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

[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.