Melancholy Mondays: Amor Fati

This is the year I become forty. Woe is me.

They always tell you that one day you'll look at contemporary youth culture in the same dismissive disparaging way that your parents did and you say, "there's no chance that will ever happen to me, because I'll always remain in touch and up to date with society."

And yet, here we are, it wasn't music that did it (after all pop music has always been mediocre), it wasn't even contemporary entertainment (all those superhero films and endless 'binge-watch' TV series).

No, for you in came in the form of comedy. Something you'd always prided yourself for understanding in a nuanced way. Maybe it's that they remind you of bullies, something that has always been a trigger for you.

Whatever the root cause, this is it, the shitposting edgelords of twitter, reddit and imageboard sites are the thing that makes you go, "what the F💥CK is wrong with young people today!?"

Well done old man.

“A Golden Thread” by John Melhuish Strudwick (1885).

Final Verdict: Dankula - Who Means and Who Memes

So, as mentioned, here is my own final verdict concerning the case of Markus Meechan. To be very brief, it is both better and worse than I had first considered. Something I was already aware of, however, was the fairly reprehensible behaviour of the British 'free' press. Whose style is more about sensationalist entertainment over objective facts, in short, it is an approach that is more tabloid.

James Matthews, Sky TV Reporter: You said 'Gas the Jews' 23 times, what's funny about that?
Markus Meechan AKA Count Dankula: The context of it. It's the juxtaposition of having an adorable animal react to something vulgar.
MM: That was the entire point of the joke. Have you seen the video?
JM: Do you accept you committed a crime?
MM: Have you seen the video?
JM: I have.
MM: Alright again, so I've explained the context of it so why are you asking me that again?
JM: Well, the context is that you've been fined £800 for a crime that you've committed?
MM: No, report under the context of the video. Don't try and move on me.
JM: We have in court that you committed gross offense against a large community of people.
JM: 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust.
MM: You just said the statement a couple seconds ago.
MM: Why should I consider your context if you're not concerned with mine?
JM: You've broken the law, do you regret breaking the law?
MM: You just broke the law two seconds ago when you said the phrase.
MM: Remember context matters mate.

Above is a transcript of a journalist attempting to perform a 'gotcha' interview on Meechan just as he was leaving Court after sentencing. Meechan's point isn't particularly earth-shattering, but it's telling that the journalist has no comeback. Mainly because he really isn't that interested with the 'news' he is reporting, just doing his job of humiliating people for entertainment.

Here's my brief comeback to Meechan on the above point, but just be crystal clear I'd like to point out that I think the 'journalist' is behaving shamefully. Context, however, is not just the structure of an idea (in this case, the 'point' of the joke), it also refers to the 'social' environment. This is, after all, what the judge felt was sufficient grounds to find Meechan guilty, the social environment of anti-Semitism. Whether this was a correct assessment is another matter, and one we'll return to.

Below is a video of Meechan giving his response to; the trial, the sentencing, and the situation around it. I think he comes across as a fairly observant and thoughtful, if flippant, person.

https://youtu.be/5VDfcrDHvzE

[After watching the video, I left the following comment directed at Meechan]

Did I like the joke? No.
Do I think you should have been arrested? No.
Do I think this is a dangerous precedent for freedom of speech? No, not really.

Here's why. You said that the court disregarded your 'context and intention'. I don't think that's correct. They heard your version of context and intention and the judge disagreed, now perhaps this is a sign of a conspiracy to stop free speech, but I think it was just one legal decision. I mean, they haven't changed the law in response have they? A different case would be treated as that case.

So, do I defend your right to make s****y jokes? Yes.
Did you make a mistake publishing the video on YouTube? Possibly, but people make mistakes.
Do you deserve to get punished for people being 'offended' by that? No. YouTube does, if anyone does. All they needed was a 'click-through' warning.

This should be unifying people of all political beliefs not dividing them, but it is also not the case for allowing ALL speech. Free speech doesn't mean saying what you like without consequence, but we all mostly know this. As you say, Context matters!

Does this mean that governments should police individuals on the internet? F*** no.
Police the companies instead. Maintain the context itself.

Although I can say whatever I like in private without fear of repercussion, it doesn't follow that I should be able to say the same thing in public UNLESS we are using our free speech to criticise; the corruption of institutions and public figures, societal structures and injustices. This includes satire, art and comedy in general.

I think the real problem is that the lawmakers have no idea how the internet operates and so we get this reactive nonsense right now. I think that in a few years when those setting the laws and policies are 'like us', that is, grew up in this internet age that it will all (hopefully) quieten down. Doesn't mean we should be silent though, they don't know it's wrong or over-reaching if people don't tell them.

[I've edited out my own 'jokes' from the comment because they're not that funny. Below, is a response that although making incorrect deductions is representative of the general feeling]

A man made a joke and was fined 800 pound[s]. So it's a very dangerous precedent for freedom of speech. It's as black and white as that - if we start policing what people say then eventually the only space you'll have is the four square inches in your head.

[I wrote a reply to the comment, which if I get another response that is similarly useful I will also include and reply to, but here's my first answer]

Well, that's the thing isn't it. You say, "made a joke" and the problem is, comedy is an art form and therefore subjective. Law deals with facts. What were the facts of the case? That some people found it "grossly offensive?" I'd argue that this reaction is as subjective as the definition of a joke and is therefore not the grounds for a legal case. The legal grounds would be that it "incited racial hatred" or something along those lines. And did it? No. Could 'comedy' do this? Yes. Nazis make jokes too and they are bigoted lies masquerading as jokes. Being comedy isn't and shouldn't be a 'get out of jail free card'.

It's not a black and white issue, indeed, I'd suggest that almost nothing ever is. Just because you agree with something doesn't make it right. How is this a dangerous precedent? Do you really think this is the first step to an automated totalitarian police state? We already police what people say, that's why Abu Hamza was arrested or do you think we shouldn't have done that? (It took long enough as it was) Total freedom is impossible, it's about deciding what should be allowed. Should 'bad taste' jokes be allowed? Yes, I think we should be able to make them. Context depending, of course.

As I said, I think the problem is that those making the laws are so out of touch with the internet, the culture on the internet, and the sense of humour on the internet.

Is this part of a larger conspiracy? No, calm down, it's not. Doesn't mean that people should remain silent in the face of unjust decisions like this, but let's not start another moral panic. The internet's a great place for ramping up irrational concerns, sometimes people just need to stop and think, like they would in a 'real world' situation (paranoiacs notwithstanding).

I like the idea of a protection body for free speech, because it's the 'small' people that are getting done by this. They picked on Meechan because they thought he was small, they hadn't counted on the support he'd get. There were 'moral panics' (from the press mostly) that threatened Frankie Boyle, Chris Morris and other comedians before, but they backed down because of the public outcry.

But then, are we talking about ALL free speech or just comedy/satire?

***

This Forbes article is by far the best that I've read on the subject, as it offers constructive criticism of the law and Markus' own behaviour, which I also claimed wasn't helping his case. It also details the judges own lack of knowledge of internet culture, even of the basics of how the technology operates.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeordogh/2018/04/30/a-nuanced-take-on-count-dankulas-nazi-pug/

In a reply to the author, Fruzsina Eördögh, Meechan spoke of,

"a huge discussion in our circles right now" about the notion of "who means and who memes." To explain it in the context of this post, how popular Internet memes have been co-opted by hate groups and the mainstream and it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell who is being ironic and who actually means it.

Whether this 'discussion' is to be truly believed depends on how much of a conspiracy theorist you are. I have some faith in human nature and therefore hope that both the Scottish Courts and Meechan's circles are not actually part of a convert plan to undermine democracy via totalitarian thought control or by fascist infiltration into mainstream. It's worth keeping an eye on however...

***

Thanks to the UK's internet super-bureaucracy I was able to find the judge's sentencing comments in the Meechan trial. http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meechan

The document contains several interesting comments, not least this statement in the closing section,

This trial, unusual though some aspects have been, was therefore concerned, ultimately, only with the narrow fact-based question of whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that your using a public communications network on one day to post the video onto your video channel, constituted an offence contrary to section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003. I found it proved on the evidence that it was. My finding establishes only your guilt of this offence. It establishes nothing else and sets no precedent.

So, we can take the Sheriff Derek O' Carroll at his word as a member of the judiciary of Scotland, or we can consider him a conspirator in a devious plot, as I say though, I remain hopeful about human nature.

What struck me, and this is mainly due to my lack of attention to the nature of the case itself, was that the sentence was under the Communications Act 2003, Section 127, which is not about 'freedom of speech' or 'hate speech' but instead related to the 'improper use of public electronic communications networks' and has typically been used to prosecute people who make threatening or offensive comments on Twitter and Facebook.

Below is the legal definition from the UK Government website.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

And here is an article on the Communications Act, detailing some of the cases (including Meechan) and some of the ongoing problems with the law. Most notable the definition of 'public' in the public electronic communication network. At this stage, the use of public is to describe that they are free to use and open to view, although this has already be disputed and is open to interpretation.

https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003/Section_127

For me, this raises some issues with the Meechan case itself, as I had previously thought he was being tried under hate speech laws (Crime and Disorder Act) and although disputable that at least made some sense. By using the Communications Act 2003, I am immediately drawn to the parallels with the Paul Chambers 'Twitter Joke' Case in 2012. Chambers was also first convicted and ordered to pay a fine (also losing his job in the process) and he subsequently successfully appealed his conviction in the High Court (albeit at the third attempt). So, things are looking good for Meechan. Although perhaps he should go for the support of people like Stephen Fry and Al Murray (who supported Chambers), rather than Alex Jones and 'Tommy Robinson'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial

Concluding Remarks

1. As I said before, it's not illegal to choose 'bad company' or to be a rude c*** nor should it be illegal to make jokes in 'bad taste'. Meechan achieves all of these things; he is unlikeable (from my POV), he associates with 'less reputable' YouTube personalities and 'activists', and he makes crass childish 'jokes' at the expense of others. None of these things are against the law, thankfully.

2. Eventually, we'll come to see that too much internet usage is a bad thing, like drink or other drugs, and maybe this generation of sh*tposters will be the ones to teach us that.

3. We do need to be able to challenge laws that are being badly executed or improperly used. We also need to watch that our challenges are brought about by logic rather than a moral panic. If we look at the law and how it is being implemented, I would hope that it would alleviate the concerns of the UK becoming a police state or any other far-reaching rumour mongering, but such analysis would also show that there is an absence of a decent conversation about freedom of speech in public and that sometimes the law makers are acting without sufficient thought or knowledge of the area that they are dealing with. This reminds me of this statement by O'Carroll in his summing up, "although I invited both legal representatives to make legal submissions during the trial about the law on freedom of expression, that was done only to a very limited extent. In the absence of focused submissions on that topic by either the Crown or the defence, all I can say is that, while that right is very important, in all modern democratic countries the law necessarily places some limits on that right."

So, rather than finding this case as a reason to further spread irrational fears on the internet, let it instead be a reason to ignite a public debate of what freedom of speech means to us all and why that might be important and not just another piece of sensationalist entertainment 'news' that will quickly be forgotten.

Meanwhile in Deutschland: die Redefreiheit

April seems to have become an impromptu 'Free Speech' month for me, so I couldn't really ignore this story from the BBC Trending...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-43831620/is-a-new-hate-speech-law-killing-german-comedy

So, for those of you that are unable to watch this news video I will make a brief précis, otherwise skip ahead to the second section.

Sektion Ein. "Is a new hate speech law killing German comedy?"

The new German hate speech law, which was passed last year, requires companies to remove 'hate speech' from their social media or face huge fines.

Sophie Passmann is a writer and radio host who works for satirical late-night talk  show Neo Magazin Royale. After last year's annual presentation of 'Dinner for One', a German New Year's institution, Passmann posted this comment of twitter:

"As long as it's tradition here to watch Dinner for One on New Year's Eve, refugees are welcome to come here and destroy our culture."

Passmann explains that the subject of the joke was those people who really believe that refugees do indeed 'destroy culture' which she believes is a stupid position. However, due to the language involved, the comment was flagged by Twitter and she was informed that it would be deleted to comply with German law. However, after a few days being headline news, Twitter reversed their decision and the tweet was allowed back online.

Similarly, the cartoonist Schwarwel had a cartoon withdrawn from Facebook for using 'offensive language'. His cartoon was intended to mock the recent H&M controversy and had used a racial slur although he had put it in the mouth of a member of AfD, a right-wing German political party. After complaining to Facebook himself, Schwarwel was told that it was not due to the new German law and had been taking down 'in error'. Facebook responded when questioned about how they are implementing the new law:

"Facebook reviews every NetzDG report carefully and with legal expertise, where appropriate. Facebook is not pursuing a strategy to delete more than necessary."

Although another comedian, Michel Abdollahi, thinks that although Passmann's tweet did not deserve to be removed that the law is worthwhile otherwise. Although it is not perfect, it will develop over the next few years, but that the intention set out by the law is something important.

The German government has said that it is open to re-evaluating the law in a few years if needed.

Sektion Zwei. Language is not neutral, but computer algorithms are.

The problem here is that Passmann's comment can be read in either way, if you are not familiar with the context, her comedy style, or other factors. Admittedly, it only takes a short examination to determine that there was no malicious intent, however, Twitter (standing-in for all of social media in this example) does not have the luxury of time nor of analysis. Their system works based on a strict interpretation of the law and is flagged to them by a computer algorithm that searches for uses of particular phrases and words (I would assume).

I think it is unlikely that they review each individual case of deletion, unless it is brought to their attention, i.e. via news media. This seems a massive waste of time, until we consider that (1) if gives the press something to write about and better yet, something to complain about, and (2) it does the job of highlighting what was actually an innocuous tweet or attempted joke from those that are not for Twitter, saving them the time/money of employing a real person (or team of people) to 'filter' through these comments and make a perspective judgement on the language being used.

Concerning Schwarwel's cartoon, when is an ethnic slur a joke? Part of the problem here is that the use of certain words and phrases elicits an immediate negative reaction, one that can forerun and overtake any other intention in its use. This, indeed, is the wider problem in continuing to perpetuate the language of bigotry, even if the intent is to somehow undermine or devalue its usage, it requires more than simply repeating the stock phrases of racists.

The law is a blunt instrument. Although the onus is placed upon the law to mediate each situation correctly, ultimately it cannot, in much the same way as the algorithms of Twitter and Facebook merely flag 'inappropriate' language without being able to interpret the contextual use of that language or worse relying on users flagging offensive content themselves (those 'reporting' might have ulterior motives beyond simply civic duty). The final responsibility must fall with those using the language, both at an individual and societal level.

It is a failing to merely reflect the responsibility back to the law and say that if you want free speech you must also accept hate speech. I have already agreed with the folk wisdom, 'there is no right not to be offended' but there is also no right to say whatever you wish in any situation without consequence. To be part of a free society means making certain allowances, agreed behaviours, and drawing limits for tolerance. All within it's context, of course. This should be an ongoing discussion, democratically.

Finally, in this story there is an unstated assumption about Germany that I know British people and I would suspect others make also (especially Europeans and Americans). It is that Germany has more reason to implement laws of this nature due to their recent history, which is often used as a way of excusing our own nationalistic/imperialistic crimes of the past (of which the UK has multitudes, indeed, all nations do). This is a worryingly restrictive viewpoint, as it casts one nation as the 'wrong-doer' and the other (ourselves) as the moral 'hero'. Sadly the reality of our ethical natures is far muddier than fiction paints it, again, this acceptance/realisation relies of responsibility both individual and social. Something that Germany have taken the first step towards. Viel Glück!

Cult of Feelings

Love! 💖
We are good! 🌈🌟
They *urgh* are bad 💀 & wrong 🚯 & stupid 🙅 & misinformed 👹 &

'We' can't be criticised because
'they' can never be correct ---
don't be unhelpful, unconstructive,
leave behind your negative traits and doubts ---
only 'we' have the correct understanding
of the way the world is ---
'they' only want to stop and destroy
everything that 'we' stand for ---

If it feels good it must be good, feelsgoodman,
But only as long as 'we' think so too!
You wouldn't want to be like 'them'
Those are just 'bad' feelings, so bad, so sad,
So make sure that your emotive reactions ---
Have been properly pre-conditioned ---
And anyway, don't it feel so right to be good?
No wait, feel so good to be right?
Feel so right to be right
Be right
Be right
Be right

Time was you'd have to think real hard about things on your own;
How do I fit into the world?
What if I was wrong?
Who decides what is of value?
What is my place in society?
Are my decisions my own?
Is any of this real, what matters?
And all sorts of silly puzzles like that
Not anymore! Yay!
We'll tell you how and what to think to the point that you are practically indestinguisable from anyone else and isn't that what we all really want?
a Final solution

All you have to do is...
Leave you family
Give up 'certain' behaviours
Change your name
Stop bad thoughts
Alter what you eat/drink
Do not question
Give away all your money/possessions
Do what we say
Sacrifice your self when instructed

& doesn't that small price seem worth it?

Further freedoms: Comedy, Defamation and Truth in Art

Continuing from the discussion on comedy and offense, I recently found out about the stand-up comedian Louise Reay getting sued by her ex-husband, for a stand-up show about totalitarianism and the Chinese government that included a joke or 'bit' (apparently two minutes of material in a fifty minute show), that the ex-husband took offense to and is therefore suing her for defamation and breach of privacy.

I’m conflicted about this, because I do see the argument against controlling what people can say, but there’s also the impetus on the person to take personal responsibility, to check what they’re saying and how it might be interpreted or the context it is used in, but then you might say, “How could anything be shocking or new or provocative? What’s wrong with someone being purposely vile?” Some performance art, made to outrage sensibilities is actually a good thing (and considered great art) it’s pushing us towards something else that shows a different perspective. The problem is that we don’t know if it’s worthwhile, so we shouldn’t stop it (before it’s time), unless it is 'obviously' offensive, but then maybe someone’s overreaction to a lewd joke might comparable only on a scale to the reaction to want to ban what are more rightly considered offensive images like child pornography.

Some see banning topics from public discourse as being “just like the Nazis” and totalitarian itself, but this is a weak argument I would suggest. Being stopped from making racist remarks isn’t the same as being a fascist. The argument though is to stop language that is not merely offensive (that is itself not illegal and I would agree in defending the right for people to actively use offensive language in context) but that it also leads to directly or indirectly effecting another's personal safety, well-being, or advocates removing their human rights. That is to say, it is not just your opinion that what you have heard is offensive (a perspective) but rather that it can be shown or proved to have been meant deliberately to help (directly or indirectly) disadvantage you or place you in a situation that results in marginalisation, discrimination, or encourages other negative bias and potentially violence.

However, the ability to see how negative language or 'just words' could lead to more than just hurt feelings is apparently incredibly difficult for some people. Perhaps this is the privilege that the Left are so often talking about?

Take your pick of recent or not-so-recent examples of 'borderline' racist language being used, I'm thinking of the recent Heineken advert controversy, but you can use your own. The response to this tends to go a little like this:

“Why’s this racist? I’m not black; therefore I cannot see why it could be racist.”

This is normally the first step towards the very common response that you can find all over the internet in just about every comments section:

“People just get offended. People are too easily upset.” (on purpose, i.e. they are acting or exaggerating).

Which is, actually something that I would agree with, because those people that are too easily upset include the people who feel the need to go on the internet to complain and say, “Well I’m upset that people are too easily upset, it’s upsetting to me how easily upset everyone else is. I take offensive in other people taking offense.” And so on and so on.

People have different backgrounds, different worldviews shaped by their experience, maybe have similar experiences and come up with different responses because of their backgrounds and because they’re wrong... no, because they’re different people. They are sometimes wrong, obviously, when dealing with a matter of definite facts or logical analysis and they just haven’t done that, they’ve just gone with the gut. Hence, a lot of our current problems, are caused by people just are going with the gut. For example, off-the-cuff political remarks that would previously have been challenged are taken as political fact.

The threat to free speech is not; from the Right’s perspective the Left, and from the Left’s perspective the Right, because when everyone is too busy slinging mud at each other and not looking at the laws, then nothing’s really getting challenged, then the laws keep changing, at the time no one seemed that concerned about the Snoopers’ Charter, and this gets us back towards the heightened level of control and influence a certain few companies (Facebook) have over our lives, either directly (via advertising) or indirectly (influencing political parties and media).

But to return to the initial topic that we have more direct contact and control over.

Reay's offensive language, that ‘attacked’ her ex-husband, was part of a comedy show, it was intended as entertainment. The insult was already part of the performance. Did this include private data? However, this has now been removed from the routine in agreement with the ex-husband's lawyers and no copies or recordings have been made so it no longer ‘exists’ and we cannot answer this.

If we’re going to say that the ex-husband should or does win the court case, does that mean that you can’t insult anyone in a stand-up show, without some sort of consent? His argument could be, “she didn’t ask me whether I wanted to be referenced/used as material in the show.” So, if I sit in the front row and a stand-up makes fun of me for looking like a twat (fairly likely, as I do) can I then sue them? Or would it instead be thrown out as I choose to be at the show, and that’s consent to participate, which that seems fair.

What about offensive jokes about a wider general group? Jokes about; Muslims, Jews, Gays, Blacks etc. Could you as a member of one of those groups sue the comedian for not asking for your personal consent? Who gives the consent for a joke about a religion, or a country, or ginger people, and who’s making that distinction? Without the possibility of consent given at a singular level, does this mean we should be more or less sensitive about the jokes we made and the language we use? Well, not to sound like a broken record, but context is the guide. Calling a collection of developing countries "shitholes" for example, is different when one is the POTUS than when one is not. Indeed, one could think of a situation where that phrase would be a joke rather than merely an insult masquerading as a joke.

And if this is true for individuals, what about institutions? You can (I think) criticise an institution (fairly) under freedom of speech (in certain conditions and in the appropriate context).

However, if you can’t make a mocking/defaming performance about somebody without them knowing about it and/or consenting to it in some way, that seems fine. Maybe then, Reay does deserve to lose the case, as much as I want to defend the right of comedy to be pushing boundaries.

[Side Quest: a related example #1]
Kathy Griffin, appeared in an image apparently holding Trump’s severed head, much offense was taken (especially by Trump and his supporters) and it was widely condemned. However, although an individual, Trump is also a public figure and part of a wider institution, whereas she is a comedian and not a member of ISIS. She is not ‘really’ threatening to kill him or incite violence against him, if Trump can also say “...although the second amendment people, maybe there is...” (Taken as a threat against Hillary Clinton who wanted to ‘take away their guns’) and that was explained as a joke after the fact, and if Trump as a politician can have that excuse then surely Griffin as a comedian has more of a claim to the ‘it was only a joke’ defense. However, there wasn’t a legal case against her, she wasn’t sued for defamation, and Trump instead insulted her, stoked resentment from his support and unleashed a wave of negative attention (with no comeback).

[Side Quest: a related example #2]
Sarah Silverman, once made a joke that she had been raped by Joe Franklin (in 2005 docu-comedy film 'The Aristocrats'). Discounting the fact that she now says she would no longer make a similar joke, this piece is so obviously a joke, it is about a famous off-colour joke and is interpreted and performed by one hundred well-known comedians. However, at the time, Joe Franklin (a famous elderly presenter) was 'not amused' and had allegedly considered a lawsuit against Silverman. Despite Silverman's straight-faced presentation of "Joe Franklin raped me" it could not be said to be without it's context and it could further be argued that it had no "actual malice" which is key to a claim of defamation.

To move us towards a conclusion, does Reay deserve to be sued? Even if we disagree with the action or the motivation of the ex-husband, what then is the alternative? What are our limits of 'free expression'? Many internet commentators seem all to willing to state that Reay has made "false allegations." Has she? How do they know? She has not confirmed this. On her gofundme page, which she started to raise her legal fees she says, "I accused him of abusing me in my show."

Another similar allegation is that Reay was personally insulting whereas Meechan's 'Nazi pug' was "only a joke!" This strikes me as a failure to identify one's own personal prejudices, because as described you could reverse that statement, Reay only made a joke about her recent breakup whereas Meechan insulted all Jews. It's just a question of belief and perspective. Let's try and keep it to the law and facts, where possible.

To continue this comparison, whereas Reay has offended a singular individal, Meechan has offended a general audience. In both cases you might say (and some do) that they (those offended) are purposely taking offense, but when it's a particular group with a well-known recent history then it seems more difficult to quantify. Why indeed choose the holocaust? If Meechan wanted to pick something horrific then history has plenty of examples, why pick the most commonly mentioned 'pop-cultural' description of the 'worst thing to have happened'. Certainly in numbers there's the 'Great Leap Forward' famines in China (15-45 million dead), or the Rwandan Genocide, or Armenian Genocide, or massacres the UK has had a part in; Indian (e.g. Amritsar), Northern Ireland (Bloody Sunday) and so on. But that wasn't his point, he was being a lazy troll, and lazy trolls go after the most obvious targets.

The problem also lies with the law, especially for Reay, in that it does not deny or take account for the person's emotions in bringing the case. The ex-husband is obviously motivated by 'hurt feelings' and yet the law cannot mediate for that. As for Meechan, are people just saying that they're upset about something that happened in the 1940's, is this merely manufactored offense? Well, if the world was totally free of anti-semitism and being Jewish meant that that did not carry a potential for negative biased treatment by others, then we could say that this is merely a historical offense, but it is clearly not the case (cf. Labour's current problem with anti-semitism and the ongoing difficulty of people to separate the critism of the Israeli government's actions with the reputation of all Jewish people world-wide, i.e. conflating anti-zionism with anti-semitism). One person might be exaggarating, pretending, or motivated by revenge, but the entire Jewish people? Perhaps one person (from a 'generalised' audience) could be pretending to take more offense, but can you really say that when anti-semitism is a real ongoing thing in the world? Unless we also deny anti-semitism as a thing. Oh wait, Neo-Nazis do that too!

I'll make a final summary of both of these threads of thought once both respective court cases have concluded, but I find it difficult (for different reasons) to find either Reay or Meechan not guilty and yet I still want to say that neither is entirely to blame. Further, that there is a time and place for willingly offensive language in our society, mediated by forethought and attention to context.