'Racist dog' owner avoids Swedish jail term

[AeneasBK]

Wearing Nazi symbols, instructing his dog to attack, making his own gun, then standing outside of a market trying to start fights... yeah, nothing bad could happen there...

Thats not really what I said.

[Wildtree]

Because fuck freedom of speech right?

That isn't free speech..

[Zoranon]

That isn't free speech..

Yes it is.

[AeneasBK]

Then that is not really free speech then...

Ah come on now, you can't be this naive?

[tj119]

I don't think he should be punished, just have the dog taken away from him and make sure he doesn't get another one. You can't punish someone for being racist.

[Zoranon]

Ah come on now, you can't be this naive?

Actually the thing we Europeans call Freedom of speech is a mockery of the concept.

[Wildtree]

Yes it is.

No it is not.....
You want it to be that....... Biiiiiig difference..

but point and fact it is not that and you ignore the context completely...
Fact.. With all the information provided, his ass would be in trouble even in the US... the very country with the most freedom to speech..

- - - Updated - - -

Actually the thing we Europeans call Freedom of speech is a mockery of the concept.

European concept of freedom is, that a person's freedom ends at the very doorstep of the next person.
That principle is easy to observe to be violated here...
He wanted to attack people. Their freedom was interfered with.

[Zoranon]

No it is not.....
You want it to be that....... Biiiiiig difference..

but point and fact it is not that and you ignore the context completely...
Fact.. With all the information provided, his ass would be in trouble even in the US... the very country with the most freedom to speech..

Yes it is, just because you do not like what he is saying does not make it so. Your wishes are not reality.

He is a nutter who was talking crap to his dog, who would not be in trouble in the US.

- - - Updated - - -

European concept of freedom is, that a person's freedom ends at the very doorstep of the next person.
That principle is easy to observe to be violated here...
He wanted to attack people. Their freedom was interfered with.

No just no. The concept of European Freedom of speech is that there is a huge number of exceptions to it based mostly on feelings, not any actual harm.

And stop making stuff up, he would be convicted of something lot more serious than he was if he was really ordering his dog to attack someone.

[Deleted]

And stop making stuff up, he would be convicted of something lot more serious than he was if he was really ordering his dog to attack someone.

No, inciting racial hatred fits what he done.

[Deleted]

He is a nutter who was talking crap to his dog, who would not be in trouble in the US.

He would probably be a police commissioner in the USA.

[Zoranon]

No, inciting racial hatred fits what he done.

Yes a though crime.

[Deleted]

A year in prison? what the fuck

were anyone physically injured?
is it the fact that he called a non-swede a nigger?
is it the fact he wears a SS vest?
is it his dog?

WHAT CAN BRING HIM IN PRISON FOR 1, 2 OR 4 YEARS I NEED ANY TAKERS

The guy got what he deserved. A sentence to do dick jobs for doing a dick move.
A slap on the wrist to remind him that sweden isn't a country full of dicks. Leave the prison cell for the criminal.

[Deleted]

A year in prison? what the fuck

were anyone physically injured?
is it the fact that he called a non-swede a nigger?
is it the fact he wears a SS vest?
is it his dog?

WHAT CAN BRING HIM IN PRISON FOR 1, 2 OR 4 YEARS I NEED ANY TAKERS

The guy got what he deserved. A sentence to do dick jobs for doing a dick move.
A slap on the wrist to remind him that sweden isn't a country full of dicks. Leave the prison cell for the criminal.

Are you just gonna ignore he's got a weapon illegally as well, in addition to the other things?

[Deleted]

Are you just gonna ignore he's got a weapon illegally as well, in addition to the other things?

That is not mentioned in the charges. If it was, he'd be convicted for illegal posession of weapons. Again.
He got charged for "inciting racial hatred", and he got a fitting punishment for it. The police can always push more charges if they feel like it.
Actually it's quite funny how they havn't

[Wildtree]

Yes it is, just because you do not like what he is saying does not make it so. Your wishes are not reality.

He is a nutter who was talking crap to his dog, who would not be in trouble in the US.

illegal possession of a weapon. check
threatening other people . check
racial slurs in connection with a threat check

Three hits.....
US law in action...

No just no. The concept of European Freedom of speech is that there is a huge number of exceptions to it based mostly on feelings, not any actual harm.

And stop making stuff up, he would be convicted of something lot more serious than he was if he was really ordering his dog to attack someone.

the one making stuff up here is you.... lol
You're overly hyper and aggressive, just because something doesn't fit your narrative.
And your narrative is that you misunderstand what free speech actually is and what it's meant for in the first place.
It's in its prime purpose to secure the people's ability to openly speak up and criticize the governments actions without fear of prosecution.
It is not the prime purpose to ensure the people can act like assholes towards each other.

What you describe as " exceptions to it based mostly on feelings, not any actual harm." that is your personal opinion again..
But, fact is how it's long established that it does not require physical impact to harm a person.
Spoken and written word do the job just as good.
They're a lot better at that than physical form of harm.

[Deleted]

That is not mentioned in the charges. If it was, he'd be convicted for illegal posession of weapons.
He got charged for "inciting racial hatred", and he got a fitting punishment for it. The police can always push more charges if they feel like it.
Actually it's quite funny how they havn't

... Are you not capable of reading?

According to regional newspaper Hallandsposten, the man was also convicted of serious gun crimes, having transformed a tear gas gun into a type of revolver.

[AeneasBK]

Are you just gonna ignore he's got a weapon illegally as well, in addition to the other things?

TO be fair if that's your biggest issue here, why not title the thread '"illegal gunsmith" avoids Swedish jail term'

[Deleted]

TO be fair if that's your biggest issue here, why not title the thread '"illegal gunsmith" avoids Swedish jail term'

Well, it isn't. It's everything added up. Had it just been the illegal weapon possession I'd be ok with it just being fines and/or community service, but that wasn't the only thing he done.

[Zoranon]

illegal possession of a weapon. check
threatening other people . check
racial slurs in connection with a threat check

Three hits.....
US law in action...


the one making stuff up here is you.... lol
You're overly hyper and aggressive, just because something doesn't fit your narrative.
And your narrative is that you misunderstand what free speech actually is and what it's meant for in the first place.
It's in its prime purpose to secure the people's ability to openly speak up and criticize the governments actions without fear of prosecution.
It is not the prime purpose to ensure the people can act like assholes towards each other.

What you describe as " exceptions to it based mostly on feelings, not any actual harm." that is your personal opinion again..
But, fact is how it's long established that it does not require physical impact to harm a person.
Spoken and written word do the job just as good.
They're a lot better at that than physical form of harm.

Inability to read the opening post - strike one. Since I am feeling generous, I will point out that he was convicted of the weapons charge prior to this incident
He was not threatening anyone -strike two
There was no threat so the sluts are just that, insults- strike three and you are out.

You are simply making things up to make the case suit your world view. That is sad.

And in that block of text you are basically admitting that European countries are imprisoning people for hurting the feelings of someone else, which is pathetic.

[Deleted]

... Are you not capable of reading?

Edited to include a very important keyword, aparrantly. (read: added Again.)
But what does his previous record have to do with this? Are you implying that because he got convicted of illegal firearm posession, and later got convicted for inciting racehate it accumulates? That he's a worse person and deserves a higher sentence than if he only did one of those things?
It's not that simple.