Message from @Valet the Clown
Discord ID: 438417761316765706
They also would try to steal anything that wasn't nailed down. That isn't an exaggeration. They tried to steal a matress once.
You are not following, what I am saying is that this is not a victory, this dumbass who likes to parrot socdem talking points, who decided to poorly frame his defense as "just a joke" and give the law legitimacy (by tacitly agreeing that since it is a joke, they just need to concentrate on the real Nazis), and on top of it all he is a fucking youtuber he will in a few months shilling for something.
You may be right, but as I said. I am drunk.
I will be ranting in general.
Well the man needed to cater his defense to the environment he was defending himself in. He can't just get rid of an established law in one court case. Especially not one that the establishment wants so badly.
It would be impossible for him to stand on the principle of freedom of speech because such a concept does not exist as a legal reality in Britain.
Also the "it was a joke" defense was an accurate one. He was making a joke. Would you rather him have come out as a devotee of Hitler in the courtroom? Oh yes, I'm sure that would have flown over very well.
You're disregarding the fact that if he won with the "joke" defense, he would have taken power away from that law. That comedians everywhere (in Britain, at least) would then be able to use that case as legal precedent.
If the man has any sense, he's going to appeal this case until he gets to a court with a damn jury in it.
Lol no the hate speech law was for real nazis, defending it as a joke that was stripped out of context was the best answer for him BC basically he didn't broke the law. And now all he has to do is pay a fine.
If anything my criticism is that this is a two step forward a step backwards victory
We haven't really achieved much
Yes, but now he'll have it on his record. I'd appeal it if I were him.
"The hate speech law was for real nazis" really swallowing the same old government PR hook line and sinker, aren't you? These laws NEVER stay within the bounds initially promised. How the hell do you think we came here in the first place?
How else would you have had Dank defend himself out of curiosity?
That's the whole thing he is not fighting the law or it's legitimacy, he is fighting so that him and other centrists won't be harmed.
And I want him to defend himself that this is a joke and that there is no hate speech.
But that is too much for this guy
He can't fight the law or its legitimacy because there is no guarantee of free speech in British law. The closest they have is something from the EU that makes provisions for anti hate speech law. You do realize that a lawyer has to work with the laws that a society has. Sure, Dank could have done what you said and absolutely guaranteed a guilty verdict and possibly be held in contempt of court as well.
To fight the law, he needs legal grounding. Especially against an activist judge like the one he got. The most he could do in this instance is fight it on the grounds that the law did not apply to his specific case.
He is a fag, who will never move the needle
You are now getting salty over bants. Go home.
I am at my house
Then take a break from the internet for a bit.
^
@Valet the Clown agreed Dankula is a fag
Look. Just because you don't like his politics doesn't mean you can just dismiss his struggle. Or try to cast aspersions on how he's handling this case (which he is appealing by the way).
I'm just calling him a fag
The tack he takes which is still weak is:
It's all about context. Since it was a joke, it was okay.
Packed in this is a corollary, which is the assumption that hate speech laws are a good thing, they are just catching the wrong targets. If someone is sincere in their speech they deserve jail, but these are obviously jokes with context stripped. I disagree
This is what I mean
He made a poor choice of framing as his clothes
Well he can't use any other tactics. Wether he likes it or not, his country recognizes hate speech as a punishable offense while not recognizing free speech as a universal. This is an argument for the legislature, not the courts
Yeah overall he is a trivial man
My problem is he doesn't go far enough to make a change and neither are his followers
The perfect is the enemy of the good in this case. He needs to focus on winning this court case before he or his supporters can move further.
I want to die
Calarts needs to be burned to the ground
So the good 2011 version was nothing then
Nobody watched it
Well, they should have