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 07030
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
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 the lot of you
the arguments about well. Free speech. Has limits like there are limits on free speech in the? U S, and there are different limits on free speech in the UK, but from an american standard. If you can't make a joke and posted the internet can make a joke period, then I would say you don't have free speech right, free speeches about expressing your
else and your ideas, satirizes, mocking these things are all relatively normal in american culture. Now it's different if you're going to incite violence or say yell fire in a crowded fear-
for those of you that art familiar out, I'm assuming most of you- are count, Dracula, Youtube or was just convicted in in court of Hake.
I am for making a video and taught his girlfriend dog to salute pillar but there's
or the story. The lot of you do not realise 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 Dracula did and not get in trouble, not get restricted or not be censored by you to it would seem a bit
hypocrisy here and a double standard, I would get everybody a quick recap on what happened with count dank and not just in case any of you haven't heard before I do that. Let me give a quick shouted to today's sponsor natural hemp. Oil produces their products from sustainable health that is non gmo and cultivator without pesticides, herbicides or chemical fertilizers. They curly the vast array of products from flavour, drops beauty, anti aging pet products. Edibles authentic oils and waving now see VD will not get you high or make you incoherent. These are for health related purposes. Only any veteran registers and provides proof can get fifteen percent off for life for everyone else. You can visit natural hemp world outcome and use the promo code. It TIM Pool for temporary
off your purchase from gives MOTO. You two were count Dracula, convicted of hate crime for video of POG. Making a nazi salute. You can see, they got a little photo here of the dog, making the salute. Keep at Monday's we're gonna come back to them, a Scottish.
Youtube comedian Mark region was found guilty of a hate crime on Tuesday for posting, a video of himself training is girlfriends, PUG Buddha to mimic a nazi and respond to command the court ruled Anti Semitic and the video from April twenty sixteen Bhutto was is shown watching Adolf Hitler. Speaking at a rally of the nineteen thirty six limpet games in Berlin, raising its Paul at the command of and becoming alert every time each and says
a trick, Meekin demonstrates a dozen times. I don't want to get banned. Onawandah get my video restricted, so I'm going to refrain from saying those things that are in the story, but this is I'm I'm making a point here. So again.
We'll come back to us at the end of the video which is still up on Youtube in restricted mode and has been viewed more than three million times major says he's not a racist. He just wanted to piss off his girlfriend. Affirm veracity had director of a scottish Council of jewish communities spoke at the trial. According to the times he told the court that his family members died in the hollow
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
We ask anybody. It's a joke, especially when he says he's just run, picked up his girlfriend and actually Argotic court. He wasn't intending forty go viral or anything like that and maybe
only reason actually gotten 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. Why? Because, maybe people didn't see the video download exists, even though its available, which brings me to the first problem with hate speech policies if marked region is going to be convicted of hate speech? Simply because people heard that he did this with us a problem. You can choose to only convict those who made a statement or mix handsome inoffensive simply because you ve heard about it, in which case, how do you find out about people who are putting up its content and people aren't hearing about 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? Does not my opinion?
one year ago, just one of the many posts about this dog, it S. Twenty thousand seven hundred and eighty points on rennet, seventy percent of voted, and you can see here. Man, trains is girlfriends pug to be a Nazi gilded twice. Okay, this is red gold, whether basically means as people like the Post,
much of the 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 meat, but the top posts, when you search for this over twenty thousand
over fourteen hundred comments, it 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 AIDS, which policy first
it seems like the only reason they prosecute him, the first place with because it was a popular video, but who was offended by it, because certainly the internet community majority of them run. Seventy percent up voted 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 simply that one person said its offensive? Therefore, it is a crime. How do we determine the lead.
Other fats, the amount of people who need to be offended before somebody comes a crime. Now I said I want to come back to this sabbaticals motive. You can see the pug doing the Nazi salute. Well, you know what is it that offensive? Isn't this image equally as offensive as the video? What's the difference between the video that Mark metered post
and gives modal publishing a photo of a dog making the salute not only that, but the
the same language, albeit in a different context, why's that gives MOTO can published an article showing an image of the dog doing this.
Using the same words that meeting used. One is not offensive and one is. Is it simply because we are talking about what someone dead, in which case
we can show the joke that need to be made and its fine, so long as Meekin isn't the one who posted it that doesn't make sense. How are you supposed to effectively control
great 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 regions
general 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 counted angular mark region is restricted, meaning it is deemed inappropriate. It is, it's got comments to say
it can't be shared, a lot of the analytics are turned off and yet the clock I understand and wish to proceed. If you want to watch the video the exact same content hosted here by the new, your post is not restricted and is totally fine mark regions. Video is restricted but a copy,
video applauded by a news organization is not restricted, even though
shows nearly the same thing I'll be at the near posters showing clips and talking about it. Is that all intake
So this is another problem with controlling for hate speech. Youtube wants to restrict content that they deem to be hateful, and some some of its content has been deemed illegal, like in Martin agents case so based on the New York posts, ability to pump
this without being restricted and the original video being restrictive, even though they show the same things, it would seem. Don't you that's the case, so here's
where's. My assumption that if a
just films. Are racist vats abominable offence? That's a restricted you'll get restrict for that.
If a seemingly random person or news organization, films, racist, that's totally, ok, even if what they're saying is basically the same thing, we're very
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 are seem to be very racist, very controversial Youtube has deemed 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.
YO, where a bunch of alright members are giving Nazi salutes. I made a bit another day talking about the dangers of hate speech policy, because the Atlantic video
about Spencer was taken down, and this video is extremely important to the political climate of today is. There's got two point: eight 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 on edited they just let him speak. So you can take a video of Richard Spencer, letting him say things that are very similar toward Vanguard, America sang and its fine. Now the Atlantic did initially get this video restricted by Youtube, but the Atlantic appealed and you to remove it saying that was a mistake. So what is the threat
toll for what is hate speech and is it? Is it simply because the people who filmed Vanguard America agree with Vanguard America, but if you film,
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 is it
take a look. Let's go back to count Daniels Video of the Nazi put. What if count beg you'll it isn't the person who uploaded it. Would he be convicted of hate speech when you to restrict the video, then what if I took the video in full,
and just added some comments to it is that ok, I mean the new. Your pulse was able to take clips of his video and run that with subtitles, and you too has not restricted that video. How does
This makes sense if they're saying they want to police hate speech, but they allow
want to re upload that so long as in a different context. The same
the 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 cover 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
the Atlantic is that really it is that the only difference that need 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 is 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 involves saying what they want, but if you are in any way
tell with these people, you can't doesn't make sense. Ultimately, I think this is one of the biggest problems of hate speech. It is
possible 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 angular and publish it, are they not going to face the same punishment that count ankle is going to face? Should they be tried for hate speech? Does it matter who is speaking on the video or who uploaded it? The independent dot code that UK man who taught pet pug to give Nazi salutes and post
on Youtube found guilty of a crime. In my view, there is no doubt is grossly offensive. Sheer sets well, the independent is a UK based public
and their showing that picture a depiction of upon giving a salute. Is that not offensive? What about the video
from my region is more offensive and independent, showing the same thing I talk about, gives MOTO, but the independence actually based in the UK? Is the government going to tell them to take it down?
hate speech so is that all they have to do? Can you literally have actual neo
It is, in the UK, say a bunch of things, but as a quote to 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 new stories are actually taken down because of this now
I am absolutely not arguing for news stories taken out the video I made yesterday specifically,
Talking about how it is dangerous that factual news stories get removed because its deemed hate speech. But how are you going to convict someone for the exact same speech posted to Youtube that other organizations are posing as well as the same footage? So what's the point of convicting count Dracula of I 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 sir,
it hasn't deter 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 it
yo than ever, and the video has been posted to read it over over Ghana since yesterday, since the news broke. So what is the real goal? Is the point of hate speech policy to stop hate speech or to profit
because? Certainly there goes to propagate at their succeeding? I don't know what the state of free speech in the UK
but I know that recently we saw Lorn Southern banned from the country because she was flying in Luton and they didn't like it. They said it was racist, well
now, UK citizen that I understand, but now were seen count Daniel after two years be convicted for making jokes? That's really it. Let me know if 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 made about this, but its fairly obvious that even when Ricky your face famous comedian tweets in support of dangler, this is not controversial in the way. I think it is its controversial because the courts are overstepping their bones on read it. The video that is called hate speech is overwhelmingly liked, and this video as millions of views. So what is the real problem here and who the hell's really offended?
comment below keep a conversation going. You can follow me on Twitter at Timcast a tune new videos every day at four p dot m. You can tell I'm really pissed off about this, but hey, it is what it is I'll see you tomorrow,
Transcript generated on 2020-06-19.