Scotish man convicted for "offensive speech"

[hollodero]

(04-03-2018, 11:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The McCarthy era was a micro-blip, but point taken.  Even during that period the penalties were social, not criminal.  This made them no less devastating to those affected, I am aware.

Bert Brecht distinctly was to appear in front of an US tribunal, and I'm sure there were others that had to deal with criminal charges for "un-american activities". There was a committee as far as I know. Although of course not my strong foot.
Also, japanese internment camps. There were some micro-blips. But I wouldn't want to bring that up in lenght because I agree with your overall point there.

(04-03-2018, 11:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Authoritarian, not at all.  I can't think of a European example outside of the former Warsaw Pact states, which we really aren't discussing.

I wanted to add "western" European, thanks for getting by without it. Also, I'm perfectly fine with calling our leaders shitheads... just without the "authoritarian".

(04-03-2018, 11:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: True, motivation is certainly important.  I think it once again shows what an excellent job the Framers did setting up a system that still functions largely as intended almost 250 years later.

There's some truth to that... some. Jury's still out for me if it keeps functioning or not. I don't want to make a habit out of staining the framers, but there was a civil war their framework did not prevent.

(04-03-2018, 11:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: On this I cannot agree with you.  It is certainly not the case in Austria, but you can absolutely make a case for the law being used in this manner in Sweden.

Maybe... for some reason Americans seem to know way more about Sweden than I do. If you please - what would said case look like?

(04-03-2018, 11:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think the thing that Americans find so off putting is that it criminalizes offending someone.  When you make someone's feelings a basis for criminal censure I think you've crossed a very dangerous line.  What is offensive is such a nebulous and personal construct, I just don't see how a country with such a rich legal history can codify it.

I don't necessarily think the line we crossed was a dangerous one. This guy just did something harmless (albeit a bit untasteful) and got caught up in an unfortunate extreme regarding the current law. I'm not defending the court's decision, but I think it's also not a symptom of more dangerous things to come. But I can't really argue that one comprehensively, it's just that it didn't really play out as you fear as of now.
I guess I just feel that you overemphazise on the "someone's feelings"-part. When it comes to hate speech or NS re-engagement, the scope is pretty narrow, it's not like just anyone can show up with anything, claim he's offended and the court will automatically decide in his favour.