Fos Vs Govt Control
 

But before I start - wtf has happened to OT??? It's dead in here.

So yeah, recently a comedian was charged with some shit in Canada. He told a joke about a retarded kid and the kid's parents hated on it, took him to court, won damages.

Obviously I'm against this.

But I'm currently debating with a few comedians about where jokes fall in FoS. And the 5 that are engaging me are adamant that the Government should be able to involve themselves in stand-up (in 'art', as I'm calling it).

I just want to see where y'all stand on this? 'cos to me, this is fucking WILD. In the UK someone has been arrested for wearing an offensive T-Shirt. In Canada this guy has been arrested for telling the wrong kinda joke.

It seems crazy to me that comics would even side with the Govt.

So...

DISCUSS!

...or Hammer-throw. Whatever.

http://www.oddworldforums.net/showthread.php?t=22205
This happened

I don't think any comedian should be charged for making politically incorrect jokes. Freedom of speech shouldn't be limited.

Freedom of Speech must be limited. Even the USA (which has the strongest laws enabling FoS in the world) acknowledges that you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre.

But you shouldn't be charged for being offended. Incitement to violence, yes. Not offence.

Well, that's an interesting thought.

Hey look this debate again

Fuck off, FA. Contribute something for once or don't bother posting. I've heard this argument loads of times and it's utterly retarded. Doing that is not exercising freedom of speech, it's the equivalent of swatting someone (but obviously to a lesser extent). Freedom of speech is the right to express any opinion no matter how ridiculous, and tell any joke no matter how offensive.

As far as my opinion on this topic goes? Fuck that. Either everything is okay to joke about or nothing is. I hope if I get cancer people will joke about it to my face. I know my brother would. I'd still be making jokes about it on my deathbed.

Have you heard about what's been happening in Germany? It's no stranger to fascism, but this time it's on the side of the crazy left.
People have been getting raided by the police for making posts on Facebook.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36804363?SThisFB

It's crazy how a man in 1949 wrote about 1984 and ended up with an accurate description of 2016.

No, people were arrested in Germany for hate speech, which is illegal in Germany. The fact it was online instead of spoken is irrelevant, it’s still against the law.

Yes, and that's fucking ridiculous. The whole concept of "hate speech". Fuck that. It's the new term used to criminalize your opinions. It basically means that if somebody doesn't like what you are saying at any time they can get you censored and arrested. There is, will never be and should never be any clear line that defines hate speech. There is only speech.

You know what else is against the law in Germany? Raping people.
However, a woman who was gang raped by a group of Muslims refused to tell Police that they were Muslims, she told them they were Caucasian males because she didn't want to "incite racism".
How fucked is that? Some crazy bastards move to a country and take their toxic ideology with them, and when they start doing despicable shit, THEY'RE DEFENDED BY THEIR OWN VICTIMS!

Here's some cool sources for you, Manco.

Don't be racist to my rapist!

Number of rapes in Germany set to rise

No charges for Cologne

Immigrant pressure

Partner with social media

Anti-refugee group

Cologne keeps getting worse

All white germans!

Migrant crimes


So, Manco, tell me again how all this is totally fine, but speaking out against it should get you arrested.

Yes, so basically we agree but are arguing over semantics of how to define speech.

What if someone claims they were joking when they shouted 'Fire'?

Then they should be fined for using a false call to action. Like I said, it's not exercising free speech. Whether it's a joke is irrelevant. Joking about whatever you want does not equal "IT'S JUST A PRANK BRO". No, you're legitimately inconveniencing the general public. Nothing that counts as freedom of speech will do that.

Yeah sorry hate speech does exist and you can’t pretend it doesn’t just because the lines can be blurred sometimes. If you want black-and-white facts you’re looking for the sciences, not ethics.

Why do we need to have a concept of hate speech in society? Because we need to have boundaries of what is and is not acceptable to say or do. Because we have millennia of human history to serve as examples of how hate speech can be used to inflict terrible crimes on those who cannot fight back – if it becomes acceptable to harass and threaten vulnerable, powerless people then you go down a dark path.


Fearing a backlash against migrants is not the same thing as being silenced for hate speech. The woman in the article stated that she didn’t want there to be a backlash against refugees because she’s a refugee activist and a left-wing politician – if you are in that position you don’t want to give ammunition to your political opponents.

Never mind the fact that she went back to the police with the real story within 12 hours though – that doesn’t fit the narrative the Daily Mail wants to spin.


Yeah this article has nothing to do with this topic. It’s discussing how Germany has widened the legal definition of rape so a greater number of cases can now be brought forward, as German law previously required evidence that the victim fought back for the case to be brought forward. Nowhere in the article is Germany’s hate speech laws mentioned, and only a passing comment is made on the Cologne sexual assault committed by immigrants.


Again, this doesn’t support your argument – the men in this case were accused, taken to court, and found guilty of sexual assault, which directly contradicts your point that they’re being defended by victims or somehow getting away with it because people don’t want to be seen as racist.

The suspended sentence is a disgrace, but unfortunately the punishments for sex-related crimes are very often seen as too lenient, and I see no evidence that the mens’ status as immigrants had an impact on their sentencing.


Strangely enough, followups seem to indicate Sumte and other towns are coping well.

The sad thing about this is that the reason Germany is taking on such a large number of refugees is because other European countries are refusing to take them on, as the article you linked points out. Perhaps if those other countries pulled their weight, Germany wouldn’t have to locate 750 people in one tiny village.


Social media services have a well-known history of being slow to remove offensive content from their systems, even when it blatantly breaks the terms of service. If such content is illegal in Germany then they have every right to pressure those services to comply with such laws – being on the internet doesn’t make you exempt.


“The war and economic refugees are flooding our country. They bring terror, fear, sorrow. They rape our women and put our children at risk”

Yep, can’t see how that could possibly be seen as hateful.


Surprise, the article explicitly states the suspects are being identified and brought to trial. Again, this doesn’t support your argument – German authorities are clearly attempting to find and convict the suspects, and they’re clearly not arresting people for speaking out against it. Hell, the article even says officials have linked the crimes to the influx of refugees.


The only original source I can find on this is Breitbart, which is apparently noted as severely right-wing, anti-immigration, pro-Trump. Every other source I find refers back to Breitbart.

It’s not even clear what they mean by “depicts” – are they talking about that one image, or the documentary as a whole? Because their description of the documentary certainly shows they focused most attention on the immigrants being accused.


Surprise, this was disputed by an official report ordered by the German Interior Minister, and by German police.

The Gatestone Institute also has a rather notorious reputation for anti-Muslim bias, by the way. See also: their recent calls for Muslim immigrants to be forced to take on Christian names.


Simple: none of what you posted above constitutes evidence that Germany considers crime committed by refugees or immigrants to be “totally fine”, nor does any of it show people being arrested for speaking out against it. Only one article you linked featured people being convicted for hate speech against immigrants, and that was on the basis of their branding refugees and immigrants with bringing “terror, fear, sorrow [...] [raping] our women and [putting] our children at risk”.

Also, congratulations on crowbarring your anti-immigration rhetoric into a discussion about free speech!


Query: does threatening to attack or murder someone count as ‘inconveniencing’?

Oh no how unpredictable a thread about hate speech turned into a racist shitfest. Thanks Nep "Totally-not-right-wing" sotic.

Label me as whatever the fuck you want, I don't care!
However, in reality I'm not going to be scared out of the left by stupid fucking buzzword-toting cunts like you, FA. Grow the fuck up or shut the fuck up.

How is a threat the expression of an opinion? It's usually pretty clear when there's a legitimate threat or not. Internet threats? 99.9% of the time, not legitimate.

Jesus fucking christ, dude, take your blinders off for one second. It is blatantly evident from the articles I posted that they have an incessant need to be seen as politically correct and totally accepting to other cultures, even toxic ones.
Don't fucking tell me that a woman lying to the police about the race of her attackers is anything else. She went back 12 hours later, I know.
So fucking what? She wasted police time and put thousands of people at risk because *squee racism*. Fuck that.

I'm not even going to respond to most of what you said because you completely misunderstood it. I'm well aware that all of that is illegal in Germany, how do you not see that that's the fucking problem?

Character assassination is not a valid argument. Why does it matter which news sources you like? Huffington Post fucking sucks but they still have credible news stories. Go ahead, find a completely unbiased news network, good fucking luck with that.

So fucking what? Let them hate, you thought policing cunt! They have a right to hate, everybody does, fuck you! Do I agree with what they say? Do I fuck! But I'll defend to the death their right to say it.

There is a difference between saying and doing you fucking tard.

People say hateful things, yep.

And?
What's your point?

My posting of them articles was to emphasize the shithole of a country that Germany is becoming - again - it was completely separate from my point about hate speech. Congratulations on cramming your "Nep is a xenophobe!" narrative into this discussion about free speech!

Did you... did you even read that article? They're not forced at all, they're encouraged because officials said it may bring them a better quality of life. Whatever, it's dumb but they still had a choice.
Do you know what they said, though?

I'm fairly certain we can swap out a few words there.
fix'd

"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

I hope you're not arguing that you shouldn't take internet threats seriously

Please get the fuck out of here you braindead fucking cunt.

no u

Also I'm pretty sure calling people "braindead fucking cunt" is against the rules.

So, let me get this straight: you start by claiming you don’t believe in hate speech: “There is, will never be and should never be any clear line that defines hate speech. There is only speech.”

But then you state your belief that “legitimately inconveniencing the general public” with something like shouting fire in a crowded theater doesn’t count as freedom of speech.

Then when I query you on whether you consider threats in the same way, you … agree? Bearing in mind that threats are a form of hate speech.

So you start by decrying the idea of hate speech and saying everything should be covered under free speech, then go on to say you think a form of hate speech isn’t covered by freedom of speech.

???

(I’m not even going to bother explaining why your concept of “legitimate threats” is absurd)


Literally thousands of people were endangered because the police had a false description of rapists for 12 hours. It’s certainly not like you’re exaggerating this at all.

Your point is pretty far from being “blatantly evident” from the articles you’ve posted – you’ve previously made the claim that Germany are being censored and arrested for not being tolerant enough of migrants, and the closest you got to that point was a woman who initially wanted to avoid adding fuel to the fire by reporting her attackers as foreign (but was convinced to make an accurate report less than a day later), and an article where a couple were fined for running a Facebook group describing migrants as “flooding our country […] [bringing] terror, fear, sorrow […] [raping] our women and [putting] our children at risk”.

Everything else you’ve linked has either discredited your original argument (people are reporting migrants for committing crimes; migrants are being arrested, charged and found guilty for crimes; migrants are being linked to sex attacks), can be contradicted or questioned (Sumte is coping well with its influx of refugees despite initial alarmist press coverage; an article accusing a documentary of blaming white people has no other corroborating source), or simply is irrelevant to the discussion (Germany changes law to have a broader definition of sexual assault).

None of that proves your claim that Germany is implementing censorship or arresting people for speaking out against something.


So, you’ve lost me here. Are you saying the problem is that Germany has made sexual assault illegal? That hate speech is illegal?


You’ve ignored my assertion that the article was deliberately vague in how it described the article, despite the bold upfront claim that it portrays the attackers as white men.

My reason for highlighting the bias of your source was to point out to you how it’s very easy to question the reporting of a site with a well-documented bias. It’s not a question of which news sources I “like”, but which news sources have the potential to twist the facts to further their own agenda. This was also why I pointed out I couldn’t find another corroborating original source for the article‘s claim – googling the subject only turns up more (surprise) right-wing news sites and blogs crediting the original Breitbart article as the source.


First off, I haven’t lobbed any personal insults at you up until now in this thread, so please grow up.

Second, hating is not the same thing as hate speech. Everyone has a right to hate; that does not give anyone a right to direct hateful abuse towards others.


And there is a link between people saying things and doing things, especially in regard to hate crimes. Amazingly enough, if hate speech against a particular group becomes normalized, hate crimes against that group are more likely to occur and become commonplace. See also: ‘othering’.


Yeah except as I’ve pointed out Germany really isn’t becoming a shithole. You’ve been unable to back up your arguments to that effect, and the evidence I’ve posted suggests that Germany is coping well with its influx of refugees and migrants.

Oh, and I didn’t bring the xenophobia narrative into the fight, you managed that one on your own by immediately launching into a tirade of anti-immigrant rhetoric when given the opportunity.


Here’s the problem: immigrants are already given the option of a German name when they immigrate – they are allowed to take on a Germanized version of their original name. It’s only the option of a brand new ‘Christian’ name that isn’t yet available.

Do you know what they also said?
There’s a clear frustration from Turkish migrants about their treatment by German natives. The rift between the two groups is explored more in this Spiegel article, which points to a more nuanced root than simply “islamic immigrants = evil”.


“Most Muslims in Germany” is an unfair descriptor – the article only quotes statistics relating to Turkish Muslims, who make up 63% of the German Muslim population. 32% of 63% of the population cannot accurately be described as “most Muslims in Germany”.

How on earth is this the most mature and appropriate response to FA's post?

It isn't.

I never said it was mature but it's certainly appropriate.

It isn't.

It really isn't.

This is an interesting thread.

The comedian did not deserve to be charged for hurting someone's feelings. I don't know what else to say other than that. People who take jokes out of context are boring. Canny stand them, myself.

The world has gone completely soft if a combination of words is all it takes for you to believe that you have been wronged in some way. Take a deep breath and get over it. If that's too difficult, then you're pathetic. I'm sorry, there's no way to give you a sugar coating surprise.

That's what the general thought here is. Humour will keep you alive. Being offended will get you killed. We've had 800 years to learn that.

Then it isn't freedom of speech. Stopping people from saying what they want is fascism, clear and simple. Even if they have nothing good to say, people need to be made aware of hostile elements in their society. Look at what ignoring freedom of speech from belligerents in America has caused these past few years.

If you can identify shit in a bowl before it starts to sink, you can flush it down before it turns toxic.

And what did you contribute that was of any worth? You contributed articles from the Daily Mail.

That newsagent is renowned throughout the UK for being one of the most right-wing shit-stirring amoebic gloop ever concocted. I noticed Manco also said Breitbart (which I've never heard of) is right-wing as well. I think it's safe to say at this point that you're a raving tool.

I also don't see how mentioning the Germany crisis in this thread is warranted. Yes, France and Germany are in a state of panic because of these attacks, but it isn't impossible that ISIS or those sympathetic to them have smuggled these people into the country among the refugees to sow discordance.

Have you seen the news recently? The Iraqis are tearing ISIS a new one, and their zealous supporters are getting desperate to spread fear. Because that's what terrorism is. It's what they do. Saying immigration was a mistake because of a few bad eggs is beyond stupid, son. Fearmongering is how you let the terrorists win. Stop presuming to think what you know is best.

There are people who genuinely want to escape war. We've got a few Syrians here too. No problems from them - they're still getting used to our 'we say what we want' mentality, but they'll get there like the Poles and Romanians did.

How do you know? Germany has over 80 million people, right? Can you account for all of them and the lives they lead? Can a country that was ravaged by two World Wars end up being any worse due to a few hundred thousand immigrants, barely a quarter of whom have hostile anti-Western feelings? You're too red-pilled.

Swing by Strabane a few miles up the road from where I live, I can guarantee you it looks worse than any place in Germany.

And no, it wasn't Syrians that did that. Shitholes exist everywhere, that's reality and it isn't perfect. Accept it.

Now, would you kindly knock your own teeth out?

Just call him a cavernous virgin cunt. Adjectives are great like that.