Invest In Your Health - Try CBD Today! Click Herehttps://www.naturalhempoil.comThis episode contains a paid promotion at the beginning of the podcast.My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnewsCount dankula uploaded a video that was eventually placed in restricted mode, several news outlets copied his footage when it became news worthy but that is ok. Why is it that Dankula is punished for posting the video but UK news outlets aren't and Youtube doesn't restrict US based news organizations for reposting it?It would seem that posting a copy of the video is fine so long as you aren't affiliated with the person who made the video.Make sure to subscribe for more travel, news, opinion, and documentary with Tim Pool everyday.Amazon Prime 30 day free trial - http://amzn.to/2sgiDqRMY GEARGoPro Karma - http://amzn.to/2qw10m4GoPro 6 - http://amzn.to/2CEK0z1DJI Mavic Drone - http://amzn.to/2lX9qgTZagg 12 AMP portable battery - http://amzn.to/2lXB6SxTASCAM Lavalier mic - http://amzn.to/2AwoIhI Canon HD XF 105 Camera - http://amzn.to/2m6v1o3Canon 5D MK III Camera - http://amzn.to/2CvFnnm360 Camera (VR) - http://amzn.to/2AxKu4RFOLLOW MEInstagram - http://instagram.com/TimcastTwitter - http://twitter.com/TimcastMinds - http://Minds.com/TimcastFacebook - http://facebook.com/TimcastnewsBitcoin Wallet: 13ha54MW2hYUS3q1jJhFyWdpNfdfMWtmhZSEND STUFF HERETim Pool330 Washington Street - PMB 517Hoboken, NJ 07030Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I'm not a UK citizen, so I can't necessarily say whether or not free speech is dead in the UK or not.
And a lot of people make the arguments about, well, free speech has limits, like there are limits on free speech in the US, and there are different limits on free speech in the UK.
But from an American standard, if you can't make a joke and post it to the internet, you can't make a joke, period.
Then I would say you don't have free speech, right?
Free speech is about expressing yourself and your ideas, satirizing, mocking.
These things are all relatively normal in American culture.
Now, it's different if you're going to incite to violence or, say, yell fire in a crowded theater.
For those of you that aren't familiar, I'm assuming most of you are, Count Dankula, a YouTuber, was just convicted in court of a hate crime for making a video where he taught his girlfriend's dog to salute Hitler.
But there's more to the story that a lot of people don't realize.
What qualifies as hate speech?
Why is it that some outlets, some organizations, are allowed to post literally the exact same thing as what Count Dankula did and not get in trouble, not get restricted, or not be censored by YouTube?
It would seem there's a bit of hypocrisy here and a double standard.
I want to give everybody a quick recap on what happened with Count Dankula,
just in case any of you haven't heard.
But before I do that, let me give a quick shoutout to today's sponsor.
Natural Hemp Oil produces their products from sustainable hemp that is non-GMO and cultivated without pesticides, herbicides, or chemical fertilizers.
They currently have a vast array of products from flavored drops, beauty, anti-aging, pet products, edibles, authentic oils, and vaping.
Now CBD will not get you high or make you incoherent.
These are for health-related purposes only.
Any veteran who registers and provides proof can get 15% off for life.
For everyone else, you can visit naturalhempoil.com and use the promo code TIMPOOL for 10% off
of your purchase.
From Gizmodo, YouTuber Count Dankula convicted of hate crime for video of pug making a Nazi
You can see they got the little photo here of the dog making the salute.
Keep that in mind because we're going to come back to that.
A Scottish YouTube comedian, Mark Meechan, was found guilty of a hate crime on Tuesday for posting a video of himself training his girlfriend's pug, Buddha, to mimic a Nazi and respond to commands the court ruled anti-Semitic.
In the video from April 2016, Buddha is shown watching Adolf Hitler speaking at a rally at the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin, raising its paw at the command of, and becoming alert every time Meechan says, a trick Meechan demonstrates a dozen times.
I don't want to get banned.
I don't want to get my video restricted.
So I'm going to refrain from saying those things that are in the story.
But this is... I'm making a point here.
So again, we'll come back to this.
At the end of the video, which is still up on YouTube in restricted mode, and has been viewed more than 3 million times, Meechan says he's not a racist, he just wanted to piss off his girlfriend, Ephraim Borowski.
Head Director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities spoke at the trial, according to the Times.
He told the court that his family members died in the Holocaust, and he could not see how it could be made into a joke.
The video is silly, it's kind of stupid, and I think it's obvious to anybody it's a joke, especially when he says he's just trying to piss off his girlfriend.
And they actually argued in court he wasn't intending for it to go viral or anything like that.
And maybe...
The only reason he actually got in trouble is because the video went viral in the first place.
Certainly people post really hateful things, really offensive things on YouTube, and they don't get tried and convicted.
Well, because maybe people didn't see the video and they don't know it exists, even though it's available.
Which brings me to the first problem with hate speech policies.
If Mark Meechan is going to be convicted of hate speech simply because people heard that he did this, well, there's a problem.
You can't choose to only convict those who made a statement or said something offensive simply because you've heard about it.
In which case, how do you find out about people who are putting up this content and people aren't hearing about it or significantly less people are hearing about it?
Are you going to employ people to scour the internet for hateful speech and then charge them?
Or are you only going to charge people if their content is popular?
And it is popular.
This is not my opinion.
From one year ago, just one of the many posts about this dog It has 20,780 points on Reddit, 70% upvoted.
And you can see here, man trains his girlfriend's pug to be a Nazi.
Gilded twice.
Okay, this is Reddit gold.
What that basically means is people like the post so much, they actually paid to add a little star next to the title.
Doing a general search on YouTube, you can see that this video was posted over and over again, and was upvoted over and over again.
Certainly some of these posts are critical of Meechan, but the top post, when you search for this, over 20,000 points, over 1,400 comments.
It's safe to say that people found this funny and for the most part did not find it offensive.
So now we come to another problem with hate speech policy.
First of all, it seems like the only reason they prosecuted him in the first place was because it was a popular video.
But who was offended by it?
Because certainly the internet community, majority of them, around 70%, upvoted this and seemed to have enjoyed it.
So who was the person who was offended?
Is there a threshold for how many people need to be offended in order for this to be a crime?
Or is it simply that one person said it's offensive, therefore it is a crime?
How do we determine the level of offense, the amount of people who need to be offended before something becomes a crime?
Now I said I was going to come back to this, so back at Gizmodo you can see the pug doing the Nazi salute.
Well, you know what?
Isn't that offensive?
Isn't this image equally as offensive as the video?
What's the difference between the video that Mark Meechan posts and Gizmodo publishing a photo of a dog making the salute?
Not only that, but they use the same language, albeit in a different context.
Why is it that Gizmodo can publish an article showing an image of the dog doing the salute using the same words that Meechan used, one is not offensive and one is?
Is it simply because we're talking about what someone did?
In which case, we can show the joke that Meechan made and it's fine so long as Meechan isn't the one who posted it?
That doesn't make sense.
How are you supposed to effectively control for hate speech if some people are allowed to show it for some reason and other people aren't?
And there's actually some really great examples of this.
In this video from the New York Post, they show clips from Meechan's original video.
They are literally showing the exact same thing in this video that he showed in his video, but one of these things is hate speech and one of these things is not.
The original video by Count Dankula, Mark Meechan, is restricted.
Meaning, it is deemed inappropriate, it's got comments disabled, it can't be shared, a lot of the analytics are turned off, and you have to click I understand and wish to proceed if you want to watch the video.
The exact same content, hosted here by the New York Post, is not restricted and is totally fine.
Mark Meechan's video is restricted.
But a copy of that video uploaded by a news organization is not restricted, even though it shows nearly the same thing.
Albeit, the New York Post is showing clips and talking about it.
Is that all it takes?
So this is another problem with controlling for hate speech.
YouTube wants to restrict content that they deem to be hateful, and some of this content has been deemed illegal, like in Mark Meechan's case.
So, based on the New York Post's ability to publish this without being restricted, and the original video being restricted, even though they show the same things, it would seem that's the case.
So, here's my assumption, then.
If a racist films a racist, that's a bannable offense.
That's a restricted, you know, you'll get restricted for that.
If a seemingly random person or news organization films a racist, that's totally okay, even if what they're saying is basically the same thing or very similar.
And this is literally how it works.
There is a video by a group called Vanguard America, and it has been restricted.
In this video, they talk about the greatness of the white man, things that seem to be very racist, very controversial, YouTube has deemed it to be inappropriate content, and thus it is restricted.
The share features are gone, comments are disabled, that's not okay.
But let's look at another video where a bunch of alt-right members are giving Nazi salutes.
I made a video the other day talking about the dangers of hate speech policy, because The Atlantic's video about Spencer was taken down, and this video is extremely important to the political climate of today.
This video's got 2.8 million views.
Certainly, this video is relevant, and The Atlantic is a news organization.
This video is just about three minutes of Richard Spencer speaking, unedited.
They just let him speak.
So you can take a video of Richard Spencer, letting him say things that are very similar to what Vanguard America was saying, and it's fine.
Now, The Atlantic did initially get this video restricted by YouTube, but The Atlantic appealed, and YouTube removed it, saying it was a mistake.
So what is the threshold for what is hate speech and isn't?
Is it simply because the people who filmed Vanguard America agree with Vanguard America?
But if you film them and you're not part of their group, that's fine?
Something doesn't make sense.
And you can't have hate speech policy based on who is posting or who isn't.
Let's go back to Count Dankula's video of the Nazi pug.
What if Count Dankula isn't the person who uploaded it?
Would he be convicted of hate speech?
Would YouTube restrict the video then?
What if I took the video in full and just added some comments to it?
Is that okay?
I mean, the New York Post was able to take clips of this video and run them with subtitles, and YouTube has not restricted that video.
How does this make sense?
If they're saying they want to police hate speech, but they allow anyone to re-upload that so long as in a different context, the same thing is being said.
The same image Of that person speaking is being shown on the platform, but the only difference is who uploaded it.
In an article from The Atlantic, referring to the video being taken down, and I covered this yesterday, they said, It is up to YouTube to hire people who can tell the difference between videos made by Nazis and videos about Nazis, said Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic.
Is that really it?
Is that the only difference that needs to be made?
So you can take someone who isn't a Nazi and he can film Nazis and say it's about them and so it's allowed to be shown?
In this video, they just let Richard Spencer speak.
How is that about him?
It's literally him speaking.
But there is a double standard here.
Some organizations are allowed to show these people in full saying what they want, but if you are in any way affiliated with these people, you can't.
Doesn't make sense.
Ultimately, I think this is one of the biggest problems with hate speech.
It is impossible to accurately draw the line as to what can or cannot be shown.
If a news organization is going to take that video from Count Dankula and publish it, are they not going to face the same punishment that Count Dankula is going to face?
Should they be tried for hate speech?
Does it matter who is speaking on the video or who uploaded it?
TheIndependent.co.uk.
Man who taught PetPug to give Nazi salutes and posted footage on YouTube found guilty of a hate crime.
In my view, there is no doubt it's grossly offensive, Sheriff says.
Well, The Independent is a UK-based publication, and they're showing a picture, a depiction of a pug giving a salute.
Is that not offensive?
What about the video from Meechan is more offensive than The Independent showing the same thing?
I talked about Gizmodo, but The Independent's actually based in the UK.
Is the government going to tell them to take it down because it's hate speech?
So is that all they have to do?
Can you literally have actual neo-Nazis in the UK say a bunch of things but as a quote say, I'm here to report on what this guy believes and then talk about it and that's not hate speech?
Ultimately, we're going to end up with a problem where news stories are actually taken down because of this.
Now, I am absolutely not arguing for news stories to be taken down.
The video I made yesterday specifically was talking about how it is dangerous that factual news stories get removed because it's deemed hate speech.
But how are you going to convict someone for the exact same speech posted to YouTube that other organizations are posting as well?
It's the same footage.
So, what's the point of convicting Count Dankula of a hate crime?
Is it to stop him from making content like this?
Well, maybe.
I mean, the Nazi pug video is still up online, so it certainly hasn't deterred people from being able to see it.
In fact, it's done the opposite.
Because of the trial, there are more news stories about this than ever, there are more views on the video than ever, and the video has been posted to Reddit over and over again since yesterday, since the news broke.
So what is their real goal?
Is the point of hate speech policy to stop hate speech or to propagate it?
Because certainly if their goal is to propagate it, they're succeeding.
I don't know what the state of free speech in the UK is, but I know that recently we saw Lauren Southern banned from the country because she was flyering in Luton, and they didn't like it, they said it was racist.
Well, she's not a UK citizen, that I understand.
But now we're seeing Count Dankula, after two years, be convicted for making jokes.
That's really it.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
I think this has been a pretty hot issue, and a lot of people have a lot of comments being made about this, but it's fairly obvious that even when Ricky Gervais, famous comedian, tweets in support of Dankula, this is not controversial in the way you think it is.
It's controversial because the courts are overstepping their bounds.
On Reddit, the video that is called Hate Speech is overwhelmingly liked, and this video has millions of views.
So what is the real problem here, and who the hell's really offended?
Comment below, we'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Twitter, at TimCast, stay tuned.
New videos every day at 4 p.m.
You can tell I'm really pissed off about this, but hey, it is what it is.
