Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f...
by chrisbaker98 on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @09:46AM
(#33788216)
It's also worth noting that if you actually watch the video it's very, very, very obvious that it's a joke and that the video's creator isn't actually a Nazi and he doesn't actually want to gas the Jews. (And neither does his dog.)
Is it funny? I've heard funnier Holocaust jokes. Is it offensive? To some, surely. But I don't want anyone who's unfamiliar with the case to read your comment and get the wrong idea about the video's nature.
> https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...
"The centrepiece of the video consisted of the appellant repeating the phrase “gas the Jews” as a command to the dog, to which the dog then reacted. The video also showed the dog responding to the exclamation “Sieg Heil” (hail victory), by raising its right paw whilst watching a recording of the Nuremberg rally.
This was interspersed with flashing images of Hitler and swastikas, accompanied by strident music.
The sheriff analysed the law under section 127 of the 2003 Act by considering the dicta in DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 (at paras 7-12 and 21-22) to the effect that whether a message was grossly offensive was a question of fact. The sheriff found in fact that the video was grossly offensive and would be found to be so by a reasonable person. The repeated use of “gas the Jews” and similar phrases had a menacing character and reasonably caused apprehension within the Jewish community. The appellant had known that the video would be likely to be regarded as grossly offensive and menacing to Jewish people, or at least recognised the risk that it would be taken as such. The offence was aggravated by both racism and religious prejudice."
I would like to reiterate the legal ruling that "whether a message was grossly offensive was a question of fact".