Jerry Sadowitz cancelled

goldtop

DrCornelius said:

chillidoggy said:

Either you have free speech, or you don’t. There’s no in-between.

Free speech doesn’t include hate apeech

Not only that, but JS has freedom of speech - just not at this venue.

(And in this case, the venue is claiming something that isn't true.)

Stratavarious

The ‘it’s free speech’ argument is too often used as a way for some bigots to get away with being racist, homophobic, transphobic… bullies.

Each case is, and should be, its own.  Generalising it into ‘sides’ or ‘wokeism’ is just fucking naive. It is people getting played.  

We already have laws on what is appropriate speech that protects the vulnerable among us.  People and groups of us are, and should be, protected from hate speech and harassment by others. If you really don’t like that situation.. please leave - you are dragging this country to the bottom.

Bloody idiots for getting drawn into taking sides.

JCA2550

Free speech also I includes an individual's right not to hear. Just saying. I saw JS many years ago (mid 80s) and was taken aback by how verbally aggressive he was to the audience, my girlfriend and me included. But, this was at the height of the rise of alternative comedy, so we went along with it. 

Sporky

chillidoggy said:

Oh, and libel is written. I think "slander" is the word you're looking for.

Does that mean you don't think "free speech" extends to the written word? 

Stratavarious

Hootsmon said:

Art is being slowly strangled to death......book burning is just further down the road

Yes.. but who is burning who’s books?

It is all a manipulation.

darthed1981

Stratavarious said:

It is all a manipulation.

Yup.

The world is literally burning and what are people arguing about... which films and TV shows are too woke or not woke enough.

The planet is dying and the enduring debates are about who can use which toilets and whether it's OK to still like Harry Potter.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist... but if I were.

bertie

I heard it was Joe Lycett that complained 

Kittyfrisk

^ Surely you mean 'Hugo Boss'?

UnclePsychosis

Hilarious that people have taken any kind of position either way on this without knowing what he said or did. The modern world in a nutshell. 

ICBM

UnclePsychosis said:

Hilarious that people have taken any kind of position either way on this without knowing what he said or did. The modern world in a nutshell. 

True, but even without knowing exactly what he said, going to see an offensive comedian and complaining that he was offensive is a bit like going to see a horror film and then complaining that it was scary. Isn't it the whole point?

UnclePsychosis

ICBM said:

UnclePsychosis said:

Hilarious that people have taken any kind of position either way on this without knowing what he said or did. The modern world in a nutshell. 

True, but even without knowing exactly what he said, going to see an offensive comedian and complaining that he was offensive is a bit like going to see a horror film and then complaining that it was scary. Isn't it the whole point?

Really depends. 

I think on balance of probability you're probably right but just because you have a reputation for being offensive doesn't mean there isn't a line that you can't cross. 

I wouldn't be all that surprised if after decades of deliberately offending people he did finally go too far / too personal. 

Until someone actually says what he did, I'll maintain that the people taking sides on this without context are indicative of the real problem society has. 

TeleMaster

chillidoggy said:

Either you have free speech, or you don’t. There’s no in-between.

Nah. 

What about Libel, slander, what about hate speech, what about incitement? You can have limits and restrictions that protect people from persecution without having an encroachment on freedom of speech overall. 

TeleMaster

Cols said:

RobDavies said:

Apparently, Jerry referred to Sunak as the P word, and said the reason that the economy was fucked was because it was run by ‘women and blacks’. 

Now, I’m not sure of the context of these statements… but there are many people on SM right now, protesting about free speech etc.  They are the same people who’d have cancelled Manning for using the same kind of language. 

So gawd only knows what to think. 

That’s it?

Sadowitz has a reputation going back to the 80s for offensive satirical comedy which frequently and exuberantly pisses over the line of good taste.  This is a man who opened an act in Canada by beaming at the audience and saying “Good evening, moosefuckers!” (and subsequently got punched for it).

Seriously, this is akin to going to a strip club and complaining that there were ladies walking around with their naughty bits out.

'That's it??' You don't think that that's bad? I really don't know the context, so without really knowing what was going on its hard to comment, but if it was as it's being presented and he's calling Asian people that it would be pretty indefensible. I'm not surprised a private establishment decided to cancel his show. You can't have that. It's not 'cancel culture' it's some guy being racist and someone saying 'I don't want you in my house'. Perfectly reasonable if you ask me. 

steven70

DrCornelius said:

chillidoggy said:

Either you have free speech, or you don’t. There’s no in-between.

Free speech doesn’t include hate speech

Yes it does. By definition. 

It doesn't mean that there should not be consequences for speaking freely but there are already plenty of laws around that (e.g. those dealing with harassment).

That is different to preventing someone from saying something because it offends someone else.

I am offended by people telling me I am old and ugly, my songs are shit and my guitar playing is crap, but I don't expect rules to be put in place preventing them from saying so.
 
Edit: That said, I am not a fan of the man's routine.  

Edit: The recent Salman Rushdie stabbing is interesting in this context. He said something that offended people and there were consequences.

Offset

In addition to getting his pecker out (something he's been doing for years), the slurs about Sunak and government make-up, he apparently cracked a joke about trans people.  This was obviously the signal for all of those waiting to be offended to start foaming at the mouth.

If you don't want to hear this sort of stuff, don't go to a show where you're guaranteed to get it and then start complaining about it.

Sporky

steven70 said:

That is different to preventing someone from saying something because it offends someone else.
 

They're not preventing him from saying anything. There's no gag order and no legal action against him. They're just saying "we are not going to pay you to say that on our stage". 

chillidoggy

Sporky said:

chillidoggy said:

Oh, and libel is written. I think "slander" is the word you're looking for.

Does that mean you don't think "free speech" extends to the written word? 

Maybe Salman Rushdie should answer that.

Sporky

chillidoggy said:

Sporky said:

chillidoggy said:

Oh, and libel is written. I think "slander" is the word you're looking for.

Does that mean you don't think "free speech" extends to the written word? 

Maybe Salman Rushdie should answer that.

I'm not sure he knows your position on the matter.

chillidoggy

Actually, maybe we should replace the phrase with “Appropriate Speech”? To me, free means just that. Or it’s like an advert which says ‘free’ but with an asterisk directing you to all the T&C’s below.

TeleMaster

steven70 said:

DrCornelius said:

chillidoggy said:

Either you have free speech, or you don’t. There’s no in-between.

Free speech doesn’t include hate speech

Yes it does. By definition. 

It doesn't mean that there should not be consequences for speaking freely but there are already plenty of laws around that (e.g. those dealing with harassment).

That is different to preventing someone from saying something because it offends someone.

I am offended by people telling me I am old and ugly, my songs are shit and my guitar playing is crap, but I don't expect laws to be put in place preventing them from saying so.
 

No it doesn't. We have free speech here and there are restrictions on incitement and hate speech. There are levels and degrees to free speech, and by any measure speech is pretty much pretty unrestricted in the UK as reported by many human rights organisations. In fact, the European model is often regarded as the perfect model for balancing free speech without allowing people to be openly persecuted. 

If you ask me, the whole 'all speech should be free without consequence' take isn't one that's thought through if you want to have a functioning society that protects people from harm and persecution. 

If you don't understand why someone criticising your guitar playing is completely different to the incessant abuse of particular, possibly vulnerable groups of people based on race, religion, sexuality I don't know what to tell you. It's not even in the same universe let alone ball park.