Canadian fined $35,000 for hurting feelings *Update, Jokes won.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I'm constantly beinbg amazed, dismayed, and disgusted by the number of people in our society, who are so insensitive to people who are disadvantaged. People scream "feedom of speech" (or whatever) but fail to comprehend that people's rights should end when they infringe on the rights of others. Even worse is the common belief that handicapped people are fair game for mockery.

 

Ward violated Gabriel's right when he attacked his handicaps and slandered him with outright lies. It doesn't matter if it was in a comedy show or not; Grabriel was still justifiably offended (keep in mind that all handicapped people were obliquely insulted by Ward's brutally insensitive and inaccurate comments). People, including many here in these forums, need to grow up and think of the feelings of others before they speak.

 

 

[PCGuy_5960]

26 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

People scream "feedom of speech" (or whatever) but fail to comprehend that people's rights should end when they infringe on the rights of others.

What rights are being infringed when someone is offended?

26 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

It doesn't matter if it was in a comedy show or not

It does matter. If he was presenting this as if it was a fact and not as a shitty joke, it would probably be considered defamation.

26 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

People, including many here in these forums, need to grow up and think of the feelings of others before they speak.

Isn't not letting your feelings control you considered part of growing up? 

 

And I would say that freedom of speech is more important than making sure people don't get offended. I'm sure you understand how dangerous letting the government decide what you are allowed to say is.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

What rights are being infringed when someone is offended?

If you ask a reasonable person: none.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

5 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

What rights are being infringed when someone is offended?

It does matter. If he was presenting this as if it was a fact and not as a shitty joke, it would probably be considered defamation.

Isn't not letting your feelings control you considered part of growing up? 

 

And I would say that freedom of speech is more important than making sure people don't get offended. I'm sure you understand how dangerous letting the government decide what you are allowed to say is.

 

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

If you ask a reasonable person: none.

Thank you for proving my point.

[PCGuy_5960]

3 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Thank you for proving my point.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

 

59 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Well yeah, but if you are a comedian and you are on stage,

Do you see how these qualifiers immediately contradict blanket statements such as:

1 hour ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

This is ridiculous. The government should have no say in what you can and cannot say. PERIOD

that would preclude any debate on where to draw the line. Once we accept that we do want some speech regulation, instead of refusing any regulation out of principle, then there is indeed a discussion about what is covered and where the line is drawn, and everything becomes more nuanced. 

[Murasaki]

And this is why we are all doomed.

[PCGuy_5960]

6 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Do you see how these qualifiers immediately contradict blanket statements such as:

that would preclude any debate on where to draw the line. Once we accept that we do want some speech regulation, instead of refusing any regulation out of principle, then there is indeed a discussion about what is covered and where the line is drawn, and everything becomes more nuanced. 

Basically this (which is kind of what I meant with my previous comment):

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

You can do both:

 

Establish a legal difference between speech and call to action:

Speech is what you say.

Calls to action are you actively trying to provoke harm to someone. It's also context sensitive.

 

And then have a civil law system that allows for cases to settle defamation on a case to case basis, that looks into the context surrounding what was said and how the person(s) saying it choose to proceed with what they said, as well as the result to the (supposedly) defamed subject.

If it's a comedy club, context dictates that it is a joke, and thus not really defamation.

If it's a publication, and it redacts/corrects the statement, then they likely had bad information and just reported on it, and thus not  a strong case of defamation.

If the claim has no effect on the person (such as a user on a forum making a statement), then it has no effect, and thus, is irrelevant to the person.

Calls to action are a bit different than free speech. (and are already not covered by freedom of speech)

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

This is ridiculous. The government should have no say in what you can and cannot say. PERIOD

 

No matter how offensive or how wrong you are, you should be allowed to say it.

But that's not the case anywhere on Earth - even the US.

 

Otherwise you could walk into a crowded theatre and yell "OH MY GOD THERE'S A FIRE! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!"

 

There have always been limitations on what you can't say - only difference is where the line is drawn.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

You can do both:

 

Establish a legal difference between speech and call to action:

Speech is what you say.

Calls to action are you actively trying to provoke harm to someone. It's also context sensitive.

 

And then have a civil law system that allows for cases to settle defamation on a case to case basis, that looks into the context surrounding what was said and how the person(s) saying it choose to proceed with what they said, as well as the result to the (supposedly) defamed subject.

If it's a comedy club, context dictates that it is a joke, and thus not really defamation.

If it's a publication, and it redacts/corrects the statement, then they likely had bad information and just reported on it, and thus not  a strong case of defamation.

If the claim has no effect on the person (such as a user on a forum making a statement), then it has no effect, and thus, is irrelevant to the person.

 

22 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Basically this (which is kind of what I meant with my previous comment):

Calls to action are a bit different than free speech. (and are already not covered by freedom of speech)

But ultimately calls to action are a form of speech. So we've already drawn a line. We've already established that some speech needs to be restricted.

 

If Free Speech were allowed unhindered, then calls to action would be totally okay.

[Drak3]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

some speech needs to be restricted.

In the US, speech itself isn't restricted.

Because Call to Action =/= Speech. You can initiate a Call to Action through speech, but the content of ANY speech itself does not constitute Call to Action.

 

And before you give me the "Fire in a movie theater" false equivalence, the issue is not what is being said. The issue is with the demeanor of who is saying it, because they are actively looking to indirectly hurt someone if they're being earnest. Without that, you've got nothing. just someone having a laugh at most.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

In the US, speech itself isn't restricted.

Because Call to Action =/= Speech. You can initiate a Call to Action through speech, but the content of ANY speech itself does not constitute Call to Action.

 

And before you give me the "Fire in a movie theater" false equivalence, the issue is not what is being said. The issue is with the demeanor of who is saying it, because they are actively looking to indirectly hurt someone if they're being earnest. Without that, you've got nothing. just someone having a laugh at most.

You're arguing semantics at this point.

 

Call to Action in the form of yelling "Fire" in a theatre is illegal. This is a type of speech society has decided to restrict.

 

The fact that it's the way it's said only further reinforces my point that some forms of speech are already restricted, and that lines have already been drawn.

[Drak3]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

You're arguing semantics at this point.

Yes. That's something one needs to argue when it comes to law. You're doing the same exact thing.

 

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Call to Action in the form of yelling "Fire" in a theatre is illegal.

Yelling "Fire" in a theater is not illegal in the US.

Inciting imminent lawless action through a Call to Action is.

 

And yelling "fire" is always legal if there is an actual fire.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Yes. That's something one needs to argue when it comes to law. You're doing the same exact thing.

 

Yelling "Fire" in a theater is not illegal in the US.

Inciting imminent lawless action through a Call to Action is.

 

And yelling "fire" is always legal if there is an actual fire.

Yet yelling "Fire" when there is no fire, in a way that may convince people that there is in fact a fire (when there isn't), is illegal in the US. You're inciting that call to action via words.

 

Thus, my point is reinforced once more. There are already some restrictions on free speech.

[PCGuy_5960]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

You're inciting that call to action via words.

 

Thus, my point is reinforced once more. There are already some restrictions on free speech.

It's not the speech itself that is illegal. What is illegal is the intent to create panic and get other people hurt. 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Yet yelling "Fire" when there is no fire, in a way that may convince people that there is in fact a fire (when there isn't), is illegal in the US.

Only if you've incited immediate lawlessness.

 

Otherwise, it's completely legal.

[dalekphalm]

8 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

It's not the speech itself that is illegal. What is illegal is the intent to create panic and get other people hurt. 

Which you've done via speech.

 

Additionally, false statements of fact are not protected free speech in the US either, through the method of Defamation.

 

Again, another restriction on Free Speech that the US has. A line that has been drawn.

 

Threatening the President of harm, kidnapping, etc - also illegal. Another restriction of Free Speech in the US. Another line that has been drawn.

"Fighting words" - or words directed at a specific individual that any common person would understand to be designed such that "tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace". Another restriction on Free Speech.

 

Look I'm not even saying that Gabriel was right to sue Mr Ward and win - but I'm just pointing out that multiple exemptions or restrictions to Free Speech already exist (in the US especially, which is touted as the home of ultimate free speech).

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

 

There is already a line that has been drawn. It's not black and white. All speech is already not protected. Therefore, we must acknowledge this, and that allows nuance discussion on what should be allowed.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Which you've done via speech.

Yes? 

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Additionally, false statements of fact are not protected free speech in the US either, through the method of Defamation.

Yes, because by defaming another person, you intend to cause them harm. 

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Threatening the President of harm, kidnapping, etc - also illegal.

I think it's quite obvious why, by threatening to kill or kidnap someone, it shows that you intend to cause them harm.

 

Again it's not the speech itself that's illegal, but rather your intent to cause harm/chaos/do something illegal. It's also why the legality depends on the context. You can yell fire in your own house and no one will care.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yes? 

Yes, because by defaming another person, you intend to cause them harm. 

I think it's quite obvious why, by threatening to kill or kidnap someone, it shows that you intend to cause them harm.

 

Again it's not the speech itself that's illegal, but rather your intent to cause harm/chaos/do something illegal. It's also why the legality depends on the context. You can yell fire in your own house and no one will care.

Yep.

 

Which only again further reinforces my point. Free speech has always had some restrictions on it.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

gain it's not the speech itself that's illegal, but rather your intent to cause harm/chaos/do something illegal. It's also why the legality depends on the context. You can yell fire in your own house and no one will care.

He's not getting it. He's not separating the what's being said from the intent/context of what's being done.

[PCGuy_5960]

12 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Which only again further reinforces my point. Free speech has always had some restrictions on it.

Let's agree to disagree, what is being restricted is intent. Speech is just a medium, you could use your PC to do the same thing, it would still be illegal. 

[amdorintel]

38 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Free speech has always had some restrictions on it.

true, but legality speaking it takes a lot to be charged with a crime and intent needs to be established, i know not to long ago there was someone spreading hatred and it still took quite a lot from the judicial side to get injunctions.

a $35k fine is quite steep but nothing criminally charged

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, amdorintel said:

true, but legality speaking it takes a lot to be charged with a crime and intent needs to be established, i know not to long ago there was someone spreading hatred and it still took quite a lot from the judicial side to get injunctions.

a $35k fine is quite steep but nothing criminally charged

See that's a fair argument to make - as long as we acknowledge that there are limits on speech, we can now discuss whether this limit is justified.

Aside from that, the Supreme Court may decide it violates Ward's freedom of expression. We'll have to wait and see.

[RonnieOP]

What a joke Canada has become.

 

There no defending this sort of bullshit.

[Andreas Lilja]

23 hours ago, yolosnail said:

As a fan of dark humour, some of my favourite jokes are at the expense of dead people.

Does this include people that died recently (at the time) by way of abduction, possible molestation, and murder?

 

Timming is key too, September 12th 2001 was too early.