Message from @Ghostler
Discord ID: 426101140795424768
and I live in fuckin' california.
So danks been declared guilty. Not sure of what specifically besides the pug video.
Of having a sense of humor.
If he had started a child grooming ring he would have been completely fine.
But then he's not a muslim, so...
Joking aside, I mean, what the court officially says.
And then we make fun of that.
I wasn't joking.
Humour is funny when it is based in reality
And thats why its sad that that statement is true in both.
Anyone watch Spencer vs Kokesh?
that happened already?
oh shit; yesterday
how did it go? Spencer still being weird?
Nathan J Warski
I couldn't even finish it.
The dude claims to be a libertarian, but he sounded more like an ancap the entire time.
You know, with 'the state' being the source of all the world's problems and all.
At least he didn't mention a fear of roads.
dem rods
I'm OK with ancaps, ideally I am totally there
but I unfortunately know how fucked up humans can be
Yeah, it sounds great and all, but it doesn't take humanity into account. lol
just like, every other ideology, maybe we shouldn't just adopt a "utopia" ideal 🤔
Correction for Tims Video: Dankula was not convicted of a hate crime, but for an improper use of a public electronic communications network - the reason being that the court deemed the video to be "grossly offensive". It is a different law and - in my humble opinion - completely bonkers because the criteria is literally being "grossly offensive" which has absolutely zero legal definition and is an open invitation to be abused. They could literally convict a guy for saying that he does not like tea, as long as he uses the internet to state that.
isn't that the same thing though? he said something the state disagreed with across a medium
its not, no.
On Libertarian vs. Ancaps: I'd say the definitive difference between Ancap and Libertarian is that Ancap wants to see the state dismantled, and Libertarian wants to see the people limit the State, but not eliminate it.
Both see the State as the source of problems. The solutions vary though.
we have -kinda- hate speech laws in germany... you can't deny the holocaust, you can not call for violence against specific people or groups of people... it's pretty clear defined and somewhat similar to what the actual uk hate speech law says... the law that lead to the conviction of dankula has no definition at all - except that is has to use the internet or something similiar.
dankula would have been fine if he had broadcast the video on tv
I'd agree with Falko, it doesn't appear that he was charged with 'Hate Crime'
because its not the video that is wrong... its the use of the internet to publish it
fair enough,
But my point was that regardless if its a hate crime, or public electronic communications crime
His statement is what he was punished for, and they're getting him on a technicality
i did not find what the initial charges where, though
I really think that's why they're taking so long to sentence him
also i think incitement to violence is a crime in any western country, even America
Saying "I hate negro's" is protected
Saying "Lets burn all the negro's alive and rape their wamen" is incitement to violence
they got him on a law that can be used against EVERYONE for saying ANYTHING on the internet