Page 1 of 24 1234511 ... Last
  1. #1
    battlefields's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Australia, Land of Oz
    Posts
    5,469
    Style
    BJJ/ MMA/ MT
    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    Count Dankula Hate Crimes - Adolf Pugler, No, Wait, Pugdolf Hitler...

    Not sure how many of you are youtube consumers, and out of those, not sure how many of you watch content that is accused of being "alt-right" but are, in reality, simply anything that is not radical left. I've been down this rabbit hole recently and some of the **** is hilarious, some is concerning, and some is genuinely thought provoking. I have had some of my ideas challenged and molded, while others were bolstered and fortified.

    Whatever your political leanings, I think we all agree that free speech is a cornerstone of democracy. It is the definition of free speech that has muddied the waters, with one side claiming that free speech does not include hate speech and that should have severe legal/criminal ramifications, while the other side says, basically, no, listen to all speech and if the concept is ****, then you should be able to call it on being ****.

    Another thing we can likely agree on is that pugs are hilariously cute. I grew up with pugs and they're fucking awesome. If you don't agree, then your taste in doge is too serious.

    Now, I'm not Jewish, but I seriously doubt that there are any Jews out there who seriously consider the following a hate crime:



    It's fucking comedy. And comedy gold at that, in my subjective opinion. The very first thing I thought of was Dead Kennedys Nazi Punks **** Off, although I concede that it likely pre-dates Dead Kennedys. So I made some artwork to go with this thread below.

    Count Dankula is facing a year in jail because he taught a dog to do some ****. This dog is literally Hitler.

    Seriously, though, how fucking ridiculous.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DEAD-KENNEDYS-Black-Nazi-Punks-Fuck-Off-T-Shirt-1_LI.jpg 
Views:	58 
Size:	26.4 KB 
ID:	17431  

    GET A RED BELT OR DIE TRYIN'.
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil View Post
    I think Battlefields and I had a spirited discussion once about who was the biggest narcissist. We both wanted the title but at the end of the day I had to concede defeat. Can't win 'em all.
    Quote Originally Posted by BackFistMonkey View Post
    I <3 Battlefields...

  2. #2
    DCS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,484
    Style
    Jits
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by battlefields View Post
    Count Dankula is facing a year in jail because he taught a dog to do some ****. This dog is literally Hitler.
    Anyone who puts saucers in his earlobes deserves jail.

    On the other hand, that was not his dog... fucking hippie doesn't respect private property. Moar jail.

    Now a little bit more seriously, let's wait for the sentence and after that we could say if his freedom has been infringed or not.

  3. #3
    Bneterasedmynam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    illinois
    Posts
    4,602
    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DCS View Post
    Anyone who puts saucers in his earlobes deserves jail.

    On the other hand, that was not his dog... fucking hippie doesn't respect private property. Moar jail.

    Now a little bit more seriously, let's wait for the sentence and after that we could say if his freedom has been infringed or not.
    The fact that he is even facing a sentence of any kind is an infringement. The policing of thoughts regardless of the reason is real fascism.

  4. #4
    DCS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,484
    Style
    Jits
    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam View Post
    The fact that he is even facing a sentence of any kind is an infringement.
    No, not really.

    The policing of thoughts regardless of the reason is real fascism.
    Maybe, but this is not the case. He's being accused because his actions not because his thoughts.

  5. #5
    hungryjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    5,026
    Style
    judo hiatus
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Animal cruelty?

  6. #6
    DCS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,484
    Style
    Jits
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by hungryjoe View Post
    Animal cruelty?
    UK's Communications Act 2003 - Section 127, I believe.

  7. #7
    ermghoti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    OW, MY KNEE
    Posts
    4,633
    Style
    BJJ+Sanda
    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DCS View Post
    UK's Communications Act 2003 - Section 127, I believe.
    LOL. Writing a law that infringes free speech is exactly how you infringe free speech.
    "Systema, which means, 'the system'..."

    Quote Originally Posted by strikistanian View Post
    DROP SEIONAGI ************! Except I don't know Judo, so it doesn't work, and he takes my back.
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil
    Why is it so goddamn hard to find a video of it? I've seen videos I'm pretty sure are alien spacecraft. But still no good Krav.
    Quote Originally Posted by Plasma
    At the point, I must act! You see my rashguard saids "Jiu Jitsu vs The World" and "The World" was standing in front me teaching Anti-Grappling in a school I help run.
    [quote=SoulMechanic]Thank you, not dying really rewarding in more ways than I can express.[/[quote]

  8. #8
    BackFistMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sinsinnatti Oh Hi Ho
    Posts
    13,486
    Style
    all things in Moderation
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DCS View Post
    UK's Communications Act 2003 - Section 127, I believe.
    Wiki

    Revisions to the interim guidelines were issued on 20 June 2013 following a public consultation.[14] The revisions specified that prosecutors should consider:

    *whether messages were aggravated by references to race, religion or other minorities, and whether they breached existing rules to counter harassment or stalking; and
    *the age and maturity of any wrongdoer should be taken into account and given great weight.
    *The revisions also clarified that criminal prosecutions were "unlikely":

    *when the author of the message had "expressed genuine remorse";
    *when "swift and effective action ... to remove the communication" was taken; or
    *when messages were not intended for a wide audience.
    Quote Originally Posted by DCS View Post
    Now a little bit more seriously, let's wait for the sentence and after that we could say if his freedom has been infringed or not.
    Sounds like a nice plan actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost55 View Post
    Violence is pretty uncommon in clubs in this area, and the dude didn't seem particularly hostile up until the moment he slapped me.
    I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
    BILL HICKS,
    1961-1994

    Quote Originally Posted by WFMurphyPhD View Post
    Slamming the man in the bottom position from time to time keeps everybody on their toes and discourages butt scooting stupidity.

  9. #9
    DCS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,484
    Style
    Jits
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by ermghoti View Post
    LOL. Writing a law that infringes free speech is exactly how you infringe free speech.
    Well, I'm not sure if that law really infringes free speech.

    Maybe there are people who try to use that law for infringing free speech but the law itself does not appear to do so except for what is usually considered unprotected speech.

    Here is the text:

    127 Improper use of public electronic communications network

    (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he

    (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

    (b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

    (2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he

    (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

    (b)causes such a message to be sent; or

    (c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

    (3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

    (4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

  10. #10
    Bneterasedmynam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    illinois
    Posts
    4,602
    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DCS View Post
    No, not really.


    Maybe, but this is not the case. He's being accused because his actions not because his thoughts.
    You should probably look up the definition of infringement.

Page 1 of 24 1234511 ... Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in