"Free speech" doesn't exist in Canada - get fined for jokes

[Bourne]

There are dozen of instances in Canada where words have ruined lives (the lives of the speakers, because special snowflakes were offended).
Here is the latest. This time, it is especially egregious since the offender is a COMEDIAN who should be more able to offend than anyone if you were to place limits.

Furthermore, he has to pay the mother of the "victim" as well, not just the "victim". This offends me, so I think I'm going to sue someone brb

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-verdict-1.3688089


Why else is it egregious? The "victim" wasn't even there. So you can't make jokes about people even when they aren't there, or you're getting fined.

[nathanjizzle]

people seem to not understand what "freedom of speech" means. it is the right to speak without persecution by the government. getting sued by someone isnt getting persecuted by the government. in america, there is something called "defamation" and it is when someone spreads false information about you and that person can get sued for it.

[resin_baller]

people seem to not understand what "freedom of speech" means. it is the right to speak without persecution by the government. getting sued by someone isnt getting persecuted by the government. in america, there is something called "defamation" and it is when someone spreads false information about you and that person can get sued for it.


That is not what freedom of speech means. If you are only talking about freedom of speech in the context of the first amendment, then sure, that's what it means. But the idea of natural rights, the idea that inspired the first amendment in the first place, extends beyond the government.

If you live in a world where saying something "bad" about the wrong corporation, or the wrong religion, means losing your job, a screaming horde harrassing you anywhere you go, and a crushing lawsuit enforced at the barrel of a gun, is it really different? That's mob rule, the lowest form of government.

[Kblaze8855]

The kind of free speech you seem to think we should have never existed anywhere. You are responsible for what you say. It may get you hated...it may get you arrested at times. You may have your career ruined. Really....you think you could go in public screaming whatever the hell you wanted and not have you job care? You cant think of ANYTHING you might say on TV to make it a bad business decision to work with you?

Freedom of speech means exactly what he said it does....and thats all it should. And even then it has limits. There is a damn good reason you cant yell fire in a packed building when there isnt one....and a good reason you cant call someones grandma at 3am making threats.

Common sense and safety of society in general come before silly natural "rights" being exploited just for the sake of being a dick.

[Bourne]

people seem to not understand what "freedom of speech" means. it is the right to speak without persecution by the government. getting sued by someone isnt getting persecuted by the government. in america, there is something called "defamation" and it is when someone spreads false information about you and that person can get sued for it.

This was not a defamation case - this was a case of making fun of someone. There was no slander or libel. It was as legally banal as me calling you a smartass.

[Bourne]

The kind of free speech you seem to think we should have never existed anywhere. You are responsible for what you say. It may get you hated...it may get you arrested at times. You may have your career ruined. Really....you think you could go in public screaming whatever the hell you wanted and not have you job care? You cant think of ANYTHING you might say on TV to make it a bad business decision to work with you?

Freedom of speech means exactly what he said it does....and thats all it should. And even then it has limits. There is a damn good reason you cant yell fire in a packed building when there isnt one....and a good reason you cant call someones grandma at 3am making threats.

Common sense and safety of society in general come before silly natural "rights" being exploited just for the sake of being a dick.

Yelling fire in a crowded building creates danger, in the immediate present. It incites danger. It is easy to identify which speech creates such a situation, and making fun of someone as a comedian at a show is not one of them. So your reason for suggesting his speech should be limited is a false equivalency argument.

Safety of society in general... yeah, society was definitely in danger since a comedian made some jokes.

[Kblaze8855]

When you look at what you can sue for in america in a civil trial and call it mental anguish? I can see how picking on a disabled kid could fall under it. If thats my son he might see me at his front door.....then I go to jail. We talking basic rights....I dont see why I shouldnt be able to beat a guys ass for picking on my handicapped son. But I cant.

Thats the world.

[KyrieTheFuture]

That is not what freedom of speech means. If you are only talking about freedom of speech in the context of the first amendment, then sure, that's what it means. But the idea of natural rights, the idea that inspired the first amendment in the first place, extends beyond the government.

If you live in a world where saying something "bad" about the wrong corporation, or the wrong religion, means losing your job, a screaming horde harrassing you anywhere you go, and a crushing lawsuit enforced at the barrel of a gun, is it really different? That's mob rule, the lowest form of government.
The idea behind the first amendment in no way extends beyond the government.

[Dresta]

The kind of free speech you seem to think we should have never existed anywhere. You are responsible for what you say. It may get you hated...it may get you arrested at times. You may have your career ruined. Really....you think you could go in public screaming whatever the hell you wanted and not have you job care? You cant think of ANYTHING you might say on TV to make it a bad business decision to work with you?

Freedom of speech means exactly what he said it does....and thats all it should. And even then it has limits. There is a damn good reason you cant yell fire in a packed building when there isnt one....and a good reason you cant call someones grandma at 3am making threats.

Common sense and safety of society in general come before silly natural "rights" being exploited just for the sake of being a dick.
This is utter rubbish. Insulting and making fun of people has been legal in America since its founding. You should see the things that were written about John Adams when he was President, and he brought in laws to try and prosecute such things---and was remembered in infamy as a consequence (not to mention the laws were repealed). Not to mention that unendurable insults were settled by the individuals involved back then, and not by the courts. No, what hasn't existed in America, is such a disdainful and negligent attitude towards freedom of speech as yours--a type of sophistry that is now prevalent, and widely believed by the ahistorical people who obsess about such things as people's feelings.

You are defending the indefensible, and equivocating to try and hide the fact that none of what you are saying applies to this case anyway.

[Dresta]

people seem to not understand what "freedom of speech" means. it is the right to speak without persecution by the government. getting sued by someone isnt getting persecuted by the government. in america, there is something called "defamation" and it is when someone spreads false information about you and that person can get sued for it.
Such an idiot.

IF THE GOVERNMENT CREATES LAWS THAT LIMIT FREE SPEECH BY ALLOWING FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS, THEN THAT LAW IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ONE.

People can't sue and win if the LAW is not on their side. Stop being such a cretin.

[Nick Young]

It is pathetic that Democrats actively fight against freedom of speech in 2016.

Modern Democrat rhetoric is constantly trying to spin freedom of speech like it's a bad thing.


To me, protected freedom of speech is the most important law in America.

[Kblaze8855]

This is utter rubbish. Insulting and making fun of people has been legal in America since its founding. You should see the things that were written about John Adams when he was President, and he brought in laws to try and prosecute such things---and was remembered in infamy as a consequence (not to mention the laws were repealed). Not to mention that unendurable insults were settled by the individuals involved back then, and not by the courts. No, what hasn't existed in America, is such a disdainful and negligent attitude towards freedom of speech as yours--a type of sophistry that is now prevalent, and widely believed by the ahistorical people who obsess about such things as people's feelings.

You are defending the indefensible, and equivocating to try and hide the fact that none of what you are saying applies to this case anyway.

Want to point out to me the factually inaccurate part of what I said?

Really...read this again and show me the error....

Responding to this:



If you live in a world where saying something "bad" about the wrong corporation, or the wrong religion, means losing your job, a screaming horde harrassing you anywhere you go, and a crushing lawsuit enforced at the barrel of a gun, is it really different? That's mob rule, the lowest form of government.

I said:


The kind of free speech you seem to think we should have never existed anywhere. You are responsible for what you say. It may get you hated...it may get you arrested at times. You may have your career ruined. Really....you think you could go in public screaming whatever the hell you wanted and not have you job care? You cant think of ANYTHING you might say on TV to make it a bad business decision to work with you?

Dude is talking about people losing jobs, being hated, and sued over what they say. You want to point out to me when that has not been fairly standard?

You simply cant speak without repercussions.....be they professional...societal...or legal. There are things you cant say and stay employed by many people...there are things you cant say and not be shunned by society....there are things you cant say and not go to jail.

There have always been limits on free speech....always. Some limits enforced by law...you cant threaten people...harass them in certain ways. 100% verbal sexual harassment is illegal in some settings. Its a violation of the civil rights act. What....is saying something crass to a woman more morally out of line than picking on a disabled child?

While we are talking natural rights and all which the person I responded to was....

Do you think you have a natural right to **** with someones kid verbally and face no repercussions? Lets say this disabled kid is my son. This guy is picking on him...hurts my kids feelings. Am I....as his father...out of line to go to the dude man to man and deal with him as I see fit? How far we talking the free speech thing?

Should there be no consequences for what you say?

Are we just totally leaving the real world in favor of what you wished were the case?

In the world that is...what you say matters. It reflects on you...the people who employ you...your family...it gets you judged. The idea that its unfair or unusual for someone to be hated, vilified, or face legal action under some circumstances just doesnt seem rooted in reality.

Ive seen members of my family arrested for nothing but words. It was called terroristic threats.

Words...alone....can get you locked up. Fired. Hated. Im not concerning myself with the world you wish we had. In the one we do...speech isnt all that free.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

If you live in a world where saying something "bad" about the wrong corporation, or the wrong religion, means losing your job, a screaming horde harrassing you anywhere you go, and a crushing lawsuit enforced at the barrel of a gun, is it really different? That's mob rule, the lowest form of government.

There is a difference between losing your and being followed by a screaming horde, which are really just others expressing their own free speech and having laws enforced by the state making it okay for someone to sue you and take your money by force because you said something mean.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

btw the "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" thing is a myth in the US.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

As far I know only speech that is not allowed is threatening/inciting violence in a specific manner at a specific target.

[Kblaze8855]

It generally means you cant just start a panic and get away with it. which....often you cant. Tyler the Creator was arrested in Austin for yelling "Push" a couple times from the stage which the police took to be inciting a riot when his fans pushed their way into an event. Had he pretended there was a fire and got them fighting their way out....I suspect hes still arrested.

Why wouldn't intentionally causing a dangerous situation like that not be against the law?

As I mentioned ive seen arrests over threats I knew were not serious. You spark a trampling situation and get a few people hurt/killed? I'm guessing there are repercussions....though as always...it would be case by case.

[Kblaze8855]

This discussion having sparked an interest ive been reading up on a lot of situations....

The right to repeat other peoples material has led to some interesting lawsuits.

Would you say(just in your ideal world) that someone should be able to stop me from repeating a speech they gave or story they wrote? What about of its for profit?

Would me trying to profit off it change your perception of it as free speech?

Can someone really own....the words of my voice...because they thought them up?

[Dunaprenti]

This discussion having sparked an interest ive been reading up on a lot of situations....

The right to repeat other peoples material has led to some interesting lawsuits.

Would you say(just in your ideal world) that someone should be able to stop me from repeating a speech they gave or story they wrote? What about of its for profit?

Would me trying to profit off it change your perception of it as free speech?

Can someone really own....the words of my voice...because they thought them up?

In an ideal world none of this would matter. People will not take you seriously if you jack someone else's material. This has happened to a lot of comedians, Carlos Mencia comes to mind. Getting fined for a joke is beyond ridiculous, almost all of the jokes that I know are offensive or at someone's expense. If the joke was that bad people would just stop going to your shows.

[I<3NBA]

freedom of speech is not absolute. it entails certain responsibilities and are lower on the totem pole of other rights, like the rights of other people's safety, security, and dignity.

i think in this case the fine was warranted.

the comedian made fun of a disabled kid, which led to the kid being bullied and further anguish to an already emotionally battered child.

[Bourne]

freedom of speech is not absolute. it entails certain responsibilities and are lower on the totem pole of other rights, like the rights of other people's safety, security, and dignity.

i think in this case the fine was warranted.

the comedian made fun of a disabled kid, which led to the kid being bullied and further anguish to an already emotionally battered child.

Please tell me you are trolling.

1. Freedom of speech is the most important freedom we have. Once you lose it, your biggest defense to injustices against your other rights is gone. The power of law fails, the market of public opinion fails to exist, and you become controlled by those with power with no avenue to defend yourself.

2. Someone should be fined if their words lead to bullying? Get out. He didn't tell them to bully the kid. They did it on their own free will. Islam leads people to murder - should we limit Islam similarly? Should GM be fined because their truck was used in a murder?

Allow the court of public opinion to punish people who say things that harm society, since they will be incentivized to change. Don't arbitrarily decide what is harmful so that weak-minded, fragile, special snowflakes with no spine can decide they've been offended enough to deserve your cash.

That might have been the dumbest post I've read in weeks

[RoundMoundOfReb]

This discussion having sparked an interest ive been reading up on a lot of situations....

The right to repeat other peoples material has led to some interesting lawsuits.

Would you say(just in your ideal world) that someone should be able to stop me from repeating a speech they gave or story they wrote? What about of its for profit?

Would me trying to profit off it change your perception of it as free speech?

Can someone really own....the words of my voice...because they thought them up?

No. You should be able to.

[Dresta]

freedom of speech is not absolute. it entails certain responsibilities and are lower on the totem pole of other rights, like the rights of other people's safety, security, and dignity.

i think in this case the fine was warranted.

the comedian made fun of a disabled kid, which led to the kid being bullied and further anguish to an already emotionally battered child.
There is no such thing as a "right to dignity" smh...


This concept of rights is a literal absurdity.

[Bourne]

There is no such thing as a "right to dignity" smh...


This concept of rights is a literal absurdity.

I disagree. I think humans are born with things they deserve, provided they are basic. If people are not born deserving of a certain amount of "rights" (hard to make an argument without using the word itself), people get abused and society is the worse for it, not to mention the individuals being rolled over.

Also, rights are extremely important, in the context that rights are the drivers of good laws.

[iamgine]

There's no such thing as absolute free speech. Like most everything, it's limited.

Many people think "Oh if free speech is limited then it's no longer free speech" Well technically maybe, but it's not a bad thing in the grander picture. Societies needs limited free speech so it doesn't fall into chaos. Some more than other. You wouldn't want to live in an absolute free speech society.

This specific comedian case is wack though. What did he say anyways?

[Bourne]

There's no such thing as absolute free speech. Like most everything, it's limited.

Many people think "Oh if free speech is limited then it's no longer free speech" Well technically maybe, but it's not a bad thing in the grander picture. Societies needs limited free speech so it doesn't fall into chaos. Some more than other. You wouldn't want to live in an absolute free speech society.

This specific comedian case is wack though. What did he say anyways?

Not sure what he said exactly. Probably misrepresented in most things you'd read anyway.

Unlimited free speech doesnt exist in America. It does have limits placed upon it. But they are objective and easy to apply, whereas being "offended" is vague and literally personal and subjective. If people don't understand the problem presented by emotions dictating speech laws, they are naive.

[KyrieTheFuture]

I disagree. I think humans are born with things they deserve, provided they are basic. If people are not born deserving of a certain amount of "rights" (hard to make an argument without using the word itself), people get abused and society is the worse for it, not to mention the individuals being rolled over.

Also, rights are extremely important, in the context that rights are the drivers of good laws.
Rights are given to you by other people. There are no "natural" rights.

[Bourne]

Rights are given to you by other people. There are no "natural" rights.

Correct. Since "rights" are a concept created by humans. But I am of the opinion that you are born with certain rights, making them natural - people can violate them or refuse to recognize them, but they are still "natural". in any event we're talking semantics... id like to read something by someone who wholly refutes the concept of rights. that woudl be interesting.

[Dresta]

Correct. Since "rights" are a concept created by humans. But I am of the opinion that you are born with certain rights, making them natural - people can violate them or refuse to recognize them, but they are still "natural". in any event we're talking semantics... id like to read something by someone who wholly refutes the concept of rights. that woudl be interesting.
The concept of universal human rights such as "the right to dignity" or "the right to a living wage" etc. etc. are literal absurdities. The concept makes no sense because rights are entirely determined by time and place and the legal and structural means that exists to guarantee such rights.

Abstracted rights are a fool's game. There is no reason for practical reality to reflect what are only rhetorical abstractions (read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for an example--how many of the signatories actually uphold these "rights"? How is this document currently helping the Turks who are being tortured and persecuted by their government?).

[Bourne]

The concept of universal human rights such as "the right to dignity" or "the right to a living wage" etc. etc. are literal absurdities. The concept makes no sense because rights are entirely determined by time and place and the legal and structural means that exists to guarantee such rights.

Abstracted rights are a fool's game. There is no reason for practical reality to reflect what are only rhetorical abstractions (read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for an example--how many of the signatories actually uphold these "rights"? How is this document currently helping the Turks who are being tortured and persecuted by their government?).

I'm only talking about the most basic of rights. The right to not be killed by someone, the right to think whatever you want, etc. Those are the most basic, I believe... is clean water a right? food? nah, not under my framework - those are necessities but not basic rights. meh


practical usefulness of rights doesn't suggest anything to whether they exist or not. but its just a matter of opinion, i dont think there is a provable correct answer

[Dunaprenti]

freedom of speech is not absolute. it entails certain responsibilities and are lower on the totem pole of other rights, like the rights of other people's safety, security, and dignity.

i think in this case the fine was warranted.

the comedian made fun of a disabled kid, which led to the kid being bullied and further anguish to an already emotionally battered child.

You would be right if the comedian said "Go and bully this ugly kid". The bullies should be responsible for their actions.
There are two kinds of jokes - funny and not funny ones. Whats next no fat jokes, no sexist jokes, no hyperboles? Would you have a problem if the kid wasn't disabled, or if he was an adult? Where should the line be drawn

[Dresta]

You would be right if the comedian said "Go and bully this ugly kid". The bullies should be responsible for their actions.
There are two kinds of jokes - funny and not funny ones. Whats next no fat jokes, no sexist jokes, no hyperboles? Would you have a problem if the kid wasn't disabled, or if he was an adult? Where should the line be drawn
The line should be drawn at direct incitement to violence.