Jerry Sadowitz cancelled

TeleMaster

steven70 said:

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?

No of course not. It was an example of groups who were harassed and persecuted because of those reasons and who are now not allowed to be harrased because of legislation. 

If someone's sexuality offends you, that's one thing. If the inherent nature of someone that has very little impact on you offends you then you need to explore that yourself. Offence in itself is not a crime, nor should it be. But offence can be combined with other things like incitement or harassment, which should be a crime. That can come in many forms including the language, the actions, the intent, depending on what it is. 

But if there was actual persecution where the actions of X sexuality starts to actually infringe on your liberty, your ability to live your life independently, to practice your religion freely, where you are actually being persecuted because of your religion by people of X sexuality then absolutely of course you should be protected but that's not what it is, it is. If it's just offence to a particular group of people for no real, tangible reason it's obviously just small mindedness and I'd say, sort yourself out. 

A lot would have to happen, and it would be pretty rich before any religious group, particularly some of the most powerful and richest organisations in the history of the world can claim persecution from a group of gay or trans people or whatever. I don't think it's a question that is really comparable. 

Sassafras

A comedian's responsibility is to 1/ make people laugh and b/ provoke thought.

Sassafras

boogieman said:

Sassafras said:

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

And Rosie Jones. 

Careful Boogie, that could be construed as 'ableism' and might cause offence 

Hoof

The most annoying thing about all of this is the media outlets posting stories about this are, as usual, not publishing any details of the joke and thus robbing people of understanding the context and forming their own opinion. I find it hard to believe that news channels cannot publish any details of a joke when they can report horrific details from the frontline of a warzone.

Now while some may say that racial slurs are never funny or a man exposing his penis is always inapproriate that's misunderstanding the scope of comedy as an artform. It's like saying dissonance never has place in music or that visual arts should only be pretty pictures.

Sporky

Hoof said:

It's like saying dissonance never has place in music or that visual arts should only be pretty pictures.

I'm not sure anyone's ever been beaten to death for being an E to A# interval, or been chased down the street by a mob of people brandishing prints of The Scream. 

Offset

Sporky said:

Hoof said:

It's like saying dissonance never has place in music or that visual arts should only be pretty pictures.

I'm not sure anyone's ever been beaten to death for being an E to A# interval, or been chased down the street by a mob of people brandishing prints of The Scream. 

No, but at this rate it can only be a matter of time.

UnclePsychosis

Where this gets more interesting is if its not a punter who has complained, but a member of staff. 

The intersection between an employers duty of care towards its own employees vs free speech is an interesting one.

The kind of thing Sadowitz does would violate every employee code of conduct ever written. So your employer inviting someone like that to perform as entertainment is an interesting conundrum from the perspective of employment law.

chillidoggy

Sporky said:

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.

Are you just on receive? I’m stating my opinion, you disagree with it, that’s OK, fine by me.

But I also disagree with your puerile, persistent, and pedantic attempts to force me to change and agree with your view.  Once and for all - I don’t agree with you, or your opinion, and me sticking to my views has nothing to do with pedantry.

This is a classic example of why online debates are futile, perpetuated by pedants who seek to impose their will on others.

fretmeister

chillidoggy said:

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

That doesn’t mean it’s free from consequences.

UnclePsychosis

chillidoggy said:

Sporky said:

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.

Are you just on receive? I’m stating my opinion, you disagree with it, that’s OK, fine by me.

But I also disagree with your puerile, persistent, and pedantic attempts to force me to change and agree with your view.  Once and for all - I don’t agree with you, or your opinion, and me sticking to my views has nothing to do with pedantry.

This is a classic example of why online debates are futile, perpetuated by pedants who seek to impose their will on others.

Definitely a classic example of online debates being futile, mainly because you seem to have fallen down the classic hole of taking the hump at not being allowed to invent your own facts. :-)

Hoof

Sporky said:

Hoof said:

It's like saying dissonance never has place in music or that visual arts should only be pretty pictures.

I'm not sure anyone's ever been beaten to death for being an E to A# interval, or been chased down the street by a mob of people brandishing prints of The Scream. 

Again, without knowing the joke and its context, it's not really appropriate to react. The joke may have been a well observed point about the stupidity of racism using the offending word or phrase to drive the point home or make the audience think hard about their own stance on the matter.

Or perhaps, as a comic JS has had his time. To continue to be an edgy comic one has to adapt to changing culture. Sometimes the line gets pushed forward, and sometimes it draws back. It happens. I expect that much of Bill Hicks' material would not fly with a modern audience. 

TeleMaster

chillidoggy said:

Are you just on receive? I’m stating my opinion, you disagree with it, that’s OK, fine by me.

But I also disagree with your puerile, persistent, and pedantic attempts to force me to change and agree with your view.  Once and for all - I don’t agree with you, or your opinion, and me sticking to my views has nothing to do with pedantry.

This is a classic example of why online debates are futile, perpetuated by pedants who seek to impose their will on others.

You think it's a dog with a bone. It's not. It is multiple people trying to explain that you are plainly, simply wrong. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of FACT. There is no subjective opinion here. Free speech, as proven with multiple sources includes written expression. It becomes a discussion on how to explain to you that this is not an opinion, it is FACT.

Doubling, tripling down on an opposition to this with irrefutable evidence is I believe either pedantry, stubbornness or cognitive dissonance. 

euan

This is well timed, though obviously not well times enough to catch this latest storm in teacup 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/14/terry-gilliam-its-not-that-people-are-more-sensitive-some-things-just-not-funny-any-more

chillidoggy

UnclePsychosis said:o

chillidoggy said:

Sporky said:

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.

Are you just on receive? I’m stating my opinion, you disagree with it, that’s OK, fine by me.

But I also disagree with your puerile, persistent, and pedantic attempts to force me to change and agree with your view.  Once and for all - I don’t agree with you, or your opinion, and me sticking to my views has nothing to do with pedantry.

This is a classic example of why online debates are futile, perpetuated by pedants who seek to impose their will on others.

Definitely a classic example of online debates being futile, mainly because you seem to have fallen down the classic hole of taking the hump at not being allowed to invent your own facts. :-)

What facts am I supposed to invent? I’ve continually stated the fact that I disagree with an opinion. Not sure what else there is to say.

So, please elaborate on your accusation because clearly I’m ignorant of the online futile debate protocol in this instance.

fretmeister

chillidoggy said:

Sporky said:

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.

Are you just on receive? I’m stating my opinion, you disagree with it, that’s OK, fine by me.

But I also disagree with your puerile, persistent, and pedantic attempts to force me to change and agree with your view.  Once and for all - I don’t agree with you, or your opinion, and me sticking to my views has nothing to do with pedantry.

This is a classic example of why online debates are futile, perpetuated by pedants who seek to impose their will on others.

What if your opinion is demonstrably wrong?

Like 2+2=5? Or that cows don’t make milk they make axle grease in their udders?

Dictionary and legal definitions of free speech include the written word and have done for centuries.

To hold an opposing “opinion” in this sort of circumstance is just being wrong.

UnclePsychosis

[free] "speech is the spoken word" is NOT an opinion. Its a (false) objective statement. 

Nobody is disagreeing with your "opinion" because there isn't one to disagree with. We're disagreeing with your assertion because it is tangibly untrue. 

TeleMaster

Ah well. We tried. Time to move on. 

fretmeister

TeleMaster said:

Ah well. We tried. Time to move on. 

Yeah.

Its not quite up to Sir Axeman standards of flat earth wrongness, but it’s the same sport.

TeleMaster

fretmeister said:

TeleMaster said:

Ah well. We tried. Time to move on. 

Yeah.

Its not quite up to Sir Axeman standards of flat earth wrongness, but it’s the same sport.

Yea. It reminds me of a time when someone argued incessantly that the person who was employed as an epidemiologist wasn't actually an epidemiologist, even though they are literally an epidemiologist. Stop doubling down, it just makes it worse. 

Sporky

chillidoggy said:

But I also disagree with your puerile, persistent, and pedantic attempts to force me to change and agree with your view.  Once and for all - I don’t agree with you, or your opinion, and me sticking to my views has nothing to do with pedantry.

No need to be rude just because you're wrong about something.

You claimed that "free speech" doesn't include the written word. That is not true for the standard definition of the term,  which I provided.