Guilty for telling a joke

[MrRook]

I'm simply saying that the term "free speech" is often misused and misunderstood. Free speech does not give an automatic right to say whatever you like -/QUOTE]

Actually I'm with Thumper on this. I'm fed up with people not taking any responsibility for their actions or the consequences by claiming it's their right or it's free speech. Some people (like this moron) need to grow up. However, if they did grow up, then Jeremy Kyle wouldn't have any guests left for his show.

There are a lot of things that can be said and done under the umbrella of freedom of speech, but nowhere is it written that anyone has to listen and you need to realize that there may be consequences: that football player who started the kneeling during the national anthem unwisely opted out of his contract and now can't find a team willing to sign him.

 

[-Bezza-]

Does the principle of freedom of speech not essentially come down to uncensored media and the freedom to challenge and petition government? As opposed to for example North Korea, where I believe they aired the final of the last world cup, in which North Korea beat Brazil in the final.

Being fairly thick skinned and able to give as good as I get, it really doesn't bother me what people say or where they say it.

I find the sexualisation of children much more cause for concern, like pop stars etc who directly market kids, creating material for the kids to view which really isn't age appropriate. But if this was brought under control would it just be another attack on freedom of speech?

You raise a good point there, in that most areas of legality have defined boundaries that we all seem happy to accept. Yet when it comes to "free speech", there seem to be a contingent who seem insistent that there should be no limits. It all seems a bit like the US Second Amendment arguments at times: doggedly protecting an idea to something well beyond what it should mean or was intended to mean. But if I were to continue the parallel further, whilst in the US you have the right to have a gun, you're still liable to the consequences of pulling the trigger; with free speech, you should bear the consequences of what you say.

I'd rather we took the emotion out of the debate and dumbed it right down for a moment - was 'pug man' doing a good and positive thing here? No. Should he have been prosecuted? I don't know, I really don't care. But if I felt the need to make a stand for a right to free speech it wouldn't be for him; it would be for someone who was denied the right to voice something that was capable of doing good.

 

[Ciaran12s]

You raise a good point there, in that most areas of legality have defined boundaries that we all seem happy to accept. Yet when it comes to "free speech", there seem to be a contingent who seem insistent that there should be no limits. It all seems a bit like the US Second Amendment arguments at times: doggedly protecting an idea to something well beyond what it should mean or was intended to mean. But if I were to continue the parallel further, whilst in the US you have the right to have a gun, you're still liable to the consequences of pulling the trigger; with free speech, you should bear the consequences of what you say.

I'd rather we took the emotion out of the debate and dumbed it right down for a moment - was 'pug man' doing a good and positive thing here? No. Should he have been prosecuted? I don't know, I really don't care. But if I felt the need to make a stand for a right to free speech it wouldn't be for him; it would be for someone who was denied the right to voice something that was capable of doing good.

Very good point. I think protecting free speech is certainly more about protecting those who have been silenced when trying to voice an injustice or such like.

 

[-Bezza-]

Very good point. I think protecting free speech is certainly more about protecting those who have been silenced when trying to voice an injustice or such like.

That's the phrase I was looking for. The rules are there to protect people, not permit people.

 

[simon12]

Limiting free speech is dangerous as who gets to draw the line and to move it, would you trust this or any government to decide what opinions you can voice or what jokes you can tell. In the context of this case the context is comedy as the guy clearly explains at the beginning hes doing it for a laugh & to annoy his girlfriend and also states at the end hes not racist and its a joke. Therefore he cannot be accused of inciting violence or of hate speech only offensive speech in the context of comedy. Also as I said it went viral and got over 3 million views with no complaints.

 

[simon12]

I wonder how much public money has been spent on this case

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Matt Snowden

Yes, the British have freedom of speech. The British don’t have unlimited freedom of speech, but then again nor do the people of any other country in the world.

Every country puts some limits on speech. Even in the US, which probably has the most robustly protected free speech in the world, you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a theater or send people death threats, or harass them.

In comparison to the US, the British have less well protected freedom of speech. For a start there are laws against ‘hate speech’ which prohibits threatening or abusive speech based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. The UK also has strong libel laws which strongly protect the claimant, and make it much easier to prosecute others for saying things about you that you don’t like.

There is also no strict constitutional protection of free speech. Just about all laws and rights in the UK are enforced by act of Parliament, and thus can be withdrawn by a simple majority.

In comparison to the US and other liberal democracies, UK law tends to favour protecting people from ‘harmful’ speech rather than protecting all speech as an inherently good thing. Obviously this has good and bad points.

In the grand scheme of things, though, the UK is one of the most free and liberal countries in the world, with a few differences.

 

[Pavros]

Just because he says 'I'm not a racist', doesn't mean that he's not a racist or that his comments/actions are not racist. Therefore this should not be used as a defence. What he should have said is that he doesn't believe that he is a racist.

It's more likely that he should just go and live on Fuckwit Island as described on the thread about the ambulance note woman

 

[Thumper]

What is even more hilarious than you not understanding the concept of free speech is your condescending tone, projected bravely from behind an anonymous computer screen, explaining to us all how something online should be treated the same as something in the street. I think that's called irony.

Uhuh?

I'm not the one misunderstanding free speech. Over the past couple of years certain people seem to have developed the strange notion that freedom of speech means that you get to say whatever you like from whatever platform entirely free from consequences of any kind. Oddly enough, you only ever seem to encounter these people on the internet. That's not what it means and it never has meant that.

Freedom of speech has limits. It always has. We as a society recognise this. Libel and slander laws exist. Hate speech laws exist.

Its a question of conflicting rights. Speech has consequences, and while you have the right to an opinion and you have the right to voice it, other people have the right to be protected from the consequences of your speech. The result is compromise: you have the right to say what you like, up to the point that it negatively affects someone else to an unreasonable degree.

We all acknowledge that there's a line, tacitly or otherwise. He crossed it. We can argue about where that line ought to be, but I completely reject the notion that there shouldn't be one at all.

As a side note, I'm not sure why you jumped to the conclusion that I wouldn't say this to your face. I see no reason why I shouldn't.

 

[marshbrewer]

I think you will find that that what you have described here, with relative concepts such as 'consequences' of speech and 'protecting' people from them are as far from what is traditionally understood as free speech as it is possible to be. You are, however, describing 'regulated' speech almost perfectly.

Of course, those regulating speech are, at present, 'your' type of people, not like the ghastly man on the pug video who crossed your 'line', so you cannot see how any civilised person can object to these terribly reasonable restrictions.

But, my friend, that isn't free speech. It really isn't.

 

[Gunge]

Someone at work once called me an 'opinionated bigot'. Well he's free to say what the hell he likes - I don't care. But on that occasion I happened to think he was right and I congragulated his astuteness. If I'd disagreed I'd have told him so and moved on. Why labour the issue?

 

[simon12]

IT WAS COMEDY if you don't like it don't watch it. Court case was so ridiculous it makes me ashamed to be British.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

IT WAS COMEDY if you don't like it don't watch
Court case was so ridiculous it makes me ashamed to be British.

So anything goes as long as you call it comedy.

 

[Covrich]

I dont find it funny what he did at all, but to be honest if this is a criminal offense no matter how unfunny it is, a lot f comedians should be charged. Jimmy car Rickey Gervais John Cleese all done things on Nazis and hollocaust..

There isn't many jokes nowerdays which someone will not take offense at and therefore should be charged..

I agree with Johnathan Pie on this

Jo Brand used to joke about her weight all the time and skinny men.. she should be imprisoned with inciting body shaming hatred?

If this tasteless joke is Criminal please tell me where the clear boundary is.

 

[Saisonator]

If left unchecked, such laws will just be used to shut people down who go against the prescribed narrative, even if the prescribed narrative is clearly BS.

 

[Pavros]

Covrich is right, this is a very tasteless 'joke' which he videoed without thinking through the consequences of his actions.
Is it criminal? In this case, the judge thought so but many on here feel that it probably isn't.
If you ask any Jewish person, you will receive a different answer. In the current climate, people need to be extremely careful expressing any anti-Jewish views as the Labour party (so beloved by some on this forum) will testify.
...or any views which could be perceived to be racist unless you are comfortable with living with the consequences.

 

[Gunge]

I'm off to source a box set of Bernard Manning DVDs. Could do with a bloody good laugh right now.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

A member posts a picture of a shirt with 96 on the back and gets slated even though there was no mention of Liverpool on the shirt and here we have a bloke repeatedly saying gas the jews to his girlfriend's dog in a video and people are defending his right to say it, what a strange world we live in.

 

[Covrich]

Covrich is right, this is a very tasteless 'joke'.
Is it criminal? In this case, the judge thought so but many on here feel that it probably isn't.
If you ask any Jewish person, you will receive a different answer. In the current climate, people need to be extremely careful expressing any anti-Jewish views as the Labour party (so beloved by some on this forum) will testify.

David Baddiel didn't.

Didn't like the joke it was really poor but don't like the precedent unless there are very clear rules on what is and is not allowed to be said, would a fat person like a fat person joke? will they criminalise that? People joke about Americans, english irish and scottish jokes.. should these be illegal?

Why is making a tasteless joke mocking the Nazis treatment of Jews criminal but Fat people domestic abuse and terminal illness its fair game..

There is not many jokes we can tell which will not objectively hurt someones feelings in the current climate so we need to decide what is and isn't allowed in order to avoid prosecution.

So despite not defenening the joke in any way.. I have to ask the question..Should John Cleese for his goose step act, ricky gervaise and Jimmy Carr all appear in court.

 

[Pavros]

Isn't it the link between what he said and the salute which crosses the line? Cleese just does a goosestep and doesn't mention gassing anyone, unless I'm missing something