Huge lost for free speech

[mattsmith48]

This is a big lost for free speech. Great to ear hes gonna keep fighting

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-appeal-verdict-petit-jeremy-1.3688771

[Stronk Serb]

Wow... guy got charged what my mom makes in 10 years over a joke from six years ago? Can't the case be deemed outdated because so long has passed? Fuck political correctness. Anyone wants me to tell kid as much politically incorrect jokes as possible? Some jokes I know border on racism, but are still funny and are jokes, not facts.

[PlasmaHam]

People just need to man up and learn how to take a joke. This is ludicrous to the furthest degree. Jokes are meant to be funny, not to be taken very seriously. I personally love me some self-deprecating humor. If you have a problem with the joke, ignore it and continue on in life. No body wants to hear you complain.

[Flapjack]

I think I am siding with free speech.... but that guy is a scum bag.

[PlasmaHam]

I think I am siding with free speech.... but that guy is a scum bag.

He might be a scum bag, but at least he should have the right to be a scum bag

[Flapjack]

He might be a scum bag, but at least he should have the right to be a scum bag
My problem with that is that there are limits to free speach. You can't shout bomb at an airport for example. If the comedian caused harm then I think he deserves it? I'm not too sure what I think.

[PlasmaHam]

Eh, there is a difference between potentially starting a riot and hurting the feelings of someone.

[mattsmith48]

So the for people who dont know heres the joke.

This kid, Jeremy, got to sing for the pope throught the Make-A-Wish Foundation, and he couldnt sing he was pretty terrible, and everyone at the time was insulting him, saying how he sucked and he couldnt sing, Mike Ward say hes was defending him and saying hes dying and hes living his dream, later he sang for Celine Dion in Vegas, same people insults him and make fun of him and Mike Ward is defending him, telling people that kid his dying hes living a dream leave him alone, then he fuck up the national anthem at a Montreal Canadiens game samething people insults him Mike Ward is defending him so then Mike Ward goes on to say in french, ''5 years later, fuck hes not dead yet, hes not dying the little fucker, I was defending him like an idiot and hes not dying, Im defending you, and your suppose to die, he just wont die, I saw him at the waterpark last summer I tried to drown him cant kill him, I went on the Internet see what his disease is, you know what he has, hes ugly.

Edit: For people who understand French heres the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYrsECWQuM8

[Flapjack]

Eh, there is a difference between potentially starting a riot and hurting the feelings of someone.
Not if the person kills themself.

[PlasmaHam]

Not if the person kills themself.

That is entirely the person's own problem. No one is making the person kill them self, suicide is their own choice.

What we need to be doing is teaching kids how to stand up for themselves and how to understand jokes. Society needs to be accepting of all opinions, whether or not those opinions are respectful. Instead, we are teaching college kids to go to a "safeplace" whenever someone says something they don't like. We scream "RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, INSENSITIVE, whenever someone doesn't agree with us. Life is not fair, and I am certainly not abandoning my right to free speech because someone has a problem with my opinions.

[sqishy]

It can be argued that the comedian was not justified, it can be argued that the singer is not justified, but I'm taking a reserved view that the comedian may have joked in excessive bad taste, and also that the singer may also have perceived an excessively heavy blow coming on him. I won't say more.

[Stronk Serb]

So the for people who dont know heres the joke.

This kid, Jeremy, got to sing for the pope throught the Make-A-Wish Foundation, and he couldnt sing he was pretty terrible, and everyone at the time was insulting him, saying how he sucked and he couldnt sing, Mike Ward say hes was defending him and saying hes dying and hes living his dream, later he sang for Celine Dion in Vegas, same people insults him and make fun of him and Mike Ward is defending him, telling people that kid his dying hes living a dream leave him alone, then he fuck up the national anthem at a Montreal Canadiens game samething people insults him Mike Ward is defending him so then Mike Ward goes on to say in french, ''5 years later, fuck hes not dead yet, hes not dying the little fucker, I was defending him like an idiot and hes not dying, Im defending you, and your suppose to die, he just wont die, I saw him at the waterpark last summer I tried to drown him cant kill him, I went on the Internet see what his disease is, you know what he has, hes ugly.

Edit: For people who understand French heres the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYrsECWQuM8

This. I have a Jewish friend with whom I joke about the Holocaust and stereotypes, about Serbs and shit in what some would say excessive amounts. Neither he nor I get butthurt because it's a fucking joke, it's not true.

[PlasmaHam]

Sometimes I wish I was a minority just so I could mess with the leftists and social justice warriors. I am a big fan of Milo Yiannopoulos, a gay Republican who messes with liberals all the time. He actually just experienced an infringement of free speech as well. Appartently calling a black actress's work terrible is worthy of a permanent Twitter ban.

[sqishy]

Sometimes I wish I was a minority just so I could mess with the leftists and social justice warriors. I am a big fan of Milo Yiannopoulos, a gay Republican who messes with liberals all the time. He actually just experienced an infringement of free speech as well. Appartently calling a black actress's work terrible is worthy of a permanent Twitter ban.

Does you being a fan of him include his stance on Islam and the refugee crisis in Europe?

[PlasmaHam]

Does you being a fan of him include his stance on Islam and the refugee crisis in Europe?

At what relevancy does that have towards this conversation?

[sqishy]

At what relevancy does that have towards this conversation?

Epistemic/intellectual responsibility, the idea that sees everyone's views to have extra evaluation on whether their ideas, when heard of by other people, lead them to incorrect views on certain situations and/or harm other people, as a result of changed views on those certain situations.

I am wondering what your response is to those who oppose Yiannopoulos because of his arguably recklessness in sight of being intellectually responsible, such as with his views on Islam, and the refugees.
In other words, do you see him instilling fear and hatred in other people, those people then carrying it themselves through rhetoric? (some of his fans, and those who more just happen to hear his views)


If you prefer I can ask through a VM, but I see it as relevant, even with your observably strict standards on relevance and topic deviance in threads.

[PlasmaHam]

Paraxiom I am still not sure what you are trying to get at. This is a discussion on free speech, if you want to accuse me of being brainwashed or fear mongering this is not the place for such. I have no intent or want to talk to you, a total stranger, about my internet viewing habits. That is my business, and you have no right nor need to pry into such.

I was simply using Milo as an example of a minority who loves to mess with liberals. He doesn't care about being offended about being gay, he knows how to take a joke. Unlike the teenager suing this Canadian comedian. That is just ridiculous and shows how "politically correct" instead of "liberty for all" our society has become.

[sqishy]

Paraxiom I am still not sure what you are trying to get at. This is a discussion on free speech, if you want to accuse me of being brainwashed or fear mongering this is not the place for such. I have no intent or want to talk to you, a total stranger, about my internet viewing habits. That is my business, and you have no right nor need to pry into such.

What?

Intellectual responsibility is relevant in the topic of free speech.

I am not accusing you of fear mongering, rhetoric, and the like. I tend to do my discussing through sequential details sometimes, and while I am aware some of my mostly literally-meant questions could be taken as meaning I distrust/dislike/etc who I am asking, I'm fine with clearing that up.

I'm also not sharing any quality with a surveillance agent or agency.

Your jump to presume my overall direction in this thread, to also presume I am 'invading your privacy' by only asking you your views (not demanding them), and to do so if what I am saying is not apparently on-topic for this thread, and doing similar for others in other threads, disappoints me.



I was simply using Milo as an example of a minority who loves to mess with liberals. He doesn't care about being offended about being gay, he knows how to take a joke. Unlike the teenager suing this Canadian comedian. That is just ridiculous and shows how "politically correct" instead of "liberty for all" our society has become.

I know he doesn't get offended by his sexuality.

A section of society is arguably becoming excessively PC, but not all of it.

[PlasmaHam]

Paraxiom If you want to discuss something with me, just come out and say it. I understand what you are saying now, but earlier it seemed that you were just wanting to argue about irrelevant politics and social policy.

My opinion is simply on the matter. People cannot blame their actions on others because of negative speech towards them or their ethnic group. They took that action them self, and saying that verbal oppression was the reasoning is just shifting the blame. Intellectual responsibility could have some truth behind it, but it is certainly not enough to commit crimes or to infringe upon freedom of speech. Getting a population knowledgeable about something is more important, in my opinion, than offending certain groups or individuals for just reasons.

Apologizes for assuming certain things, but any good debater knows to not let your opponent box you in. From all my experience, it seemed like you were trying to push me into a corner that didn't need to exist, so I resisted appropriately.

I am also a bit paranoid about privacy, so forgive me. No offense towards you, I do it to everyone.

[Vlerchan]

Society needs to be accepting of all opinions, whether or not those opinions are respectful.
You should have the right to free speech: but not for a moment should you have to right for me to accept your opinion, or not think you're a fucking idiot.

Whether the kid should take a joke or not, is irrelevant. Speech shouldn't be curtailed regardless.

[sqishy]

Paraxiom If you want to discuss something with me, just come out and say it. I understand what you are saying now, but earlier it seemed that you were just wanting to argue about irrelevant politics and social policy.

Worry not, I am not like that.



My opinion is simply on the matter. People cannot blame their actions on others because of negative speech towards them or their ethnic group. They took that action them self, and saying that verbal oppression was the reasoning is just shifting the blame.

It is unjustified to react more than verbally to those who verbally target them, in itself, I agree.



Intellectual responsibility could have some truth behind it, but it is certainly not enough to commit crimes or to infringe upon freedom of speech. Getting a population knowledgeable about something is more important, in my opinion, than offending certain groups or individuals for just reasons.

The knowledge seen by those who want to communicate it, deserves the best of accuracy and efficiency in that communication.



Apologizes for assuming certain things, but any good debater knows to not let your opponent box you in. From all my experience, it seemed like you were trying to push me into a corner that didn't need to exist, so I resisted appropriately.

The opponent deserves respect from the outset, I had no intention to box you in. We allow each other the freedom to take certain places within the bound frame of the topic at hand.



I am also a bit paranoid about privacy, so forgive me. No offense towards you, I do it to everyone.

If Snowden inspires you, then we are in agreement here.

[mattsmith48]

Great to see all the support hes getting from other comedians just for laughs organised a bilingual show last night in montreal to help him pay his legal fees to keep fighting, they didnt announced yet how much they money they made they were trying to get up to 93K

[Microcosm]

I was always under the impression that the concept of the "right to equality" serves the purpose of guaranteeing that people won't be discriminated by government and employers and such, not that they should be able to legally press charges when someone offends them.

I don't believe speech should be restricted insofar as it contains no physical threat of harm to the recipient. The moment we start allowing legal action for people who are "offended" is the moment we can no longer freely disagree with people about such fragile topics as their rights.

EDIT: I've thought this over a bit more, and I do suppose this could be deemed harassment rather than free speech. He did insult a specified individual to a large audience, after all.

[Flapjack]

That is entirely the person's own problem. No one is making the person kill them self, suicide is their own choice.

What we need to be doing is teaching kids how to stand up for themselves and how to understand jokes. Society needs to be accepting of all opinions, whether or not those opinions are respectful. Instead, we are teaching college kids to go to a "safeplace" whenever someone says something they don't like. We scream "RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, INSENSITIVE, whenever someone doesn't agree with us. Life is not fair, and I am certainly not abandoning my right to free speech because someone has a problem with my opinions.
Yeah vlerchan is right, they have as much right to call you racist as you have to say whatever offended them. I would however like to add that inciting violence should not be allowed.

[PlasmaHam]

Yeah vlerchan is right, they have as much right to call you racist as you have to say whatever offended them. I would however like to add that inciting violence should not be allowed.

Inciting violence is already not allowed in the USA. Screaming "BOMB" or calling for the violent downfall of our country will land you in prison.

[Vlerchan]

EDIT: I've thought this over a bit more, and I do suppose this could be deemed harassment rather than free speech. He did insult a specified individual to a large audience, after all.
Harassment is defined by persistence, isn't it?

Disclaimer: Never took harassment law.

[mattsmith48]

Inciting violence is already not allowed in the USA. Screaming "BOMB" or calling for the violent downfall of our country will land you in prison.

how is screaming ''BOMB'' incite violence?

[Flapjack]

Inciting violence is already not allowed in the USA. Screaming "BOMB" or calling for the violent downfall of our country will land you in prison.
There are more countries in the world than just the USA believe it or not:P

[Vlerchan]

how is screaming ''BOMB'' incite violence?
The resulting stampede, which is inevitable.

[mattsmith48]

The resulting stampede, which is inevitable.

Thats inducing fear and panic not violence

[Vlerchan]

Thats inducing fear and panic not violence
Fear and panic, leading to violence, I thought was implied.

Go look up some videos of stampedes in enclosed public places.

---


It also doesn't need to neccisarily lead to violence, on an aside. Inciting violence, 'Vlerchan should die', 'Punch Vlerchan', doesn't neccisarily lead to violence either.

[PlasmaHam]

There are more countries in the world than just the USA believe it or not:P

I know, but I was saying that in case you didn't know.
mattsmith48 Fear and panic lead to violence, that's natural. Inciting panic in a large group can cause untold destruction and chaos.

[mattsmith48]

It also doesn't need to neccisarily lead to violence, on an aside. Inciting violence, 'Vlerchan should die', 'Punch Vlerchan', doesn't neccisarily lead to violence either.

Those are threats and thats illegal.

Fear and panic, leading to violence, I thought was implied.

Go look up some videos of stampedes in enclosed public places.

[QUOTE=PlasmaHam;3406333]
mattsmith48 Fear and panic lead to violence, that's natural. Inciting panic in a large group can cause untold destruction and chaos.

With large crowds in small places yes screaming bomb or fire can lead to violence but thats because of the humans' survival instinct. Doesnt mean that inducing fear always lead to violence and whether or not it should be illegal depends how you say it and/or if you incinte violence with it.

[Vlerchan]

Those are threats and thats illegal.
That's considered inciting violence under the law.

A threat is also 'I will punch you', which is separate from 'Vlerchan should be punched'.

With large crowds in small places yes screaming bomb or fire can lead to violence but thats because of the humans' survival instinct.
With crowds in general.

That stampedes occurring on the basis of some biological reaction or otherwise is legally irrelevant. Stampedes occur, and we are all well aware of it.

Doesnt mean that inducing fear always lead to violence and whether or not it should be illegal depends how you say it and/or if you incinte violence with it.
I addressed this point as an aside in my last post.

[Microcosm]

Harassment is defined by persistence, isn't it?

Disclaimer: Never took harassment law.

In the state of Alabama, this (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/alcode/13A/11/1/13A-11-8) is the law on harassment.

The misdemeanor "Harassing Communications" is committed when someone "Communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, telegraph, mail, or any other form of written or electronic communication, in a manner likely to harass or cause alarm."

I've always seen harassment in this way, that persistence is not required, but does increase the harm done.

If someone's dignity is undermined, it feels like you've been harassed. I've had this happen to me before, so I sympathize with the victim here.

[Vlerchan]

In the state of Alabama, this is the law on harassment.
Interesting. Being quite honest though I would file that as unconstitutional.

On first impressions, it seems devised to outlaw obscenity. I would have expected 13A-11-8(a, 1, a.) and 13A-11-8 (a, 1, c) to be covered under basic assault laws. It being a criminal offence to swear at someone is nuts, regardless.

Here is the Irish law (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/enacted/en/print#sec10) for reference.,

Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence [...]

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/enacted/en/print#sec10

Worth noting that persistent has also been subject to scrutiny in court with regards to definition - but I can't remember what the outcome was.

[mattsmith48]

That's considered inciting violence under the law.

A threat is also 'I will punch you', which is separate from 'Vlerchan should be punched'.

Its basically the same thing

With crowds in general.
That stampedes occurring on the basis of some biological reaction or otherwise is legally irrelevant. Stampedes occur, and we are all well aware of it.

If your in a crowded place and someone scream that theres a bomb in here. Everyone will automatically run away from the danger to the nearest exit because they dont want to die. If theres enough people it could create a stampede and a few people could get hurt in the panic by being push, stepped on... inducing fear and panic created some violence but it wasnt incited, but its still should be illegal. If there was only a few people and no one is hurt or anything its at worst the samething than calling 911 on a false pretense

[Vlerchan]

Its basically the same thing
No, there's quite a clear distinction. That they seem 'basically' the same might seem to make the differences unimportant in a typical conversation, but for the law to actually work we need rigorous definition.

Incitement means 'encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behaviour)', and calling on people to attack me encourages violence.

[...] inducing fear and panic created some violence but it wasnt incited
It encourages violence, it's incitement.

That the violence is a product of panic, and not rage or anger, you have so far not been able to argue is relevant.

If there was only a few people and no one is hurt or anything its at worst the samething than calling 911 on a false pretense
You can try to argue that both should have the same sentencing procedures, but loose equivalences like this have no place in the actual law as it stands.

[Porpoise101]

Appartently calling a black actress's work terrible is worthy of a permanent Twitter ban.
This is a little OT, but he was banned because he abused the TOS of Twitter. Also a known doxer, he was not a nice guy.

As for the article, I think it is bad that this is happening. If anything, the most you should be forced to give to someone for saying something is an apology.

[Microcosm]

Interesting. Being quite honest though I would file that as unconstitutional.

On first impressions, it seems devised to outlaw obscenity. I would have expected 13A-11-8(a, 1, a.) and 13A-11-8 (a, 1, c) to be covered under basic assault laws. It being a criminal offence to swear at someone is nuts, regardless.

Here is the Irish law (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/enacted/en/print#sec10) for reference.,

Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence [...]

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/enacted/en/print#sec10

Worth noting that persistent has also been subject to scrutiny in court with regards to definition - but I can't remember what the outcome was.

Saying such a thing as this guy said in a one-on-one conversation would be rude, but not nearly as bad. An equivalent if not surpassing offense is saying such a thing to a large audience. It amplifies the harassment of saying it once to the extent that it feels as bad as if he'd said it ten times or more to the victim.

In day-to-day affairs (aka not at mercy of an audience), I suppose harassment should be viewed as a crime only if it persists. Otherwise, it's usually pretty easy to get over.

[ethan-s]

I'm with plasmaham and Serb, f this political correctness. If a joke or something offends you, suck it up and live with it.

[mike16m]

thats a horrible decision. comedias an asshole tho

[Uniquemind]

I was always under the impression that the concept of the "right to equality" serves the purpose of guaranteeing that people won't be discriminated by government and employers and such, not that they should be able to legally press charges when someone offends them.

I don't believe speech should be restricted insofar as it contains no physical threat of harm to the recipient. The moment we start allowing legal action for people who are "offended" is the moment we can no longer freely disagree with people about such fragile topics as their rights.

EDIT: I've thought this over a bit more, and I do suppose this could be deemed harassment rather than free speech. He did insult a specified individual to a large audience, after all.

That's why it's controversial, because that's an entire genre of very lucrative comedy:

Mocking or parodying someone for their behavior.