Martin Hash.com

Shades of the famous “fuck the draft” T-shirt SCOTUS case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California

de officiis wrote:Shades of the famous “fuck the draft” T-shirt SCOTUS case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California

They should have just drafted him on the spot.

Youtuber Convicted For “Offensive” Joke Video, Faces Prison

Mark Meechan created a satirical video to annoy his girlfriend in which he trained his pug called Buddha to raise its paw when he said the words “Sieg Heil”.

This led to a long drawn out “hate crime trial” which came to a close today when Meechan was convicted of being “grossly offensive,” creating the chilling precedent that offensive humor is against the law.

Meechan was convicted despite the fact that not a single person complained about the video. He was also defended by David Baddiel, one of the UK’s top Jewish comedians.

Authorities evidently wanted to make an example of him from the very start.

During the reading of the verdict, it was reportedly mentioned that the UK is a “multi-cultural” society.
Apparently, you can’t have multiculturalism and free speech at the same time.

Given that border authorities are now banning people from entering the country for the crime of little more than criticizing Islam, the UK is now barely recognizable as a free country anymore.

Meechan faces up to 6 months in jail.

When did the Brits get so freaking serious?

When they lost their Empire.

Seems like free speech is under attack in Norway too. This article is flawed, but it's all I can find about it in English:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/71 ... politician

Here's the text message he sent, in Norwegian:
https://www.nrk.no/norge/mohyeldeen-moh ... 1.14002450

Now, Mohyldeen Muhammed is a real extremist, and a true asshole. Been recruiting other extremists to go to Syria, and been down there himself. And he's done a lot of threats and so in the past. So, he's not going to get a lot of public support.

While Abid Raja is a pretty well liked politician, in a really small party on the moderate right in Norway. He's likeable, and I certainly would have a beer with him, rather than most other politicians. Funny guy, even though I don't agree with his politics.

But, according to these texts, the message is basically; "Must allah give you all kinds of diseases and pain before you die, and then must you burn in hell for all eternity". Hateful? Sure. Should he say it? Hell no. Do any moderate people support the message? Hell no.

But, he's being charged for threats. For a private message to a politician where he basically just express his opinion on him. I really hope he won't be convicted for this, even though he certainly should be convicted for all the other terrible shit he's been doing for the past years. It sets a precedent where you can't really show your anger to a politician.

The politicians and the media tried to stir up some cases of "hateful speech", and portray them as threats during the whole ACER debacle, where politicians were giving up even more power to the EU. Basically tried to get a message where someone calling a politician a "traitor", look like an illegal threat. Didn't catch much traction, because the decision was extremely unpopular. But in this case now, they're charging the most unpopular free man in Norway, for pretty much the same expression as they tried to charge totally unknown and rightfully angered people with.

And even worse, the politicians all over the board is supporting the prosecution. Noone is taking the understandably unpopular stance of supporting free speech in this case.

In our constitution free speech is protected. With a special addition that "free speech, especially directed at the state and its institutions must be protected". So, according to the constitution, we should be even more careful in prosecuting people for speech directed at politicians. But, this is Norway, and people generally don't give a shit about the constitution.

I'm pretty worried about the outcome of this case. Not out of some support of this extremist, which really is one of the worst guys walking free in Norway. But this case could serve as a precedent to convict anyone else trying to criticize politicians, without being trained in rhetoric. Anyone being angry, and then speaking their mind, even if there's no threats, or incitement to violence, can be prosecuted and convicted, if said politician find the message "hateful" in any way.

If this asshole gets convicted, they'll go after the unintelligent people calling a politician a "Quisling", or a "traitor" next. Go for the low hanging fruit in the start, then go for other kinds of less well formulated criticism. This is how you kill free speech.

State appeals court rules Texas' "revenge porn" law violates the First Amendment

An appeals court has struck down Texas’ “revenge porn” law, ruling that the statute is overly broad and violates the First Amendment.

The 2015 state law targets what author state Sen. Sylvia Garcia, D-Houston, called “a very disturbing internet trend” of posting a previous partner's nude or semi-nude photos to the web without the partner's permission, often with identifying information attached. Inspired in part by the testimony of Hollie Toups, a Southeast woman whose intimate photos were posted online, the law made posting private, intimate photos a misdemeanor, carrying a charge of up to a year in jail as well as a $4,000 fine.

The 12th Court of Appeals, based in Tyler, said the law is unconstitutional because of its broad-based content restrictions that infringe on free speech. The First Amendment, wrote Chief Justice James Worthen, usually prohibits “content-based” restrictions.

The Texas Attorney General’s Office will lead the fight to overturn the court’s ruling — an appeal which could make it to the state’s highest criminal court . . . .

The court also took issue with a provision of the law that allowed it to target third parties who may have “unwittingly” shared intimate photos.

Dozens of other states have revenge porn laws, though they vary in scope and severity of punishment.

de officiis wrote:State appeals court rules Texas' "revenge porn" law violates the First Amendment

This is a stark contrast from what's going on in Europe, where you can get ankle bracelet monitoring for offending someone.

Now, it is illegal for me to even make copies of a photo I didn't take, unless I pay the photographer for that right, even if it's a picture of me, due to copyright laws. How does that come into play, here?

Kath wrote:

de officiis wrote:State appeals court rules Texas' "revenge porn" law violates the First Amendment

This is a stark contrast from what's going on in Europe, where you can get ankle bracelet monitoring for offending someone.

Now, it is illegal for me to even make copies of a photo I didn't take, unless I pay the photographer for that right, even if it's a picture of me, due to copyright laws. How does that come into play, here?

Well, they are completely different laws; one is focused on protecting intellectual property rights (assuming the creator has taken the time and effort to assert copyright protection), while the other is attempting to penalize the dissemination of nude images of another person without that person's permission.