snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Moot Court

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 20 March 2018, 09:08 PM
Jusenkyo no Pikachu Jusenkyo no Pikachu is offline
 
Join Date: 11 May 2003
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,803
Default Man who jokingly taught dog Nazi salute found guilty

Either jokes are hate speech or the guy is a Nazi.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 20 March 2018, 09:22 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,667
Default

"It's a joke" is one of the most overused defenses out there, probably tied with "First Amendment" rights. Saying something was a joke does nothing to affect it offensiveness, it just attempts to blame those hurt by it for not having a "good" sense of humor. IMO it is the verbal equivalent to "Yes, I punched that guy in the back of the head, but it was a prank, so it isn't assault."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 20 March 2018, 09:44 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,977
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jusenkyo no Pikachu View Post
What do you think of it?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 20 March 2018, 09:47 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,331
Default

Jusenkyo no Pikachu, if you think that's a joke, I don't think I'd enjoy your sense of humor.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 20 March 2018, 09:48 PM
Jusenkyo no Pikachu Jusenkyo no Pikachu is offline
 
Join Date: 11 May 2003
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,803
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
"It's a joke" is one of the most overused defenses out there, probably tied with "First Amendment" rights. Saying something was a joke does nothing to affect it offensiveness, it just attempts to blame those hurt by it for not having a "good" sense of humor. IMO it is the verbal equivalent to "Yes, I punched that guy in the back of the head, but it was a prank, so it isn't assault."
In this case, the ďjokeĒ was about conditioning a dog to respond to Nazi references. With the right amount of context, we could in fact see that as a joke.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 20 March 2018, 10:03 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jusenkyo no Pikachu View Post
With the right amount of context, we could in fact see that as a joke.
Yes we could. Which makes absolutely no difference into how offensive it is. It might even make it worse as it takes a horrible event in human history and turns into into the equivalent of a whoopee cushion.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 20 March 2018, 11:30 PM
Steve Steve is offline
 
Join Date: 19 October 2002
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,789
Default

I was wondering how it was decided if something said was "grossly offensive", which apparently is enough to send someone to jail, and I found this http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2006/...cle101.en.html about the law.

It refers to another case where a man was found not guilty. He apparently called MPs and left anti-immigration messages using racial slurs. But some of the points in the article make it hard to see why Meechan was found guilty:
Quote:
[The judge] found that the lower court was entitled to decide as it did. In general, he said that: ďthe reason for criminalising certain messages sent by post, telephone or public electronic communications network was to protect people against receipt of unsolicited messages which they might find seriously objectionable.Ē Thus, the legislation ďÖstruck a balance between the respect for private life enjoined by article 8 and the right of free expression protected by article 10.
Yeah, I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure there's a lot I'm missing but why would clicking on a Reddit link really count as "receipt of [an] unsolicited message"?

Other articles, like this one, just leave me confused.
Quote:
In particular he quoted the seminal ECHR case of Handyside v UK which says that freedom of expression includes the right to say things that Ďoffend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the populationí before concluding that prosecution in the Daley case would not be appropriate.
If a court case ruled that people have the right to say things that offend, shock or disturb, wouldn't that mean the law against saying grossly offensive things is invalid?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 21 March 2018, 12:20 AM
Jusenkyo no Pikachu Jusenkyo no Pikachu is offline
 
Join Date: 11 May 2003
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,803
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainie View Post
Jusenkyo no Pikachu, if you think that's a joke, I don't think I'd enjoy your sense of humor.
I never said I found it funny.

You might not find this funny, but itís still a decently constructed joke.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 21 March 2018, 12:57 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 25,946
Icon24

I don't get the impression from the linked story that there's any evidence the guy is a Nazi, apart from this "joke". And for people feeling sorry for the dog, there's no evidence given that he trained the dog to respond to Nazi references. That would be quite hard. (He trained the dog to respond to something, but not that). If there is any evidence for these things, it's not given in the story.

It's also not obvious what his sentence for being "found guilty" is. I get the impression that this is an example case, though, to try to quell certain kinds of speech. ("Hate speech", the advocates would say, but irony and satire are also potentially included here if you paint it with too broad a brush).

And for what it's worth, I can entirely see how his joke might have been a joke to him. These things are - thankfully - detached from reality for most of us. But making an ironic joke about something doesn't mean that you're advocating that thing. This is often what people mean when they say "it was a joke" - not that they were threatening you but you took it the wrong way, but that they were being ironic in the first place and their comments were meant to be read in the opposite way to the literal meaning.

I have no idea whether this guy was trying to be ironic, or just (as he says) winding up his girlfriend. Either way, I can't see any evidence in the story as written that he's actually a Nazi.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 21 March 2018, 03:32 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,997
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jusenkyo no Pikachu View Post
I never said I found it funny.

You might not find this funny, but it’s still a decently constructed joke.
No, it isn't.

There's no twist, no punch line. And nothing funny about it. It's only and purely intended to offend; and that's not a joke.

-- wait a minute, I thought you were referring to the original story; I didn't see the link there. The link goes to a video, however, and I don't feel like watching a video; especially one I'm apparently expected to find offensive.

Last edited by thorny locust; 21 March 2018 at 03:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 21 March 2018, 03:35 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,997
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard W View Post
This is often what people mean when they say "it was a joke" - not that they were threatening you but you took it the wrong way, but that they were being ironic in the first place and their comments were meant to be read in the opposite way to the literal meaning.
That is very often not at all what people mean when they say something was just a joke. What they very often mean is that their comments were meant to be read in exactly the way of the literal meaning, but that everyone is supposed to find the literal meaning funny: because attacking whoever is being attacked is supposed to be thought of as funny.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 21 March 2018, 04:40 AM
Jusenkyo no Pikachu Jusenkyo no Pikachu is offline
 
Join Date: 11 May 2003
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,803
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
-- wait a minute, I thought you were referring to the original story; I didn't see the link there. The link goes to a video, however, and I don't feel like watching a video; especially one I'm apparently expected to find offensive.
For context: the video is the one aired episode of Heil, Honey, Iím Home!, a British TV series that parodied 1950s dom coms by having Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun living next door to a Jewish couple.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 21 March 2018, 01:07 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,331
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jusenkyo no Pikachu View Post
You might not find this funny, but itís still a decently constructed joke.
No, I agree with TL. And even if I didn't, how "decently" (what an odd choice of word) it was "constructed" would be irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 21 March 2018, 02:32 PM
Jusenkyo no Pikachu Jusenkyo no Pikachu is offline
 
Join Date: 11 May 2003
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,803
Default

Ok, then let me illustrate with a video I don’t understand, because surprisingly enough I think I can do that.

In 2015, Paul Joseph Watson released this video. Now, I know you’re going to either just avoid it because of who he is or click it and hate me forever, but let me explain: It’s a video he claims is satire. And, while I think he misses the mark and fails so badly that he attacks a group that could not possibly exist (cisgender transgender transracial otherkin furries who also identify as trans-hippo. I don’t get it either), I’m not inclined to disagree. It’s mean spirited and idiotic and not something I laugh at unironically (because unlike Paul, I don’t balance out soy with more soy. See the Science section for that to make sense), but it is an attempt at satire.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 21 March 2018, 02:42 PM
RichardM RichardM is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2004
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 4,271
Default

It might be funny if the words used to make the dog salute weren't offensive. Say it he had said something like this is what a real SOB does.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 21 March 2018, 02:59 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,997
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jusenkyo no Pikachu View Post
Ok, then let me illustrate with a video I donít understand, because surprisingly enough I think I can do that.

In 2015, Paul Joseph Watson released [URL Now, I know youíre going to either just avoid it because of who he is or click it and hate me forever, but let me explain: Itís a video he claims is satire. And, while I think he misses the mark and fails so badly that he attacks a group that could not possibly exist (cisgender transgender transracial otherkin furries who also identify as trans-hippo. I donít get it either), Iím not inclined to disagree. Itís mean spirited and idiotic and not something I laugh at unironically (because unlike Paul, I donít balance out soy with more soy. See the Science section for that to make sense), but it is an attempt at satire.
You're right, I'm not going to watch it. But, going by your description: sounds to me as if he's attacking a whole batch of people who actually do exist: people who are transgender and/or otherkin/furries. (Cisgender people also certainly exist; but that would be punching up, so depending on the rest of context I might give it a pass.)

He's attacking the whole idea that people might identify as anything other than what they physically on the surface appear to him to be. He may be doing this by exaggerating the phenomenon into satire; but that doesn't change the fact of the attack.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 21 March 2018, 03:42 PM
Darth Credence's Avatar
Darth Credence Darth Credence is offline
 
Join Date: 28 October 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 3,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardM View Post
It might be funny if the words used to make the dog salute weren't offensive. Say it he had said something like this is what a real SOB does.
Would it be funny if he trained the dog to do it when playing "Hail to the Chief" or saying President Trump? Would it be funny if he trained it to do so at a mention of Obama?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 21 March 2018, 03:56 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,023
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Credence View Post
Would it be funny if he trained the dog to do it when playing "Hail to the Chief" or saying President Trump? Would it be funny if he trained it to do so at a mention of Obama?
Is it surprising that depending on one's politics one scenario would be funny and another offensive? Humour, especially if someone aspires to be edgy and controversial is going to do exactly that. Or at least it should according to everything I've read about comics.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 21 March 2018, 04:23 PM
Jusenkyo no Pikachu Jusenkyo no Pikachu is offline
 
Join Date: 11 May 2003
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,803
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
But, going by your description: sounds to me as if he's attacking a whole batch of people who actually do exist: people who are transgender and/or otherkin/furries. (Cisgender people also certainly exist; but that would be punching up, so depending on the rest of context I might give it a pass.)
He actually plays it as someone who identifies as trans-whatever only on certain days (using masks and padding). The whole idea is to make the trans* phenomenon look silly, but in my opinion he misses it by a parsec. I canít even be mad at it due to that, and Iím fully aware of how nasty it actually is. But yeah, Iím still inclined to claim it as intentional (as well as unintentional) satire.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 21 March 2018, 04:43 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,997
Default

Oh, I wasn't saying it's not satire; I was saying that it is a genuine attack on people who actually exist.

Satire's a legitimate technique for political discourse, if used properly. IMO it should be used to punch up; and not at straw men.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
American tourist gives Nazi salute in Germany, is beaten up TallGeekyGirl Soapbox Derby 38 15 August 2017 01:37 PM
Laura Ingraham's inadvertent Nazi salute at the RNC had Twitter losing its mind TallGeekyGirl Social Studies 12 26 July 2016 05:27 AM
Queen Nazi salute film: Palace 'disappointed' at use Andrew of Ware Soapbox Derby 61 23 July 2015 01:33 PM
Found guilty of the worst bowel movement ever snopes Moot Court 8 01 August 2013 04:46 PM
Young California Boy Found Guilty of Killing Neo Nazi Father catty5nutz Police Blotter 6 15 January 2013 02:48 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.