Losing The Right To Be Offensive

Tyler Durden's picture

Via SovereignMan.com,

What happened:

We always recommend not teaching your girlfriend’s dog to salute Hitler, but defend the right to do so for those whose idea of comedy is not clever enough to rise above shock humor.

No, not because we support Nazis, but because we support free speech, including offensive speech, and distasteful jokes.

A Scottish YouTuber was arrested for making a video in which he “pranks” his girlfriend by teaching her adorable little dust mop dog to mimic Nazi gestures, and react to videos and phrases involving Hitler and anti-Semitism.

He was charged with publishing offensive material online, under the Communications Act of 2003, which criminalizes improper use of electronic communications.

His trial was set for last Monday but has been delayed for the second time. He faces a year in prison, and a fine.

What this means:

Again, the timing of events makes one wonder if the delay of the trial is simply to let public anger cool down before making an example out of the man.

The man’s guilt and sentence will be decided by one judge without a jury.

So basically, the government gets to decide what is offensive, and punish people for “hate speech.”

Think about the ridiculous amount of power that one man has. It comes down to a judge deciding what will constitute unprotected speech, with no checks on his power.

Think about all the people that could be imprisoned in America, on the left and the right, for the opinions they voice about government officials. The political discourse is pretty full of hate.

For example, certain celebrities (who won’t be named to avoid playing into their game) perform clearly hate filled, offensive publicity stunts involving political figures. Even though 99.9% of these cases are pathetically obvious self serving attempts at publicity, their immaturity must be allowed in order to protect actually important free speech, which may otherwise be grouped with sad and transparent attempts to gain notoriety.

And as unfortunate as that is, it is even more terrifying to consider the precedents of western governments in trampling the right to say what you want.

If we don’t defend the right to be offensive now, it will be too late when we are left begging a random judge not to lock us up for anything the government deems offensive.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
nmewn's picture

Nothing says free speech quite like "Shut up! Get off our campus! This is an institution of higher learning!"...lol.

winged's picture

That's NOT what everyone here, including ZH, was saying when that Kathy woman held Trump's bloody head in effigy.

She lost her job.

luky luke's picture

Or if anyone DARES say that thing in WW2 was a HoloHoax. Watch out then as the guillotine swings down your neck.


winged's picture

I know. It's hypocrisy everywhere.

Manthong's picture


I may not agree with everything Bill Maher, Kathy Griffin, Reza Asswipe or their ilk might say…

But I’ll defend to the death the right of anybody with some stones to smack the crap out of them for saying it.


Restorative_Ally's picture

Biblicismintsutute spammers are a psyop to discredit the holohoax truth by having people down-vote links to a site containing the truth. New people that view the down-voting don't know that people are down-voting the spam and not the holohoax truth, and adopt a negative view of the truth. 

Vatican_cameo's picture


Decisions have Consequences.  Kathy "the Red-headed Pig" Griffin wants a picture holding Trump's head, I could care less.  It's her right to do as she pleases.  Turning around and blaming everyone else for ruining her career is Bullshit.  That is call "the Consequence".  She should have thought of that before her little stunt.  Throw a rock at a window, you should expect the glass to break.   Accountability and Responsibility are two traits that just aren't viable to have as a Liberal.

Lost My Shorts's picture

The comparison to Griffin is ridiculous on two counts:

1) She lost her job, but she didn't go to jail for a year

2) Her job was highly public, on cable trashyvision, and was closely connected to her offensive stunt.  She didn't lose a job as a car wash attendant.

People should not lose ordinary low-profile jobs for free speech unrelated to the job, but anyone with a highly public job ought to be prudent.

lil dirtball's picture

Nobody gave a shit then:

ApolloMedia v. Reno


"On January 30, 1997, annoy.com filed a federal court action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 that criminalized any "indecent" computer communication intended to "annoy" another person. Much of the content on annoy.com is deliberately provocative and very often, somewhat crass,mocking the pretensions and piety of politicians and media alike. The CDA’s assault on the First Amendment could not be countered with subtleties. So began a prolonged court battle against Janet Reno and the Clinton Administration that was finally determined by the Supreme Court of the United States of America."

Nobody gives a shit now.

Maybe if Ron Paul writes an article about it ... .

Spine of Ruprecht's picture

There's legal precedent on that matter.  I appreciate your sophistry.

nmewn's picture

"That's NOT what everyone here, including ZH, was saying when that Kathy woman held Trump's bloody head in effigy.

She lost her job."

She was not prevented from exercising her free speech was she? No, in fact she wasn't. CNN is the one who fired her, not Trump, not ZH, not us. 

By way of making my point, Fareed Zakaria could also stand on the street corner saying he enjoys diddling toddlers and CNN would fire him as well...but no one prevented him from saying it did they? ;-)

Chris88's picture

Well she was forced out because the market spoke, nobody prevented her from saying or doing anything.  People also have a right to withold dollars, and that ios what they did and as a result she was canned.  So what?  What right of hers was infringed upon?  And as much as I despise her along with retard Trump, I do think the outrage was such an overreaction to typical Hollywood idiocy, but the market felt otherwise.  

JustPastPeacefield's picture

Nobody has a right to any particular job. If she lost work, then it's because her employers found her to be a liability. That's a free market at work. I wouldn't buy any product she was associated with even remotely. That's my right. Get it?  

YourAverageJoe's picture

Now that was some excellent free speech there!

New_Meat's picture

Winged, we all understand your confusion.  After all, no one is in favour of the government telling people what is permissible speech, right?  Yet, here's this poor (in so many senses) woman who makes a crude effort at a tasteless and vile joke losing her job.  That was a decision made in the actual economy, based upon making money using her ... er ... talents.

The Squatty-Potty people dumped her for reputation reasons.

It is confusing, these days, since the MSM and the .gov seem to be melding better than Spock ever did.

It is also not at all confusing to see the double standard in action.  Picture, if you will, an equally talentless commedienne with a severed head of the 42nd or 44th  president.

Yep, if the progressives didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

- Ned

The Toothman's picture

Don't be a moron. This situation is completely different. Kathy Griffin was punished by the private sector. She was fired and was called an idiot by private citizens. This guy is being shit on by his government, which is completely different. 

Free speech should never be limited by the government. However, the private sector should feel free to hire/fire/ and dispense consequences as they wish.

Free markets bruh

shovelhead's picture

You have the right to be an asshole.

Your employer may have an alterative view.

ThuleNord's picture

She Was fired from a private institution that maintains its own rules and guidelines. She wasn't brought before a judge and sentenced as a criminal, yet.

nickt1y's picture

Government didn't take her job away. Freedom of speech only applies to Government restrictions.

piliage's picture

Obviously your understanding of civics is a bit fucked up. Pray tell us the name of the judge who tried and arrested Kathy Gargoyle?

Cruel Joke's picture

Kathy Griffin - did a judge or jury make her lose her job? That's news to me.

What foul dust's picture

You do not have a right not to be offended. I have the right to offend you. That is free speech and almost the last vestige of what it means to be an American.

NoDebt's picture

That guy won't make it a year in prison.  I assume the dog will be put down, too.

Shame about the dog.


Oldwood's picture

Does the right to offend include farts??

Oldwood's picture

My understanding is that I have that right UNLESS I have a CHL.  Carrying a gun removes ALL rights to offend, according to Texas law anyway.

YourAverageJoe's picture

Link please.

I have Texas LTC as well, but don't know the rule you refer to.

Oldwood's picture

It was explained to me by my instructor. I doubt it is written anywhere specifically but his point was that anything that you might do that would incite a negative reaction..ie, a fart, could be considered as provocation leading up to an altercation. His point was that having a gun places heavy responsibility on a person that will held against you in any confrontation, the gun involved or not.

Frito's picture

I think that whether farts are considered speech, and if so whether they are considered protected speech under the Constitution would be a question that only the full bench of the Supreme Court could possibly decide.

dirtscratcher's picture

I would  enjoy seeing the nine Supremes being forced to thoroughly examine the evidence in such a case.

New_Meat's picture

Oldwood, good question ;-)

"your right to fart stops at the tip of my nose."

shovelhead's picture

I save mine for elevators.

conraddobler's picture

Deeds not words.

Ideas are not the domain of man but gifts from God, good or bad, all are a lesson.

No one has the right to censor the lesson they are not qualified to do so.

Jackie Robinson did not break the color barrier because other people told people not to be mean to him.  They allowed them to be mean to him and their actions changed peoples hearts.

Under the current scenario the only thing that would of festered would of been the hate and all the break throughs to peoples hearts would of been lost.

Do not listen to those who would control you they are not better than you, no one is, unless judged so by God and God rarely weighs in on the matter publicly.

Stop the madness.

shovelhead's picture

But does God like farts in general or just his own?

Stinkytofu's picture

that was certainly a big bang!

conraddobler's picture

God loves you so there is your answer.

FoggyWorld's picture

People have the right to be verbally offensive.   And people also have the right to tune those who go to extremes out.

man of Wool's picture

There is responsibility with free speech. There is no right to be verbally offensive. Thats bullshit. its a bit like saying you have a right to be a murderer or rapist because it is freedom. 

Snaffew's picture

If the US military can constantly be on a global offensive (The Defense Dept should change its' name to the Offense Dept), then I figure I can be as offensive as I want.  They are killing people with weapons, I insult some people with words.  Which crime is worse?

Frito's picture

It was the Department of War from 1789 until after WWII

Spine of Ruprecht's picture

Draw Muhammad.  Draw Muhammad sucking child dick in a bathroom stall.  Paint Muhammad on a scuzzy garbage dumpster.  Carve Muhammad into your county park's dog-poo receptacle.

Sculpt Muhammad using bird droppings and used tampons.

Blow up Muhammad in effigee on the 4th of JUly.

Muhammad!  May his memory fade!!!!!!!

JustPastPeacefield's picture

I wonder why Kathy Griffin doesn't make a video mocking that piece of shit. Or that whole filthy religion for that matter. So easy to make fun of Christians, or Trump. If she really wanted to be controversial ... but she just wants to be a conventional progressive posing as a radical. 

New_Meat's picture

actually, you don't wonder this at all, now, do you ;-)

Spine of Ruprecht's picture

Eat Ramadama-ding-dong bacon, phoeker.

SeekingNuNormal's picture

why all the down votes?  all new meat is saying is that we all know exactly why.  no need to wonder.

wisehiney's picture

A brick to the face and that judge would drop his gavel pretty quick.

After that he would be praying for the courtroom cops to save his ass.

Nobodys Home's picture

A mock-up of a severed president's head. Vile. Distasteful. Against my current principles. I don't have to look at it. I don't have to agree with, or even listen to, the not so subliminal message. I don't have to give the purveyor of such trash any acknowledgement or revenue. I don't have to buy products from companies that support that person.
But while I am against the message and it's method of delivery, I do still support the asshole's right to express it's opinion.

JustPastPeacefield's picture

I also support that ugly hater's right to do what she did, much as I am disgusted by it. Unfortunately, she most definitely doesn't support my right to speak freely. That I am sure of. The hypocritical progressive Left. Haters one and all.