For the last few weeks there's been a YouTuber (Count Dankula) waiting to be charged with a hate crime for training his dog to do Nazi salutes as a joke to annoy his girlfriend, filming it, and posting the video on his channel.
There was a lot of uncertainty about what was going to happen to him, and there have been a lot of free speech activists who have jumped into the corner of the Count to defend his right to make a joke, no matter how offensive other people might find it.
Well, Dankula has been sentenced in court.
The Verdict
COUNT DANKULA SENTENCE: YOUTUBER AVOIDS JAIL AFTER CONVICTION FOR TEACHING PET PUG NAZI SALUTE
A Scottish YouTuber, convicted of a hate crime after uploading a video of him teaching his girlfriend’s dog to give a Nazi salute, has avoided a prison sentence.
Mark Meechan, 30, from North Lanarkshire, Scotland, was fined £800 ($1117) after he was found guilty following a trial in March in connection to the video, which he uploaded in 2016.
In the clip, Meechan, better known as Count Dankula, told viewers how he wanted to annoy his girlfriend as a joke so decided to turn her pet pug, Buddha, into the "least cute thing I could think of.”
So, he didn't go to jail, thankfully, but he has suffered a ridiculous fine.
Here's what the judge had to say.
“The evidence before this court was that the video was viewed as grossly offensive within Jewish communities in Scotland and that such material tended to normalize anti-Semitic attitudes and provoke further unpleasant anti-Semitic messages and as such, this video using menacing language, led to great concern. "
Not just "offensive", but "GROSLY offensive".
It's nice that the state gets to define what other people consider offensive, because from what I've seen there was no complaint to YouTube about the video until it became a huge sensation over the legality of speech.
Judge continues:
“I also found it proved that the video contained anti-Semitic, and racist material, in that it explicitly and exclusively referred to Jews, the Holocaust and the role of the Nazis in the death of six million Jews in a grossly offensive manner. You knew or must have known that."
He laid out the context of the joke directly -- speaking directly to the camera -- before the content of the video ran, to fascist freak judge. He knew what the context was, and so did you, because he told you exactly what it was before he did it. Not that he even needed to, but he did anyway. That's what makes this whole case so aggravating to me.
Judge continues:
“As a matter of law, the test is not whether the video was offensive but whether it was grossly offensive. I concluded….that your video was not just offensive but grossly so, as well as menacing, and that you knew that or at least recognized that risk.”
The risk of grossly offending something, which is a category of offense that is determined AFTER THE FACT, is the metric by which you do or do not have freedom of speech in Scotland.
What did the Count have to say?
During the trial, Meechan denied he was anti-Semitic and reiterated that the video was nothing more than a joke to annoy his girlfriend and should not be considered a hate crime.
That's exactly right. There was no otherwise defined crime committed. He said something that some people didn't like. It didn't hurt them. It didn't defraud them. It didn't destroy their property. They just didn't like it, so they convicted him of a crime.
Speaking outside the Airdrie Sheriff Court following his conviction in March, Meechan said the guilty verdict raises serious questions of freedom of speech.
He said: “I think there’s been a huge miscarriage of justice, it’s a very dark day with regards to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. What is most worrying is that one of the primary things to be considered in any action is context and intent and today context and content was completely disregarded.
And perhaps the most terrifying part about this authoritarian creep into our basic freedoms was perfectly articulated by Dankula here:
“For the system to disregard things like that means your actions no longer matter, they decide what your context and intent is.”
The cost of freedom is £800 today, but what will it be tomorrow?
These basic freedoms are more delicate than they seem.
Today, the cost of freedom of speech is £800 to be paid by a YouTube edgy boi.
Tomorrow, who knows what the cost of freedom will be.
Blood has ben spilled for centuries, millions of lives have been lost in brutal battle, simply so that we could enjoy the freedom to say whatever offensive thing we want to say without the controlling political authority squashing us for saying it.
Keep these words in mind:
What do you think?
I view freedom of speech from the non-aggression principle, which is
an ethical stance that asserts that aggression is inherently wrong. In this context, "aggression" is defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.
Making a joke in a video format which anyone can choose to view or ignore at any time they like, and also stop any time they like, does not IN ANY WAY CONCEIVABLE qualify as the initiation of forcible interference with an individual or an individual's property.
But what do you think?
Let me know in the comments.
Images are public domain or from https://pixabay.com