Keir Starmer's comments while head of the CPS on another case brought under the Communications Act 2003;
Keir Starmer QC wrote:The Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send a communication using a public electronic communications network if that communication is “grossly offensive”. It is now established that posting comments via... constitutes sending a message by means of a public electronic communications network. It is also clear that the offence is committed once the message is sent, irrespective of whether it is received by any intended recipient or anyone else. The question in this case is therefore whether the message posted by... is so grossly offensive as to be criminal and, if so, whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.
There is no doubt that the message posted by... was offensive and would be regarded as such by reasonable members of society. But the question for the CPS is not whether it was offensive, but whether it was so grossly offensive that criminal charges should be brought. The distinction is an important one and not easily made. Context and circumstances are highly relevant and as the European Court of Human Rights observed in the case of Handyside v UK (1976), the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things or express opinions “…that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population".
Full statement
http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2012/09/dpp-stat ... tions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I wouldn't be surprised if he appeals on the grounds of context not being taken into consideration. (Or something to that effect; I'm unfamiliar with the appropriate legal language). The crime isn't making a pug respond to "gas the Jews", the crime is posting a video on the internet where "gas the Jews" was said over twenty times, but it's impossible to ignore context; for instance, I've typed the words "gas the Jews" three times now in this post but the context is essential in understanding that I used those words in a completely benign fashion.
He didn't use those words in such a benign fashion
precisely because the point of the joke was to invoke the horrors of the Nazis and the holocaust as a tool-a comedic device-to make a cute pug seem less cute. It's classic anthropomorphism and the irony-the source of the humour-in seeing an innocent creature respond to such a phrase only exists with an implicit acknowledgement of the offensive nature of the phrase, which brings us back to context.
On a side note, considering the misinformation surrounding it over the past years, it would be hilarious to see the ECHR uphold his right to
offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population.
