I speak for everyone here when I say there's no chance I would've seen it if it weren't for the controversy, which seems counter-intuitive if they're punishing him for spreading offensive or damaging material.

Also, I don't know, I very rarely find myself watching a video I don't decide to - whether it comes up in my feed or not.  But even if I did come across this video (without any title or pretext of its contents) and found it offensive, I'd just close it.  Same with anything potentially offensive on TV.  Nobody is forced to watch it.

[Replies From View]

Some cat videos are called things like Hitler Cat because the cat has patches of black hair that resemble the hairstyle and moustache of Hitler.

I can't see much of a difference to be honest.  Not that I know anything about the racist dog video beyond the descriptions in this thread.

[Zetetic]

Do we know how popular the video was before all this mess?

Oh, I don't disagree - as a way to prevent other people being exposed to it, it's a complete failure. (And that is an interesting contrast with the police moving someone along from a high street.)

Same with anything potentially offensive on TV.  Nobody is forced to watch it.

That still strikes me as an extremely low bar. (I know we've talked about this before - I'm happy to draw a distinction between public, shared spaces and private spaces when it comes to freedom of speech, but I know you disagree.)

[phantom_power]

Is part of the problem that if you are watching a comedy programme on TV there is no doubt what you are watching. You can be offended but you are clearly still watching a comedy programme that isn't expressing the opinion of the performer. YouTube muddies those waters a bit. There is a sort of unspoken contract when you are watching TV that isn't there yet on the internet. You are watching professionals doing their job on telly but in YouTube you could just as likely be watching someone expressing their actual opinion.

That and the fact that people on TV will have an idea what they can get away with and YouTubers don't

[Twed]

I feel that this could all be resolved by getting Noodle Lizard to see something he doesn't want to see.

[Zetetic]

No.

[Noodle Lizard]

I feel that this could all be resolved by getting Noodle Lizard to see something he doesn't want to see.

I've still managed to avoid seeing most of those internet shock videos or beheading videos that get passed around (even back in the days where it'd just be a link in a chain e-mail saying "OMG WATCH THIS"), so I'm not sure it's that difficult.  Compared to that, this Nazi dog bantz doesn't seem particularly troublesome.

[colacentral]

When uploading videos to youtube you do have the option to set age limits, whether or not to make it searchable, etc. So there is an element of responsibility placed on the uploader in that sense.

I don't think "it's just a joke" stands up as a defence, it's obviously more complicated than that. Even in a comedy club where a comedian might be expected to go out on a limb, he/she can't say "why do jews have big noses? To smell how much money is in your wallet" (shit I know). There's obviously a line there. In this case, if he'd been saying "heil hitler" instead of bringing "the jews" into it, no one would be arsed. And the fact that the humour relies almost entirely on being offensive doesn't help either (though it's helped by the caveat that it's a cute dog doing it, creating an amusing juxtaposition).

[Twed]

I've still managed to avoid seeing most of those internet shock videos or beheading videos that get passed around (even back in the days where it'd just be a link in a chain e-mail saying "OMG WATCH THIS"), so I'm not sure it's that difficult.  Compared to that, this Nazi dog bantz doesn't seem particularly troublesome.

Yeah, but

[colacentral]

If I trained my cat to meow the "pakis on the moon" joke in morse code, would that get me in trouble?

[bgmnts]

I wonder if there were Germans in the cinemas during the 30s going "lol its just a joke".

Herman Goering at Nuremberg, "just bants mate".

[Noodle Lizard]

I don't think "it's just a joke" stands up as a defence, it's obviously more complicated than that. Even in a comedy club where a comedian might be expected to go out on a limb, he/she can't say "why do jews have big noses? To smell how much money is in your wallet" (shit I know). There's obviously a line there.

Sure.  If someone thinks that's so troublesome, then ban him from the comedy club, have a go at him on Twitter, whatever.  I just don't think it's the place of the legal system/government to prosecute things which are in bad taste, nor do I like the precedent it sets.  The precedent has already been set, in fact, what with all the anti-pornography laws, Twitter trolls going to jail, the guy wearing a "One Pig Dead, Good Stuff!" T-shirt etc.

Since it's already been mentioned, where would Derek & Clive fall into this?  Obviously, deliberately offensive stuff - is it only acceptable because we feel we know the people behind it and know that they probably don't mean it, really?  Because it's sanctioned by a major release/celebrity involvement?

[colacentral]

I agree with that. Just in case anyone is in any doubt about where I stand re: the law getting involved. But a thing being a joke doesn't absolve the teller from some social responsibility.

Edit: wrong word used, looked like bell

[Barry Admin]

Sure.  If someone thinks that's so troublesome, then ban him from the comedy club, have a go at him on Twitter, whatever.  I just don't think it's the place of the legal system/government to prosecute things which are in bad taste, nor do I like the precedent it sets.  The precedent has already been set, in fact, what with all the anti-pornography laws, Twitter trolls going to jail, the guy wearing a "One Pig Dead, Good Stuff!" T-shirt etc.

That's reminded me of this thread from a couple of years back.

[Barry Admin]

I don't think "it's just a joke" stands up as a defence, it's obviously more complicated than that.

It really does, though. It's a comedy video and is edited for humorous effect. It's a joke.

Even in a comedy club where a comedian might be expected to go out on a limb, he/she can't say "why do jews have big noses? To smell how much money is in your wallet" (shit I know). There's obviously a line there. In this case, if he'd been saying "heil hitler" instead of bringing "the jews" into it, no one would be arsed. And the fact that the humour relies almost entirely on being offensive doesn't help either (though it's helped by the caveat that it's a cute dog doing it, creating an amusing juxtaposition).

A comedian could indeed do that, many of them have done.

I would disagree that the humour relies almost entirely on being offensive. Rather it's predicated on the juxtaposition you and the video maker outlined. It also relies on the effort the guy has gone to regards training the dog, the enthusiasm with which the dog responds (waking up from his sleep etc), and editing that is tailored to a comedic sensibility.

The footage of the dog watching the Hitler rally is, as I said, funny, but probably could have been easily used in such a way to make it even more obvious that this is all just someone trying to be funny. Having said that, the guy explicitly says that's his intention at the start and end of the video, and here we all are.

[Paulie Walnuts]

what's the difference between someone doing this and being sincere and someone doing it for bants?

it's irrelevant : hurty words, when not targeted at someone in a harassing and provoking way, should never be a criminal matter

as Patrice O'Neal said - funny jokes come from the same place unfunny jokes come from

[Benevolent Despot]

I just listened to that Jerry Sadowitz Leeds 2011 bootleg for the purposes of solidarity.

[colacentral]

It really does, though. It's a comedy video and is edited for humorous effect. It's a joke.

A comedian could indeed do that, many of them have done.

I would disagree that the humour relies almost entirely on being offensive. Rather it's predicated on the juxtaposition you and the video maker outlined. It also relies on the effort the guy has gone to regards training the dog, the enthusiasm with which the dog responds (waking up from his sleep etc), and editing that is tailored to a comedic sensibility.

The footage of the dog watching the Hitler rally is, as I said, funny, but probably could have been easily used in such a way to make it even more obvious that this is all just someone trying to be funny. Having said that, the guy explicitly says that's his intention at the start and end of the video, and here we all are.

I think we've got crossed wires here. I agree that in this particular case it's clear that there's no real issue. 

What I mean when I say that "it's just a joke" is no real defence, is that it's irrelevant to the issue whether or not it's a joke, just as it's irrelevant whether or not the joke was funny; yet every time something like this comes up the topic goes down that same path. It seems to me to be unhelpful, as we know that a law can still be broken in service of a joke, even a funny one.

[king_tubby]

Can't be fucked to read the thread, obviously, but this just popped up on the tweets.

https://twitter.com/MikeStuchbery_/status/976574868090126336

[marquis_de_sad]

I'm not sure the culture wars/polarised social media angle is that relevant to be honest. It looks far more like state over-reach into an area it doesn't understand. People put pressure on the government to be "tough on" bad things online, and, despite guidelines being drawn up, the Crown still tends to punish people harshly. If you read the guidelines, they're very sensible. E.g.

The High Threshold at the Evidential Stage

There is a high threshold that must be met before the evidential stage in the Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code) will be met. Furthermore, even if the high evidential threshold is met, in many cases a prosecution is unlikely to be required in the public interest. See further the sections below on The Public Interest and Article 10 ECHR.

In Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157 (Admin), the Lord Chief Justice made it clear that:

"Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by [section 127 of the Communications Act 2003]."
Prosecutors are reminded that what is prohibited under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 is the sending of a communication that is grossly offensive. A communication sent has to be more than simply offensive to be contrary to the criminal law. Just because the content expressed in the communication is in bad taste, controversial or unpopular, and may cause offence to individuals or a specific community, this is not in itself sufficient reason to engage the criminal law. As Lord Bingham made clear in DPP v Collins:

"There can be no yardstick of gross offensiveness otherwise than by the application of reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the particular message sent in its particular context. The test is whether a message is couched in terms liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates."
"The Justices must apply the standards of an open and just multi-racial society".
"The question is whether ... [the defendant] used language which is beyond the pale of what is tolerable in our society".
"[Is there anything] in the content or tenor of [the] messages to soften or mitigate the effect of [the] language in any way"?

There's also another section on the importance of context. Again, I think the problem is the court is presented with a video of a man saying "gas the jews" to his dog to make it give a Hitler salute. I and most people here agree that he's clearly joking and so isn't just trying to be "grossly offensive" (whatever that means). According to the guidelines there's a high threshold of evidence that must show that a person is falling foul of the law, and I don't think they've met that threshold here. But the problem is it's hard to imagine what the difference would be if he was deliberately trying to offend people based on their ethnicity but also found it funny. I think that's partially why these judgements tend to err towards the draconian.

[ollyboro]

The idea that because something is on social media we should be more careful, in case somebody who might be upset-or offended-might see it is a massive red herring. Should a bloke who tells a joke to his mate be prosecuted because a passerby heard it? One bloke; one billion people- same principle. So somebody got offended. Nobody lost an eye.

[Zetetic]

^^ Glad of marquis_de_sad's post.

Should a bloke who tells a joke to his mate be prosecuted because a passerby heard it?

I don't think that's a sensible characterisation of all forms of social media.

It seems to me to be unhelpful, as we know that a law can still be broken in service of a joke, even a funny one.

At the same time, that an utterance can be reasonably recognised a joke is clearly relevant to how it will be understood. It's not unimportant if it's not an argument-ender.

(Although that possibly isn't to the benefit of someone trying to show that their utterance isn't "grossly offensive" that it can be taken as a joke...)

[ollyboro]

A guy who isn't deaf signs a joke to his deaf best mate. The punchline is based on a deaf guy not being able to hear. Should the guy telling the joke be prosecuted because a passing deaf bloke sees it and is offended? It's exactly the same as somebody surfing the net stumbling upon a YouTube joke. Scale should not come into it.

[Zetetic]

Why shouldn't scale come into it? Why shouldn't the decision to broadcast your jokes on platforms specifically built around the idea of being able to spread them far and wide be relevant?

Telling jokes in private does seem different to me to yelling them across the street.

[biggytitbo]

The Culture war aspect is the reaction and how its polarised by which 'side' you're on rather than a more principled and consistent stance about free speech. Too many people are happy to gloat about free speech been attacked depending on who is been attacked and who is doing the attacking.

[marquis_de_sad]

The Culture war aspect is the reaction and how its polarised by which 'side' you're on rather than a more principled and consistent stance about free speech. Too many people are happy to gloat about free speech been attacked depending on who is been attacked and who is doing the attacking.

Has that got anything to do with the sentence?*

* btw when I said "judgements" above I meant "sentences"

[ollyboro]

Why shouldn't scale come into it? Why shouldn't the decision to broadcast your jokes on platforms specifically built around the idea of being able to spread them far and wide be relevant?

Telling jokes in private does seem different to me to yelling them across the street.

Who decides if enough people are bothered, or upset? If I upload a joke that could be considered racist and a million people see it, but only 499999 people complain, should we assume that they're correct? It's too much of a cul-de-sac to go down. There are people in Britain offended by the sight of a female knee. Should we listen to them? Who decides? Openly inciting hatred is one thing, telling a shit joke is quite another.