Comedians running scared over perceived shift to "political correctness"

[Mistame]

And again: freedom of speech offers protection from government reprisal, not from social reprisal.

It is not the government's job to protect people who say offensive things from getting their compeuppance.

Except that being fined by a judge falls under the "government" umbrella.

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.

Nothing he said qualified as any of that.

It was that it caused harm. The same kinds of "harm" as other forms of slander.

The only "harm" it caused was to his "feels". Nothing Ward said was slander.

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.

Taking offense or having your feelings hurt is not "harm", in any context. Harassment is a completely different subject and irrelevant to this case. This case is quite literally a disabled kid winning a law suit because his feelings were hurt by a joke.

[Endus]

The only "harm" it caused was to his "feels". Nothing Ward said was slander.

This is both explicitly incorrect regarding the "harm" caused, going by the ruling, and irrelevant, since the ruling wasn't based on slander law in the first place.

Taking offense or having your feelings hurt is not "harm", in any context. Harassment is a completely different subject and irrelevant to this case. This case is quite literally a disabled kid winning a law suit because his feelings were hurt by a joke.

Stating things that are completely and definitively incorrect isn't a winning strategy. I linked the actual ruling. It states the specific details of the harm caused. It's not just "his feels".

Not that emotional harm isn't harm, in the first place. It clearly is. Your argument could be applied to ANY form of non-physical, non-financial harm. Criminal harassment is just as much about "feelings" as this case was; that's why I used it as an example.

[Mistame]

This is both explicitly incorrect regarding the "harm" caused, going by the ruling, and irrelevant, since the ruling wasn't based on slander law in the first place.

Then stop saying "slander".

Stating things that are completely and definitively incorrect isn't a winning strategy.

Says the guy saying, "completely and definitively incorrect", as if your comments inherently true and your opinion thereof is relevant.

I linked the actual ruling. It states the specific details of the harm caused. It's not just "his feels".

I read through it. It's "his feels" and an unproven claim that the comment "hurt his 'career'" (Which, ironically, if referring to his singing "career" makes him a public figure).

Not that emotional harm isn't harm, in the first place.

"Hurt feelings" is not "harm". That's garbage think.

I tried to peruse it again, but couldn't get past this idiocy:

2. This dispute contrasts two fundamental rights: freedom of expression and the right to be protected against discriminatory remarks.

Which goes back to the whole thing being retarded. There is no fundamental right to be protected against insults, regardless of your status.

[Stop Pretending]

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.

As usual, the point, you missed it.

[Mister Cheese]

Offense is never given.

[Mistame]

You're just blaming other people for your decision to act like an asshole.

Doesn't make what he said any less true.

[Endus]

Then stop saying "slander".

I didn't say it was slander. I said it was a form of defamation like slander.

Says the guy saying, "completely and definitively incorrect", as if your comments inherently true and your opinion thereof is relevant.

When the question is "what was Ward found guilty of having done", there is an objective and definitively correct answer, in the Tribunal's ruling.

You might not like the ruling, but that's not what we're discussing.

I read through it. It's "his feels" and an unproven claim that the comment "hurt his 'career'" (Which, ironically, if referring to his singing "career" makes him a public figure).

You don't get to determine whether or not it's "proven". The Tribunal does. And they determined it had been proven, to their satisfaction.

Again, this is definitive. You might not like it, but without appealing to a higher court, their ruling sticks.

"Hurt feelings" is not "harm". That's garbage think.

Every single developed nation, at the least, vehemently disagrees with you on this. This is why things like "harassment" and "defamation" are illegal, even if they don't cause physical or financial harm. This is why victims can get recompense for their emotional suffering. And so forth. Just as true in the USA as anywhere else.

I tried to peruse it again, but couldn't get past this idiocy:

Which goes back to the whole thing being retarded. There is no fundamental right to be protected against insults, regardless of your status.

There is, in Quebec, if you read that passage properly, which you did not, if you think it applies broadly to all insults. Again, you might not like it, but it's definitively true, here. You not liking it isn't an argument.

[Dextroden]

I didn't say it was slander. I said it was a form of defamation like slander.

I didn't say your house burned down. I just said it suffered damage from fire and is inhospitable.

[mvaliz]

Welcome to cultural change... Cynisim and racism is going out, and making fun of cynics and racists are in. :P

It's really just that simple! All the new comics are learning this fact. You can still tell politicalky incorrect jokes - just speak as if others doing it.

[Mistame]

Perhaps in the same sense that one might blame a murder victim for not surviving the gun shot.

Not at all. Words can be used in various contexts. The user of the word has very little control over how the receiver takes it. And even if what's said is clearly meant to be insulting, whether or not it's "offensive" is determined by the receiver.

You might not like the ruling, but that's not what we're discussing.

On the contrary, this discussion is about this garbage decision and our opinions of it. They are in the wrong, by any objective standard.

This is why things like "harassment" and "defamation" are illegal, even if they don't cause physical or financial harm.

And all of those things are based on intent. Harassment is repetitive assaults (of varying types) on a person or person's character with intent of causing distress. Defamation, slander, etc, are all the use of false statements with the intent of causing distress. There is no scenario in which a clearly labeled comedy sketch is the perpetrator of "harassment" or "defamation", at least not by any reasonable standard.

And again, this decision just goes to show how fucked up some (activist) "judicial" processes can be. It's just as bad as the imbecile who decided to convict a guy of rape based on the victim's testimony with no actual hard evidence.

[clappywappy]

the country being extra pC should make it easier for comedians to be offensive. its a win.

[unbound]

Next on the list of Tennisace's loaded questions. "Do you still beat your wife?"

That's not fair. He would actually ask, "When did you stop beating your wife?"...

[Hemak]

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.

No, I'm not arguing for Facebook or Twitter to specifically be forced to become a public utility. I am merely suggesting the development of a social network, a completely new one, that acts as a free public forum (forum in the legal sense of the word). I would actually prefer this be a private company because I honestly don't trust the government to not censor people as well. My idea is that in the TOS of the platform there would be a clause where the platform promises no termination of censorship of any accounts in accordance with the ideas of Freedom of speech as set forth by the US Constitution.
And if you don't like this idea, you could stay on Twitter, Facebook, etc. Let the people decide. Let the market decide.

[monkmastaeq]

hopefully Quebec will get the hell out of Canada soon so the rest of us Canadians dont have to be embarrassed by them

[Hemak]

You're missing the point. Freedom of Speech is protection from government censorship. Only.

lol. No, just no. In Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain, people were arrested for speaking ill about communism. So how were they caught. Did the government bug all of their houses, places of work, schools, etc. No, people (their friends, coworker, neighbors) reported them. Censorship, like many things, starts at the level of the individual.

By this logic, I could go to a voting booth and stop people I don't like from voting because you know the 15th amendment only protects against Federal and State governments from baring voting.

And then we'll get to watch the hilarious doublethink as conservatives trying to reconcile an intrusion of the holy grail of capitalism with fighting the war on political correctness.

No, I'm not arguing for Facebook or Twitter to specifically be forced to become a public utility. I am merely suggesting the development of a social network, a completely new one, that acts as a free public forum (forum in the legal sense of the word). I would actually prefer this be a private company because I honestly don't trust the government to not censor people as well. My idea is that in the TOS of the platform there would be a clause where the platform promises no termination of censorship of any accounts in accordance with the ideas of Freedom of speech as set forth by the US Constitution.
And if you don't like this idea, you could stay on Twitter, Facebook, etc. Let the people decide. Let the market decide.

[Mistame]

lol. No, just no. In Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain, people were arrested for speaking ill about communism. So how were they caught. Did the government bug all of their houses, places of work, schools, etc. No, people (their friends, coworker, neighbors) reported them. Censorship, like many things, starts at the level of the individual.

By this logic, I could go to a voting booth and stop people I don't like from voting because you know the 15th amendment only protects against Federal and State governments from baring voting.

I mean, if the context of your point is the US, anything to do with Europe is irrelevant. You were talking about the 1st Amendment, which is protection from government. A private entity cannot "violate" your "freedom of speech".

Same to ya, buddy!

[Theodarzna]

In Endus land all that is legal is moral, all that is moral is legal, and those with the might to muscle their will or ideas into the world and muscle out others without punishment is fine and dandy.

[Mistame]

In Endus land all that is legal is moral, all that is moral is legal, and those with the might to muscle their will or ideas into the world and muscle out others without punishment is fine and dandy.

In his defense, he was against DOMA. So it's clearly only applicable when it suits his world view.

[Endus]

No, I'm not arguing for Facebook or Twitter to specifically be forced to become a public utility. I am merely suggesting the development of a social network, a completely new one, that acts as a free public forum (forum in the legal sense of the word). I would actually prefer this be a private company because I honestly don't trust the government to not censor people as well.

The only way this can happen is if the owner of that platform voluntarily and continuously refuses to exert their right to editorial control over their platform. And really, the closest you get to that is /b/, on 4chan. Not exactly a rousing endorsement of the idea.

That's the reality; those "free spaces" already exist, and people don't focus on them.

In Endus land all that is legal is moral, all that is moral is legal, and those with the might to muscle their will or ideas into the world and muscle out others without punishment is fine and dandy.

Guess you missed the part where I don't actually agree fully with this ruling, and the laws which back it.

I'm just not arguing that they're not the law of the land, in Quebec.

In his defense, he was against DOMA. So it's clearly only applicable when it suits his world view.

The equivalent to your argument in this thread, if I were applying it to DOMA, would be me arguing in a DOMA-active USA that of course gay people can get married in every State, the law is obviously incorrect and everyone should just ignore it.

That isn't how anything works, though.

I'm not saying you can't take issue with the law. That's not what you were doing. You were claiming it wasn't a right. Well, that's just factually wrong. It is a right, in Quebec. Hence the ruling. You can not like it, and I'm totally in favor of you having whatever opinion you want on it, I was simply pointing out the objective reality of the situation.

Much like how if we were to have an argument over the 2nd Amendment, in the USA, I'd probably argue that it shouldn't be a right, but I'd never try to argue that it wasn't one, in US jurisdictions.

[Theodarzna]

Guess you missed the part where I don't actually agree fully with this ruling, and the laws which back it.

I'm just not arguing that they're not the law of the land, in Quebec.

I don't think anyone is contesting that its the law, just that its a bad law with bad ramifications.