Wonder who will bet he first ahole "comedian" to tell jokes about this.
Wonder who will bet he first ahole "comedian" to tell jokes about this.
To your fine point FYB, I was thinking about this topic earlier today after the latest fuss over the weekend and deliberately avoiding that thread for now.
Many people have ailments and disabilities. It's not like you always know or can know or should know. And adults know this reality as opposed to all high school kids.
So I am not sure when it became okay for adults to make fun of certain physical characteristics, or behaviour influenced by disability or illness, as opposed to somebody high or drunk and then acting stupid or who made a poor fashion choice and so forth.
All best to Willis, they haven't said what the cause of his aphasia is as yet as there can be a number of causes, some more serious than others.
This case in Canada that went to the Supreme Court and is now again being challenged by the plaintiffs. Yup, open season on physical appearances, behaviour influenced by disability or illness as you say, by comedians or as FYB says "comedians".
In answer to your question, I think making fun of other people’s disabilities or differences was legitimized for many by the Donald, who has infamously and openly mocked disabled people and ethnic minorities, especially Mexicans, the #1 minority in the US. If you or I did that we would be censured, and depending on our job, disciplined. Yet this was accepted by US citizens who elected the Donald in 2016 in spite of this. Mind you that election was fixed. I’m still looking for proof of that and will let you know when I find it.
In my opinion the Supreme Court got this right, prioritizing free speech. That is not to say that what Ward said is acceptable, but comedians must have license to satirize other people and especially in the area of politics and religion, verboten on this site but fodder for the routines of many comedians. The beloved by many Don Rickles was guilty of the same thing. The remedy is not to patronize those comedians if you object. Ward has generally been one of Canada’s best comedians and I expect he won’t try this nonsense again. Hard to prevent someone from doing so, however, when the former US leader is doing so openly on national TV when campaigning and being supported by roughly half the population. The lawsuit, or second kick at the cat, won’t go anywhere past a nuisance settlement at best.
I really have to agree with you on this as much as a small part of me doesn't want to agree but the fact is it's not hate speech from what I can tell in any legal sense and as you say, priortizing free speech as comedians doing their job in cases like these is a must. I mean if someone calls me a retard on the street when I get my atypical parkinson's symptoms of pointing at things on the ground for no reason with my tremors and freezing of gait, I do need as anyone does to "suck it up" and be reslilient and carry on, that's just life, most of us at one time or another have had a certain amount of ridicule pointed our way for whatever reasons. We can't be a nation of pansies and cry at every arrow thrown our way.
Yes, I doubt this second kick at the cat as you say in this case won't go anywhere although I'm not famililar with what a nuisance settlement actually is in a case like this.
A nuisance settlement is paying a relatively small amount of money to make things go away. Done by many litigants, even if they are completely correct and would win in court as it is less than the cost of paying lawyers to defend.
Ah ok, got it.
It's funny ..one day on this site you are all arguing for free speech and then and days like this arguing for censorship ..
Cannot have both
no such thing as total free speech.
everything must have limits.
That is why we have laws, by-laws, traffic laws, etc
Well it's true that I don't think you can't have 100 percent both when thinking about a specific issue that is seen as controversial in nature involving more people than just oneself.
Not agreeing or disagreeing
Just pointing out the contradiction self amusement kinda post ..
But the joke was not malicious or mean in anyway so really no need for that talk ..
How about the Will Smith needs anger management talk
There was a recent thread somewhere discussing the fact that free speech isn’t absolute. The question is where to draw the line. I wouldn’t be censuring comedians for bad taste.
But hate speech such as promoting Nazis or racism is not and shouldn’t be permitted. On line postings urging the overthrow of a democratically elected government properly resulted in Trump losing his social media privileges. Urging violence against others is not permissible. Trying to teach others to build bombs also a no no. I don’t think anyone would disagree in limiting free speech in these extreme examples. There are many other cases. Hopefully most would agree that limiting free speech should be limited to these types of extreme examples only.
How about the answer being " No one " .
Yes it should. It's the best way to know exactly where the Nazis and the haters are and how much of a threat they might pose. If you censor them, they'll do it all in secret. Then it will just be that much tougher to defend yourself against any hate.
Let 'em talk.
Disagree. Too many people that are too easily influenced. Proof of that is the success of religion. In my opinion it is similar to publicizing the names of suicide bombers and those who shoot up schools. Many media outlets now refuse to publish the names of these pathetic glory seekers, which I support. The Nazis and others who would do harm do much in secret anyway. The NSA already records every text and telephone conversation in North America and does a pretty good job with their algorithms of identifying the trouble makers before they can do anything. Many of these people are little more than narcissistic egoists so cutting off their soapbox can be very effective.
That's not for you or I to judge.
The biggest reason why the world is the way that it is today is that not nearly enough people are taking responsibility for their own lives, their own culture, their own opinions, their own feelings. They delegate those responsibilities to institutions that that are more than happy to use that power to oppress and control them. If you want to censor people for their views because you think the public can't handle those views, then ban the news, because that's all the news is, just telling people how to form their opinions. Besides that, who decides what is handle-able and what is not? Not you, not I, certainly not FYB and DEFINITELY not some institution.
The only time you control what someone hears is with you children - and by that I mean YOUR OWN children, not anyone else's. Why? Because you know that there are certain things that you children don't or won't understand - yet - and as their parent YOU are the only one to best judge that - but as soon as you feel that they may be capable, you let them hear it, you let them learn. The general population though, we're adults. Let us hear it. ALL of it. Stop coddling the masses. We're not children.
We need more empowerment. Knowledge is power. Censorship simply limits knowledge. Keeps us in the dark.
so if someone makes disgusting jokes about sex with your teenage sister/daughter, that is ok?
Stay strong Bruno. We will always have "Die Hard" to keep you in our memories