It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: acackohfcc
What about freedom of thought? There are people I just don't like. If one of the happens to be Jewish, are you going to try and "make" me like them?
I'm an American. I'll hate anyone I feel like.
originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
its illegal in Germany to do the nazi salute or shout their 'catch phrases'...
maybe your next thread should be how Germany is oppressive when it comes to free speech.
mentalist..
originally posted by: paraphi
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
When YouTuber “Count Dankula” uploaded an offensive video
People always whine about free speech. The thing is that there are social norms have been put into law, and these (in the UK at least) seek to curtail offensive and hate speech, particularly when it incites people to perpetuate hate. I can say what I like, but would be quite rightly challenged if I started to bang on about stuff that is socially unacceptable because it fuels hate.
My main point would be around self-publicising YouTube bloggers. Being a dick does not mean that your action are inoffensive, or should be exempt from what is categorised as offensive.
originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
its illegal in Germany to do the nazi salute or shout their 'catch phrases'...
maybe your next thread should be how Germany is oppressive when it comes to free speech.
mentalist..
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Used to be studying the past was good immunity , to keep from repeating it.
But now that we are 'officially' repeating it, the past is censored.
Not that you are aware of it, because whats being banned is 'stirring hatred' (I mean, awareness) how things go bad.
originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
If a potential crime has been reported the police are compelled to investigate it.
An arrest will not be made without reasonable evidence to suggest a crime occurred.
I think a video will suffice as "evidence" and I'm fairly certain that this video was brought to the attention of the police.
This case has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it has everything to do with the workings of law and order, the police did the right thing, that is to investigate a potential crime and act within their authority to ensure lawful and peaceful state if affairs within society.
I'm not offended by this video, I can't say that I've watched it... However I can only speak for myself and I cannot assume the inoffensiveness of the material. If I was a policeman and I took my job seriously then I'd be compelled to investigate, upon discovering material that is potentially unlawful I'd be compelled to investigate further to ensure a lawful conviction.
This has nothing to do with "free speech" and everything to do with the law.
If this was about free speech then the video wouldn't even exist. But it did, he was free to make the video, he was free to post it to social media, when it comes to responsibility though he wasn't free... Non of us are.
originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Not at all, it's about somebody creating media content that was clearly offensive to somebody otherwise an investigation could never have been held.
I mean, I could "joke" about telling somebody to kill themselves day after day, my intention might literally be a joke. Doesn't absolve me of the crime I commited.
I'd be arrested and rightfully so.
Means the government gets to decide what is or isn’t offensive.
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Have we ever lived in a free world?
We are free to do as we are told, that freedom is relative to the enforcer.
I'm fairly certain that western countries that have the rule of law are not even close to being free, offensive speech is simply the next target .
originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Oh so the government are the courts now?
I'm guessing the courts police our streets too?
Means the government gets to decide what is or isn’t offensive.
I wish it were that simple but it isn't, the law can define offenciveness about as much as the government can hand out convictions.
Again he posted the video, he created the video. Nobody forced him to do it, nobody could stop him from creating it. freedom of expression does not give you the right to absolve yourself of responsibility.
This idiot learned responsibility the hard way.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Not at all, it's about somebody creating media content that was clearly offensive to somebody otherwise an investigation could never have been held.
I mean, I could "joke" about telling somebody to kill themselves day after day, my intention might literally be a joke. Doesn't absolve me of the crime I commited.
I'd be arrested and rightfully so.
What isn’t offensive to someone, and who gets to decide what is?
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: RAY1990
The issue isn’t whether the video is offensive, but whether making an offensive video should be criminalized by the government. The same goes for hate speech. With a history of blasphemy, obscenity, and sexual deviance laws, the government doesn’t have quite the best track record in these areas, and is always unjust in application.
Now I'll ask you this, do you blame governments for this whole "I'm offended" state of affairs across the world?
Or do you believe that governments work on an order of consensus and that convictions related to hate speech are on a upward trend because the people want it to be?