Cop Found Guilty After “Shocking” Video Showed Him Choking a Handcuffed Man

Image: Waco PD

Waco, TX — The citizens of Waco have held one of their officers accountable and have found him guilty of assault and official oppression after he was caught choking a handcuffed man on video.

Former officer George Neville claimed he acted in self-defense the night of May 4, 2016, when he grabbed his victim, Qualon Deshon Weaver by his throat and began choking him for no reason. The attack was so unnecessary that even Neville’s fellow officers testified that they were “shocked” when witnessing it.

Naturally, Neville’s defense team, Bill Johnston, a former federal prosecutor, and Calvin McLean, a Waco police officer for 16 years who worked with Neville before going to law school in 2011 defended the actions of their client and expressed disappointment in the verdict.

“We are very disappointed with the jury verdict,” McLean said after the trial. “Officer Neville served Waco with great distinction for many years. Many important legal issues arose during the case, and for those reasons, Mr. Neville will most certainly appeal the case.”

The incident began during a stop for a minor traffic violation. While stopped, police allegedly found a small bit of marijuana in Weaver’s possession, so they arrested him. During the arrest, Weaver voiced his discontent verbally but never became physical.

On the dashcam video, Neville can be heard threatening and provoking Weaver, telling him to “get in my face one more time.” Neville then called him a name and Weaver responded by calling Neville that same name.

“He called me a dumbass so I called him a dumbass back, so he started choking me,” Neville said at the time. “You’re still innocent until proven guilty. You still have your constitutional rights even if you have a previous criminal history. Law enforcement has to follow the rules and procedures.”

For six seconds, Neville squeezed Weaver’s throat cutting off his air. The officers behind Weaver told the court that Neville’s actions were “shocking” to them. However, they never did anything to stop it, nor did they move to arrest their fellow officer who had just committed two misdemeanors in front of them, nor did they even mention any of it in their reports.

Not until Weaver himself filed a complaint was the choke ever discovered. Police claim they didn’t turn in their fellow officer because they knew he would likely get fired for it. Although they were originally suspended, those two officers, Street Crimes Unit members Kevin Spicer, Adam Beseda, were cleared of criminal wrongdoing in the incident.

According to Neville’s defense team, the officer was in “a heightened state of awareness” because the officer who requested back up said Weaver was agitated. Johnston also told jurors that Neville was concerned that Weaver may attempt to head butt or spit on him, so he had no other choice but to halfway strangle the man.

But, likely due to the fact that Weaver was handcuffed and entirely surround by police, jurors didn’t buy it. What’s more, Ricky Bates, a former Marine gunnery sergeant who taught hand-to-hand combat during his military career and then trained thousands of Central Texas police officers over a 28-year law enforcement career, testified that Nevilles actions were entirely out of line, according to the Waco Tribune.

According to the Tribune, Bates, known as “Gunny,” testified during the trial he trained Neville but never taught him to do what he saw Neville doing on the video. He said he taught police recruits to stay away from a suspect’s neck area because of the high potential to cause injury or death.

In their closing arguments, prosecutors Amanda Dillon and Gabe Price explained to the jurors the reality of the situation, noting that Neville lost his cool and Weaver did nothing to deserve that treatment. Prosecutors reminded jurors that verbal provocation is no reason to place a person’s life in jeopardy by choking them.

“Ladies and gentleman, Theodore Roosevelt said that no man is above the law and no man is below the law,” Price said. “This defendant is not above the law, and Qualon Weaver is not below the law.”

Neville is now facing a fine of as much as $4,000 and/or a jail term of as long as one year for the two charges.

“Who polices the police? You do. Not because it’s easy. Because, Lord knows, we all would like to believe that every person who puts on a badge deserves that badge and will uphold that badge. But you know what? This man right here doesn’t deserve that badge,” Dillon said, pointing at Neville.

DASH cryptocurrency and The Free Thought Project have formed a partnership that will continue to spread the ideas of peace and freedom while simultaneously teaching people how to operate outside of the establishment systems of control like using cryptocurrency instead of dollars. Winning this battle is as simple as choosing to abstain from the violent corrupt old system and participating in the new and peaceful system that hands the power back to the people. DASH is this system.

DASH digital cash takes the control the banking elite has over money and gives it back to the people. It is the ultimate weapon in the battle against the money changers and information controllers.

If you’d like to start your own DASH wallet and be a part of this change and battle for peace and freedom, you can start right here. DASH is already accepted by vendors all across the world so you can begin using it immediately.

Source Article from

Papadopoulos’ wife claims he pleaded guilty to ‘avoid being charged as unregistered agent of Israel’

George Papadopoulos


Special Counsel Robert Mueller threatened to charge former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos as an unregistered agent of Israel, according to his wife.

Simona Mangiante Papadopoulos, an Italian attorney who married Papadopoulos roughly 90 days ago, claimed that Mueller had evidence her husband had worked on behalf of Israel without registering as a foreign agent during his time as an energy consultant, and prior to joining the Trump campaign. The claim was made in interviews with the Daily Caller and the Washington Post – where Simona also said George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to avoid the Israel-linked charges.

“I know he doesn’t have anything to do with Russia,” she told The Post. “We know he was under scrutiny because of his ties to Israel, not his ties to Russia. So what’s this about?”

In October 2015, Papadopoulos wrote a column for the Israeli publication Haaretz entitled “Natural Gas Isn’t Just about Israel.” He also attended a series of energy conferences in Israel, including one held in April 2016, just days after he was named to Trump’s campaign, according to Israeli media accounts.

During those years, he became acquainted with Eli Groner, who has served since 2015 as a top aide to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.WaPo

Simona’s new claims are vastly different than what she said in January before she and George married – when she suggested to the Washington Post that Papadopoulos would be remembered like John Dean, the former White House counsel who flipped on Nixon’s administration and became a key witness.

“There’s a lot to come,” she said then. “He was the first one to break a hole on all of this.”

On Tuesday, however, her tune had changed – saying that her earlier comments were misinterpreted and that she and George had reassessed events after learning that Cambridge professor Stefan Halper had been conducting espionage on the Trump campaign for the FBI. Halper hired Papadopoulos to write an energy paper in London in the fall of 2016, paying him $3,000 for his efforts.



George took responsibility for lying to the FBI and cooperated with the government. Cooperating doesn’t mean following an agenda,” she said. “Cooperating doesn’t mean against the president. . . . It means cooperating with the truth.”

Simona says George has been wronged and deserves a pardon from President Trump – that he is “a victim, honestly,” who “made a mistake. He pleaded guilty for that mistake. It would make sense for the president to pardon him.”

Before joining the Trump campaign in March 2016 as a foreign policy advisor, George Papadopoulos lived in London, working as a researcher for the Hudson Institute think tank, and later as an independent energy consultant. Despite his work on Israel, Cyprus and Greece while at the Hudson Institute, a person familiar with the Institute told the Washington Post that nobody from the Special Counsel’s office has ever contacted them regarding Papadopoulos’s work there.

Meanwhile, it was Papadopoulos’ May 10 alleged “drunken barroom admission” to former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer that the Russians had information which “could be damaging” to Hillary Clinton. Papadopolous was originally told of the alleged Russian plot two weeks earlier on April 26, by Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud (missing since October 2017) – whose organization George Papadopoulos met his wife through.

Which brings us to an interesting thread

Noting that Papadopoulos and his new wife met on LinkedIn, Twitter user @rising_serpent makes the case that some things just aren’t adding up. The 27-part tweetstorm is condensed underneath the first post:

2. That connection was Joseph Mifsud, a most mysterious former Maltese government official who ran an institute called the London Centre of International Law Practice in Britain. THE Joseph Mifsud now made infamous by her husbands indictment by Robert Muller.

3. Mangiante, started working at the organization after meeting Mifsud while she was employed at European Parliament in Brussels. Papadopoulos, who had worked for Mifsud’s organization as well, reached out to say he liked her profile picture.

4. Mangiante left the London Centre of International law after three months, after concluding the law office was “a facade for something else.” But the two continued to talk over the Internet, before meeting in person for the first time in New York in spring 2017.

5. Mangiante was introduced to Mifsud in 2012 by Gianni Pittella, a well-known Italian MEP who in 2014 became president of the Socialists and Progressive Democrats group. “I always saw Mifsud with Pittella,” So, Mangiante knew Mifsud for many years before she did Papadopoulos

6. Mangiante worked for 2 European parliament officials, Mairead McGuinness, a vice-president & McGuinness’s Italian predecessor Roberta Angelilli. She was also admin to home affairs committee under Martin Schulz, then a German MEP & now leader of Germany’s Social Democrats

7. So Mangiante moved within the corridors of power within Europe’s Italian Democrats & German social democrats. When her contract expired, Pittella suggested she go work for Mifsud in London who offered her a job in 2016 at the London Centre of International Law Practice

8. in September 2016, Mangiante received a message on the LinkedIn social network from George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos had worked at the same London Center of International law centre briefly before joining Trump’s campaign. That was the beginning of their acquaintance.

9. It appears that Mangiante started her job around September 2016, the same time as she started corresponding with Papadopoulos. Mangiante was not happy with her work in London.

10. The entire institution seemed “fake”, “artificial”, with Mifsud interested solely in organising political meetings. “I didn’t smell a culture of academia” Mifsud’s diplomatic activity, Mangiante now believes, was a facade. “I never met any Russians there”

11. Mangiante quit her post there after three months, in November 2016. In the meantime, Mangiante’s romance with George began. After several unsuccessful efforts to get together in London, they met in March 2017 in New York. They hit it off, began dating and fell in love

12. Prior to meeting Mangiante, FBI had interviewed Papadopoulos Jan 2017 in connection with the collusion investigation. Papadopoulos gave federal agents a false account of his meetings with Mifsud. So he deleted his Facebook account and changed his cellphone number.

13. So almost 3 months prior to Papadopoulos actually meeting Mangiante he was already in the crosshairs of FBI, he was deleting facebook, changing phone numbers and like James Bond, was actively romancing a beautiful woman. Plausibility check # 1, what do you think ?

14. On the day Papadopoulos pleaded guilty, Mangiante was at her boyfriend’s family home in Chicago. There was a ring at the door. A casually dressed man informed her that he was a federal agent. He was serving her with a subpoena from Mueller.

15. Mangiante decided not to hire a lawyer after discovering they cost $800 an hour. She turned up alone at Chicago FBI headquarters.the FBI was interested in her relationship with Papadopoulos. Was it genuine? “They asked: “Do you love him?” “Yes”. They replied: ‘He is lucky'”

16. Plausibility check # 2. Do you think about how much lawyers cost when the FBI tells you that your boyfriend is chin deep in legal manure and you may be too? Stormy Daniels gets a lawyer for free, but someone being investigated by the FBI thinks about a lawyers cost?

17. March 2016 Papadopoulous learned he would be Trumps foreign policy advisors, he ended up meeting Mifusud on March 14 2016 while he was traveling in Italy (where Mangiante was, coincidentally). Important: He met Mifsud first in Italy, see indictment (click here)

18. Mifusd’s interest is piqued when he learned that Papadopoulos was going to be involved with the Trump campaign. They meet again subsequently in London on March 24th 2016 when Mifusd was accompanied by the “Putins niece” Olga Vinogradova, who like Mifsud has now disappeared.

19. Papadopoulos met Mifusd again on April 24th 2016 for breakfast at a London hotel. This is the first time that Mifsud tells him he knows the Russians have “dirt” on Hillary. Mind you the DNC leaks weren’t published till June/July 2016. Important point right there.

20. That DNC was hacked by the Russians remains a matter of great contention and those with exquisite expertise in cybersecurity don’t agree with the assertion that Russians hacked it. Remember the only people that conducted the investigation into the hack were CrowdStrike

21. Now we turn the bizarre dial to 11, why did Papadopoulos say to Mangiante when he was looking at her LinkedIn profile that they worked for the same company? Two things wrong with this: I couldn’t find any evidence that Paps worked for the London center of international law

22. and if he did, he would have known Mifsud from his work, so the whole theory of his being introduced to Mifusd falls flat.

23. The BIG question: by the time Papadopoulos began corresponding with Mangiante in Sept 2016, he was a part of the Trump Campaign, what was he looking at LinkedIn profiles of people working at the London center of international law for? What am I missing here?

24. I have more questions than answers, but the timeline just doesn’t add up, there is a lot missing here apart from my functioning neuronal circuitry. All of this is important in the context of Mangiante’s recent media blitz and her asking for Trump to pardon Papadopoulos.

25. Feel free to add to what I have just outlined. Things are not only a little askew here but seems that we are seeing this whole matter askance and many facts are obscured by layers of hearsay disguised as factual information. -fin.

26. Addendum: anybody else find it most peculiar that Mangiante worked for Italian and German social democrats? Especially now that we know that MI6 (Downer/Steele/Halper) were probably involved with the genesis of the Steele dossier?

27. Mifusud appears to be more aligned with the UK than he is with the Russians, Mangiante herself said so. Also she has since dialed down her touting of her husbands role in the Trump campaign, why?

Questions? An even deeper analysis into Papadopoulos and Mifsud can be found here.

Source Article from

New Orleans Police Officer Pleads Guilty to Raping 7-Year-Old Girl

Former NOPD officer Michael Thomassie pleaded guilty to raping a 7-year-old girl in 2003.

An ex-New Orleans police officer who was charged with raping a former girlfriend’s then-7-year-old daughter in 2003 pleaded guilty Monday (April 30) to forcible rape and sexual molestation of a juvenile under age 13.

Michael Thomassie, 43, was tried and convicted of aggravated rape in 2015, but Louisiana’s 4th Circuit Court of Appeal overturned his conviction and life sentence in December 2016 on grounds that text messages Thomassie exchanged with a woman during jury selection in the first trial were improperly admitted into evidence.

The Louisiana 4th Circuit Court of Appeal vacated the conviction and life sentence of Michael Thomassie based on the improper admittance of racy text messages at trial.

Under terms of a plea agreement approved by Criminal District Judge Tracey Flemings-Davillier, Thomassie was sentenced to serve a total of five years in prison, according to Ken Daley, a spokesman for District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro’s office.

Flemings-Davillier sentenced Thomassie to five years in prison on the rape charge and 10 years on the molestation charge, with eight of those years suspended, Daley said. On both charges, Thomassie must serve a minimum of two years before he is eligible for parole. The Department of Corrections will determine when he becomes eligible for parole after the two years have been served.

The sentences will run concurrent, Daley said.

Thomassie was remanded following his conviction in 2015, and already has served two years and 10 months of his sentence, according to his attorney, Eric Hessler. He should be parole eligible in five months, Hessler said.

Once released from prison, Thomassie will remain under active parole supervision for the remainder of his sentence, Daley said. He also will be required to register as a sex offender for the next 25 years after his release, and he is barred for life from contacting the victim or her mother, Daley said.

The victim, who was 19 at the time of the first trial, testified against Thomassie. She reported the sexual assault in 2013 after being encouraged by relatives to do so, authorities said. The woman, who turns 22 in June, requested a resolution to the case with an admission of guilt after deciding she could not go thorough a second trial, Daley said.

Assistant District Attorney Laura Rodrigue, who prosecuted the case with Assistant District Attorney Tiffany Tucker, read a statement from the victim in court Monday.

“Years ago, I found the courage to come into court and confront the man who raped me,” the statement read. “Throughout the trial, the defendant told the jury that I was a liar, and my family and I were put through a traumatic experience. I was horrified to learn that, somehow I, the victim, became the accused.”

In the statement, the woman said she is choosing “not to be victimized by a trial or the higher courts again.”

“Today, he has admitted guilt,” she said. “And by his own admission, he confirms what the jury had already known long ago: That he did rape me when I was a child. I will live with the effects of being a victim. That will never be over. But today, I find strength knowing that, once and for all, there is no doubt left and this case is over.”

Thomassie, a 13-year NOPD veteran, was fired from the force after his 2015 conviction.


If you haven’t already, be sure to like our Filming Cops Page on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Please visit our sister site Smokers ONLY


(function(d) {
var params =
id: “3c7936d6-71e2-4cba-afb4-95ed4171941f”,
d: “ZmlsbWluZ2NvcHMuY29t”,
wid: “365543”,
cb: (new Date()).getTime()

var qs=[];
for(var key in params) qs.push(key+’=’+encodeURIComponent(params[key]));
var s = d.createElement(‘script’);s.type=’text/javascript’;s.async=true;
var p = ‘https:’ == document.location.protocol ? ‘https’ : ‘http’;
s.src = p + “://” + qs.join(‘&’);

Filming Cops

Source Article from

‘Don’t you feel guilty?’ PM Theresa May dodges Corbyn’s question over Windrush during PMQs

During Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Corbyn asked: “Did the prime minister feel the slightest pang of guilt when the home secretary was forced to resign due to the failures of her predecessor?”

The question from the opposition leader was a barb thrown at May, who was home secretary before Rudd, during a period that thousands of Commonwealth citizens faced deportation because of the Tory government’s immigration policies.

Rather than giving a straight answer, the PM sought to expand on what her government intends to do in the wake of the scandal. “We all share the ambition to make sure we do right by members of the Windrush generation and that’s why we will be announcing a package of measures to bring transparency on the issue, to make sure the House is informed, to reassure members of this House but more importantly to reassure those people who have been directly affected,” May said.

Rudd resigned on Sunday night, apologizing for misleading the public over immigration removal targets. She initially said there were no such targets, before admitting there may have been some at a “local” level.

READ MORE: Home Office ‘socialism’ triggered Windrush scandal – Jacob Rees-Mogg

Calls followed for the PM to step down too, amid claims that Rudd was merely acting as her “human shield.” The Tory leader was the one who originally pledged to make Britain a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants, back when she was home secretary.

The prime minister made an apology to Caribbean leaders over the Windrush scandal during a meeting last month.

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

Source Article from

Thousands of People in Only One State have Been in Jail for Over a YEAR and Never Proven Guilty

Nearly half a million Americans are currently being held in jail while they are denied their constitutional rights to a speedy trial. The problem has become so pervasive that many critics of the American judicial system are up in arms over the phenomenon. In Louisiana alone, there are over 2,000 people who have been languishing in jail for more than a year, all waiting for the chance to prove their innocence.

The Louisiana Sheriff’s Association was forced to clarify just how bad the problem is after its executive director, Mike Ranatza, overstated the number during a recent testimony on the issue. He clarified by breaking down the total number, and noting that of those 2,181 people:

  • 1,507 had been held between one and two years without a trial
  • 448 had been held between two and three years without a trial
  • 141 had been held between three and four years without a trial
  • 85 people had been held more than four years without a trial.

To many, the number may not seem that large. But to an inmate who may be innocent, having to sit in jail knowing he is innocent for—at times—more than four years without a trial, must be maddening. Worse still, it demonstrates the judicial system’s willingness to allow someone to be punished before being proven guilty in a court of law.

According to a report from Americas Quarterly:

In most jurisdictions in the Americas, authorities are required by law to bring an arrested individual before a judicial officer within 24 to 72 hours of arrest. If the accused is not released on personal recognizance or cannot afford bail, the individual may spend months in detention while his or her case is pending.

A defendant’s inability to afford bail becomes, in effect, a prison sentence. Probably nowhere is the problem more pervasive than in Cook County, Illinois, where Sheriff Tom Dart presides over the Cook County Jail facility.

Dart recently told CBS News half of the jail’s nearly 7,500 inmates should not even be in jail. He said jails have become a dumping ground for the poor, the mentally ill, and for gang members.

“I would suggest conservatively that half of the people here in the jail shouldn’t be here.”

Dart said that is a conservative estimate and it could be much higher. He explained the issue, echoing sentiments by critics of the current judicial system who say that it is broken and must be fixed.

They don’t pose a danger to anybody. The people in most jails—in 95 percent of the people in this jail are waiting on a trial. So everybody here are people who haven’t been convicted yet. So you say to yourself, “All right, they’re presumed innocent. Who is so dangerous that we need to hold them here while we’re waiting on a trial?”

The commonsensical approach to the question is not being answered by the system. Instead, jails are filling to capacity with people who presumably know they’re getting a raw deal. Tensions boil over and then violence erupts within the jails—the effects and consequences of which result in many inmates and corrections officers being injured on duty. In a recent example, seven inmates were killed and 17 injured after fights broke out at the Lee Correctional Institution in Bishopville, South Carolina.

Adding insult to injury, when inmates’ cases are finally addressed in court, the cases are often dropped, dismissed, or plea deals offered for time served. Those who are locked away awaiting trial are considered jailed under “Pretoria’s detention” status.

As Americas Quarterly noted, “In the U.S., which has the largest pretrial detention population in the world, 20 percent of detainees eventually had their case dismissed or were acquitted.”

Unfortunately, being jailed without a speedy trial under pretrial detention status can be detrimental and damaging to an inmate’s health and mental well-being. Americas Quarterly described the effects of being jailed without a speedy trial:

The loss of liberty and security, and being cut off from friends and family can result in lasting psychological impact. Further, exposure to violence among detainees, threats of violence from other inmates and even guards and direct violence ranging from acts of humiliation to physical violence or sexual assault also often traumatize individuals.

Americas Quarterly insists the effects on the individual who has been jailed without a speedy trial are not limited to physical and emotional damage, but financial as well. Not only do many, if not most, lose their jobs while jailed awaiting trial but a cycle of poverty often results:

Detention can cause lost wages or loss of employment, which carries severe collateral consequences for the individual, his or her family, and society at large. The loss of income and the ability to support family members or pay for housing may drive some individuals to criminal activity.

It also creates a vicious circle: many of those caught in pretrial detention are already poor and unable to afford bail, which further hampers their ability to obtain legal counsel that can help them negotiate the pitfalls of the judicial system.

In Louisiana, few people in positions of power have a clear solution of what needs to be done to move the state’s jailed awaiting trial through the system. reported that many have expressed outrage but with a broken system, no one seems to know what to do to expedite an inmate’s constitutional rights to a speedy trial. According to the report from

Rep. Pat Smith, D-Baton Rouge, said holding more than 2,000 people for longer than a year before they get before a judge is still “unconscionable”…Ranatza said the reasons so many people are being held for so long without a trial are complicated and based on several factors. “I would really be remiss in my duties if I said that this was a very simplistic equation.”… “It’s a classification nightmare for us…It’s better for us for the individual to move through the system.”

DASH cryptocurrency and The Free Thought Project have formed a partnership that will continue to spread the ideas of peace and freedom while simultaneously teaching people how to operate outside of the establishment systems of control like using cryptocurrency instead of dollars. Winning this battle is as simple as choosing to abstain from the violent corrupt old system and participating in the new and peaceful system that hands the power back to the people. DASH is this system.

DASH digital cash takes the control the banking elite has over money and gives it back to the people. It is the ultimate weapon in the battle against the money changers and information controllers.

If you’d like to start your own DASH wallet and be a part of this change and battle for peace and freedom, you can start right here. DASH is already accepted by vendors all across the world so you can begin using it immediately.

Source Article from

This Week on the Alt Right | Count Dankula Found GUILTY | ft. Eric Striker

This Week on the Alt Right | Count Dankula Found GUILTY | ft. Eric Striker

This is Bre Faucheux and Mark Collett’s weekly livestream.

Source Article from

Man Found Guilty of a Hate Crime for A Joke Video Of His Dog Doing a ‘Hitler Salute’


An extremely disturbing precedent has just been set as a man’s attempt at humor has gotten him charged with and convicted of a hate crime. Mark Meechan now faces prison for a tasteless joke to get a reaction from his girlfriend.

In spite of apologizing, having no other history of racism, and providing a decent excuse as to why he would teach a dog to do a Hitler salute, the court, made up of apparently easily offended peers, found him guilty.

As reports, Meechan, of Coatbridge, Lanarkshire was convicted on Tuesday at Airdrie Sheriff’s Court in Scotland.

“My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute and adorable her wee dog is,” Meecham said. “And so I thought I would turn him into the least cute thing I could think of, which is a Nazi.”

The video shows the dog appearing to raise its paw in a Nazi salute when Hitler is heard proclaiming “Seig Heil,” as the dog watches footage of a rally during the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin.

Meecham can be heard on the footage asking the dog: “Buddha, do you want to gas the Jews?” and “Who’s a good wee Nazi?”

But, does this activity actually rise to the level of a hate crime?

Even according to Scotland’s own laws, what Meechan did was not a crime, as the use of language alone does not constitute a hate crime unless it “could reasonably be said to cause fear and alarm, for example when a threat of violence is expressed, then hate crime legislation would apply.”

Meechan expressed no threats and did not reasonably try to instill fear by teaching his tiny pug to raise its paw upon the use of certain phrases. However, the court claims that the video did promote violence against Jews.

Meecham was subsequently found guilty of violating the Communications Act of 2003, which criminalizes the use of public telecommunications to send messages that discriminate against others based on their religious beliefs.

Critics of the video claim that it crosses the line from satire to promoting violence against Jews—with some claiming that any comedy using anything Hilter, or Nazi-related, normalizes Nazism.

“I don’t actually hate Jewish people and the video was just an insight into the darker side of my humour, a prank to annoy my girlfriend and that I did not intend for people, other than people who knew my comedy, to see the video,” Meechan said, as he apologized for offending anyone. He then noted that the Holocaust was “an awful thing, and should never have happened, but, we still joke about it, because in our eyes laughing about terrible things often make them easier to deal with.”

And he’s right. While it is certainly in poor taste to crack jokes about tragic events throughout history, humor is a way for many people to cope and understand such horrors. Sadly, this methodology is under attack.

Anyone who has played Cards Against Humanity could be guilty of this exact same thing. 

“This court has taken the freedom of expression into consideration”, Sheriff O’Carroll said.

“But the right to freedom of expression also comes with responsibility.”

Notice how the sheriff attempts to justify throwing a man in a cage for a year because it “offended him.”

“The accused knew that the material was offensive and knew why it was offensive. He would have known it was grossly offensive to many Jewish people,” the sheriff explained.

Others agreed that their offense to the matter should also be cause to deprive a man of his freedom and lock him in a cage.

“In many ways, the bit I found most offensive was the repetition of ‘gas the Jews’ rather than the dog itself”, Ephraim Borowski, director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (SCoJeC) told the court.

“The other thing that struck me was the explicit statement that this was intended to give offense and intended to be the most offensive thing he could think of and then he says he isn’t a racist. But unfortunately we hear that all the time from people.

“I’m no historian but it is the marching signal of the Nazi stormtroopers who contributed and supported the murder of six million Jews, including members of my own family, and I take this all slightly personally”, Mr Borowski continued, adding that the SCoJeC website had been “bombarded with abusive comments” after the video appeared online.

“Material of this kind goes to normalize the antisemitic views that frankly we thought we had seen the last of”, he said.

“The Holocaust is not a subject for jocular content.”

The tragic irony, in this case, is that those who would lock a man in a cage for his freedom of speech—no matter how repugnant—have no idea how close they are coming to being like the people Meechan was joking about.

Cases like this reveal exactly why the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment is so crucial.

While some speech may be extreme and repulsive, the prohibition on certain ideas, even the most repugnant, being put into the public marketplace of ideas is a fast track to totalitarian governmental control—essentially legitimizing the “thought police.”

Similar “hate crime” laws are common across much of Europe.

As TFTP has reported, an 87-year-old woman was arrested and sentenced to 10-months in jail after being convicted of violating German hate speech laws after claiming that Jews were never exterminated in Auschwitz.

Dubbed the neo-Nazi grandma, Ursula Haverbeck—who is well known for her extremist right-wing views—was convicted in a German court of violating hate speech laws.


In the U.S., incitement of violence is criminal, but “assaults against human dignity of others by insulting, malicious maligning, or defaming segments of the population” are considered an exercise of free speech, and are protected under the First Amendment.

Even the most crude or hurtful speech must be protected to safeguard against unwarranted exercise of governmental power in the form of the widespread censoring of thoughts and ideas that the government doesn’t approve of—in the name of “keeping people safe.

Unless inciting violence, the right of the people to share ideas—no matter how repugnant—is not something that governmental authorities should have the ability to censor as it is seemingly the most basic of all natural rights.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” — Hall in Friends of Voltaire

Source Article from