Comedians running scared over perceived shift to "political correctness"

[Endus]

My point, maybe I wasn't clear, was that it may be time to question companies like Facebook and twitter ability to silence people. See social media as a public utility. I think it's a worthwhile idea to explore.

It most certainly is not the END OF STORY. The scary thing about democracy is that you can vote West democracy. (Not that I'm advocating for that.) My point is things can change.

Any such move explicitly and inevitably acts to attack and degrade other fundamental rights held by the owners of those private media outlets. What they publish on their services is their speech, in the same way that a newspaper article represents the newspaper owner's speech, even if only by publishing an article by an identified reporter, in their name.

There's no functional difference between telling social media outlets who they can/cannot ban from their services, and telling newspapers what stories they must or must not run. That's a line we only cross in VERY specific circumstances. You can't attack freedom of speech and claim to be defending it. And that's what this proposal is; an attempt to attack the freedom of speech.

If you get banned by Twitter, you haven't lost your capacity to speak. You've simply lost access to a privately-owned platform that you had no right to in the first place. It isn't a free speech issue, at all.

hes talking about one comedian making an offensive joke and getting sued over it. comedians make jokes, thats what they do. getting sued every time they open their mouth shouldnt be an option. comedians should have a new law of immunity against any of their material (this is not freedom of speech i'm talking about but something new) so they dont have the option of being sued.

I've seen that "offensive" remark made, as if this ruling was because the court deemed the content of his joke to be "offensive". It was based on three core principles;

1> That it targeted someone specifically (Gabriel, clearly and by name),
2> That the grounds for the jokes in question were solely that Gabriel was disabled, disability being a protected class in Canada, and
3> That it essentially amounted to defamation, and harmed Gabriel as a result.

If you told a glorious rendition of The Aristocrats in Canada, that's not gonna run afoul of any of those three points, regardless of how "offensive" and distasteful the joke may be. Nobody's named, "aristocrats" aren't a protected class, and since nobody was singled out, #3 can't apply. This is more comparable to a slander case; the argument here was essentially that slandering someone for laughs doesn't make it "okay". Had the joke been made in private, rather than on stage, had it not identified Gabriel by name, had it even made fun of him for issues other than his membership in that protected class, the jokes would've passed muster (and some did, if you look at the ruling).

I'm not 100% on board with the decision; Quebec's a bit of an odd duck, even for Canada. But it wasn't just because a comedian told a joke someone might find "offensive". That's a pretty significant distortion of the reality.

[Thage]

i think freedom of speech is always, and should always, be more important than the feelings of others. it should be within anyone's rights to get up and spout the most racist, sexist, or whateverist jokes they want and there shouldn't be a damn thing anyone can do to stop you.

You can say whatever you want. Others can show you the door and tell you to get the hell out; being guaranteed the right to hold any opinion you please is not synonymous nor mutually-inclusive with being guaranteed an audience. If you're an asshole, and people call you out for being an asshole, you have only yourself to blame.

[May90]

Any such move explicitly and inevitably acts to attack and degrade other fundamental rights held by the owners of those private media outlets. What they publish on their services is their speech, in the same way that a newspaper article represents the newspaper owner's speech, even if only by publishing an article by an identified reporter, in their name.

There's no functional difference between telling social media outlets who they can/cannot ban from their services, and telling newspapers what stories they must or must not run. That's a line we only cross in VERY specific circumstances. You can't attack freedom of speech and claim to be defending it. And that's what this proposal is; an attempt to attack the freedom of speech.

If you get banned by Twitter, you haven't lost your capacity to speak. You've simply lost access to a privately-owned platform that you had no right to in the first place. It isn't a free speech issue, at all.

I think Hemak's point is that social media are effectively a ground for people to communicate with each other, and that communication should not be restricted, because in this case a private company effectively creates a public space in the Internet. It definitely is something that could be looked into.

[Thage]

I think Hemak's point is that social media are effectively a ground for people to communicate with each other, and that communication should not be restricted, because in this case a private company effectively creates a public space in the Internet. It definitely is something that could be looked into.

It's not much different from being kicked out of a coffee house for standing up and screaming about politics at the top of your lungs. In privately-owned spaces, you have a set of behavioral norms you're expected to abide by to ensure all customers have a pleasant experience. Social media is not a governing body and thus freedom of speech as it's understood in most countries doesn't apply--the problem is a lot of people confuse "free speech" with freedom from social consequences for their speech.

[Daedius]

So, they want to have freedom to say whatever they want, but they dislike freedom of people to criticize what they say? That's funny.

Think you missed the bit of getting fined, which is imposed on their supposed freedom of speech.

[Dextroden]

Well, it is not always that ambiguous. Sure, if I say, "Nice weather!", and someone says, "How dare you! I worship weather, and you are saying it is only 'nice'?! How dare you offend me by berating my god!!!", there isn't much I could have done to prevent it. On the other hand, it would be stupid to tell someone, "You are a fucking stupid piece of crap", and then say, "Well, I didn't know how he would react. I had no idea he would get offended! Why should I apologize?".

Some common sense is still needed. Reactions to words are not infinitely relative, and there are some common reactions that are almost guaranteed to occur. Yes, there are some people who are constantly looking for someone to get outraged by and offended at. But there are also some things almost guaranteed to offend almost everyone they target, and those things aren't nice to say.

---

Plus, I think, the point of apology is exactly to demonstrate a good will, that you didn't mean ill. If you were an asshole on purpose, then apologizing doesn't really make sense to me. Except in the aftermath, when you reconsidered your actions.


There is a difference between someone offending someone else, and someone being offended by someone else. You can't fine people for the reactions of others, but you can fine them for their actions. If the guy said something that Quebec sees as going beyond the guaranteed free speech and into a civil offense zone, then he will be fined. If he said something that is within the limits of the guaranteed free speech, then he won't be fined, regardless of whether someone got offended or not.

Mockery of a disabled kid is very far into the grey zone in between free speech and verbal abuse. I'm not sure if even in the US the guy would get away with it.


Positions on this vary strongly between governments. Apparently there is no consensus on this yet.

But talk all the shit you want about celebrities and don't give two fucks about heckling in comedy clubs. It's this one kid that can't be talked about.

Yay! Political favoritism!

[Endus]

I think Hemak's point is that social media are effectively a ground for people to communicate with each other, and that communication should not be restricted, because in this case a private company effectively creates a public space in the Internet. It definitely is something that could be looked into.

Well, that's just straight-up incorrect. Twitter and Facebook posts are more akin to classified ads or letters to the editor; the publishing agent still maintains editorial privileges. You agreed to that, when you agreed to the terms of service of those websites, not that you'd need to for them to retain that right.

This isn't a move to protect people's speech, it's an attack on the free speech of content providers and their freedom of association.

Though we're getting a bit further afield of the Mike Ward case with this. I'm just making the point that free speech has never construed a right to force companies to publish your message against their will. Twitter and its owners have rights, too. You don't get to abridge them willy-nilly, particularly when THEY haven't stepped on YOUR rights at all, in the first place. If there was a conflict between the rights of an individual and the rights of a corporation, I'd side with the individual, but there's no such conflict in those instances.

[RickJamesLich]

You can say whatever you want. Others can show you the door and tell you to get the hell out; being guaranteed the right to hold any opinion you please is not synonymous nor mutually-inclusive with being guaranteed an audience. If you're an asshole, and people call you out for being an asshole, you have only yourself to blame.

I think the idea is that $35,000 fines or whatever the number was, is a tool to massively suppress free speech. That's a lot different from being called an asshole, which I think almost everyone here could agree is a reasonable response. Sometimes I wonder if folks on the left aren't aware that their advocacy of censorship may just end up leading them to be censored at some point in the future as well.

[Hammerfest]

This kind of thing is old news. Two years ago, comedians like Jerry Seinfeld were announcing that they were no longer doing college tours because college students were too easily offended.

[Deleted]

Is political correctness more important than ensuring we live in a decent, caring society?

Do you like Cheese? Or is it more important that WE STOPPED HITLER!

[Dextroden]

I think the idea is that $35,000 fines or whatever the number was, is a tool to massively suppress free speech. That's a lot different from being called an asshole, which I think almost everyone here could agree is a reasonable response. Sometimes I wonder if folks on the left aren't aware that their advocacy of censorship may just end up leading them to be censored at some point in the future as well.

Has anyone actually argued that clubs shouldn't be able to choose to host him? Because people keep bringing up clubs or private businesses when we've been talking about GETTING FINED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

[Thage]

I think the idea is that $35,000 fines or whatever the number was, is a tool to massively suppress free speech. That's a lot different from being called an asshole, which I think almost everyone here could agree is a reasonable response. Sometimes I wonder if folks on the left aren't aware that their advocacy of censorship may just end up leading them to be censored at some point in the future as well.

Well, going by what Endus published (what with Endus being a Canadian resident and thus better-informed on how their legal system works than myself), this wasn't treated as a free speech issue, it was treated as a defamation of character issue. Even here in the US, we have limits on free speech you can be fined or jailed for--defamation, libel, slander, and inciting violence/riot/etc. are all exceptions to free speech.

It's not censorship, it's fining a guy for specifically targeting an individual under a protected class for being part of that protected class. The fine went to the person in question, likely for damages.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

1> That it targeted someone specifically (Gabriel, clearly and by name),
2> That the grounds for the jokes in question were solely that Gabriel was disabled, disability being a protected class in Canada, and
3> That it essentially amounted to defamation, and harmed Gabriel as a result.


I'm not 100% on board with the decision; Quebec's a bit of an odd duck, even for Canada. But it wasn't just because a comedian told a joke someone might find "offensive". That's a pretty significant distortion of the reality.

How was Gabriel "harmed" exactly?


Does anyone have the clear and full joke? All I have been able to find is this piece:

The bit sets up with Ward stating that at first he was happy Gabriel was getting so much attention following the papal visit. “But now, five years later, and he’s still not dead… Me, I defended him, like an idiot, and he won’t die.



If that is the full joke, someone is going to have to explain why the comedian was fined.

[May90]

It's not much different from being kicked out of a coffee house for standing up and screaming about politics at the top of your lungs. In privately-owned spaces, you have a set of behavioral norms you're expected to abide by to ensure all customers have a pleasant experience. Social media is not a governing body and thus freedom of speech as it's understood in most countries doesn't apply--the problem is a lot of people confuse "free speech" with freedom from social consequences for their speech.

No, I totally understand this reasoning. Social media in particular, however, are a pretty fresh concept, something that didn't exist back at the time these laws were being developed. There is a large difference between how people communicate on Facebook, and how they communicate, say, in Microsoft headquarters.

I'm not saying that they should have no control over who says what, but perhaps some things, such as censoring certain political views, should be protected by the government?

Think you missed the bit of getting fined, which is imposed on their supposed freedom of speech.

I was only talking about their complaints against being criticized for their jokes. Fining a person for a joke in general I find unacceptable; this case is a bit special though.

But talk all the shit you want about celebrities and don't give two fucks about heckling in comedy clubs. It's this one kid that can't be talked about.

Yay! Political favoritism!

You can talk anything you want about celebrities on Internet forums, or at your home. Try making a public joke, heard by millions, that Trump, say, rapes his daughter daily - and who knows, you might get sued, because your actions did an actual damage to his image. This case is just that: the guy joked about a disabled kid on a show that was watched by, possibly, millions, and even more saw it later on the Internet.

Well, that's just straight-up incorrect. Twitter and Facebook posts are more akin to classified ads or letters to the editor; the publishing agent still maintains editorial privileges. You agreed to that, when you agreed to the terms of service of those websites, not that you'd need to for them to retain that right.

This isn't a move to protect people's speech, it's an attack on the free speech of content providers and their freedom of association.

Though we're getting a bit further afield of the Mike Ward case with this. I'm just making the point that free speech has never construed a right to force companies to publish your message against their will. Twitter and its owners have rights, too. You don't get to abridge them willy-nilly, particularly when THEY haven't stepped on YOUR rights at all, in the first place. If there was a conflict between the rights of an individual and the rights of a corporation, I'd side with the individual, but there's no such conflict in those instances.

Yes, but the terms of service offered can be controlled to an extent. Just like not all kinds of contracts are acceptable when signing a lease, not all kinds of terms of service might be allowed. For one, perhaps, these terms of service for websites like Facebook should guarantee freedom of speech within that platform?

I just think this is a new development which hasn't been addressed yet; social media didn't really exist, say, 20 years ago, and now they do. The world has changed, and the laws have to reflect that change. So perhaps it should be looked in to.

I do not necessarily agree with Hemak, I just think it is an interesting point to consider.

[RickJamesLich]

Well, going by what Endus published (what with Endus being a Canadian resident and thus better-informed on how their legal system works than myself), this wasn't treated as a free speech issue, it was treated as a defamation of character issue. Even here in the US, we have limits on free speech you can be fined or jailed for--defamation, libel, slander, and inciting violence/riot/etc. are all exceptions to free speech.

It's not censorship, it's fining a guy for specifically targeting an individual under a protected class for being part of that protected class. The fine went to the person in question, likely for damages.

I do not disagree that there are laws on free speech already, but putting fines on things that may be deemed "offensive" is a gray zone that is very close to dangerous territory. From what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, the person the comedian made fun of was a public figure, correct?

In America that would be totally fine, and I'm not disagreeing that Canada has very different laws, I just think those laws are extremely bad and can end up coming back to haunt a lot more people than just that comedian.

[Thage]

I do not disagree that there are laws on free speech already, but putting fines on things that may be deemed "offensive" is a gray zone that is very close to dangerous territory. From what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, the person the comedian made fun of was a public figure, correct?

I agree it's a bit of a grey area, but the fine wasn't because it was offensive. If that were the case we'd see a lot more fines being handed out to comedians and Bob Saget would probably be banned from performing in Canada.

In America that would be totally fine, and I'm not disagreeing that Canada has very different laws, I just think those laws are extremely bad and can end up coming back to haunt a lot more people than just that comedian.

To an extent, yes, it would be fine. The current presidential election circus is proof enough of that. In Canada, apparently they take defamation a bit more seriously and don't raise the bar for public figures.

[Dextroden]

No, I totally understand this reasoning. Social media in particular, however, are a pretty fresh concept, something that didn't exist back at the time these laws were being developed. There is a large difference between how people communicate on Facebook, and how they communicate, say, in Microsoft headquarters.

I'm not saying that they should have no control over who says what, but perhaps some things, such as censoring certain political views, should be protected by the government?


I was only talking about their complaints against being criticized for their jokes. Fining a person for a joke in general I find unacceptable; this case is a bit special though.


You can talk anything you want about celebrities on Internet forums, or at your home. Try making a public joke, heard by millions, that Trump, say, rapes his daughter daily - and who knows, you might get sued, because your actions did an actual damage to his image. This case is just that: the guy joked about a disabled kid on a show that was watched by, possibly, millions, and even more saw it later on the Internet.


Yes, but the terms of service offered can be controlled to an extent. Just like not all kinds of contracts are acceptable when signing a lease, not all kinds of terms of service might be allowed. For one, perhaps, these terms of service for websites like Facebook should guarantee freedom of speech within that platform?

I just think this is a new development which hasn't been addressed yet; social media didn't really exist, say, 20 years ago, and now they do. The world has changed, and the laws have to reflect that change. So perhaps it should be looked in to.

I do not necessarily agree with Hemak, I just think it is an interesting point to consider.

And that isn't new, you twit. Comedians have been saying edgy shit about individuals and groups. For fucks sake, there were 9/11 jokes almost immediately. But, I guess NOW it's a problem. Unless you make fun of acceptable targets
God, I hope Anthony J. never goes to n Canada. They'd never leave him be.

[Endus]

How was Gabriel "harmed" exactly?

You realize this is all detailed in the tribunal's ruling, right? This isn't a hypothetical. The identified specific harms. We're not guessing that it might have caused harm. The court ruled that it had.

Yes, but the terms of service offered can be controlled to an extent. Just like not all kinds of contracts are acceptable when signing a lease, not all kinds of terms of service might be allowed. For one, perhaps, these terms of service for websites like Facebook should guarantee freedom of speech within that platform?

Why on Earth should they? Mandating that they must do so specifically and explicitly attacks the freedom of speech and freedom of association of those websites and their owners. Again; this is an argument that attacks, it does not [i]defend[i] them.

I do not disagree that there are laws on free speech already, but putting fines on things that may be deemed "offensive" is a gray zone that is very close to dangerous territory. From what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, the person the comedian made fun of was a public figure, correct?

Again, the ruling was not that Ward should be fined because his joke was "offensive". It was that it caused harm. The same kinds of "harm" as other forms of slander. "Harm" isn't just physical; it includes financial and emotional factors, pretty much everywhere. Hardly unique to Canada

And no; he wasn't a public figure. A private citizen, and a minor to boot.

[Dextroden]

You realize this is all detailed in the tribunal's ruling, right? This isn't a hypothetical. The identified specific harms. We're not guessing that it might have caused harm. The court ruled that it had.



Why on Earth should they? Mandating that they must do so specifically and explicitly attacks the freedom of speech and freedom of association of those websites and their owners. Again; this is an argument that attacks, it does not [i]defend[i] them.



Again, the ruling was not that Ward should be fined because his joke was "offensive". It was that it caused harm. The same kinds of "harm" as other forms of slander. "Harm" isn't just physical; it includes financial and emotional factors, pretty much everywhere. Hardly unique to Canada

And no; he wasn't a public figure. A private citizen, and a minor to boot.

Since when do private citizens have managers for their public appearances?

And anyone can claimed to be hard. Especially for money.

[Fruujik]

Just keep on mocking those conservatives - guaranteed profits and audience. And embracement from hacks like [CURRENT YEAR] man and his gang of dimwits.