Comedians running scared over perceived shift to "political correctness"

[RickJamesLich]

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.

I'll admit that I'm not the most educated on this topic but the kid was a private citizen? The article says that he was a former child star which is quite to the contrary.

Also, what harm was done?

[Deleted]

He should be ashamed of making jokes about disabled people. Most of them cant stand up for themselves.

[May90]

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.

It depends on a particular case. Not all jokes are equal. Why is it so hard for you to grasp? A joke about 9/11 is one thing; mockery of a particular parent of a 9/11 victim on CNN on prime time is another completely.

You try to see everything in a simplified way. Well, it is not all as simple as you would like it to be, sorry! *pats*

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.

Defending private companies' interests though are not all of it, there is also defending customers' interests. Freedom of speech is a tricky concept, because it always comes with one's right to restrict freedom of speech in certain situations; it is the same problem as tolerance that irreversibly includes tolerance of intolerance.

I'm not sure about the US, but, say, in Canada there is a lot of anti-discrimination laws: you can't, say, deny a person's application to a private PhD program based only on their color. Private companies are still limited in what they can do on their private territory. Perhaps some limitation against censorship by private companies in some special cases should be implemented as well?

[Endus]

I'll admit that I'm not the most educated on this topic but the kid was a private citizen? The article says that he was a former child star which is quite to the contrary.

"Former child star" is stretching more than a little. He sang some songs in public a few times, but it's not like he had record deals or something.

Also, what harm was done?

http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qctdp/do...16qctdp18.html

There's the actual ruling. It's in French, but you can (in Chrome) right-click and "translate to English". I can't find an English version, or I'd link it directly. Items 24 to 38 delineate the harms done, in the eyes of the Tribunal.

[Dextroden]

It depends on a particular case. Not all jokes are equal. Why is it so hard for you to grasp? A joke about 9/11 is one thing; mockery of a particular parent of a 9/11 victim on CNN on prime time is another completely.

You try to see everything in a simplified way. Well, it is not all as simple as you would like it to be, sorry! *pats*


Defending private companies' interests though are not all of it, there is also defending customers' interests. Freedom of speech is a tricky concept, because it always comes with one's right to restrict freedom of speech in certain situations; it is the same problem as tolerance that irreversibly includes tolerance of intolerance.

I'm not sure about the US, but, say, in Canada there is a lot of anti-discrimination laws: you can't, say, deny a person's application to a private PhD program based only on their color. Private companies are still limited in what they can do on their private territory. Perhaps some limitation against censorship by private companies in some special cases should be implemented as well?

Yep. You can make fun of everyone who died, but not an individual.

Fucking brilliant.

[owbu]

Stories like this are a good test wether you are an actual liberal or just some authoritarian using left wing themes. The goverment getting into the buisness of wether or not a comedian is too offensive is just plain insanity.

Feels similiar to those stories, where small goverment republicans are confronted with big goverment ideas, that they like.

[Endus]

Defending private companies' interests though are not all of it, there is also defending customers' interests. Freedom of speech is a tricky concept, because it always comes with one's right to restrict freedom of speech in certain situations; it is the same problem as tolerance that irreversibly includes tolerance of intolerance.

We're not talking about interests, we're talking about rights.

Getting banned from Twitter or whatever infringes on exactly zero rights of the person being banned. Denying Twitter the capacity to make their own decisions about their customer base and the material published on their service, that does infringe on the rights of free speech and the right to free association.

I'm not sure about the US, but, say, in Canada there is a lot of anti-discrimination laws: you can't, say, deny a person's application to a private PhD program based only on their color. Private companies are still limited in what they can do on their private territory. Perhaps some limitation against censorship by private companies in some special cases should be implemented as well?

Those same laws would apply if you were denied service by Twitter due to being a member of a protected class, but "being an asshole" isn't a protected class.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

He should be ashamed of making jokes about disabled people. Most of them cant stand up for themselves.

I am going to have to report you to the Canadian Human Right's Commission.

[May90]

We're not talking about interests, we're talking about rights.

Getting banned from Twitter or whatever infringes on exactly zero rights of the person being banned. Denying Twitter the capacity to make their own decisions about their customer base and the material published on their service, that does infringe on the rights of free speech and the right to free association.

The problem is, they essentially create a public space with sometimes dozens millions people communicating with each other. This space, while technically still belonging to the private company, in practice functions very similar to public spaces. Perhaps people should have certain rights they have in usual public spaces in those spaces as well, such as the right to be able to promote any ideologies they like (as long as they aren't directly banned by the government)?

[Bytch]

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.

This. People have the right to say any damn thing they want. YOU do NOT have the right to not be offended. If you are offended, walk the fuck out or away.

[Endus]

The problem is, they essentially create a public space

I'm going to stop you right there. Twitter and Facebook are not "public spaces". They are private. That a lot of members of the public can go in them does not change this. A lot of people visit Disney World, but Disney is still free to ban you for life from the park if you break their rules. The number of users does not, in any way, mean that a privately-owned enterprise becomes "public space".

[RickJamesLich]

"Former child star" is stretching more than a little. He sang some songs in public a few times, but it's not like he had record deals or something.



http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qctdp/do...16qctdp18.html

There's the actual ruling. It's in French, but you can (in Chrome) right-click and "translate to English". I can't find an English version, or I'd link it directly. Items 24 to 38 delineate the harms done, in the eyes of the Tribunal.

I'd disagree with stretching it, if the kids was in publications, sang for people like the Pope, it seems reasonable to believe he was a public figure. I'd also like to state that I'm not really going at this from a legal angle either, but more of an ethical one.

Ditto with Twitter, where they can ban people for any reason that they like. There is a thick level of intellectual dishonesty when it comes to banning some people for jokes that are deemed offensive, while at the same time not banning people who send death threats, or those that cheer acts such as murder.

That being said, I don't have chrome lol, I'm fire fox for life, and I am not in the mood of downloading it just to read the court docket. Anyone care to help me out here though? Has any physical violence come towards the target of the joke? Has the joke damaged the kids opportunities to make money? Or is this merely a case of hurt feelings?

[Queen of Hamsters]

More like, some people are so socially awkward that they can't understand when something's appropriate and when it isn't. They fear having to think before they speak.

[Endus]

I'd disagree with stretching it, if the kids was in publications, sang for people like the Pope, it seems reasonable to believe he was a public figure. I'd also like to state that I'm not really going at this from a legal angle either, but more of an ethical one.

Regardless, whether he was or not wasn't really germane to the ruling.

Ditto with Twitter, where they can ban people for any reason that they like. There is a thick level of intellectual dishonesty when it comes to banning some people for jokes that are deemed offensive, while at the same time not banning people who send death threats, or those that cheer acts such as murder.

I'll freely admit that I don't think Twitter's policy is terribly consistent, but given the size of their user base and the volume of tweets, it may also be that many things just go unreported. Lord knows that happens here, in a lot of cases.

That being said, I don't have chrome lol, I'm fire fox for life, and I am not in the mood of downloading it just to read the court docket. Anyone care to help me out here though? Has any physical violence come towards the target of the joke? Has the joke damaged the kids opportunities to make money? Or is this merely a case of hurt feelings?

Why are you focusing on "physical violence"? That's a nonsequitur.

And pretty much every developed nation on the planet recognizes emotional harm as actual harm. Even the USA. This is why things like harassment are illegal, even if they cause no physical or financial harm. Dismissing it as "hurt feelings" is pretty baseless. It's like telling the guy who was violently assaulted and has a broken nose and several cracked ribs to "just walk it off"; you refusing to consider them "harmed enough" really is irrelevant to the courts determining that harm was done.

[May90]

I'm going to stop you right there. Twitter and Facebook are not "public spaces". They are private. That a lot of members of the public can go in them does not change this. A lot of people visit Disney World, but Disney is still free to ban you for life from the park if you break their rules. The number of users does not, in any way, mean that a privately-owned enterprise becomes "public space".

Legally, yes. I was talking more about how they actually function, how people interact with each other in them. In my eyes, social media blur the line between private and public spaces.

[Coombs]

I'd disagree with stretching it, if the kids was in publications, sang for people like the Pope, it seems reasonable to believe he was a public figure. I'd also like to state that I'm not really going at this from a legal angle either, but more of an ethical one.

Ditto with Twitter, where they can ban people for any reason that they like. There is a thick level of intellectual dishonesty when it comes to banning some people for jokes that are deemed offensive, while at the same time not banning people who send death threats, or those that cheer acts such as murder.

That being said, I don't have chrome lol, I'm fire fox for life, and I am not in the mood of downloading it just to read the court docket. Anyone care to help me out here though? Has any physical violence come towards the target of the joke? Has the joke damaged the kids opportunities to make money? Or is this merely a case of hurt feelings?

That comedian's jokes eviscerated that poor person's chance at ever having a legitimate career again. He should be punished! But the Twitter terrorists doing the same thing to a person's career are nothing more than advocates for justice.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

Endus, by what you are describing about Twitter's rights, it sounds like you are for Citizen's United.

[Endus]

Legally, yes. I was talking more about how they actually function, how people interact with each other in them. In my eyes, social media blur the line between private and public spaces.

I'm not sure you understand what a "public space" is.

If I own a local mall, and the mall is open 24 hours a day, and everyone in town goes to the mall to hang out, then it doesn't matter how central to the town's social life my mall has become. It's privately owned. If I decide some kid's banned because he kicked a security guard, he's banned. That infringes none of his rights. That everyone in town enjoys the mall does not, in any respect, make it a "public space".

Expand this to the national level. Imagine I have such a mall in EVERY town. I'm the mall kingpin. I make Wal-mart look cute. My malls are STILL not a public space. They're MINE. My decision to open them to the public is mine, it can be rescinded at ANY moment, and I can ban anyone who breaks my rules, so long as those rules don't themselves break municipal/state/national laws somehow.

You're confusing a public space with a public accomodation. You could argue that Twitter and such are an online form of such. But public accomodations are like my mall; they're OPEN to the public, but the owners still control them, and are free to ban people who behave poorly, in their eyes. The number of people using the public accomodation has nothing to do with whether it becomes a public space. To qualify as that, it has to be owned by the public itself, generally by the government, in their name. This is why you can't be "banned" from the use of the city streets, or something, because those ARE a public space.

- - - Updated - - -

Endus, by what you are describing about Twitter's rights, it sounds like you are for Citizen's United.

Two entirely unrelated situations, to be utterly frank. Particularly since we're talking about Canadian law, when we talk about the Mike Ward case, and there's nothing like that ruling here in Canada.

Citizens United wasn't really about "speech", it was about campaign spending. Equating that with speech is what people took issue with, not the idea that corporations and their owners do actually have some rights.


We're really getting away from the topic, here, though. This thread should be about the Ward case, specifically.

[klogaroth]

I think that in the future we are going to see a lot more joke sharing between big names and smaller names in comedy.

To be clear - I don't mean joke stealing. I mean joke sharing. If a big name comedian wants to judge the reaction to a particular joke that might get people up in arms, but also might not, their best course of action is to get a smaller name to test the joke out. Someone who isn't as likely to have their joke shared to billions of people in an attempt to generate outrage. If it works on enough audiences then it will have a chance of going into the bigger comedians act.

Even showing up unannounced at the Comedy Store to test jokes isn't going to be enough to save bigger comedians from being witch-hunted when they're testing close to the bone new material.

[Vynny]

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.

No, they don't want to be penalized by the government for saying it. The article singled out that case where the Quebec Human Right's Commission (a government agency) penalized a comedian for his joke. If it was just them complaining about people booing and not going to their show then you'd have a point, but when government agencies are penalizing comedians for their jokes then it's an entirely different issue.

Also, it's one thing for people who are offended by the contents of a comedian's show to criticize them, but in my opinion, it's an entirely different thing to try and get that comedian's future shows shutdown because at the end of the day, you may not like the content of the show, but what gives you the right to stop those who enjoy that comedian's material from going to one of his or her shows? Although I'll admit that this point is separate from the issue of a government penalizing people for their speech as I mentioned above.