• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should This Sick Filth Be Banned?

Stout said:
This would be a good place for a quote from a warrior hero

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all- Noam Chomsky
Click to expand...
There's no "if" about it in the UK. They clearly do not believe in freedom of expression for people they despise, it's a settled issue there and that's how they like it.

Offend someone and off to prison you go.
 
People do realize, don't they, that this is an "act" just like the Diceman (who I thought was hysterical in his time) and Sam Kinison (the funniest guy I ever saw perform.) The difference between guys like Andrew Dice Clay and Sam Kinison is that the Diecman was a one-note comedian and Kinison grew beyond the screaming routine and was really, really funny.

Really, just let the free market do its job. Somebody you don't like is doing a comedy show? Don't go. Vote with your wallet. Just don't impose your morality on me. I may think that person is genuinely funny and I want to spend my money seeing that person's act (the operative word.)

Michael
 
Darat said:
Ah the good old lies rolled out yet again.
Click to expand...
100% truth.

Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(b)that his conduct was reasonable.
(4)A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.
(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.]
Click to expand...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A

If someone feels insulted by your words off to prison you go.

eta: oh now I see the words "insulting" were removed earlier this year under pressure from those on the continent, much to the chagrin of sensitive Brits I'm sure. But have no fear, British prosecutors have found a workaround!
Taking account of the removal of the "insulting" limb, prosecutors will need to carefully consider whether behaviour taking place on or after 1 February 2014 amounts to the commission of the section 5 offence. In the majority of cases, prosecutors are likely to find that behaviour that can be described as insulting can also be described as abusive. See Gough v Director of Public Prosecutions [2013] EWHC 3267 (Admin) in which the words 'threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly' are discussed within the context of Article 10.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
Well, I used Mein Kampf as an example because it is actually banned in some places. I believe that Miley Cyrus is also banned in the Dominican Republic from performing. And according to Cardiff University, praised in the comedians' letter because it has "stood up" against that sort of thing, has been...

...as Student Unions spend much of their time finding things to ban to prevent any corruption of the tiny malleable minds of its charges.
Click to expand...

This seems reasonable to me. It's not as if there were a dearth of entertainers willing to perform on college campuses. Is there some larger agenda in play - like if he had some important social message to transmit? I don't think so. I don't think he gets to play the Lenny Bruce card here.

And I still think "boycott" fits better than "banned."
 
Brian-M said:
Personally, I don't think any form of free expression should be banned or censored, unless that free expression infringes on the rights of others.
Click to expand...

That sounds good, but fails in practice. If I have to schedule events for a venue, I only have a certain number of slots I can fill. The vast majority of performers aren't going to appear at Carnegie Hall. It isn't censorship so much as trying to select what you feel are the best performers for the likely audience.

We can guarantee free speech without guaranteeing an audience.

Besides, the guy is all over YouTube, God's gift to free speech.
 
marplots said:
Is there some larger agenda in play - like if he had some important social message to transmit? I don't think so. I don't think he gets to play the Lenny Bruce card here.
Click to expand...

Why should he have a larger social message to transmit? Maybe his comedy was about entertainment.
 
WildCat said:
Per UK law if he has offended somebody then he should be tried, convicted, and imprisoned.
Click to expand...
And that is of course why he's in prison now, rather than just having had his TV programme dropped by the TV company in the face of public pressure, something that could never happen in the US.
 
WildCat said:
100% truth.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A

If someone feels insulted by your words off to prison you go.

eta: oh now I see the words "insulting" were removed earlier this year under pressure from those on the continent, much to the chagrin of sensitive Brits I'm sure. But have no fear, British prosecutors have found a workaround!
Click to expand...

Repeating lies does not make them any less untruthful.
 
Darat said:
Repeating lies does not make them any less untruthful.
Click to expand...

While not necessarily agreeing with Wildcat, and not necessarily disagreeing with you, I wish you would actually address his arguments rather than just calling him a liar and hand-waving away his direct quotes from the UK Government's official legislation website.

It seems, on the face of it, that what he has quoted fully supports his view, i.e. you insult someone, verbally or in writing, and that is likely to be seen as abusive, for which you could be prosecuted, and if found guilty you could go to jail.

If you believe this to be untrue, then what does the legislation mean? What am I missing?
 
smartcooky said:
While not necessarily agreeing with Wildcat, and not necessarily disagreeing with you, I wish you would actually address his arguments rather than just calling him a liar and hand-waving away his direct quotes from the UK Government's official legislation website.

It seems, on the face of it, that what he has quoted fully supports his view, i.e. you insult someone, verbally or in writing, and that is likely to be seen as abusive, for which you could be prosecuted, and if found guilty you could go to jail.

If you believe this to be untrue, then what does the legislation mean? What am I missing?
Click to expand...

I'll take a stab. I'm not a member of the legal profession in either the UK or in the US, but I can see a few hurdles Wildcat would need to jump to show this law applies to this behavior. For one, there's the question of intent. If the comedian's chief reasons for the speech actions are to make money and to entertain his fans, which I think they clearly are, it may be difficult to show that his course of action was done with intent to cause distress. In terms of speech that serves other clear and legitimate purposes, I don't believe foreknowledge of a likely effect is enough to show intent of harassment. Stating any strong political opinion on national TV is sure to get the blood boiling in those who oppose those opinions, but the UK doesn't imprison every political commentator.

For another thing, Wildcat cropped off the law's listed defenses:
(a)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(b)that his conduct was reasonable.
Click to expand...

The first is obviously not relevant here, but the second clearly applies. To convict under this law, they must not only intend to cause distress, alarm or harassment, but they must also be acting unreasonably.

For me to believe that this law is interpreted by the legal profession in such a way as Wildcat claims, I'd have to see precedents, cases where entertainers were convicted by this statute for putting material into mass media that offends someone (with the exception of cases where particular individuals might be a clearly intended target).
 
WildCat said:
There's no "if" about it in the UK. They clearly do not believe in freedom of expression for people they despise, it's a settled issue there and that's how they like it.

Offend someone and off to prison you go.
Click to expand...

ONLY if it's in the public interest to press charges.
 
If you find something objectionable, distasteful, disagreeable or offensive how about you just don't watch, listen or read it? How *********** hard can it be to ignore it? Is someone forcing these people to endure it by taping their eye-lids open and exposing them to this sick filth?

Oh that's right: it's not about them being exposed to it that's the problem it's that it "sends the wrong signals" about what should be acceptable. Racist jokes should be banned because racism is unacceptable and anything that may be viewed as supporting racism or racist views should be made an example of so the good and decent folk know what's right and proper.
 
Last edited:
To put this into context, the thing that made the network decline to give this guy's show a second season was that during a live set, he singled out a female audience member and told the audience that he intended to rape her after the show. So, yeah.
 
colander said:
To put this into context, the thing that made the network decline to give this guy's show a second season was that during a live set, he singled out a female audience member and told the audience that he intended to rape her after the show. So, yeah.
Click to expand...

Which was obviously a joke, albeit not a funny one, but equally obviously not something that advertisers would want to be associated with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RSLancastr
My TAM 5 Report
Replies
12
Views
2K
RSLancastr
RSLancastr

Back
Top Bottom