Message from @Dᴏᴏғᴜs Dᴏʀᴋᴍᴀɴᴇ
Discord ID: 676939153312841728
that sounds amazing
what was he charged with?
Under some form of hate speech law
tell a fib, he was charged, taken to court, then cleared
but it would have still most likely bankrupted him
He was charged under the same act that Dankula was
He was essentially saved by a technicality - they couldn't prove that it was him that uploaded the footage, or that he actively allowed it to be uploaded
5 charged though so what about al lthe others
charged with laughing too much lol
i jsut watched the vid its pretty funny ngl
schoolboy bantz tbh
of course
this is a law that definitely needs to go
or at the very least be modified
i think go is the correct response
any law that makes jokes illegal cant be saved
the law was intended to prevent the abuse of communication networks to target people with abuse - so mass mailing porn, or using a phone autodialer to harass people
it was never designed with youtube in mind - all you need to do is modify the law to make it clear that for an offence to occur, the person must be pushing this content TO people
Watching Youtube is a purely consential - you physically cannot be forced to watch something
Won't that just make more sites force an "opt in" option
Don't you just love laws that are deliberately left for interpretation rather than being very clear and to the point?
What sites, Wacka?
Youtube is already "opt in"
I dunno I just kinda jumped into this convo only reading your message :p
They can't force you to watch videos
But for example news sites could force people to click button to accept receiving whatever
Like the way they try to get you to turn off ad blockers
And you have to go in inspect element and delete all the modal dialogs and get rid of the classes on the body tags.. very annoying
That's a company, not a person
You could say, it's an article written by someone.... Just like someone uploading a video
If it's on their website, then it's not being forced on people, therefore the law shouldn't apply
It's not abuse of a mass communications network
That's what the law was intended for
Didn't Andrew Doyle write an article for the independent under a made-up name, with no background and it got published.... And it was all bollox
Why would be surprised by that?
I wonder if he could get done like dank did
No
Well I suppose given they bent the law over the table and fucked it unceremoniously up the arse, he -could-
But it's not what the law was for
Just thinking.. considering left/pro-choice controls media and generally narrative, for the most part.... I wonder why they let pro-lifers keep that self-identification .. they could have called them anti-choicers
pro-lifers are generally such nutjobs that they probably let them keep their publicity because they thought it'd damage that cause