|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 18 2026 15:34 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 15:03 baal wrote:On March 18 2026 14:20 Fleetfeet wrote:
I could go either way on it having been prosecuted tbh, though it still has nothing to do with anonymity given that he wasn't fucking trying to be anonymous. It's very clear now that anybody making edgy jokes or discussing sensitive topics that could be considered hatespeech in the UK should use anonymity to protect themselvesIt's like if I took a video of myself, well-lit and clear, of me shitting on a police car. I then posted that to my personal youtube video, which obviously has my personal information attached to it. I then get charged with vandalism despite me giggling the entire time I shit on the car, and then whine about internet anonymity as though me filming myself committing a crime should be protected by... who the fuck knows. False equivalency, shitting on a clear cut crime, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. We have nothing to discuss not because you have insight into my position, but because you refuse to clarify your position on how it's about anonymity at all. I'm sure if count dankula wanted to make cutting commentary about his country's politics, he could do just that without fear of reprisal even without trying to remain anonymous. That's probably why he was charged for the hate crime stuff, and not whining about scotland stuff. We have nothing to discuss if you don't believe that constitutes freedom of speech because that is the purpose of online anonymity, so we won't have a productive discussion if we don't agree on first principles. Did you also use an AI summary to read about this case? Show nested quote +The court ruled that Meechan's claim that the video was a joke intended for his girlfriend "lacked credibility" as Meechan's girlfriend did not subscribe to the YouTube channel to which the video was posted.[ He claimed it was a joke for his girlfriend on a channel his girlfriend would not actually watch. So the intended audience was the broader internet. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I do think that if you are producing content that is consistent with neo-nazi propaganda you should be at the very least fined for it. Less clear, but still, is the guy that got arrested for going to a Halloween party as the Ariana Grande bomber. Although, as far as I know, that guy didn't get charged with an actual crime.
Bit surprised why Baal and oBlade decided that their best example for why anonymity might matter on social media is at best an idiot with bad taste and at worst a neonazi. They could just have used Kneecap if their point was to get actual sympathy and thought about this from their political opponents. So the only thing I really get out of this is that they are sad a dude had to pay a fine for posting a video of saying Sieg Heil on the internet.
Kneecap is a far more interesting case. For starters, the stakes are higher. Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh wasn't accused of "gross indecency", but for terrorism, a far more serious case. He wasn't found guilty, but he wasn't acquitted either: the state still thinks they're in the right because the case was thrown out on a technical error, and the state took it, unsuccessfully, to the High Court to try to appeal the dismissal and just a few days ago. Clearly they think that having a Hezbollah flag thrown onto your stage and then picking said item up is "support of a terrorist organisation", and the only thing stopping the prosecution is their own incompetence. But more to the point is that any support of Hamas or Hezbollah is illegal, and there have been similar cases with actual convictions. Khaled Hajsaad was convicted of supporting Hamas because he wore a green bandana to a protest. To me, this is a far more sympathetic cause than pushing a Hitler "joke" too far. People ARE being tried for their opinions. On the other hand, in Khaled Hajsaad's case, it was also fairly simple to NOT get convicted, because I agree with the courts here: the only real reason to wear a green bandana with the Shahada on it to a pro-Palestine protest is to show support for Hamas, which is a despicable organisation and rightfully banned. And that is illegal. I don't think support in this manner (wearing a green bandana) *should* be illegal, but it is, and anyone at a pro-Palestine rally should know that. So he was intentionally pushing bounds and got burned for it.
|
On March 18 2026 16:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think count dankula being fined was stupid.
Fucking thank you.
It's so difficult to discuss in this forum where so many argue in bad faith and gaslights constantly it makes productive discourse impossible so tl.net has become this reddit-type echo chamber.
It's probably too ingrained in the forum culture but bad faith should warrant warnings/bans, when I was a mod that was the only reason I banned people, extreme freedom of speech no matter how heated it got as far as people were arguing in good faith.
|
On March 18 2026 16:18 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
The latter runs into my problem again, we would be giving carte blanche for people to commit crimes that can be done via communication. Misinformation or edgy jokes are by far not the worst thing you can do via anonymous communication. You could absolutely, for arguments sake, organise an attack on a synagogue, with location and time (pretty sure this would be a crime in every developed country). And if the anonymity overrides even legality, then governments are going to be unable to act in the face of very obvious crime. No government is going to agree to follow that law, and very few populations if any would agree that this would be a good idea.
People dont organize terrorists attacks in social media, but they do make edgy jokes and say politically incorrect things that border on hate speech constantly, that is what needs protection in the 1st world, in other countries things like people criticizing governments, religion or forbidden topics.
Back to the issue of implementation, I'm just going to assume Laws to enforce 'legal anonymity' are basically a no go. Then just having a service/place to communicate/release information would be what 'anonymity is important' would mean.
This is going to need someone to run/implement it. You don't trust governments to do it (i don't disagree with you), but corporations are imo as bad if not worse. These days corporations have the same power and none of the mandate of governments.
Yeah corporations have bad records to keep anonymity but they extract info to maximize ad targeting far less damaging than government persecution but still it shocks me how little heat they've faced when they break their own rules it should be much easier to sue them.
So you are left with 2 options, either something that technically hides information so that noone has access to identity information, or you have multiple parties run multiple services (eg like having multiple wiki-leaks), and people just choose the best platform for the context (eg the people who run the platform are least likely to directly benefit from selling you out).
First option runs into the same problem as 'legal anonymity', people can organise crimes other this platform, noone can figure out who's doing it. They don't have someone like wiki-leaks staff to decide what should be leaked, what is just committing crime on their platform.
There are many services who offer that, Telegram, Signal (some compromised) and actual terrorism is organized in protocols far more secure so its not a real issue that you would create since it already exists, we are talking more about social media than direct communication channels.
|
I think what you're missing is the seed to radicalisation that is partly embedded in (social) media. It's not just "lol this guy made a joke, chill". It's every ripple it causes and where it reaches and who picks it up.
You are able to get into the echo chamber without it ever letting you leave (but you won't notice that). It'll reinforce your beliefs until you've become unwilling to compromise. I have a feeling many people think of it this way without having hard data to point to that these kinds of "jokes" are contributing to this.
I'm all in favor of free speech, but I'm against precursors to radicalisation. I think the dumbass should know better than to make a video of his dog raising his paw when hearing heil Hitler and I think news outlets shouldn't give this kind of bullshit the light of day after what police/court decide what to do with it.
I hope you can at least see how slowly eroding certain aspects of respect for thy neighbor can lead to tribalisation in the long run.
Real question is: how do you determine what constitutes as harmful speech, or what contributes to reinforcing cerain beliefs? When does a collection of sandgrains become a pile? It's fuzzy at best and the threshold is different for everyone.
Waht I do know is how this story will play out with Nazi sympathizers and how they'll use it to recruit more people into their club.
|
On March 18 2026 15:03 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 14:20 Fleetfeet wrote:
I could go either way on it having been prosecuted tbh, though it still has nothing to do with anonymity given that he wasn't fucking trying to be anonymous. It's very clear now that anybody making edgy jokes or discussing sensitive topics that could be considered hatespeech in the UK should use anonymity to protect themselvesShow nested quote +It's like if I took a video of myself, well-lit and clear, of me shitting on a police car. I then posted that to my personal youtube video, which obviously has my personal information attached to it. I then get charged with vandalism despite me giggling the entire time I shit on the car, and then whine about internet anonymity as though me filming myself committing a crime should be protected by... who the fuck knows. False equivalency, shitting on a clear cut crime, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.Show nested quote +We have nothing to discuss not because you have insight into my position, but because you refuse to clarify your position on how it's about anonymity at all. I'm sure if count dankula wanted to make cutting commentary about his country's politics, he could do just that without fear of reprisal even without trying to remain anonymous. That's probably why he was charged for the hate crime stuff, and not whining about scotland stuff. We have nothing to discuss if you don't believe that constitutes freedom of speech because that is the purpose of online anonymity, so we won't have a productive discussion if we don't agree on first principles.
No kidding, that's my point.
There's freedom of speech.
There's internet anonymity.
They are separate things. In case you'd forgotten, YOU are the one citing it as an anonymity issue. My analogy is showing that it isn't, because -crime- isn't what you want to protect with anonymity, it's -freedom of speech-.
You're coming in after my car analogy and saying "Well if the youtube account you posted it to was anonymous and you had covered your face, then the government wouldn't figure out it was you and couldn't come after you for shitting on a cop car. Anyone in the UK who wants to shit on a cop car had better do it anonymously, or they might suffer consequences."
No kidding. What you SHOULD be arguing is the legality of 'shitting on a cop car', or whether or not count dankula's comments constituted a crime, but instead you seem to be arguing that if nobody knew who he was he wouldn't have been charged.
And again, I think that's a conversation worth having. Personally, as I mentioned, I could go either way with it - if history had left him un-charged and un-fined, I would consider that acceptable. I also consider him having been fined what seems like a minimal sum to be fair enough, considering its hate-crime adjacency. No great injustice has been dealt here, in my opinion. I've definitely heard racier stuff on discord or teamspeak over the years, and while I'm glad those people haven't been fined or charged for anything, they also were voicing their shitty takes to an audience of single digits, not a youtube channel of however many thousands he had at the time.
|
United States44168 Posts
On March 18 2026 13:56 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 12:36 KwarK wrote:On March 18 2026 12:21 baal wrote:On March 18 2026 12:15 KwarK wrote:On March 18 2026 12:10 baal wrote:On March 18 2026 11:30 KwarK wrote:On March 18 2026 11:28 baal wrote:On March 17 2026 22:10 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2026 19:14 baal wrote:On March 17 2026 15:13 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
I don't know who that is.
Count Dankula, arrested and went to court for a nazi joke with his dog, google him. I did Google him. He didn’t go to prison. What are you talking about? My bad he was only arrested, tried, found guilty and convicted, he had to pay a fine lol, is that ok with you? Ok let me rephrase that, we need anonymity so that you don't get arrested, tried, convicted and fined for wrong opinions or jokes Given you’ve apparently been posting angrily about a case that you know nothing about I can certainly see why protections for online idiots are a topic very dear to your heart. Sure sure, so are you ok with him being fined? I don’t know enough about the case to have opinions on it. And somehow nor do you. nice dodge but its not difficult. Youtubers girlfriend goes on vacation He wants to pull a prank by profaning what is dearest to her, her pug. He teaches the pug to raise his paw like a nazi when he sais sieg heil or gas the jews. He uploads the video of the joke when she arrives. He gets arrested, charged, tried, convicted and fined. Do you think this is fine? You already demonstrated that you don’t know enough about it to accurately describe it to someone else. I don’t know why you’re pushing this. Surely there are things you do know about that you could describe. well you don't have to believe me just wiki it and tell me your opinion.
I'm going to give you a big old "it depends". There's a reason that courts involve more than listening to a 15 second summary delivered by someone who doesn't have a good understanding of the case and giving a ruling.
A bigger issue is how you somehow got so upset over a case that you clearly don't really know about in a country on the other side of the world. Someone fed you a narrative and got you worked up over a thing that didn't happen. Shouldn't you at least take a few minutes to work out who did that and what their motivations might be?
|
On March 18 2026 16:38 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 15:34 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 18 2026 15:03 baal wrote:On March 18 2026 14:20 Fleetfeet wrote:
I could go either way on it having been prosecuted tbh, though it still has nothing to do with anonymity given that he wasn't fucking trying to be anonymous. It's very clear now that anybody making edgy jokes or discussing sensitive topics that could be considered hatespeech in the UK should use anonymity to protect themselvesIt's like if I took a video of myself, well-lit and clear, of me shitting on a police car. I then posted that to my personal youtube video, which obviously has my personal information attached to it. I then get charged with vandalism despite me giggling the entire time I shit on the car, and then whine about internet anonymity as though me filming myself committing a crime should be protected by... who the fuck knows. False equivalency, shitting on a clear cut crime, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. We have nothing to discuss not because you have insight into my position, but because you refuse to clarify your position on how it's about anonymity at all. I'm sure if count dankula wanted to make cutting commentary about his country's politics, he could do just that without fear of reprisal even without trying to remain anonymous. That's probably why he was charged for the hate crime stuff, and not whining about scotland stuff. We have nothing to discuss if you don't believe that constitutes freedom of speech because that is the purpose of online anonymity, so we won't have a productive discussion if we don't agree on first principles. Did you also use an AI summary to read about this case? The court ruled that Meechan's claim that the video was a joke intended for his girlfriend "lacked credibility" as Meechan's girlfriend did not subscribe to the YouTube channel to which the video was posted.[ He claimed it was a joke for his girlfriend on a channel his girlfriend would not actually watch. So the intended audience was the broader internet. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I do think that if you are producing content that is consistent with neo-nazi propaganda you should be at the very least fined for it. Less clear, but still, is the guy that got arrested for going to a Halloween party as the Ariana Grande bomber. Although, as far as I know, that guy didn't get charged with an actual crime. Bit surprised why Baal and oBlade decided that their best example for why anonymity might matter on social media is at best an idiot with bad taste and at worst a neonazi.
It wasn't my example and that's not what I believe.
I don't believe there needs to be absolute internet anonymity for the purpose of hiding from a government that would prosecute someone for the direction a dog extends its paw in a video. I believe that a government shouldn't charge people with crimes for the postures of their dogs regardless of whether they know the person's identity or not. The continent that produced the Renaissance woefully lags in protections for expression that the US guarantees.
Taste and alleged neo-Naziism do not matter. That is the core of I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
In Austria, people have been charged and convicted and fined (though as far as I know not sentenced to prison, but given suspended sentences, so avoiding prison like Dankula, but I don't know whether they were held in pre-trial confinement at any point) for uploading photos of Eiernockerl and for selling Eiernockerl on Hitler's birthday. Eiernockerl is a dumpling/egg recipe that people memed into being Hitler's favorite food, when there's no evidence it was. So now being too public about eating it on the wrong day leads to transgressions against Nazi alarmism statutes.
|
United States44168 Posts
On March 18 2026 18:06 oBlade wrote:
prosecute someone for the direction a dog extends its paw in a video
Based on the description we've been provided the video appears to be of a man repeatedly saying "gas the jews". The dog part might not be what got him.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1326 Posts
On March 18 2026 17:02 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 16:18 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
The latter runs into my problem again, we would be giving carte blanche for people to commit crimes that can be done via communication. Misinformation or edgy jokes are by far not the worst thing you can do via anonymous communication. You could absolutely, for arguments sake, organise an attack on a synagogue, with location and time (pretty sure this would be a crime in every developed country). And if the anonymity overrides even legality, then governments are going to be unable to act in the face of very obvious crime. No government is going to agree to follow that law, and very few populations if any would agree that this would be a good idea. People dont organize terrorists attacks in social media, but they do make edgy jokes and say politically incorrect things that border on hate speech constantly, that is what needs protection in the 1st world, in other countries things like people criticizing governments, religion or forbidden topics. Show nested quote +Back to the issue of implementation, I'm just going to assume Laws to enforce 'legal anonymity' are basically a no go. Then just having a service/place to communicate/release information would be what 'anonymity is important' would mean.
This is going to need someone to run/implement it. You don't trust governments to do it (i don't disagree with you), but corporations are imo as bad if not worse. These days corporations have the same power and none of the mandate of governments. Yeah corporations have bad records to keep anonymity but they extract info to maximize ad targeting far less damaging than government persecution but still it shocks me how little heat they've faced when they break their own rules it should be much easier to sue them. Show nested quote +So you are left with 2 options, either something that technically hides information so that noone has access to identity information, or you have multiple parties run multiple services (eg like having multiple wiki-leaks), and people just choose the best platform for the context (eg the people who run the platform are least likely to directly benefit from selling you out).
First option runs into the same problem as 'legal anonymity', people can organise crimes other this platform, noone can figure out who's doing it. They don't have someone like wiki-leaks staff to decide what should be leaked, what is just committing crime on their platform. There are many services who offer that, Telegram, Signal (some compromised) and actual terrorism is organized in protocols far more secure so its not a real issue that you would create since it already exists, we are talking more about social media than direct communication channels.
I don't know why you think people don't incite violence on social media, when a quick google tells you people have been prosecuted for doing exactly that. And this is on platforms that these people (should) know there is no expectation of anonymity.
Namely Lucy Connolly and Jason Parlour. If people are doing it without any such assumption of anonymity, sure as hell people are going to do it when there is.
Both of these cases, I'm pretty sure wouldn't have passed the 'inciting violence' exceptions even in the US.
|
It's fascinating that the obvious PR/Attention grab by Count Dankula is still not obvious enough for people to realize it, instead they still defend him as a poor victim of state overreach.
|
Someone brought up Jimmy Carr as an example which is probably wider known than Count Something.
If Jimmy Carr got arrested for hate speech or racism than yes that would be unwarranted because it is so obviously comedic and nothing else.
This whole discussion has zero to do with anonymity though. At least I have no idea where the connection is supposed to be
|
On March 18 2026 19:34 Harris1st wrote:
Someone brought up Jimmy Carr as an example which is probably wider known than Count Something.
If Jimmy Carr got arrested for hate speech or racism than yes that would be unwarranted because it is so obviously comedic and nothing else.
This whole discussion has zero to do with anonymity though. At least I have no idea where the connection is supposed to be The connection is that they want to be free to spout racism and hate speech on the internet without consequences, because they know in real life they get punched in the face when they do that in public.
|
On March 18 2026 16:35 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 15:34 EnDeR_ wrote:
Did you also use an AI summary to read about this case? Nope I saw his case in the news years ago and started following him, he is funny. Show nested quote +The court ruled that Meechan's claim that the video was a joke intended for his girlfriend "lacked credibility" as Meechan's girlfriend did not subscribe to the YouTube channel to which the video was posted.[ Show nested quote +He claimed it was a joke for his girlfriend on a channel his girlfriend would not actually watch. So the intended audience was the broader internet. He made a prank to her girlfriend and put it in his youtube channel, he is a comedian making a comedic video. Show nested quote +I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I do think that if you are producing content that is consistent with neo-nazi propaganda you should be at the very least fined for it. He wasn't making propaganda, he was making a joke, actually he was a communist, he has a massive hammer & sickle tattoo on his chest.
Agree to disagree. That video could've comfortably sat in a folder entitled "recruitment videos" in a neo-nazi's laptop; humour is a powerful way to radicalise people.
|
Northern Ireland27087 Posts
On March 18 2026 18:55 Velr wrote:
It's fascinating that the obvious PR/Attention grab by Count Dankula is still not obvious enough for people to realize it, instead they still defend him as a poor victim of state overreach.
I mean both things can be true.
He’s probably one case, certainly the one I’m most passingly familiar with at least on the surface level it wouldn’t be a hill I’d die on.
Even though I’m not personally against state censure for certain forms of speech, I think that specific incidence was pretty ridiculous.
If someone wants to become a martyr, or alternatively others want to make them so, I mean one doesn’t have to give them the ammo and can disarm them from doing so.
|
On March 18 2026 19:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 19:34 Harris1st wrote:
Someone brought up Jimmy Carr as an example which is probably wider known than Count Something.
If Jimmy Carr got arrested for hate speech or racism than yes that would be unwarranted because it is so obviously comedic and nothing else.
This whole discussion has zero to do with anonymity though. At least I have no idea where the connection is supposed to be The connection is that they want to be free to spout racism and hate speech on the internet without consequences, because they know in real life they get punched in the face when they do that in public.
That is how I understood it as well.
I can understand a desire to be anonymous from other random internet users but not from the police/ state/ court of law
|
I was asked to read Count Dankula's Wikipedia page:
He currently identifies politically as a libertarian though he has become progressively more right-wing in recent years.
On 16 June 2018, Meechan announced that he had joined UKIP along with fellow YouTubers Carl Benjamin and Paul Joseph Watson in what Watson describes as an attempted "soft coup".[50][51][52] ]
Paul Joseph Watson is an open white supremacist, and UKIP was the party for racists before Reform. Dude was absolutely not fined enough for "joking" about gassing the Jews.
Not sure what this has to do with social media anonymity or using guns to resist authoritarianism. Are Scots supposed to use guns against people like Count Dankula in case they might take over one day?
|
Northern Ireland27087 Posts
On March 18 2026 16:38 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 15:34 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 18 2026 15:03 baal wrote:On March 18 2026 14:20 Fleetfeet wrote:
I could go either way on it having been prosecuted tbh, though it still has nothing to do with anonymity given that he wasn't fucking trying to be anonymous. It's very clear now that anybody making edgy jokes or discussing sensitive topics that could be considered hatespeech in the UK should use anonymity to protect themselvesIt's like if I took a video of myself, well-lit and clear, of me shitting on a police car. I then posted that to my personal youtube video, which obviously has my personal information attached to it. I then get charged with vandalism despite me giggling the entire time I shit on the car, and then whine about internet anonymity as though me filming myself committing a crime should be protected by... who the fuck knows. False equivalency, shitting on a clear cut crime, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. We have nothing to discuss not because you have insight into my position, but because you refuse to clarify your position on how it's about anonymity at all. I'm sure if count dankula wanted to make cutting commentary about his country's politics, he could do just that without fear of reprisal even without trying to remain anonymous. That's probably why he was charged for the hate crime stuff, and not whining about scotland stuff. We have nothing to discuss if you don't believe that constitutes freedom of speech because that is the purpose of online anonymity, so we won't have a productive discussion if we don't agree on first principles. Did you also use an AI summary to read about this case? The court ruled that Meechan's claim that the video was a joke intended for his girlfriend "lacked credibility" as Meechan's girlfriend did not subscribe to the YouTube channel to which the video was posted.[ He claimed it was a joke for his girlfriend on a channel his girlfriend would not actually watch. So the intended audience was the broader internet. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I do think that if you are producing content that is consistent with neo-nazi propaganda you should be at the very least fined for it. Less clear, but still, is the guy that got arrested for going to a Halloween party as the Ariana Grande bomber. Although, as far as I know, that guy didn't get charged with an actual crime. Bit surprised why Baal and oBlade decided that their best example for why anonymity might matter on social media is at best an idiot with bad taste and at worst a neonazi. They could just have used Kneecap if their point was to get actual sympathy and thought about this from their political opponents. So the only thing I really get out of this is that they are sad a dude had to pay a fine for posting a video of saying Sieg Heil on the internet. Kneecap is a far more interesting case. For starters, the stakes are higher. Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh wasn't accused of "gross indecency", but for terrorism, a far more serious case. He wasn't found guilty, but he wasn't acquitted either: the state still thinks they're in the right because the case was thrown out on a technical error, and the state took it, unsuccessfully, to the High Court to try to appeal the dismissal and just a few days ago. Clearly they think that having a Hezbollah flag thrown onto your stage and then picking said item up is "support of a terrorist organisation", and the only thing stopping the prosecution is their own incompetence. But more to the point is that any support of Hamas or Hezbollah is illegal, and there have been similar cases with actual convictions. Khaled Hajsaad was convicted of supporting Hamas because he wore a green bandana to a protest. To me, this is a far more sympathetic cause than pushing a Hitler "joke" too far. People ARE being tried for their opinions. On the other hand, in Khaled Hajsaad's case, it was also fairly simple to NOT get convicted, because I agree with the courts here: the only real reason to wear a green bandana with the Shahada on it to a pro-Palestine protest is to show support for Hamas, which is a despicable organisation and rightfully banned. And that is illegal. I don't think support in this manner (wearing a green bandana) *should* be illegal, but it is, and anyone at a pro-Palestine rally should know that. So he was intentionally pushing bounds and got burned for it.
Yeah these are interesting cases, I’m not super sure 100% where I stand.
For me, Kneecap’s shtick is generally fine. Their appropriation of militant Irish Republican imagery is parts tongue-in-cheek or ironic, part deliberately transgressive and of course part an earnest expression of cultural and political identity.
On the flipside, I’ve been to one of their biggest gigs they’ve done in their native land, I don’t think all of their fan base parse the performance as I do, or others.
One can probably imagine it becomes slightly uncomfortable if you’re a Brit who has relatives killed by the IRA, when you realise that a portion of an audience is rather earnestly buying into the ‘Brits out’ side of things.
Now this isn’t to say down with this sort of thing Kneecap, far from it. But I think it does illustrate certain blind spots societally.
It oft feels less a battleground of principles and rigid frameworks, and one that just bends depending on whatever the cause might be. Which obviously can be problematic.
I find it quite frustrating that Irish folks I know via my partner and otherwise tend to align with, may dismiss such concerns completely out of hand. On the flipside, many of the folks frothing at the mouth about Kneecap and wanting them censured, will decry that in other scenarios.
At least in my country in relatively recent times the expansion of definition, or at least a more liberally interpretation and stringent enforcement of what constitutes ‘support’ for terrorism is a rather worrying development.
It’s way too liable to abuse. If you’re holding meets and fundraising for a pretty unambiguously terroristic organisation, I mean yeah that seems an appropriate time for state intervention.
But we’ve seen that really be warped and stretched in recent time
|
On March 18 2026 17:23 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2026 15:03 baal wrote:On March 18 2026 14:20 Fleetfeet wrote:
I could go either way on it having been prosecuted tbh, though it still has nothing to do with anonymity given that he wasn't fucking trying to be anonymous. It's very clear now that anybody making edgy jokes or discussing sensitive topics that could be considered hatespeech in the UK should use anonymity to protect themselvesIt's like if I took a video of myself, well-lit and clear, of me shitting on a police car. I then posted that to my personal youtube video, which obviously has my personal information attached to it. I then get charged with vandalism despite me giggling the entire time I shit on the car, and then whine about internet anonymity as though me filming myself committing a crime should be protected by... who the fuck knows. False equivalency, shitting on a clear cut crime, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.We have nothing to discuss not because you have insight into my position, but because you refuse to clarify your position on how it's about anonymity at all. I'm sure if count dankula wanted to make cutting commentary about his country's politics, he could do just that without fear of reprisal even without trying to remain anonymous. That's probably why he was charged for the hate crime stuff, and not whining about scotland stuff. We have nothing to discuss if you don't believe that constitutes freedom of speech because that is the purpose of online anonymity, so we won't have a productive discussion if we don't agree on first principles. No kidding, that's my point. There's freedom of speech. There's internet anonymity. They are separate things. In case you'd forgotten, YOU are the one citing it as an anonymity issue. My analogy is showing that it isn't, because -crime- isn't what you want to protect with anonymity, it's -freedom of speech-. You're coming in after my car analogy and saying "Well if the youtube account you posted it to was anonymous and you had covered your face, then the government wouldn't figure out it was you and couldn't come after you for shitting on a cop car. Anyone in the UK who wants to shit on a cop car had better do it anonymously, or they might suffer consequences." No kidding. What you SHOULD be arguing is the legality of 'shitting on a cop car', or whether or not count dankula's comments constituted a crime, but instead you seem to be arguing that if nobody knew who he was he wouldn't have been charged. And again, I think that's a conversation worth having. Personally, as I mentioned, I could go either way with it - if history had left him un-charged and un-fined, I would consider that acceptable. I also consider him having been fined what seems like a minimal sum to be fair enough, considering its hate-crime adjacency. No great injustice has been dealt here, in my opinion. I've definitely heard racier stuff on discord or teamspeak over the years, and while I'm glad those people haven't been fined or charged for anything, they also were voicing their shitty takes to an audience of single digits, not a youtube channel of however many thousands he had at the time.
Freedom of speech and anonymity are clearly related when the latter is the only way to have the former, but you seem to view this is a legitimate "hate crime" so your definition is different. Anonymity has been a part of American speech and debate since the Revolutionary era. Lots of public debate was carried out by different men writing anonymously in newspapers. They even did it when there wasn't a legal threat (Publius and the Federalist Papers). Now of course the internet is much bigger and less curated but free speech and anonymity are very often linked.
|
@Introvert: how do you secure a fragile society? How do you keep it from splintering from within? How do you restrict what can and can't be done, especially now that being informed - however you may define that - is so easily done (through the internet or traveling etc.)? Genuine question, if you're willing to elaborate on that.
Is anonimity enough you think?
|
On March 18 2026 11:57 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +4. There is a fundamental issue of trust. Trump has abandoned allies before and everyone knows he would do it again without hesitation the moment it became politically useful to him in the short term. The Kurds know it, the Afghans know it. Europe knows it. Canada knows it. My new favourite historian Sarah Payne talks about this breaking down the difference between tactical thinking, operational thinking, and strategic thinking. She sees Trump and his administration as only able to think operationally as they catch good headlines but sees no evidence of strategic thinking. Due to the strength of the US military, an operation like in Venzuela will be very effective. What's the long term impact in the region? Off to Iran we go. Pearl Harbour was fantastically successful at the operational level. Strategically, it brought the full might of the US into WWII. I suspect Trump will be one of the greatest causes of nuclear proliferation in the modern era. But he does have a nose for what it temporarily popular with his base. As much as some of the MAGA talking heads are suffering whiplash from their Kamala = forever wars in the Middle East, Trump = peace candidate, the Iran war is still largely popular with Trump's base. https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/02/politics/cnn-poll-59-of-americans-disapprove-of-iran-strikes-and-most-think-a-long-term-conflict-is-likely View of US decision to take military action in Iran: Republican: 77% Approve 23% Disapprove Does Trump have a clear plan for handling the Iran situation? Republican: 83% Yes 17% No
Everything he does is popular with his base, because they are the true sheeple and the least independent thinkers on the planet. They just upload their opinion from whatever influencer they think is coolest.
I agree with your point on the various intelligences. The scariest part is the success of the operational part has nothing to do with the administration, it is way below them where the smart people are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
