Count Dankula convicted for Nazi pug antics

To me it’s weird that this case seems so clear cut to you that you think it’s a good poster child for the first amendment. Scotland has freedom of speech too.

Out of the literal ground. It’s properties of the soil that explain the difference in the level of violence between nations.

19 Likes

Waiting for the red faced, teary eyed, “I didn’t really mean it” court room photos. :confused:

4 Likes

… there is no argument to be made that he was actually going to hurt anyone or cause actual damage.

Weird. And here I thought that World War 2 was a solid argument against letting entitled white pricks do the Nazi thing unchecked. I’m pretty sure Poland would agree with me.

18 Likes

He said " i did it to mainly annoy my girlfriend."

You mean, looking at his face wasn’t enough already?

3 Likes

Nazi Pugs, Nazi Pugs, Nazi Pugs… F*ck off!

27 Likes

“Weird. And here I thought that World War 2 was a solid argument against letting entitled white pricks do the Nazi thing unchecked. I’m pretty sure Poland would agree with me.”
Yeah, because it’s one step from Nazi pugs to Auschwitz. A free society allows the expression of unpleasant ideas. That’s what separates us from the fascists. The state can’t, and shouldn’t try to, adjudicate hate speech. If the government’s argument is predicated on avoiding offense towards any given minority group watch out because everything is now fair game. We exist in a marketplace of ideas, and freedom of conscience and thought is the bedrock upon which it is built, regardless of how unpleasant those ideas are.

5 Likes

This is where the apologists and excusers step in with, “Can’t you take a joke?”

17 Likes

Too late; there are at least two apologists in this thread already.

It’s gonna be a long 5 days.

31 Likes

Do you have any sources to support that assertion? The OP seems to indicate otherwise.

The OP seems to be making a tasteless joke, not actually advocating fascism.

Many 1st Amendment scholars here in the US recall that restrictions of free speech have historically used to shut down leftist speech. (Look into anti-sedition laws around WWI or the various “anti communist” measures)

3 Likes

They also sound like enablers, as if a group espousing the death of others because of their race, ethnicity, and religion should be tolerated.

Hey… enablers… I hope you didn’t miss the part about “the death of others”. See the difference?

9 Likes

So what is the penalty in Scotland for mocking der fuhrer?

1 Like

Huh. Usually those guys go with German Shepherds.

5 Likes

jello-yeah

14 Likes

The two usually go hand in hand, in my experience.

The thing is, what this moron did is illegal in the country where he lives, and yet there are people who will still defend his unacceptable behavior and attack the law itself as “unfair.”

As if there isn’t a highly valid, historical reason that such a law exists in the first place.

16 Likes

With the resurgence of right-wing populism there and denial of Polish complicity in the Holocaust I wish I could be as confident as you are.

15 Likes

Without sarcasm, and although you may condemn me as an “apologist,” I think this response to the video is as much predicated on the tension of the times as on the content itself. Thirty years ago Monty Python did Hitler jokes and there was no public outcry about hate speech. But the world since then has become more and more fractured, and what were obviously jokes then are hate speech now. The definition of “hate speech” has gone into hyperbole. Simply put, it is speech designed to promote hate or to denigrate a group of people. Monty Python wasn’t doing either of those things. I question whether this young man’s intent, whether in poor taste or not, was fueled by or designed to spread hatred.

7 Likes

Well what about the pug? What’s his responsibility in all this? He seemed perfectly willing to go along with everything so maybe he should be charged as well.

In Canada, the prosecution would likely fail the “promoting hatred” test under the criminal code, but that could go either way. It would have been easier under the Canadian Human Rights Act, but that allowed too many butthurt prosecutions and has been mostly neutered.

On the other hand, it does work against out-right holocaust deniers and hate-mongers.

It’s a tricky balance between a law that is too open to being used as a weapon by the merely offended, and being toothless against monsters.

7 Likes

It was pretty clear that the target of Monty Python’s jokes was Hitler himself. They never presented the mass extermination of Jews as comedic fodder.

25 Likes

Yeah, context is a huge difference… Chaplin’s “The Dictator” was making fun of Nazis, not rallying them.

Also there is a difference between making fun of someone and using them as a subject of the joke. Really good comedians can actually break this down for you and it separates the masters who can make dark subject matter funny, from the trash.

16 Likes