Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
JZStudios

Canadian fined $35,000 for hurting feelings

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP
2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Why even have Defamation laws then?

Defamation laws have nothing to do with being offended, and they go for actual financial damages. Defamation is when someone unironically goes after a group or individual to smear their name without proof.

Of note is that this case is NOT going after defamation, just hurt feelings. A better argument for where defamation comes into play is Elon Musk hiring a PI to investigate and "dig up dirt" or possibly even falsify evidence to label a cave diver as a pedophile. Generally there's some actual physical or financial damages that were done that can be calculated, such as losing your job or being attacked. None of this occurred to the "victim" in question. Just hurt feelings.

Link with info: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

2 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

It does, to ANY country that has ACTUAL freedom of speech. The moment you place limitations on speech, it stops being free speech.

Not to mention the people that have no freedom of speech. I heard Russia was pretty nice during the communist regime. China's doing real hot too.

 

2 hours ago, Anomnomnomaly said:

This happened in Canada... your free speech argument and constitution is invalid, as are my hate speech law references for things in the UK.

 

So once again.. what we have here is a difference of opinion based on cultural differences between what is deemed acceptable in our two countries.  You're adamant that free speech triumphs over everything, and we believe that there are limits that apply.

 

We're never going to agree on that... we've been brought up with different views and laws on the issue.

And one of those is objectively incorrect. Though I will agree and I don't think any argue that any laws outside of Canadian laws apply, but that's not really the point. It's funny how many countries copied the US constitution and the freedom of speech in particular because of how important it was and they used to know what it was like to not have it.

 

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

See below - America already has limitations on Free Speech.

Doesn't matter - Defamation is a limitation on Free Speech.

See above.

 

You guys keep arguing that Free Speech (in the US) is ultimate. It's not. It never has been. There are limitations on Free Speech, such as threatening the President (regardless of whether it's a credible threat), and Defamation.

 

We can't have an honest discussion if you refuse to acknowledge the existing limitations that are already in place.

I don't know why any of this is in question. There was no threat made, the case has no claim of defamation, and no one said freedom of speech is ultimate. You're going around in circles by yourself. Defamation is not a limitation of free speech, and the government doesn't intervene. It's a case between two people, and if the defamed person makes no charges, there's no repercussions. And as someone mentioned before it's about the intent. Defamation has a pretty strict guideline of what actually defines it, and it's a more involved process.

You keep thinking that freedom of speech equates to getting off scot-free for literally everything with no repercussions, and no one thinks it does but you. If you make a threat to the president you don't just instantly get sent to Guantanamo. You might be arrested and they'll do some investigating to find the validity of the claim. This isn't a communist dictatorship, you don't just get jailed for disliking the president.

3 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

and here is more defamation as the comedian claimed that the singer scammed a charity rather than just insulting the singer. claiming someone did something like that can have major consequences on how they are viewed by their friends and family and by the public since the singer is a public figure. It could also affect someone's ability to get employment. now whether or not that actually happened is up to the court to decide

No, he didn't, and it's not a defamation case.

 

2 hours ago, Kilrah said:

Most places have laws against discrimination, defamation, racism, hate speech, threats etc. Free speech is never completely free, there are always exceptions.

Only in private places, as long as we're still talking about the US. Some states are right to work, but plenty of others have no problem firing someone for being a racist. BUT THE GOVERNMENT DOESNT GO AFTER THEM.

 

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Whether or not someone decides to prosecute does not mean it isn't still illegal.

Great. In AZ it's still illegal for women to wear pants. Who gives a shit? It's not an end all be all, you only get jailed if there's actual intent or planning after an investigation. You CAN yell bomb on a plane, and you'll be held and questioned until they find the intent and let you go, and probably put you on the no fly list for a while. Same thing. You might be questioned, but if there's no actual plans or intent, there's no jail time.

I don't get how you don't understand that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

if hiliary clinton gets murdered and the murderer cites your "joke" as the reason then you should be charged with manslaughter. when theres real world consequences its no longer "just a joke"

Bullshit.

 

Thats a horrible train of thought that is so asinine i cant believe someone would actually think it.

 

Your basically saying that if someone commits a murder and cited counter strike then valve should be charged with manslaughter.

 

If i say i hate fried chicken and then someone shoots up a kfc and cites me saying i hate fried chicken should i be charged with manslaughter?

 

Nobody is responsible for what idiots do. Unless they make a call to action there is no factual argument to make that the person making a statement should be held liable.

 

You could not have had a worse argument. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, he shouldn't. He is not responsible for someone else taking a joke seriously, nor does a joke call people to action.

Saying something bad about someone is a call to action and if he doesn't go to sufficient lengths to let people know that he's not stating facts then he should be liable for it

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, floofer said:

I don’t think that’s really a joke at all. He should have thought it through before saying it, let alone for it to go on over years. 

If I were to say I'm going to blow up the sun tomorrow...there would be some who believed I was serious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

Saying something bad about someone is a call to action and if he doesn't go to sufficient lengths to let people know that he's not stating facts then he should be liable for it

You clearly have no idea what a call to action is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

Saying something bad about someone is a call to action and if he doesn't go to sufficient lengths to let people know that he's not stating facts then he should be liable for it

You said that this comedian is a horrible person, if someone hurt him and cited your comment should you be charged with a crime?

5 minutes ago, steelo said:

If I were to say I'm going to blow up the sun tomorrow...there would be some who believe I was serious.

Let me introduce you to astrology.


CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K | Motherboard: AsRock X99 Extreme4 | Graphics Card: Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming | RAM: 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws4 2133MHz | Storage: 1 x Samsung 840 Series 128GB | 1 x Seagate 1TB | 1 x WD Blue 500GB | PSU: Seasonic M12II Evo 620W | Case: Phanteks Enthoo Pro (White) | Cooling: Arctic Freezer i32

 

 

GTX 1060 vs RX 480 (old)

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, steelo said:

Which brings up another topic. The mainstream media often is caught 'red-handed' blatantly lying to the public. Often times, they will take their time retracting a story until after it gets plenty of attention. There have been cases where the media slandered an individual to the point where that person was receiving death threats. I recall a few years ago, a guy made a video of Trump 'body slamming' another person with a 'CNN' logo over their face. CNN was relentless threatening legal action and revealing the persons identity and address. 

 

Should the media be held to the same standard?

Yes have you heard of the guy who went to the pizza restaurant with a gun because of Alex Jones' conspiracy theories. Yes l think Alex should be held responsible for that

 

Just now, RonnieOP said:

You clearly have no idea what a call to action is.

1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

Bullshit.

 

Thats a horrible train of thought that is so asinine i cant believe someone would actually think it.

 

Your basically saying that if someone commits a murder and cited counter strike then valve should be charged with manslaughter.

 

If i say i hate fried chicken and then someone shoots up a kfc and cites me saying i hate fried chicken should i be charged with manslaughter?

 

Nobody is responsible for what idiots do. Unless they make a call to action there is no factual argument to make that the person making a statement should be held liable.

 

You could not have had a worse argument. 

Why are you telling people bad things about someone if you don't want them to at the least view someone negatively and at the worst do something about it. If you say something false and dont to appropriate lengths to make sure people know that it's false and not attack that person then I'm sorry you need to be held accountable

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

You said that this comedian is a horrible person, if someone hurt him and cited your comment should you be charged with a crime?

Let me introduce you to astrology.

i didn't even say that he's a horrible person i said that he defamed the musician by saying that he ripped off a charity and that is true so I can't be charged for libel when it's true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

Yes have you heard of the guy who went to the pizza restaurant with a gun because of Alex Jones' conspiracy theories. Yes l think Alex should be held responsible for that

 

Absolutely, but I believe Alex Jones show was removed. MSM outlets, such as MSNBC, CBS, CNN and especially the NYT's continue in their quest to slander those they disagree with...

 

Moot point since as far as I'm aware, Alex Jones' show was canceled on several platforms. CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX and especially the NYT's continues on their quest to slander everybody whom they disagree with.

 

Remember the NYT's coverage of the Kentucky high school students who 'disrespected' the Native American...it was absolutely shameless. These were juveniles who received death threats over this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

Yes have you heard of the guy who went to the pizza restaurant with a gun because of Alex Jones' conspiracy theories. Yes l think Alex should be held responsible for that

 

Why are you telling people bad things about someone if you don't want them to at the least view someone negatively and at the worst do something about it. If you say something false and dont to appropriate lengths to make sure people know that it's false and not attack that person then I'm sorry you need to be held accountable

Calling someone a bad thing is not a call to action.

 

If me and you are arguing and both of us call eachother dumb fucks we are insulting one another. Neither one of us is calling for others to commit any act against one another.

 

He was doing a comedy act. That right there is enough to tell people not to take his words as gospel.  Again ill ask you. Should family guy be accountable for their jokes? No obv because its a fictional cartoon. You know what else is a fictional act? A comedy routine. Theres no difference.

 

Again. You clearly have no idea what a call to action is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, steelo said:

 

Yes if they publish something about someone that they didnt do due diligence and research on and it causes damages to the person they absolutely should be held responsible for those damages

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

i didn't even say that he's a horrible person i said that he defamed the musician by saying that he ripped off a charity and that is true so I can't be charged for libel when it's true.

Linus recently had a huge rant against intel on their new cpus. 

 

If a crazy person goes and shoots up intel would you hold linus responsible?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

i didn't even say that he's a horrible person i said that he defamed the musician by saying that he ripped off a charity and that is true so I can't be charged for libel when it's true.

Sure, but that's not what you said here:

12 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

Saying something bad about someone is a call to action

Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but by your definition, wouldn't saying something bad about this comedian mean that you are calling for something bad to happen to him? 


CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K | Motherboard: AsRock X99 Extreme4 | Graphics Card: Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming | RAM: 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws4 2133MHz | Storage: 1 x Samsung 840 Series 128GB | 1 x Seagate 1TB | 1 x WD Blue 500GB | PSU: Seasonic M12II Evo 620W | Case: Phanteks Enthoo Pro (White) | Cooling: Arctic Freezer i32

 

 

GTX 1060 vs RX 480 (old)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

Calling someone a bad thing is not a call to action.

 

If me and you are arguing and both of us call eachother dumb fucks we are insulting one another. Neither one of us is calling for others to commit any act against one another.

 

He was doing a comedy act. That right there is enough to tell people not to take his words as gospel.  Again ill ask you. Should family guy be accountable for their jokes? No obv because its a fictional cartoon. You know what else is a fictional act? A comedy routine. Theres no difference.

 

Again. You clearly have no idea what a call to action is.

Except you said that Hillary was murdering people which goes beyond that

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Linus recently had a huge rant against intel on their new cpus. 

 

If a crazy person goes and shoots up intel would you hold linus responsible?

 

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Sure, but that's not what you said here:

Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but by your definition, wouldn't saying something bad about this comedian mean that you are calling for something bad to happen to him? 

If Linus said that intel uses concentration camps and murders people if they dont produce cpus fast enough and someone shoots up Intel then yes he should be responsible.

 

If said the comedian keeps his wife locked in his basement and someone breaks into his house and kills him then yes i should be responsible it not just saying that he's a bad person or something it's claiming something specific

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spartaman64 said:

Except you said that Hillary was murdering people which goes beyond that

I can make a JOKE about hillary committing a crime. Because its a joke. Its an act. A fictional act.

 

That is not a call to action and you have provided literally no validity or factual evidence to prove your claim that a person telling a joke is responsible for a mentally disabled person committing a crime after hearing it.

 

Again ill ask you. If i say i hate fried chicken and someone hears that a beats up a kfc employee should i be held responsible?

 

You dont seem to grasp the concept of personal responsibility and a persons ability to make their own decisions. Instead of blaming the person who committed the act you blame others. Its a horrible asinine argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spartaman64 said:

If Linus said that intel uses concentration camps and murders people if they dont produce cpus fast enough and someone shoots up Intel then yes he should be responsible

The media claimed that about ICE and someone firebombed an ICE facility, should the media be held accountable and face charges? 

 

Personally I think they shouldn't.


CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K | Motherboard: AsRock X99 Extreme4 | Graphics Card: Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming | RAM: 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws4 2133MHz | Storage: 1 x Samsung 840 Series 128GB | 1 x Seagate 1TB | 1 x WD Blue 500GB | PSU: Seasonic M12II Evo 620W | Case: Phanteks Enthoo Pro (White) | Cooling: Arctic Freezer i32

 

 

GTX 1060 vs RX 480 (old)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

 

If Linus said that intel uses concentration camps and murders people if they dont produce cpus fast enough and someone shoots up Intel then yes he should be responsible

Well theres literally no point discussing this subject with you since you clearly have no sense of self control and responsibility. 

 

You think others are to blame for a person actions with no factual evidence behind it.

 

Its pretty sad that people can have the train of thought that you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

I can make a JOKE about hillary committing a crime. Because its a joke. Its an act. A fictional act.

 

That is not a call to action and you have provided literally no validity or factual evidence to prove your claim that a person telling a joke is responsible for a mentally disabled person committing a crime after hearing it.

 

Again ill ask you. If i say i hate fried chicken and someone hears that a beats up a kfc employee should i be held responsible?

 

You dont seem to grasp the concept of personal responsibility and a persons ability to make their own decisions. Instead of blaming the person who committed the act you blame others. Its a horrible asinine argument.

If you go through sufficient lengths to make sure the person understands that it's not true like saying I'm just kidding then sure but if you expect saying I'm just joking afterwards to save you then no

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean it is canada.


into trains? here's the model railroad thread!

The way to get the specs for my PC. go to the store. Buy some potatos. boil them and mash them. and stuff that in a focus g with a ssd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

The media claimed that about ICE and someone firebombed an ICE facility, should the media be held accountable and face charges? 

 

Personally I think they shouldn't.

Of course they shouldnt.

 

Honestly i cant believe how anyone could say the things he is saying and not be trolling.

 

Unless theres a call to action the only person to blame is the person committing the act. Theres no valid argument to the contrary.

 

Its a messed up world we live in where people will say anything to get out of taking responsibility for their actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

The media claimed that about ICE and someone firebombed an ICE facility, should the media be held accountable and face charges? 

 

Personally I think they shouldn't.

Yes they should if it was false

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
2 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

if you mention someone specific in a comedy act then there is expectation that there is some truth in what you are saying (it could be exaggerated) or else why would you bother naming someone instead of the generic guy or kid

BECAUSE IT'S A JOKE.

People call out on public figures and make fun of them all the time. The only "issue" here is that the kid was disabled. You're really stuck on this "stealing from charity" thing, which isn't the issue the case is claiming. The case claimed the jokes were infringing on his freedom of expression in excess of $35,000. Even for defamation you need to provide proof of financial loss for reimbursement. there was zero financial loss here.

2 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Huh? No it wouldn't, you can use ANY word you like, just not to do those specific things.

You can say any word you want, you can promote any idea you like. You just aren't allowed to threaten to commit crimes and intentionally mislead the public.

No it doesn't, if freedom of speech wasn't a thing, context wouldn't matter. Some words/ideas are just banned, regardless of whether they are jokes/intentional/accidental.

 

Anyway, I think you understand what I mean, you just have a different definition for the same thing.

Jesus Christ, just skip all this bullshit.

 

Empty threats do not get you jailed. Yelling "I WILL KILL YOU!" at some guy on the street might get the cops called on me, and questioned. Unfortunately, empty threats are meaningless and as such I would be let go without harm, fines, or jail time.

I can also yell at a child "I WILL EAT ALL YOUR CANDY!" and it's basically the same thing. There needs to be actual intent, and evidence of such. That being said, if that guy feels truly threatened he's also within his rights to request protection. Or y'know, buy a gun.

 

Dalek keeps going down the line of Psycho Pass where a single moment or phrase gets you immediately imprisoned or just straight up murdered. It's a stupid argument that's false at it's core and a concept that seems incomprehensible to him to denote a moment of spontaneous action, or in this case a joke, from actual intent to do things like murder that are actually a crime.

His absolute best case scenario argument is for acts of treason and expressing, detailing, or otherwise exposing classified government information that harms the security of the nation, but that's also kind of in a different game of actually doing something and breaking a bunch of NDA's and a whole bunch of other stuff.

But Hillary got away with it, so who knows?

2 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

if hiliary clinton gets murdered and the murderer cites your "joke" as the reason then you should be charged with manslaughter. when theres real world consequences its no longer "just a joke"

If I go on a rampage and cite GTA as the reason, then should Rockstar shut down and never have another GTA be made ever again?

 

2 hours ago, steelo said:

Which brings up another topic. The mainstream media often is caught 'red-handed' blatantly lying to the public. Often times, they will take their time retracting a story until after it gets plenty of attention. There have been cases where the media slandered an individual to the point where that person was receiving death threats. I recall a few years ago, a guy made a video of Trump 'body slamming' another person with a 'CNN' logo over their face. CNN was relentless threatening legal action and revealing the persons identity and address. 

 

Should the media be held to the same standard?

Yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spartaman64 said:

If you go through sufficient lengths to make sure the person understands that it's not true like saying I'm just kidding then sure but if you expect saying I'm just joking afterwards to save you then no

You think comedians should have to tell people they are joking during a comedy act??

 

Do you not understand what a comedy act is? Its literally someone telling jokes. Theres no reason to have to tell people that your joking when your act is telling jokes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech under capitalism is merely a freedom to beg.


DZ77SL-50K LGA 1155 Motherboard 

EVGA 650GQ PSU  

Intel i5 3450 CPU  

16GB DDR3 RAM 

MSI RX580 (4gb)  

240GB Sandisk G25 SSD   

Antec VSK 4000E Mid Tower Case (with DIY window!)  

CRYORIG M9i Mini CPU Cooler + dual Aigo 120mm white LED ring case fans

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×