





If another person says something that offends me I do one of two things: ignore it or engage in a conversation. This, however, is not part and parcel of the laws surrounding free speech in Scotland. In Scotland, hate speech laws mean saying certain things could land someone a criminal record – if considered too offensive. But therein lies the issue: who deems what offensive? To me the idea that there are people who drink plain black coffee, without sugar and enjoy it is deeply offensive. Yet I do not wish for these people to be imprisoned, nor do I feel it necessary that the law takes my side in condemning these people. Recently a YouTuber was convicted over an “offensive” video he posted on the sight which shows his dog watching a Hitler video and doing a Nazi-esque salute. Mark Meechan, who goes by his YouTube name “Count Dankula” says he wanted to turn the dog into "the least cute thing that I could think of" to annoy his girlfriend.





The judge considered his actions “grossly offensive” and he was convicted under the Communications Act 2003. Prosecutors claimed the video, titled “M8 Yer Dugs A Nazi” was anti-semitic and rooted in religious prejudice. I don’t agree with the claim this video makes Meechan a bigot as the premise implies that because Nazis are so horrific and pugs so cute he is ruining the innocence of the dog. Its humour lies in the fact it is so extreme. Whether you found it funny or not is, of course, subjective.





Even if Meechan was a bigot I would still believe his conviction to be unjust and illiberal. Free speech should protect those with the most extreme views too as this allows there to be a light shone on the subject and to fight back against it. If this type of speech is under the realm of law (which it clearly is right now) then you cast many people into darkness, they go underground and then the ideology you hate most feeds off of the narrative that the speech was banned because no one has a good argument against it – which is wholly untrue, but nonetheless, a sad result of these laws. This conviction won’t stop any bigotry in society but will result in what many people will see as the confirmation that Western societies hold offence over free speech and feelings over fact.





This forms part of a bigger debate over whether hate speech laws in Scotland are merited and whether hate speech should even be a thing classified by the law. In Scottish -and British- society there has long been a culture of shutting down offensive speech. Theresa May bizarrely banned Tyler, the Creator from the UK in 2015 and just this week saw Lauren Southern , a far-right Canadian activist, along with two others banned from the UK.





This is an issue where instead of engaging in a dialogue to win the argument often one side is silenced which only feeds into the victim complex many right-wingers have. This issue, however, is not just a problem on the left. It was Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May (then Home Secretary) who banned Tyler, the Creator and it was Donald Trump who sued comedian Bill Maher over a joke.





Meechan’s loudest supporters are often right-wing figures such as Gavin McInnes, Lauren Southern, Paul Joseph Watson and Tommy Robinson. We must not let this issue be taken over and framed by the right or to allow the argument to be that because right-wingers are defending it then Meechan is automatically in the wrong. It’s also worth note that the most popular tweet on this subject was by Ricky Gervais.





Fans say bill infringes on their rights In some good news, however, this week saw the repeal of the SNP’s anti-free speech bill, In some good news, however, this week saw the repeal of the SNP’s anti-free speech bill, The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act . The bill was aimed at stamping out sectarianism in Scotland by making certain forms of speech illegal in certain places. For example, banning certain songs from being sung at football matches.





The law had no opposition party support at all, but many of the parties missed the point completely as to why it was a terrible bill. While they were right to point out it unfairly targeted football fans, many forgot to include that it is wrong in the first place to criminalize bigotry. Bigotry is unacceptable in society, but rather than criminalizing it let the punishment be the criticism lodged the bigot’s way by others using their own free speech. A YouGov poll at the time revealed 80% of Scots supported the bill, showing this issue is much a legislative problem as it is a cultural one.





Much like America’s prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s, the prohibition of free speech fails stupendously at achieving the desired result. Instead of eradicating bigots, you drive them underground and push them away, further from the grasp of tolerance. Sewing the mouths shut of those who espouse “offensive” ideas only serves to further radicalise people, not bring society closer to harmony.