Campus Free Speech

YouTube Comedian Convicted of Hate Crime for Making Dumb Video of a Dog Saluting Hitler

"Keep fighting for free speech, the great meme war," said Count Dankula.


Screenshot via Count Dankula / Youtubr

A Scottish court convicted Youtube personality "Count Dankula" of a hate crime for posting a joke video of his girlfriend's dog giving the Nazi salute.

Count Dankula, whose real name is Mark Meechan, was released on bail earlier today and will be sentenced next month, according to Breitbart.

Just before the verdict, Meechan told his fans: "If worse comes to worst and everything goes fucking terribly, keep fighting for free speech, the great meme war."

The video that got Meechan in trouble was posted on Youtube in April 2016. It depicts his girlfriend's dog, Buddha, responding to Meechan saying "want to gas the Jews?" over and over again. Meechan also positions the dog to be watching an Adolf Hitler rally on the computer, and to perform a Nazi salute. As Reason's Christian Britschgi reported earlier, Meechan claimed his sole intention was to troll his girlfriend, who was "always ranting and raving about how cute and adorable her wee dog is."

"And so I thought I would turn him into the least cute thing I could think of, which is a Nazi," said Meechan. "I'm not a racist by the way, I just really wanted to piss her off."

Police arrested Meechan for violating Section 127 of the U.K. Communications Act, which prohibits "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing" electronic communications. At the trial, Ephraim Borowski, director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities and a witness for the prosecution, offered the following testimony: "My immediate reaction is that there is a clear distinction to be made between an offhand remark and the amount of effort that is required to train a dog like that." But the video presents little evidence that the dog underwent some sort of rigorous programming. (My dogs respond positively to pretty much everything any human being says, as long as it's uttered in a friendly tone.)

Meechan has claimed that this trial is about defending the right to make offensive jokes, and engage in free speech more generally. Unfortunately, the U.K. doesn't have the First Amendment—such speech would undoubtedly be protected in the U.S., where the Supreme Court has routinely thwarted the government's efforts to punish even the vilest kind of expression.

It may very well be the case that the Glasgow judge was right about the facts of the case, and that Meechan broke the law. But it's wrong, as a matter of moral principle, to lock people up for engaging in hate speech. It's particularly wrong here—but it would be wrong even if Meechan was a legitimate Nazi sympathizer.

Yesterday I wrote about the so-called campus free speech "crisis," and why I think there's solid evidence that some young people—the most radical activists, in particular—are turning against the First Amendment. Kids today are more favorably disposed toward some kinds of speakers that used to be considered offensive—communists, gays, atheists—but many remain willing to support censorship of racists and other deplorable persons. Of particular concern is their attitude toward hate speech: Current college students were evenly split on the question of whether the government should prohibit hateful expression.

Liberals and civil libertarians must continue to challenge this attitude if we don't want to end up living in a country where the state imprisons people for making idiotic but harmless Youtube videos. Meechan's conviction is an odious reminder that such places exist, even in the most advanced, progressive, and supposedly tolerant corners of the world.

NEXT: Los Angeles Reverses Course on Police Body Camera Secrecy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You know who else couldn’t take a joke when it came to nazis?

    1. Socialists who have so much in common with the National Socialist German Workers Party?

      1. I think Triumph the insult comic dog used to do the hitler salute.

    2. The Soup Nazi?

      1. No soup for you!

    3. Anne Frank?

    4. Begin winning $90/hourly to work online from your home for couple of hours every day… Get customary installment on a week after week premise… All you require is a PC, web association and a litte extra time…

      Read more here……..

      1. Now, that’s offensive hate speech!

        1. Yes! It offends the French to leave out the Dijon mustard.

    5. Begin winning $90/hourly to work online from your home for couple of hours every day… Get customary installment on a week after week premise… All you require is a PC, web association and a litte extra time…

      Read more here……..

    6. The Southern Poverty Law Center?

      1. No, SPLC is a special case: they see white supremacists in their rice crispies every morning before they take to steering the meat puppets at the networks with their missives. When they are awake, they are being offended – even the air they breathe draws their suspicion.

  2. Lefty Fascists in Scotland put their jack boots on free speech again.

    1. Meanwhile you give your HEIL TRUMP salute to Der Trumpen-fuhrer.

      1. I mean when the alternative is censorious soy boys, how can you fault the guy for picking a clown. At least Trump is a source of amusement, little whiny leftists are disturbing.

      2. Turd, do you post here to prove how stupid you are, or is that by accident?

        1. Shut up, you idiot.

          The campaign by conservatives to soften the sorry image of fascism has failed.

          1. Seriously?

            Do you have some links about this campaign? Even something from Salon?

            1. Maybe he was confused about the NYT times attempt to soften up Communism’s image…

            2. He’s got a Listosaur list.

              1. To be sure, the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, but one might think that if he had any evidence at all – even from Salon – he’d share it.

            3. Actually, the Nixon campaign movie “Judgment at Nuremberg” with Captain Kirk and Judy Garland does depict some of the rapprochement between Christian National Socialists and Eisenhower Prohibitionist Republicans. Both gangs were terrified of the commie hordes–not because of their looter economics–but because they “weren’t really” altruists and did not love the Baby Jesus.

              1. It’s a little off topic, but I don’t see how any christian can be a socialist and be for real in both departments. Forming committees to pick your neighbors pockets is still not an act of charity, despite the layers of political insulation. Recipients of largesse don’t know who to thank, and ‘givers’ [read policy victims] can exercise no stewardship. The fellowship of man is broken, and it’s all downhill from there.

          2. So is that why you’re upset? You don’t want the image of the fascist politicians you openly support to be softened?

            1. Quit lying, you POS. I hate fascists and their kindred Neo-Nazis, alt-right white nationalists, and neo-Confederates.

              The fact that Scotland has no regard for free speech doesn’t make them heroic, it makes them stupid.

              1. Yet, you are a socialist which Nazis were and confederates were/are Democrats who founded the KKK, implemented Jim Crowe laws and segregation.

                1. And probably voted for the candidate that called a former high ranking member of the KKK an mentor.

              2. Neo Confederates… that’s pretty much all of California government at present. That’s alot of hate. But as for scotland, it’s not their fault: FEF has great meaning up there, and the current PM shows no movement in breaking the paradigm driving generations of acerbic criticism of the poofters running the UK.

          3. Yeah, I have a feeling that you have no idea what fascism means. Pro tip: fascists hate free speech. Censoring speech is not coming from conservatives.

            1. Fascists aren’t the only group that hates free speech, you moron.

              1. Lefty fascists are the only ones clamoring for ending free speech right now.

              2. True. The left most definitely opposes free speech.

                Of course they don’t believe that they oppose it. They support all free speech as long as they agree with it. Anything they don’t agree with is intolerant hate-speech. Since words are violence, hate speech isn’t really speech. It’s violence.

                So leftists actively oppose free speech while believing that they support it.

                1. Its the same type of lie that liberals support civil rights. They don’t. Liberals are nothing more than progressives who stole the “liberal” term from classic liberals like our Founding Fathers. The liberals have been attacking the Constitution for decades. Its just now readily apparent as they have just dropped all facades of being for freedoms.

          4. BUtt, Fascism is alive and well among lefties too.

          5. Palin’s Buttplug – have you sniffed yer buttplug today ?

      3. “”Meanwhile you give your HEIL TRUMP salute to Der Trumpen-fuhrer.””

        The anti-Trump crowd has become a parody of Kathy Griffin’s character on Seinfeld.

      4. As is my right, protected by the first amendment .

    2. Lefty Fascists

      Lefty is the only variety they come in.

  3. “The video . . . depicts his girlfriend’s dog, Buddha . . .”

    Cultural appropriation!

    1. *and* HATE SPEECH!

  4. This is still technically the EU, right? So, he can ‘right to be forgotten’ all of this into the cornfield, no?

  5. But, remember, it’s Poland that is ‘problematic’ for making a law against suggesting that Poles willingly helped the Nazis. Meanwhile, the British behave like Nazis equipped with thought crimes and everything. Europe is a disgraceful continent.

    1. It’s why I keep saying we should ignore them. I don’t know why we seem to consider them cultured when they are the ones responsible for the major wars of the 20th century.

      1. Herr BUCS, “we” don’t bear any responsibility for such wars?

        1. Hmmm, let’s see…

          Were we responsible for WWI? Nope, that was strictly caused by Europeans.

          Were we responsible for WWII? Well, maybe. Woodrow Wilson set the stage by his naive attempt to prevent the Treaty of Versailles from becoming an anti-Germany hate-fest…but other than that? Nope. It was mostly caused by Europeans.

          The October Revolution? The Revolution in China? Nope, and nope. Those were civil wars.

          Korea, Vietnam, and other little skirmishes? Nope, not major wars. We didn’t start them, either, we just got entangled in them.

          And that’s about it for the 20th Century.

          So, yeah, let’s just ignore the Europeans. It would be better for us all, all around.

        2. Herr BUCS, “we” don’t bear any responsibility for such wars?

          No, the US doesn’t. The US doesn’t even bear responsibility for the wars in Vietnam or the Middle East, which were caused by the aftermath of European colonialism and which the US entered generally because Europeans begged them to.

          The US should, however, grow up and learn to tell Europeans to fuck off and take care of their own backyard… or die trying.

      2. Not to mention the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade.

    2. Both of them are terrible. Lots of Poles did aid the Nazis, and this guy’s joke was fine.

  6. This would be much different in the US; they would have just shot the dog.

    1. After they flash-banged the elderly couple living next door. Oops, wrong address!

      1. Right! I forgot that part.
        They look so funny staggering around because they can’t see to find their cane, and fall down and break a hip or something. What a laugh!

        1. I thrive on it, I’ll tell you what

  7. Police arrested Meechan for violating Section 127 of the U.K. Communications Act, which prohibits “grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing” electronic communications.

    Yet more tangential proof that perhaps Scotland is actually inferior to Ireland.

    1. prohibits “grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing” electronic communications.

      So they don’t have youtube or twitter in Scotland?

      1. Or news about Hillary?

    2. I’m still demanding the government prove the dog was offended. The basis of most hate speech offenses is often something imagineered, and charges levied as a means of virtue signaling, before a real victim is actually found. I object to the illogic of it all, however objectionable content of speech might be. You can’t feel for somebody else, and one other thing: you can’t take a shit for anyone else either… but parliament might find a way to bugger that last bastion of common sense up as well.

  8. Unfortunately, the U.K. doesn’t have the First Amendment…

    No Second Amendment, either. Seems like paradise.

    1. They had the Bill of Rights 1689 (which has both), but decided they didn’t really want it.

      1. I heard a few years ago that the UK had auctioned off the Magna Carta. People were complaining about it going out of Government and/or British hands.

        I, for one, didn’t see the problem: it wasn’t as though they were using it, anyway.

  9. “Progressive”. The so-called “progressives” are the entire reason why the U.K. has devolved into such an Orwellian shithole country.

  10. In fact the Holocaust started with restrictions on speech intended to protect the Jews and the UK is repeating the same mistake. Top Nazi propagandists were radicalized under Weimar blasphemy laws against the ‘blood libel’. And if this guy is not antisemitic (as he claims) he will likely be radicalized while sitting in prison. Certainly many people who hear of this verdict will be. The same thing is happening all across Europe.

    It’s horrifying that the Jewish leadership is applauding this conviction. You bet all the banned groups like Britain First and National Front will be joining the ranks.

    1. Good points. Is it true that the national socialists once forbade antisemitic speech?

      1. I believe he meant Weimar Republic laws against blasphemy, which the Nazis violated time and again.

      2. Researching my book, I looked into what actually happened in the Weimar Republic. I found that, contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently.

        Flemming Rose

        1. Great book, have it on my kindle.
          Rose I believe is now working in the US, after going back to his old newspaper there was a falling out over freedom of expression issues and he decided to leave.

    2. The real blood libel was the nationalsocialist insistence that jewishness meant innate, hereditary selfishness. In a country 98% dominated by Catholics and Protestant eugenecists, altruistic nazi candidates handily won election and re-election even before Herbert Hoover’s “moratorium on brains” helped subsidize Germany’s rearmament. Hitler’s paintings of churches, Jesus and Madonna with Child sell for more than Picassos.

    3. JDL still has a pulse? I thought they died when Netanyahu was forced to endure insults and use the side entrance during Obama’s tenure. If they were “far right” as wikipedia currently claims, we should have heard from them, not the crickets. Oh well, so much for whatever emerged from NYU in 1968 – send flowers to them and carry on.

  11. The Scottish court has already determined that this is illegal hate speech.

    By posting a description of the hate speech on the open internet thereby making it available in Scotland you are clearly violating Scottish law.

    I wouldn’t plan on travelling to the EU any time soon, even with that continental coiffure.

    1. He said Jehovah!

    2. Any one planning to travel to the EU demonstrates they belong on the no fly list under ‘too crazy to let back in’.

    3. I wouldn’t plan on travelling to the EU any time soon, even with that continental coiffure.

      Why would anybody want to travel to the budding Fourth Reich?

  12. Also, what kind of court would allow testimony from the leader of a minority advocacy group as to the amount of training required to get a dog to participate in a video? In fact, where is this guy fitting in to any legal proceeding on the topic during the trial. Maybe during sentencing for victim impact statements, but as an expert in the analysis of the facts?

    This isn’t Italian court Amanda Knox trial level idiocy, but it doesn’t really smack of actual “fair trial” jurisprudence either.

    1. It’s a kangaroo court. And don’t worry, that toady will get his some day. There’s always someone higher on the progressive victim stack.

      1. Its more important to protect free and unbridled speech than it is to mollify sub-human Judaic jackasses. If you support a hate speech regime like this, you are sub-human.

        1. Maybe just put the dog’s paw into a fist, then he could be giving the Black Power salute.

  13. Not to undercut his cause, but “Youtube Comedian” seems illustrious, ‘meme producer’ sounds more accurate.

    1. Professional shitposter.

      1. I mean, he is a Scotsman afterall. That whole country is a shitpost in and of itself.

        1. “The only type of person who would become a Scotsman is one who has no control over his destiny.”

          1. No true Scotsman yadda…. yadda….yadda.

              1. Ah, the plot thickens: as soon as he turned into a Scotsman, he made a Hitler salute.

  14. (My dogs respond positively to pretty much everything any human being says, as long as it’s uttered in a friendly tone.)

    What if we are all wrong about the amount of hair product Robby uses to keep The Choif immaculate? What if it’s been Yorkie saliva all along?

    1. “York saliva” was my nickname in coll . . . . . oh forget it. I’ve said too much.

  15. “grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing”

    So, do they have an objective standard . . .

    Does the prosecution have to prove its one of these? Because I’ve seen the video – its not indecent, obscene, menacing (unless you think his ‘rigorous program’ of treat will have that pug trying widdle on the synagogue fence) and I can’t possibly imagine how its grossly offensive to anyone.

    1. The video is hilarious.
      Guess Mel Brooks better not set foot in the UK, not that anyone would want to.

      1. “Spingtime for Hitler”

        “Don’t be sorry, be a smarty! Come and join the Nazi party!”

        Mel Brooks is history’s fourth worst monster (after Hitler, Meechan and, of course, Buddha).

    2. Obscene and menacing sound like US-style exceptions to free expression – indecent and offensive not so much, since so far America recognizes the right to be indecent or offensive.

      My guess would be that they went with “offensive,” since I thought “indecent” involves sex.

      1. In the US though something has to be pretty darn disgusting before the courts will even consider looking at it. Like the Stagliano prosecution.

        A pug going ‘heil hitler’ isn’t anywhere close to what, in the US, might *possibly* be considered obscene.

        1. What does it say about those who are “offended?”

          1. What does it say about those who are “offended?”

            That they need to be offended more often and to a much greater degree.

  16. I just can’t even begin to get my mind round this…

    And to think the US Constitution is the bastard child of UK political philosophers.

    What a degraded and corrupted state to have fallen to and a salutory warning for the US.

    1. There’s a reason they left.

      Ballot, exit, bullet – choose one.

    2. “What a degraded and corrupted state to have fallen to . . . ”

      So, what are you saying, that they’re about 10 years ahead of us?

      1. So, what are you saying, that they’re about 10 years ahead of us?

        No, in this area I think we’re ok. Every Supreme Court decision over the past fifty years or so regarding FA cases has resulted in strengthening the First Amendment, often with unanimous decisions. Ditto with the 2A. Now with respect to the ACLU, they’re no longer robust defenders of the FA and forget anything to do with the 2A.

        1. “Ditto with 2A.”

          Are you serious, brah?

          Have you read Heller? The decision holds that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right….subject to thousands and thousands of statutory and regulatory infringements.

          1. Have you read Heller? The decision holds that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right….subject to thousands and thousands of statutory and regulatory infringements.

            It’s an improvement over what was previously there.
            You think the Heller decision could happen now?

            You know how close the gun-control crowd was to getting handguns banned totally, completely, without any exceptions in MA in the 1970s? Go to David Kopel’s website and read the essay there. They were damn sure they were going to succeed and then use their template in other states till the whole nation was “handgun free”. It was only at the last minute that the other side got their shit together and fought back and won.

            1. Look at all of the decisions which have been rendered since Heller.

              What you will discover is that after acknowledging that the 2A protects the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, citing Heller, the opinions then string-cite a plethora of cases standing for the proposition that government has the right (I know, even the learned justices screw that up) and / or the power to forbid, impair, license, monitor, regulate, and restrict the ownership, possession, and use of firearms.

              As for MASS, I have represented gun owners in a variety of contexts. Some have been winners, some have been losers, although the wins have outnumbered the losses. The wins were, at least in part, attributable to the fact that the clients had a fanatical libertarian as their counsel.

              1. I understand all that, but would you agree the 2A is in better shape now than say 20 years ago?

                Personally I don’t think a “Heller” decision would happen now.
                Even the NRA was not onboard with the Heller legal team back then and tried to block it any way they could till they ran out of legal options, and only then signed on with an amicus brief.

                1. Oh, I don’t disagree with your points about Heller happening now or the NRA.

                  I have never been a fan of the NRA because it is, fundamentally, a cucksorious organization. It has gone out of its way to tout its LEO bona-fides.

                  Back to Heller, I recognize that Scalia would not have authored an opinion that sounded absolutist. He was a government guy, through and through. Almost all lawyers are trained to think that all absolutes are bad and that all rights, without exception (yeah, the cognitive dissonance just oozes), are subject to “reasonable” regulation, blah, blah, blah.

                  Lawyers are also trained to ask “what about the public interest?” That is code for communism, progressivism, socialism. Like it or not, Scalia was not an unvarnished free minds / free markets / individualism trumps communitarianism type of guy.

                  1. BTW, all of my gun case clients were Tony compared to me on 2A absolutism. All of them knew far more about guns, but they would never sign up for a 2A as written.

                  2. I’m assuming you’re an attorney?

                    You have to deal with the cards you get dealt or hope or hope not to be dealt.
                    I’m far from being in complete agreement with Scalia and his decisions but our side could have done a lot worse without him and his legal writings have a lot of rehetorical snap to them. I think Scalia said the US Constitution was as “dead as dead can be” which is certainly true as opposed to those who reagrd it as an evolving, read mutating, document.

                    Personally I think Thomas is probably the most libertarian of the Justices.

                  3. The NRA serves a purpose and it is good at what it does, see how loathed its enemies regard it to the point of incoherent rage. I’m an NRA member.

                    Also a member of Gun Owners of America, they are much more hardcore 2A and also do good work.

                    1. I like GOA better than the NRA because, as you write, they are much more hardcore 2A.

                      Yes, I am an attorney. Its not like I have specialized in gun cases. I have had about a dozen of them in the 27 years I have been at it. A few of them have been the firefighter or assistant football coach had a false allegation of sexual assault or rape lodged against him and had his guns confiscated types of cases. Others have centered around existing license-holders having their license reapplications denied for arbitrary reasons.

                      Most of my work is in business and personal planning areas.

                    2. Glad you were able to help those clients out.
                      See you around!

                    3. Glad you were able to help those clients out.
                      See you around!

                2. I don’t know about 20 years ago.
                  Fifty years ago I was an undergraduate at Va Tech, and a member of the rifle and pistol club. We kept our guns in our dorm rooms, reloaded rifle and pistol ammunition in our dorm rooms (we had a permit for the gunpowder, mostly so the fire department would know which part of the building might blow up), and each Saturday walked across campus wearing pistols on our hips, carrying multiple rifles, and went to the Western Auto store to pick up our weekly order of 2,000 rounds of .22 ammunition. Then we piled in the cars and drove to the range and fired off every damn round we had before locking the guns in the trunks and breaking out the beer. (we needed more cans to shoot at next week) Seems to me the 2A was in better shape then.
                  Funny thing; no one ever got shot the entire time I was there. And yes, that was the sixties with actual real live riots on campus.

          2. Read the following and see how close they were to winning:


            1. Just read it.

              To be fair to your point, yes, in Massachusetts, because of Heller, Commonwealth v. Davis is no longer the controlling case on the issue of whether the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

              BTW, the Davis opinion, 369 Mass 886 (1976) is a lightweight intellectual effort in addition to being a dishonest one.

              1. They came damn close.
                I believe David Kopel is also an attorney, I enjoy reading his article and books and watching his videos on YouTube.
                Re the Bill of Rights, love this attorney:


  17. Oh, and buddy – maybe leave out the face piercings next time you show up to court.

    1. How would he even get through the metal detector?

      1. Its the UK – he wore a burka.

    2. Those ears are more offensive than the dog.

    3. You know who else was from Scotland and decorated his face and shouted something about freedom?

      1. Craig Ferguson?

      2. And also propagated the Nazi salute?

  18. The UK may not have the First Amendment, but it has the European Convention on Human Rights:

    “ARTICLE 10
    Freedom of expression

    “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

    “2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

    1. Worth precisely fuck all.

    2. Oh, right, Brexit.

      Well, there’s always the UN’s Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

      Article 19

      1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

      2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

      3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

      (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

      (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

      1. Also worthless. Who’s going to back it up?

        1. The UN, of course! Their resolutions can be very strongly-worded, you know.

        2. The UN, of course! Their resolutions can be very strongly-worded, you know.

          1. They need a Squirrel resolution next!

      2. As soon as you put in a clause like “subject to certain restrictions” you render the right null.

      3. Here is an excerpt from the Soviet Constitution of 1936:

        ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:

        – freedom of speech;
        – freedom of the press;
        – freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
        – freedom of street processions and demonstrations.

        These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

    3. That second paragraph sure does drive a fuckton of loopholes through the idea of “everyone has the right to freedom of expression.”

      1. It also makes you appreciate the clarity and precision with which those dead old white guys wrote a few hundred years ago.

        This thing reads like a credit card application or software license.

      2. “”That second paragraph sure does drive a fuckton of loopholes through the idea of “everyone has the right to freedom of expression.”””

        No kidding. #2 negates what #1 said.

        1. But they made sure to write it down, at least, so they can point to that bit while they’re fucking you with the second bit.

    4. Basically section 2 undercuts and makes powerless section 1.

    5. 1) You have the right
      2) Unless the government says you don’t

      1. There’s a term for that permission device: a license. You can’t call it a right when it’s something to hand out from on high.

    6. So typical progressive bullshit. Part 2 says part 1 is irrelevant.

  19. Europe is hurtling towards another conflagration (again). And guess who will save their asses? US ‘gun nuts’ and “people who shouldn’t own firearms”. Again.

    1. Hell no. This is their problem.

      1. Unlike Libya, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, et al?

  20. Tommy Robinson reading the speech Martin Sellners was banned from giving. The UK is going full Islamofascist.…..Fkba1xw9WU

    1. Yes, Europe is coddling Islamo-fascistism (more right wing idiocy).

      I am a Sam Harris realist. All religion is lunacy.

      1. You’re an idiot. That’s all.

        1. You must be a Christian then. And I offended you.

          All religion is a form of mental illness.

          1. You seem most qualified to speak of mental illnesses.

          2. *tips fedora* M’lady

      2. Socialism is lunacy too.

      3. Given the near universality of religion, one would think defining a common human factor as ‘lunacy’ is it’s own form of lunacy. Unreasoned atheists amuse me though since ultimately they’re guilty of the same bullshit as the theists, and you’re really not an exception on that front.

        1. Only the insane prosper, only those who prosper may judge what is sane.

      4. If they’re right wing fascists, then why do they overwhelmingly vote for Social Democratic or Labor parties?

  21. Spring Time for Hitler in Germany and the Nazi dog video.

    Watching it now UK cops, come and get me, remember ’bout that Second Amendment…

    1. N ooutrage ever seems to follow memes about Mao or Stalin.

      For example, when Obama’s cabinet lady said she considered Mao a very big influence on her life.

      If I say hitler is a big influence on my life, the black SUVs show up and I get

      1. Oh FFS. You Neo-Nazis are left alone until you whip out your tiki torches and start busting heads in a rally.

        Oh, btw, I support the ACLU and their defense of the Klan’s right to march.

        1. Unless you try to go to Britain. You might get detained for having counterrevolutionary opinions about Islam.

      2. Uh oh, looks like they got to timbo already.

        1. I’m back. It was just a code enforcement black SUV this time. They were making sure my garbage can was far enough away from the curb.

  22. But it’s wrong, as a matter of moral principle, to lock people up for engaging in hate speech.

    Correct, but then let’s make the equally correct case that the right to self-expression exists, is a real thing, and that what the Scottish government is doing is acting like a gang of criminals. Because if you say that the US enjoys free speech thanks to the First Amendment, the implication is that speech is free because of government and not despite of it.

    1. “”Because if you say that the US enjoys free speech thanks to the First Amendment, the implication is that speech is free because of government and not despite of it.””

      Government of when? Sure you could say thanks to the founders and states that ratified. But they clearly understood government would be the problem in the future, thus the “Congress shall make no law” statement.

  23. Correct, but then let’s make the equally correct case that the right to self-expression exists, is a real thing, and that what the Scottish government is doing is acting like a gang of criminals. Because if you say that the US enjoys free speech thanks to the First Amendment, the implication is that speech is free because of government and not despite of it.

    Exactly, the US Constitution grants no rights. We have free speech because that it is our natural right and the role of the government is to recognize, uphold and protect that right. Ditto for the others.

    1. Rule of law via a constitution is anathema to power hungry leftists. And by leftists, I mean everyone in Washington.

      It is natural that they undermine as much as possible to justify their existence and to support their special interests.

      1. Rule of law via a constitution is anathema to power hungry leftists. And by leftists, I mean everyone in Washington

        True, reading accounts of the recent Supreme Court’s hearing on public sector union funding, the Conservative/Libertarian side of the court was making principled arguments based on First Amendment grounds why Abood vs. Detroit Board of Education, 1977, should be overturned because it’s compelled speech and compelled association while the “liberal” end of the court arguments were basically “if we overturn that decision it’s going to cause a lot of fuss and inconvience a lot of people so why not just let it stand etc.?”

        1. Bureaucrats Do Not want to work. That is why they became so.

    2. That is right. And if our society becomes oppressive and judgemental enough, we won’t have free speech no matter what the government does. You are only as free as the society you live in. Government can reduce freedom but the society is the ceiling.

    3. The role of the government is to take your money and spend it on what they want, and to make rules about how you live and lock you up if you violate them, and to take your kids and send them to fight wars and/or defend the government.

  24. Come to england, where we jail you for offensive jokes and detain you at the airport for terrorism and refuse your entry into the country for being a right-winger.

    sargon needs to get out of Britain while he still can

  25. offensive is entirely subjective. To the left, arguing against minimum wage laws, for school choice, for individualism, for color blindness, etc, is deeply offensive to them. How long until we are jailed? Don’t think they will stop at a fucking internet meme / troll

  26. “Liberals and civil libertarians must continue to challenge this attitude if we don’t want to end up living…..???” How about EVERYONE must challenge this attitude.

    1. Maybe Robby takes it as a foregone conclusion that conservatives oppose free speech?

  27. I guess Scotland the Brave is no more.

    1. Yep. Scotland lost all of its toughness mojo when they all wanted to stay in the Euro which proved that they are just a bunch of losers on the euro dole.

      1. I think William Wallace rolled over in his grave on that one.

  28. Did the Judge have a kilt on? If so that’s a hate crime somehow.

  29. OT. Apparently there’s been a school shooting in MD and the shooter is supposed to have been stopped by an armed security officer.

    1. Nothing to see there.

      You need some outrage and a hashtag for some me too cry baby shit. The world has no time to focus on what might stop dangerous people.

    2. Remember when a black nationalist shot a bunch of white people at a church in Tennessee last year, and he was tackled by an usher while another person went and grabbed their gun from their truck until the police arrived? Funny how that story wasn’t big news, and most people didn’t even hear about it.

      1. Yep and predictable.
        You can keep track of instances of defensive gun use here:

    3. Yep, and the students staged a ‘walk out’ last week. When you go on a witch hunt, guess what you find?

      1. Bread!? Apples!? Very small rocks!?

    4. Or as the Washington Post headline put it, Gunman Dies After School Shooting.

  30. I don’t think it’s dumb at all, Robby. It’s hilarious.

    1. To be sure, “dumb” and “hilarious” are not mutually exclusive categories.

  31. The way you keep fascism at bay is to stomp anything that dares drift outside the accepted political norm.

    1. Perhaps so. The Atlantic posted a video of a bunch of alt Right dorks giving the Nazi salute and saying “Hail Trump” after a Richard Spencer speech. Youtube removed the video because it thought it was “hate speech”. No shit…

      Either Youtube is inhabited by secret Alt Right moles, or the SJWs who have infiltrated Youtube are amazingly retarded. I am going with the latter and thanking God the enemies of all that is reasonable, right and good, are this fucking stupid.

      1. Whose law is it that every organization which is not brutally and strictly anti-progressive is eventually taken over by SJWs?

        1. I forget. But damn it is true. These days even anti progressive organizations seem to get infiltrated.

          1. Conquest’s 2nd Law.

  32. Remember kids, Reason never touches the rape scandals going on in the UK because it is in the UK and reason is an American publication. Stuff that happens in the UK just isn’t of enough interest.

    1. True but I’d rather UK’s rape state than Israel’s police state.

      1. Youtube Free Speech Policy: “We believe in the principles of free speech, even when that speech is unpopular or potentially offensive to some viewers.”

        Youtube Free Speech Reality: “We don’t believe in the principles of free speech.”

  33. Ah, the Scottish. I wish America’s hillbillies could build castles.

    1. America’s hillbillies came here from Scotland specifically because they didn’t want to build castles.

      1. They came here because they were so violent and nasty the English got tired of screwing with them and first inflicted them on the Irish and then sent them over here.

        1. You say that like it is a bad thing.

        2. Actually the “Scots-Irish” ethnicity is mostly a myth. Most hillbillies are of primarily English descent, especially northern England.

    2. I wish people who love socialism or progressivism would have the courage of their own convictions and move the f*ck to Europe.

      Neither of us is likely going to get our wish any time soon.

  34. I just came here to say rufruf Heil Hitler.

    1. Awww, whose a widdle genocidal monster?

  35. Shitposters of the world Unite!
    You have nothing to lose but your chains!


  36. What makes this joke “idiotic”? I haven’t seen the execution [no pun intended], but the basic idea seems pretty funny to me.

  37. the Supreme Court has routinely thwarted the government’s efforts to punish even the vilest kind of expression.

    I’m just going to pretend that link goes to something about Stephen Colbert or Kathy Griffin.

    1. It links to the Obama library list of speeches

  38. If the law bans offensive speech, doesn’t it effectively ban all comedy?

    Reminds me of the old laws banning impious speech.

  39. If the comedian had actually known anything about National Socialism, he could have said “I’m not an altruistic religious conservative”. That would get such a case thrown out of court in a heartbeat, I’d wager, if only to avoid the publicity. There are reams of evidential quotes and photos over at

  40. Je suis Count Dankula.

  41. Hate speech laws in most of the world are hideous creatures. They take people who should simply be ridiculed or made fun of and waste a barristers time along with the peoples money. So we find a half baked scot, who apparently has a love/hate thing with his girlfriend. Been down that road, but the offending creature was a cat. I fed it raw meat while she went to visit family for a week, and it bit her on return. Damn thing was ruining the house and too dumb to find it’s own catbox. But to return to the story: we must demand the arresting authority prove that the dog was offended by the troglodytes care and interaction. With laws this dumb, the dog absolutely must answer in court.

  42. Are they allowed to watch Hogan’s Heroes in Britain? What about The Producers?

    1. This is my thought. Hate speech is one thing, and I don’t think we can ever convince people of that. However, this was a case where a man was mocking the Nazis in a piece of performance art. By this standard, you cannot even have Nazis as the villain of your story. Even if they are buffoons, if they say something that might be implied to be supportive of the Third Reich (ie: identifying them as the villains), it can be called hate speech.

  43. He wasn’t even convicted of “hate speech,” only of being “grossly offensive.” That there is a law on the books in a Western “democracy” that codifies some nebulous “right not be offended” is truly disgusting.

  44. I think thousands of people all over the world should train their dogs to give the Roman solute on command, and upload them all to YouTube. That would be some super cereal trolling!

    If only I had a dog 🙁

  45. It’s not a dumb video. It’s clever, adorable, hilarious! How to tell if your dog’s a Nazi.

  46. I’ll never go to any of these European shitholes with their anti-free speech laws.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.