Jerry Sadowitz cancelled

steven70

Sporky said:

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". 

Yes, that is a fair point - accept that there is a difference. We are free to boycott that venue in future if we don't agree with the policy. 

chillidoggy

Sporky said:

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.

‘Speech’ is the spoken word, not written.

TeleMaster

chillidoggy said:

Sporky said:

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.

‘Speech’ is the spoken word, not written.

Come on, speech in this regard is obviously figurative. It absolutely and obviously includes written and really refers to opinions, ideas and the expression of them, including art. It's basically interchangeable with freedom of expression. There's no 'freedom of writing', it all means the same thing. 

Sassafras

If you don't like what someone says, take them to court like they did with Alex Jones.
Don't try to impose your will on everyone else.

Kittyfrisk

chillidoggy said:

Sporky said:

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.

‘Speech’ is the spoken word, not written.

I wouldn't choose to die on this hill...
Speech is spoken words but is still speech when written down.
https://www.themanual.com/culture/famous-speeches-from-history/

p90fool

I don't see the problem, Sunak really IS a prick.

bertie

p90fool said:

I don't see the problem, Sunak really IS a prick.

does that mean Trussy  is a c......  ?

chillidoggy

TeleMaster said:

chillidoggy said:

Sporky said:

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.

‘Speech’ is the spoken word, not written.

Come on, speech in this regard is obviously figurative. It absolutely and obviously includes written and really refers to opinions, ideas and the expression of them, including art. It's basically interchangeable with freedom of expression. There's no 'freedom of writing', it all means the same thing. 

Not to me, it doesn’t. However, you’re welcome to your absolutely and obvious opinion, as am I.

Sporky

chillidoggy said:

Sporky said:

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.

‘Speech’ is the spoken word, not written.

Not in the context of "free speech", which is defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. From Wikipedia:

Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

chillidoggy

Sporky said:

chillidoggy said:

Sporky said:

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.

‘Speech’ is the spoken word, not written.

Not in the context of "free speech", which is defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. From Wikipedia:

Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

Except you appear to me to be trying to change my opinion. Sorry, but ain’t gonna work.

CaseOfAce

I'm seeing Doug Stanhope next month.

Given the current (!) climate we live in, I wonder how far that tour will progress. If I know anything about Stanhope though, one thing's for sure he won't be pulling his punches - and rightly so (you could say I like my comedy straight up / no chaser).
That's not to say anything goes for me - I find Frankie Boyle a mix of equal parts hilarious and at times truly horrific (the Harvey "jokes" very much crossed a line for me).

Still, I'd hate to live in a time though where the only comedy on offer is Beeb approved box-ticking /  observational humour ("hey guys have you ever noticed...? " etc) - but that's increasingly starting to look like the likelihood here... 

People have said rock and roll is dead - it's beginning to look like comedy will be following it to the grave in short order...

Philly_Q

Offset said:

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 that's right, he's obviously doing it to press people's buttons.

You then get into this weird grey area of:  is he saying what he really feels, or is he saying what he really doesn't feel, to get a reaction and to make people think?  And in either case, does the underlying intent count, or do the actual words used override the intent?

I don't want to speculate on Sadowitz's act too much without having seen it, but it makes me think of the recent Jimmy Carr and Ricky Gervais "scandals" - in both those cases I felt they were not stating a personal opinion, but going right up to the edge of how offensive they could be, to provoke a reaction but more importantly to make make people think about why they reacted as they did.

I'm not taking sides here, particularly without having seen the act in question, but even then I don't really know what I'd think except that there's no simple right or wrong answer.  Context does affect meaning - although perhaps not in the eyes of the law.

Sporky

No, simply pointing out that your opinion is wrong, if your opinion is that "speech" in the context of "free speech" means only the spoken word.

I appreciate you were just trying to be pedantic earlier, but if you're going to go for pedantic you should make sure you're right first.

steven70

TeleMaster said:

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. 

Are these the only criteria by which you divide individuals into meaningful groups?

What should happen if someone's sexuality offends my religious beliefs?

I think what this probably means is that a specific set of values regarding religious, racial or sexual identity should be enforced universally. And this may be right or not. But let's be honest about what it is.

Edit: I'm thinking about a thread on Ricky Gervais which involved a different set of values.
 
Incessant meaning "continuing without pause or interruption." Which comes under harassment.

Accept that we probably won't ever agree on this.  

TeleMaster

chillidoggy said:

TeleMaster said:

chillidoggy said:

Sporky said:

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.

‘Speech’ is the spoken word, not written.

Come on, speech in this regard is obviously figurative. It absolutely and obviously includes written and really refers to opinions, ideas and the expression of them, including art. It's basically interchangeable with freedom of expression. There's no 'freedom of writing', it all means the same thing. 

Not to me, it doesn’t. However, you’re welcome to your absolutely and obvious opinion, as am I.

Well it does. It's just a fact. You can argue that blue isn't blue mate, but it is blue. 

UnclePsychosis

chillidoggy said:

Sporky said:

chillidoggy said:

Sporky said:

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.

‘Speech’ is the spoken word, not written.

Not in the context of "free speech", which is defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. From Wikipedia:

Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

Except you appear to me to be trying to change my opinion. Sorry, but ain’t gonna work.

This is a really, really strange hill to die on. 

JezWynd

Either way it appears to have raised his profile, so… job done.

Kittyfrisk

Sassafras

I'm imagining an unsettling dystopian future where the only comedian left is Michael McIntyre.

boogieman

Sassafras said:

I'm imagining an unsettling dystopian future where the only comedian left is Michael McIntyre.

And Rosie Jones.