Scottish man convicted for making anti-Semitic joke on YouTube, faces jail time

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Newsweek

Patently absurd.

This is one thing the United States objectively does better than almost any other country: protect free speech.

[dead0man]

yeah, that's ridiculous.

[MasterJedi]

Accidentally votes yes since I thought the question was "was this ridiculous".

[TPIG]

As much as we worry about foreign governments and groups taking away our freedoms, it's scary to see the West willingly abandon the principles that have made it the light of the world.

Obviously this guy made a horrible, tasteless joke, but it was just that, a joke. When government can start to dictate what jokes people can and can't make, the future does not look bright.

[Goldwater]

Obviously not (supports free speech)

[MarkD]

It may be justified in the legal sense that Scotland may lack any kind of law offering vigorous protection to freedom of speech.

[mvd10]

As much as we worry about foreign governments and groups taking away our freedoms, it's scary to see the West willingly abandon the principles that have made it the light of the world.

Obviously this guy made a horrible, tasteless joke, but it was just that, a joke. When government can start to dictate what jokes people can and can't make, the future does not look bright.

[DINGO Joe]

Hopefully he lost his girlfriend

[afleitch]

I'm not fussed by this at all.

The Holocaust, like any act of genocide is mankind's greatest assault on itself in our shared history. It's an event that's the closest thing to sacrosanct. It is never,under any circumstances, funny. No matter how hard people protest. There is dark humour to be found within it of course; survival, escape, testimony but the act of genocide isn't funny.

'Gas the Jews' isn't funny or edgy. It is offensive.

Genuinely free speech would allow me to say anything I want about anyone I want without repercussion. I could call people nonces, kiddy fiddlers, pa-kis, k-kes. People next to me on the bus as fat f-cks, ugly c-nts etc.

People who advocate that (online 'edgebois') just don't want the right for there to be repercussions, for people to stop them or question them. Which perversely is anti 'free speech.'

[Lechasseur]

As much as we worry about foreign governments and groups taking away our freedoms, it's scary to see the West willingly abandon the principles that have made it the light of the world.

Obviously this guy made a horrible, tasteless joke, but it was just that, a joke. When government can start to dictate what jokes people can and can't make, the future does not look bright.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm not fussed by this at all.

The Holocaust, like any act of genocide is mankind's greatest assault on itself in our shared history. It's an event that's the closest thing to sacrosanct. It is never,under any circumstances, funny. No matter how hard people protest. There is dark humour to be found within it of course; survival, escape, testimony but the act of genocide isn't funny.

'Gas the Jews' isn't funny or edgy. It is offensive.

Genuinely free speech would allow me to say anything I want about anyone I want without repercussion. I could call people nonces, kiddy fiddlers, pa-kis, k-kes. People next to me on the bus as fat f-cks, ugly c-nts etc.

People who advocate that (online 'edgebois') just don't want the right for there to be repercussions, for people to stop them or question them. Which perversely is anti 'free speech.'

No one's (except for the hardest core libertarians and they aren't arguing here) idea of "genuine free speech" is 100% uninhibited speech though. You may as well argue that "genuine freedom of movement" would allow home invasions. Obviously there are commonly accepted limits on rights, like violating others' rights. There's a reason why libel and harassment laws haven't been struck down by the courts.

Given the massive potential for abuse by the state when limiting rights like free speech, it seems prudent that we tread very carefully when placing said limits. The question is, why are we punishing this person's speech? He isn't libelling anyone, or harassing someone on the street. The answer seems to be: his speech was a obnoxious, idiotic and distasteful. I agree that his speech was horrendous, but it doesn't remotely rise to the level where the state needs to punish it. Indeed human rights seem rather hollow if they can only be used in "acceptable" ways.

[Sirius_]

As much as we worry about foreign governments and groups taking away our freedoms, it's scary to see the West willingly abandon the principles that have made it the light of the world.

Obviously this guy made a horrible, tasteless joke, but it was just that, a joke. When government can start to dictate what jokes people can and can't make, the future does not look bright.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'm not fussed by this at all.

The Holocaust, like any act of genocide is mankind's greatest assault on itself in our shared history. It's an event that's the closest thing to sacrosanct. It is never,under any circumstances, funny. No matter how hard people protest. There is dark humour to be found within it of course; survival, escape, testimony but the act of genocide isn't funny.

'Gas the Jews' isn't funny or edgy. It is offensive.

Genuinely free speech would allow me to say anything I want about anyone I want without repercussion. I could call people nonces, kiddy fiddlers, pa-kis, k-kes. People next to me on the bus as fat f-cks, ugly c-nts etc.

People who advocate that (online 'edgebois') just don't want the right for there to be repercussions, for people to stop them or question them. Which perversely is anti 'free speech.'

No one's (except for the hardest core libertarians and they aren't arguing here) idea of "genuine free speech" is 100% uninhibited speech though. You may as well argue that "genuine freedom of movement" would allow home invasions. Obviously there are commonly accepted limits on rights, like violating others' rights. There's a reason why libel and harassment laws haven't been struck down by the courts.

Given the massive potential for abuse by the state when limiting rights like free speech, it seems prudent that we tread very carefully when placing said limits. The question is, why are we punishing this person's speech? He isn't libelling anyone, or harassing someone on the street. The answer seems to be: his speech was a obnoxious, idiotic and distasteful. I agree that his speech was horrendous, but it doesn't remotely rise to the level where the state needs to punish it. Indeed human rights seem rather hollow if they can only be used in "acceptable" ways.

It's not worth arguing with him about this.  He has exhibited such views all over the forum.

[tallguy23]

Ban him from YouTube and let the public choose to shame him. No jail time though.

[CatoMinor]

Well this is an awful precedent.

Good job U.K.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Ban him from YouTube and let the public choose to shame him. No jail time though.

When has YouTube banning someone ever brought about something good?  Other than proving the point that capitalism and individual liberty are two completely different things.

[Sestak]

Wait they actually convicted him? Even after all the publicity it got?

[BenBurch]

Banning speech only makes the opinion more popular.  That helped Hitler, and most likely Donald Trump.