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

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, steelo said:

Obviously, as there should be. Terroristic threatening does not equate to free speech. I can't go around telling people I'm going to harm their family. I would think this would be common sense to most.

 

However, if I were to walk into a comedy club in the U.S. and make a bunch of off-color jokes, I more than likely wouldn't face a $35,000 fine as I would in other countries.

 

See the difference here?

Excellent! Now we've come to the agreement that there are limitations on Free Speech!

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Even if you take free speech 100% literally and you think that the US doesn't have free speech, the US still has the free-est speech in the world. The list of things you "can't say" are extremely limited and also very dependent on context. 

I doubt that blue haired reddit neckbeards are a big threat TBH.

I think you are taking it too literally.

Great - another person who's finally agreed that there are limitations on Free Speech.

 

I never said the US wasn't the "free-est" of speech - they probably are. But we are now all in agreement that yes, some things are limited. Such as making threats against another person.

 

Now that we've established that there are some limitations already, we can discuss whether this limitation is justified.

[steelo]

As opposed to Canada which seemingly has no laws protecting free speech.

 

Do you see the difference here?

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, steelo said:

As opposed to Canada which seemingly has no laws protecting free speech.

Canada has many laws protecting free speech, it's part of our laws protecting freedom of expression.

 

But, like the US, there are limitations. The difference is in what those specific limitations are.

 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Drak3 said:

IIRC, a celebrity said something along the lines of she wanted to blow up the White House when Trump became president at a rally.

Oh yeah, I remember that. I think the FBI realized that virtue signalling celebrities aren't a real threat.

3 minutes ago, steelo said:

I hope you picked up on the sarcasm in my post

(not sure if you are talking about me, but yes I did, was talking in general)

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Great - another person who's finally agreed that there are limitations on Free Speech.

According to your definition, yes there are limitations. According to my definition, no there are no limitations, as you are free to use any words you like and express any ideas you want, you just aren't allowed to spread malicious lies and threaten to commit crimes. (Which is why the context is extremely important in these cases)

[dalekphalm]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Oh yeah, I remember that. I think the FBI realized that virtue signalling celebrities aren't a real threat.

(not sure if you are talking about me, but yes I did, was talking in general)

According to your definition, yes there are limitations. According to my definition, no there are no limitations, as you are free to use any words you like and express any ideas you want, you just aren't allowed to spread malicious lies and threaten to commit crimes. (Which is why the context is extremely important in these cases)

You're saying contradictory things.

 

If you were free to use words in any way you wanted, that would include lies about people, or threats to commit crimes.

 

So which is it? Can you say literally anything you want, or not?

 

Of course context is important in each case. That only reinforces my point though.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

If you were free to use words in any way you wanted, that would include lies about people, or threats to commit crimes.

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

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

So which is it? Can you say literally anything you want, or not?

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.

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Of course context is important in each case. That only reinforces my point though.

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.

[steelo]

Common sense goes a long way.

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, steelo said:

Common sense goes a long way.

The way some people argue, Nazi Germany had freedom of speech, it was just restricted. Them fascists couldn’t stand the hate speech about them.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

The way some people argue, Nazi Germany had freedom of speech, it was just restricted. Them fascists couldn’t stand the hate speech about them.

The funny thing is, this is probably how they actually justified banning opposition. It was "hate speech" against the government. 

[steelo]

6 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

The funny thing is, this is probably how they actually justified banning opposition. It was "hate speech" against the government. 

Interesting fact which is loosely related to this discussion. More people have died by the hands of communism (govt controlled speech and media) than the entire Holocaust.

 

 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, steelo said:

Interesting fact which is loosely related to this discussion. More people have died by the hands of communism (govt contolled media) than the entire Halocaust.

True, but let's not get into that discussion right now, because things will go way too off topic real fucking quick.

[RonnieOP]

43 minutes 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 its a joke. 

 

If i make a joke about hillary clinton suiciding people its a joke. There should be no assumption that im telling the truth...because its a joke.

 

The guy suing is basically saying hes too dumb to tell the difference between a joke and fact.

 

Does he watch south park and think everything they say is fact? Does he watch American Dad and think cia agents are housing talking aliens? Does he watch Family Guy and think talking dogs are real?

 

 

[steelo]

5 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

True, but let's not get into that discussion right now, because things will go way too off topic real fucking quick.

*holocaust...my spelling sucks. LOL

[JZStudios]

16 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

And we have another one who doesn't get it.

You? I agree. He and his buddies joke about his disabilities and total lack of physical ability all the time. He actually gets a kick out of watching people squirm feeling uncomfortable because people are making fun of a disabled person.

It's kind of like a black guy and a white guy shooting off racist remarks at each other. It's a joke, don't get your panties in a twist because you can't handle words that have nothing to do with you.

 

3 hours ago, Anomnomnomaly said:

 

There's a crucial difference here... Telling a joke that people find offensive about disabilities in general... those people can go fuck themselves (not condoning those jokes, just that there isn't a joke in existence that doesn't offend some one, some where). But targeting a specific person with a disability is a fuckwit move... You've gone beyond expressing humour, and into a deliberate targeted attack on an individual.  This isn't like mocking Trudeau for black face, this is attacking a kid with a severe physical impairment.

 

I used to do stand up for many years, was quite well known in the comedy circles in my country and rated as one of the up and coming new acts back in 98 when I came second in some major competition (rated as one of the top 20 new acts to watch).  Even back then, when things were a little looser and no so politically correct... a comedian would get crucified for pulling shit like that. I've seen an audience turn in an instant when a comedian takes it a step too far.

 

So yeah... fuck that guy... Freedom of speech doesn't give any one a free pass to be a dick.

So... he should be fined $35,000 for telling a shitty joke? Jeez, I gotta get in on that for Joan Rivers, Loius C.K. and that fat girl... Amy... Schumer? Yeah. She's awful. She tells bad jokes and they offend me. I want my financial compensation.

 

3 hours ago, steelo said:

It's happening in America too... In NYC, if you purposely misidentify a transgender person or make an off-color joke in public, you can receive a $250,000 fine (and jail time, if I'm not mistaken) The man who was partially responsible for this law ran for president and is a real corrupt piece of human garbage.

 

I do not want to turn this into a 'left' vs 'right' debate as I really hate both extremes. However, I usually gravitate to the side of conservatism since the Democratic party in America has gone completely off the rails. Today, limiting free speech to prevent 'hurt feelings' and to block opposing viewpoints is the new 'hip and cool' thing to do. Extremism is the new norm in America, and I'd imagine for much of the world.

 

We live in VERY dangerous times everywhere

Main quote of a historically known ultra liberal "I'm still the same, you all moved so fucking far you lost everybody."

2 hours ago, Anomnomnomaly said:

garbage

So what's the difference between making fun of this kid and making fun of Trumps toupee, spray tan skin, and tiny baby hands? Or Hillary's leathery everything, demon scowl, and massive man cankles? Both are insulting and joking about physical appearance, but one has a medical condition so it's not okay? You can't even argue that the kid isn't a public figure, because then the joke wouldn't work and he's obviously a known entity.

 

2 hours ago, Anomnomnomaly said:

To this day.. I am not aware of any such thing actually happening here in the UK... If I'm wrong I'm sure that some one will be along to tell me soon enough.

Nazi Pug Man.

 

You must also vehemently despise Don Rickles too then. I suppose he should've had the shit fined out of him.

 

2 hours ago, Anomnomnomaly said:

pass to say what ever, racists, hate fuelled, bigoted garbage you want... without any repercussions aside from other people calling you names.

 

Most of the world is waking up to the fact... this doesn't work in a modern world... and some are trying to take steps not to silence free speech but to help 'moderate it'... hell, you're a mod... you could just as easily be accused of censoring free speech for 'moderating' a thread on here if it strays off topic... whilst enshrining the glories of 'free speech'....  So we already make allowances and compromises of how far we are willing to let free speech go.

This argument is a stupid straw man. A forum is not the government, it's a private place with it's own rules. No one said being a member of the Nazi party or KKK goes without repercussions, just that the Government should have zero say in it. Call a black man a rather nasty series of words, perhaps pertaining to pet monkeys you keep on the front porch, it's not like that guy can't punch you in the face, but the Government should not step in and jail or fine people for whatever it deems as wrongthink, even if the majority of people would agree. What you fail to realize is that this a slippery slope as your freedoms are gradually eroded away and any accidental wrongthink or not keeping up with the times ends you up in jail or with a ludicrous fine.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that "Persons with disabilities" and "persons of color" are the same as "disabled people" and "colored people", but that takes me from A-Ok to wrongthink instantly.

2 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Whats the argument for it?

 

Comedy acts have never been factually accurate and i dont know of any comic that says their act is. 

 

Yes there are some factual parts to some jokes but its still a joke. 

 

Its like saying south park should be fined for making false claims when they joke about scientologists. Its a joke. 

 

If someone takes a comedians act as gospel they should be fined for being idiots.

I don't know what the argument for it is, ask the people defending it because it makes no sense.

And I haven't seen the Scientology South Park jokes, but I have a buddy that's been digging into it and it's some fucked up shit.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, steelo said:

*holocaust...my spelling sucks. LOL

The Halo cost is $40

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

If i make a joke about hillary clinton suiciding people its a joke.

Or is it? Hey Vsauce, Michael here.

[Kilrah]

A French comedian got fined and banned a few years ago too for racist "jokes"... becasue they weren't sounding like jokes anymore. The way he told them in a "serious" tone, repeated them etc it got considered he wasn't making jokes anymore, but using his show to air and spread his F'ed up views. So the form matters. When you joke about touchy subjects you've got to make it obvious it's a joke, and the joke needs to fall on the "good" side of the fine line.

[steelo]

7 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

A French comedian got fined and banned a few years ago too for racist "jokes"... becasue they weren't sounding like jokes anymore. The way he told them in a "serious" tone, repeated them etc it got considered he wasn't making jokes anymore, but using his show to air and spread his F'ed up views. So the form matters. When you joke about touchy subjects you've got to make it obvious it's a joke, and the joke needs to fall on the "good" side of the fine line.

Although, freedom of speech is protected in America...It's typically a good idea not to make such jokes. There are plenty of other funny topics to joke about.

[spartaman64]

19 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Because its a joke. 

 

If i make a joke about hillary clinton suiciding people its a joke. There should be no assumption that im telling the truth...because its a joke.

 

The guy suing is basically saying hes too dumb to tell the difference between a joke and fact.

 

Does he watch south park and think everything they say is fact? Does he watch American Dad and think cia agents are housing talking aliens? Does he watch Family Guy and think talking dogs are real?

 

 

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"

[Drak3]

Just now, 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"

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

[steelo]

3 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"

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?

[Guest]

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. 

[JZStudios]

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.

[RonnieOP]

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. 

[spartaman64]

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

[steelo]

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.