Should This Sick Filth Be Banned?

[angrysoba]

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.

Well, to give it some further context, it seems that his "rape" joke was in response to a person who had accused him of making his show a "rapists' almanac":

I want to talk about the production team, the commissioners and the management behind the new ITV2 series Dapper Laughs: On The Pull. The runners are the only people I'll turn a blind eye to. The truth is, the rest of you are old enough to know better. You have basically helped create a rapists' almanac. Sure you haven't told people how to come equipped with rope or chloroform - but you have contributed to a prevalent predatory culture that reduces women to nothing more than a piece of ****. That's an ugly turn of phrase but that's exactly what you've done.

To which he responded:

Dapper Laughs, an internet sensation, defended his dating show on ITV2, On The Pull, to an audience back in October.
He said: “If [my ITV show] was a f****** guide to rape, I would have done one five-minute episode, come on and go 'Oi oi, I'm Dapper Laughs, go down the shops, get some rope, bit of duct tape, rape the b****, well done, see you later.”

In a video published by The Mirror, the self-styled comedian talks to a female fan at a gig last month, telling the London Scala crowd: “She's gagging for a rape. We'll have a chat afterwards.... Poor girl, do you want to come backstage after, yeah? Bring two of your mates, you’ll need them."

 

[colander]

Which was obviously a joke, albeit not a funny one, but equally obviously not something that advertisers would want to be associated with.

I feel like a comedian who singles out unsuspecting audience members for verbal abuse has to be pretty goddamn funny with it if they want to keep getting booked regularly. Doesn't seem like this guy made the cut. Comedy free market in action.

 

[Shiner]

Deleted...

Angrysoba answered the question.

 

[Brian-M]

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.

I don't see how that counts as a failure. Being entitled to free expression is not the same thing as being entitled to a specific venue in which to exercise it.

 

[bluesjnr]

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?

Although I believe the legislation exists, I can't recall ever reading about a single individual ever being jailed for the crime. Our jails would be full, if it were enforced any where near like some posters believe.

I think what's missing is that (I might be wrong) but such cases require the plaintiff to have quite a sum of money to bring the case to court; around £250,000 in fact. This is to stop frivolous cases being brought before the bench in very other day.

In explaining this to you it exposes what is a fundamental flaw in our otherwise sound legal system and this flaw is that the more money you have the more protection the law affords you.

There is an oft heard refrain about these isles,

"There is one law for the rich........"

 

[Nessie]

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that....

Wild Cat does not know about precedent and case law and how that determines what is acceptable or not. The statutes he quotes are not guides to such and he thinks the law is applied with no discretion or common sense consideration.

 

[Nessie]

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?

New Zealand has a common law system, so you also have a system of case laws whereby the practical application of the law is decided by the court decisions made as to what counts as offensive and what does not.

Hence comedians in clubs where people have come to see hear what they have to say get away with far more than drunk people in the street late at night.

 

[Dissolution]

I feel like a comedian who singles out unsuspecting audience members for verbal abuse has to be pretty goddamn funny with it if they want to keep getting booked regularly. Doesn't seem like this guy made the cut. Comedy free market in action.

Loads of comedians single out audience members for abuse.
It even has it's own genre.

 

[Nessie]

Per UK law if he has offended somebody then he should be tried, convicted, and imprisoned.

You can't freely go about offending people in the US either

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-disturbance/

"The offense of public disturbance is usually defined as a misdemeanor. State and local laws governing public disturbances vary, so local laws should be consulted for specific requirements in your area. Some of the activities which may constitute a public disurbance include:

Loud noise; or
Offensive language addressed in a face-to-face manner to a specific individual and uttered under circumstances which are likely to produce an immediate violent response from a reasonable recipient;"

In some places public swearing is an offence

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...middleborough-massachusetts-article-1.1094028

"Swearing in public now punishable by $20 fine in Middleborough, Massachusetts - Law intended to crack down on loud use of profanity in public areas, officials say"

Wild Cat knows about this as we have discussed it before. He must have forgotten.

 

[Brian-M]

You can't freely go about offending people in the US either

None of that seems to be about simply causing offence.

For example, if you gave a speech where you said that you think fundamentalist Christian politicians are slimy hypocritical maggots feeding on the festering pustulent mounds of execrable ignorance that comprise their constituency, you're pretty likely to cause grave offence to the members of those constituencies who voted for politicians professing a fundamentalist Christian position, but you'd have broken none of the laws you quoted.

ETA: Committing an offence is a different thing than causing offence.

 

[smartcooky]

New Zealand has a common law system, so you also have a system of case laws whereby the practical application of the law is decided by the court decisions made as to what counts as offensive and what does not.

Yes, I agree, we do.

However, precedents can be set when a Law is available (or made available) to be abused by those in authority, or as bluesjnr cites, by people with enough money to take it to court.

A case in point in this very country is what has become known as the "anti-smacking Law" (Section 59(4) of the Crimes Act), an appalling dog's breakfast of poorly thought out and badly worded legislation, championed by a controversial and unpopular list politician; Sue Bradford, and introduced by her left wing liberal pals. It purportedly protects children from serious physical abuse by their parents when in fact does no such thing. The number of instances of serious child abuse in this country has not changed since its introduction. People who would carry out this kind of abhorrent abuse are not deterred by the anti-smacking law, since this country already has assault laws and they aren't deterred by that either. All the anti-smacking law does is criminalize parents. An independent legal analysis of court cases involving prosecutions for smacking since the anti-smacking law was passed has found it to be complicated, difficult to apply, and that lower courts are getting it wrong; therefore they are setting precedents. There are now a number of parents in NZ who have criminal records for no more than paddling their kids arses when they misbehave. Good parents are being punished for being good parents.

This example shows quite clearly that just because a country has a Common Law system and a system of precedents, and that Laws are not intended to be applied in certain circumstances, i.e., a comedians offensive routine, does not mean they won't be. If some overzealous prosecutor or someone with enough money takes the issue to court, and they strike some asshat of a judge who goes along with them, then some terrible injustices can occur.

 

[marplots]

I don't see how that counts as a failure. Being entitled to free expression is not the same thing as being entitled to a specific venue in which to exercise it.

So what is the argument about? The guy was dropped from a performance at a college - a specific venue. Either that counts as a banning and interferes with his right to free speech or it doesn't. I don't think it does.

 

[This is The End]

Repeating lies does not make them any less untruthful.

Could you please follow up with the correction?

 

[This is The End]

Apperently, the first sentence. The bit where it says: "with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress" (my emphasis).

First of all, how would you ever know someone's intent??

Second of all, you think that makes it better??

 

[This is The End]

You can't freely go about offending people in the US either

Great. You found one city out of tens of thousands in the USA where you can't tell someone to go **** themselves if you want to. And it's a $20 fine. There are also towns where you cannot buy alcohol or drink in public. I assume that means Prohibition is back as well?

Face it, you are flat out wrong. I can go pretty much anywhere in public in the USA and tell pretty much anyone I want to to go **** themselves. I don't even have to have a reason. As long as I say my piece and move on nothing is going to happen. (Of course you might very well get punched. )

Repeatedly stalking someone would be an offense. Blocking someone would be as well. But merely being mean to someone as a one off? Not a chance in hell.

 

[Brian-M]

So what is the argument about?

About whether or not it should be banned (which is the question the thread title is asking), not whether or not him having his show axed counts as banning.

At least, that's how I'm interpreting it.

 

[angrysoba]

First of all, how would you ever know someone's intent??
Second of all, you think that makes it better??

Well that would be the same difficulty that is posed by all criminal acts in which intent is needed to be established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

 

[This is The End]

Well that would be the same difficulty that is posed by all criminal acts in which intent is needed to be established.

Nope. You cannot say "I was just joking" to a *********** murder or a rape.

You cannot apply intent to words like you can to actions.

 

[Stout]

About whether or not it should be banned (which is the question the thread title is asking), not whether or not him having his show axed counts as banning.

At least, that's how I'm interpreting it.

That's my interpretation too. If nobody want's to give this guy a venue to perform in, then that's his problem to deal with.

Speaking of banning....fun fact

Dire Strait's song Money For Nothing was temporarily banned in Canada back in 2011 and it didn't take any 250k quid to do it.

 

[angrysoba]

Nope. You cannot say "I was just joking" to a *********** murder or a rape.

You cannot apply intent to words like you can to actions.

What?

You asked "how would you ever know someone's intent??" and I am pointing out that this is something that often has to be established in criminal law, so it is not considered unusual or undiscoverable most of the time.