Man faces hate crime charge in Scotland over dog's 'Nazi salute'

[Nye Bevan]

A man has been arrested over an online video that reportedly shows a dog making a Nazi salute.

The 28-year-old, from Coatbridge in North Lanarkshire, faces hate crime charges over the video, Police Scotland said. The clip allegedly shows a pug sitting in front of a screen showing footage of Adolf Hitler and appearing to make Nazi salutes.

Officers said the video had been shared online and “caused offence and hurt to many people in our community”.

....

DI David Cockburn said: “Posting offensive material online or in any other capacity will not be tolerated and police will act swiftly to tackle hate crimes that are motivated by malice or ill-will because of faith, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability. “This clip has been shared and viewed online, which ultimately has caused offence and hurt to many people in our community. There is no place for hate crime in Scotland and police take all reports of incidents seriously.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/09/nazi-salute-dog-man-faces-hate-crime-charge-scotland

Seems to me that the Scottish police have a bit too much time on their hands.

[Initech]

1. Or he's seen the Producers one time too many.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

3. Your film, which Jewish groups did not find offensive, makes a good point...

Too much time on their hands and overly sensitive to public opinion.

[edbermac]

7. Or Raiders of the Lost Ark

[FLPanhandle]

2. I wonder how they would have reacted to this

[linuxman]

4. Huh. That's a crime in Scotland?

Glad I live in a place where I'm not worried about going to jail for offending someone with dark or crass humor.

[Nye Bevan]

5. The Scottish police occasionally send out tweets reminding people not to post stuff that's "hurtful"

or "unkind", on the internet.



http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-35946349

For someone in the US who is accustomed to having a First Amendment, this kind of thing is indeed amazing.

[linuxman]

6. Holy fucking 1984!

[Ilsa]

38. I wouldn't mind the promotion of kindness,

thoughtfulness, and honesty on the internet. But this idea that the police could "pay a visit" is certainly a way to cut free speech and intimidate anyone wanting to post about political or religious beliefs.

[U4ikLefty]

8. Hope the Scots don't find out about this site

http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com/cgi-bin/seigmiaow.pl

[progree]

9. GAS THE JEWS?, GAS THE JEWS?, DO I GAS THE JEWS?, Ha Ha Ha ROFL :-) :-) :-)

Last edited Wed May 11, 2016, 02:33 AM - Edit history (1)

A dog doing a Nazi salute is kind of funny. But virtually the entire controversial film clip is getting the dog to react to "Gas the Jews?"
Here it is.

So yes, I found it deeply offensive and hateful. "Gas The Jews?" was said 22 times.

What's next? "Lynch the n_____s"? "Hose the bitches"? 22 times? Ha ha ha?

Seems to me that the Scottish police have a bit too much time on their hands.

I thought so too when I read your OP. But not after looking at the clip.

This is NOT "The Producers", which I thought was hilarious. As well as most every "Hitler Reacts To" piece I've seen.

[Egnever]

10. You know I was going to agree with you and then..

I saw this.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/9/markus-meechan-faces-hate-crime-charges-in-scotlan/

Last month, Mr. Meechan apologized to the Jewish community for the video, which he said was made to annoy his girlfriend.

“Honestly, I don’t hate anyone, the whole purpose of this was just to annoy my girlfriend,” he said in a YouTube video. “I am so sorry to the Jewish community for any offense I have caused them. This was never my intention and I apologize.

”

And while distasteful I think that was the intent and I get it.

Don't think it is a hate crime just a tasteless joke on his girlfriend that went viral. Mostly because he posted an apology a month before being arrested.

Maybe he has more history that would change my opinion, but without knowing more like who posted it online and how was it posted.

I am leaning to the

Scottish police have a bit too much time on their hands.

[progree]

11. Likewise with "lynch the n___rs?"

I don't think he belongs in prison, but a little probation and community service and a cultural sensitivity class or something would be about right.

[Egnever]

12. With anything you can find offensive really

Bad taste but when done to annoy someone as a prank I don't think it rises to the level of hate crime or even arrest worthy. He basically filmed himself training his girlfriends dog. What he did with the video after that would likely determine how I ultimately felt about it.

If he posted it to www.kkk.com or something then I am with you.

But then I saw this and I don't think that is the case.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. This is exactly why we don't, can't, and shouldn't outlaw "hate speech".

(And now Scotland goes down the rabbit hole, here, because they apparently do.)

I mean, the 1st Amendment is clear, someone can be a bigoted fuckhat, a racist shitheel, a flaming hemorrhoid of neonaziism, even, and yet they still have the constitutional right to spew their nasty-ass mouth flatulence and let everyone else know exactly what the everlovin' fuck is wrong with their particular head.

Which is, to my mind, as it should be. Even though such expressions are foul and worthy of universal condemnation. Beyond that, so much of "hate" has to do with intent, and it's pretty damn hard to distinguish between someone saying "&$&*%&(% the (%*(*@#*($" because they mean it, or saying it ironically, or just saying it to get a rise out of their girlfriend.

[NutmegYankee]

14. Don't say that too loudly, or our resident authoritarians will call you a racist or something.

God forbid a liberal support the concept of not being punished for freely expressing ideas.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. 1st Amendment threads can get pretty fucking depressing around here, I agree.

Good God, the people who wanted to argue up and down that it was against the law to draw "blasphemous" cartoons, because they're convinced there's some sort of 1st Amendment exception for "things that might make someone real mad"

it boggles.

[progree]

18. "1st Amendment threads can get pretty fucking depressing" So is hate speech.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. well, the 1st Amendment protects it just the same.

You dont have to like it, but the principle that protects the worst speech also protects the best and most important.

[progree]

22. Read #20.

[beevul]

45. Then answer it with unhateful speech...

We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own...

Justice Robert H Jackson.

Then answer it with unhateful speech.

Censorship is worse than hate speech.

[FLPanhandle]

32. I call them "Safe zone" liberals

They don't comprehend that when you turn over control of what is offensive speech to the government, that government might just decide their opinions are offensive.

Idiots.

[progree]

33. Read #20.

[FLPanhandle]

34. I read it and you are still a "safe zone" liberal

One who doesn't understand free speech, but go ahead and turn over your right to speech on any topic to government review since you'll feel safe and never hear anything that might offend you.

[progree]

35. So you think its OK to put nooses around statues of black people,cry "fire" in a crowded theater,

threaten politicians (there's no "except if it's a threat" limitation clause in the First Amendment), be publicly loud, obscene, and abusive on public transit, etc.? If that makes me a "safe zone" liberal, than I am 100% perfectly fine with that.

[FLPanhandle]

37. You obviously don't understand the USSC rulings on the 1st amendment

Last edited Wed May 11, 2016, 10:08 AM - Edit history (1)

And think any limitation means it's open season for the government to judge all speech.

If you really would like to learn, start with studying the Supreme Court cast of Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.

You don't know what you are talking about right now.

[beevul]

48. Some forget...

The first amendment wasn't intended to protect popular speech - because popular speech by definition doesn't need protection.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is perhaps the most torturously overused metaphor in existence

and it's also incorrect.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

So let me flip it back on you, with the point I was making originally that you responded to- do you think it should be illegal for people to draw "blasphemous" cartoons?

[NYC Liberal]

59. And Holmes made that analogy to justify upholding the arrests of antiwar protesters.

I wonder how many posters citing it realize that.

[NutmegYankee]

54. As demonstrated in this thread, very fucking depressing.

There is absolutely nothing liberal about censorship.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. It's inevitable.

And I get tired of refuting the same points over and over, don't you?

[NutmegYankee]

58. Oh yeah, especially the "yelling fire in a crowded theater".

It's been 47 years since that ruling was overturned!

[progree]

20. How about a noose around the statue of James Meredith at the University of Mississippi?

Last edited Wed May 11, 2016, 09:08 AM - Edit history (1)

Former Ole Miss student pleads guilty to putting a noose around the neck of statue of first black student at the university (James Meredith), Daily Mail, 3/25/16

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3507478/Ole-Miss-ex-student-plead-guilty-tying-noose-statue.html

Prosecutors said another former student, Graeme Phillip Harris, hatched the plan to place the noose and flag on the statue after a night of drinking with Edenfield and a third freshman in the Sigma Phil Epsilon fraternity house on campus.

They said Edenfield actually tied the noose on Meredith's statue after Harris couldn't do it.

Harris, who is also from Georgia, was sentenced to six months in prison, followed by 12 months of supervised release.

All three of the students withdrew from Ole Miss, and the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity closed its chapter.

Austin Reed Edenfield will be sentenced on July 21, and faces up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine. The government has recommended probation. (Edenfield is the one who actually tied the noose)

For First Amendment absolutists, there is no "except if it is a threat" clause in it. By that logic, jailing that poor white guy above is a violation of his First Amendment rights. So is punishing people for threats against Obama or Hillary.

And "Gas The Jews" 22 times is pretty threatening.

Also you can be arrested and jailed for loud, abusive, obscene language. Or crying "fire" in a crowded theater.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. A threat, not speech.

Youre wrong, and im not going to sit here all day again explaining how you are wrong. And before we get into it, I come from a family that had victims in the Holocaust. I also know why the ACLU defended the Nazis right to march in Skokie.

Free speech is a greater enemy of everything they stand for than censorship ever could be.

[progree]

25. They weren't chanting Gas the Jews in Skokie.

Or marching through a black neighborhood chanting "lynch the n__ers"

A mighty fine line between uploading a video "gas the Jews" 22 times, and a noose around the statue of a black person.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. Well you go ahead and see if it is prosecutable, then.

Maybe in Scotland, yes, but in the US, no.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

41. More about that. First, what was the charge?

Good morning, progree.

U.S. Attorneys » Northern District of Mississippi » News

Department of Justice

U.S. Attorney’s Office

Northern District of Mississippi

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Second Man Pleads Guilty to Tying Rope Around Neck of James Meredith Statue on Ole Miss Campus

WASHINGTON – A second man pleaded guilty to a federal civil rights crime for tying a rope and Confederate flag around the neck of the James Meredith Statue at the University of Mississippi. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, U.S. Attorney Felicia C. Adams of the Northern District of Mississippi and Special Agent in Charge Donald Alway of the FBI’s Jackson, Mississippi, Division made the announcement.

Austin Reed Edenfield, of Kennesaw, Georgia, pleaded guilty to one count of using a threat of force to intimidate African-American students and employees because of their race or color. Edenfield was charged by information shortly before the plea. His sentencing date has not yet been set.

IANAL, but I think this is the specific statute:

Federal Civil Rights Statutes

....
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245
Federally Protected Activities
1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as:

a) A voter, or person qualifying to vote...;

b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;

c) an applicant for federal employment or an employee by the federal government;

d) a juror or prospective juror in federal court; and

e) a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

2) Prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because of his/her activity as:

a) A student or applicant for admission to any public school or public college;

b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by a state or local government;

c) an applicant for private or state employment, private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in any labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through any employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall;

d) a juror or prospective juror in state court;

e) a traveler or user of any facility of interstate commerce or common carrier; or

f) a patron of any public accommodation, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters...or any other establishment which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises.

It's going to take more time than I have right now, but I suspect that others who have faced this charge and have been convicted have filed appeals. I'm further guessing that some of those appeals were based on the argument that the activities were protected speech. How those appeals turned out, I do not know, but Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245 seems still to be in place.

You know how much I like to link to Federal documents, so here is a link to that:

18 U.S.C. 245 - Federally protected activities

Scroll down to "CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS (sections 241 - 249)."

Best wishes.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

40. Gosh darn it, I'm sending you a case of America®.

[progree]

17. How about "fuck the bitches" or "fuck Hillary"?? If done to annoy one's girlfriend, its OK, right?

Bad taste but when done to annoy someone as a prank I don't think it rises to the level of hate crime or even arrest worthy. He basically filmed himself training his girlfriends dog.

Basically. OK. I get it.

"Lynch the n__s" is OK too, if just to annoy someone's girlfriend. 22 times. And uploading to Youtube for millions to see.

What he did with the video after that would likely determine how I ultimately felt about it.

He uploaded it to YouTube -- a website viewed by countless millions.

If he posted it to www.kkk.com or something then I am with you.

But its OK on YouTube. Got it.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. You seem to be confusing "ok" with "constitutionally protected"

They are not the same.

You just said those things, AND you're arguing that context shouldnt matter.

By your own logic, you want to arrest yourself.

[progree]

26. Yes, context is everything.

Explaining why something is offensive by analogy is a lot different than saying, "oh, it was just to annoy my girlfriend"

AND you're arguing that context shouldnt matter.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. It's everything in subjectively determining how much of an asshole the person saying the stuff is.

But as a legal standard for determining when the government should be allowed to censor speech, it is doomed to failure.

[progree]

27. It was in Scotland, where there isn't constitutional protection to "Gas the Jews" speech

You seem to be confusing "ok" with "constitutionally protected"

Where did I confuse the two?

[TeddyR]

28. Good thing the US has he First Amendment

While I find hate speech reprehensible it isn't and shouldn't be criminalized.

[progree]

30. See #20.

Also you can be arrested for loud abusive obscene language. Or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

And if you are a First Amendment absolutist, there is no "except if it is a threat" clause in it.

[beevul]

46. None of that changes the facts.

Censorship is generally far more offensive than hate speech is capable of being.

[NYC Liberal]

60. You cannot be arrested for "yelling fire in a crowded theater."

That analogy was used by the Supreme Court to justify the arrest of anti-war protesters during WWI. You really agree with that?

Thankfully, that ruling was overturned a long time ago.

[Egnever]

43. If you watch the apology video

The girlfriend claims he didn't upload it to you tube for everyone to see his friend did and it was not intended for anyone but those in on the "joke"

I get it it's offensive. I am not in any way trying to deny that. Hate crime? Assuming the girlfriends story is correct, I don't think so.

[Nye Bevan]

16. You want to see this kind of tweet by the cops in the US?

[progree]

21. Yes. If its "lynch the n__er" or a threat against Hillary of Obama.

[TeddyR]

29. Nope

If a threat then it isn't protected, otherwise you can be as racist or mysogynistic as you please.

[progree]

31. Gas the Jews isn't threatening speech. OK. BTW, did you read #20?

[Nye Bevan]

42. I doubt anyone could be prosecuted for saying "gas the Jews" in the United States.

It has to be a credible threat, and I doubt a judge could be convinced that the person was seriously advocating building a gas chamber and using it to murder Jews.

As an example of what could be prosecuted, pointing to a Jewish person on the street and yelling "kill that Jew" would not be protected speech.

[beevul]

44. Cripes, are you serious?

I don't think he belongs in prison, but a little probation and community service and a cultural sensitivity class or something would be about right.

Sad to see such sentiments on DU.

[melm00se]

36. Interesting map that ranks

freedom of expression



http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/18/global-support-for-principle-of-free-expression-but-opposition-to-some-forms-of-speech/

[Boudica the Lyoness]

39. This is what happens down the PC

slippery slope. Be warned America!

[Matrosov]

47. Fine by me

Hate speech is Constitutionally protected? Usually it's the cancerous conservatives who try to hide behind the Constitution to excuse their vile behavior.

'If government gets to decide what is and isn't offensive, your opinion might be next.'

Yeah, that's only if we elect more cancerous conservatives into office.

There's a big difference between 'End all racism' and 'kill all n***ers.' Those who think it's just a matter of opinion, I can't help you.

[Nye Bevan]

49. Just be careful not to post anything "hurtful" and the police won't pay you a visit.

Simple.

[Throd]

50. "Yeah, that's only if we elect more cancerous conservatives into office."

What makes you think that won't happen?

Those who think it's just a matter of opinion couldn't care less about your help.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Yes, "hate speech" is constitutionally protected.

The 1st Amendment was put first for a reason.

[Matrosov]

64. Let's not forget the motivation behind the Bill of Rights

Infant America was trying to be the opposite of Great Britain. The First Amendment was created so Americans didn't have to live in fear of being punished for criticizing American politicians, the way criticizing British royalty could land you in jail in jolly ol Britain.

It was not NOT created to protect racist assholes.

[beevul]

65. The motivation behind the bill of rights? Is that like the purpose of it?

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court 1943

[Matrosov]

66. Sounds like a justification for selfishness

The same reason gun owners tend to be self-appointed experts on the Constitution, because 'Who the fuck cares how many die to gun violence every year, as long as I get to go plinking on Saturday? The Second Amendment says so.'

[beevul]

67. To those with control issues, I imagine so.

To everyone else, not so much.

The same reason gun owners tend to be self-appointed experts on the Constitution...

Yes, justice Jackson was just a plant, put on the Supreme Court court by selfish gun owners.

Do try to stay on topic. This is about speech, not guns.

[NutmegYankee]

69. WOW, the amazing shit you read.

"People who believe in individual liberties are 'selfish'." I guess you are an orphan here. It is the position of the Democratic Party of the USA to uphold our civil and political liberties enshrined in the Constitution.

[Matrosov]

70. Amazing shit?

People justifying their vile behavior in the name of 'freedum' is amazing shit. I'm not doing that. However, it's a popular justification with among conservatives. Hmm...

[Egnever]

71. If only conservatives care about freedom of speech

We are in big trouble

[Matrosov]

72. Oh, but they do

As long as they get to spread their vile messages.

[Egnever]

73. My point is everyone should

Not just conservatives.

What is offensive is different depending on your point of view. I am not comfortable with anyone deciding what should be offensive to me or that I can be jailed because I say something offensive to them.

If that is a republican value only then we are fucked.

[NutmegYankee]

74. Hmm...

With views as authoritarian as yours you are in no position to make accusations of who holds conservative views. Hello totalitarian autocracy...

There is a HUGE difference between believing in Government to solve social problems like healthcare and food insecurity and crushing dissenting opinions, even if they are disgusting. That's a job for society. Government should only enforce fair and equal treatment of all persons in the economic and legal arena.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. It protects the most unpopular or offensive opinions and speech, because they understood that

protecting the popular ones tends to be easy.

The way to answer racist asshole speech is with more speech.

[NutmegYankee]

55. Think about athiests who disparage Christianity or engage in "blaspemy".

Hate speech laws are used world wide to censor and punish them for daring to state that religion is a fantasy story. There is nothing liberal about supporting censorship. NOTHING.

[davidn3600]

56. Thank god America has the first amendment

Or they'd be passing bullshit laws here too.

Offend someone....go to jail. Imagine how many prisons we'd have to build.

[madville]

62. Should have Norm MacDonald troll their twitter feed

He loves his Hilter jokes, "The more I read about that Hitler fella, the less I like him....., he seems like a real Jerk!!!".