[Livia]

Why is this man being compared to "comedians"?

And regarding people being offended... I'm so sorry if people decide this isn't worth getting offended about but with respect, none of you are in a position to say whether a Jewish person should or should not be offended. You don't get to decide.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Livia

Why is this man being compared to "comedians"?

And regarding people being offended... I'm so sorry if people decide this isn't worth getting offended about but with respect, none of you are in a position to say whether a Jewish person should or should not be offended. You don't get to decide.

Clear your PM Inbox Liv.

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

I have not heard about this story but I don't want to watch the video. I have a problem when children or animals are involved in this kind of dark comedy. It's not something I could ever click or give my views. I don't even like the description of it as it sounds like this person has a terrible taste as a comedian it seems...

That said, if it was presented as satire and evidence was produced during the trial that indicated it may have had other intents, then a judge may have decided that was open to interpretation. Also, if the author did something this tasteless, then it may be difficult to see in the same lens as typical comedy and may be too far from funny that a judge or jury could see it more likely there was an intent for malfeasance... that would be the author's fault for terrible judgement. Possibly, if it was funny or had comedic value... then it may be easier to see as satire... but there may be other factors. Perhaps because of the extent it went, maybe farther than most people would have gone for a joke, it may have seen as a dog whistle to a certain crowd. In which case, that may very well have been seen to be open to interpretation to the judge/jury crowd... and maybe they saw the effect of this and don't want to encourage another "stunt" like this to go viral which would encourage "copy cats"... because, we have to consider, if this did pass the filter, then similar stunts could be pulled by actual hate groups who do have actual ill intent... even if this one was actually a comedic act, if that makes sense, it may signal to some "this is the line you could push it to and still have a case in court", etc. So those things to are worth considering...

However, personally I feel fitting comedy into hate speech is a grey area. Go too far and it will start to push the envelope and this is where comedians may find they have to reign in their acts considerably in order to avoid litigious behavior and it may very well put some folk out of business just from having lawsuits filed. Naturally, they have to work outside the box in order to do their job, and sometimes that means going too far. Gaffes are common with comedians, especially the more high profile they become.

I do believe there is a valuable role for the comedian (i.e. the Jester) in public discourse, especially in an age where the field of journalism has become a crap storm... so I'm not in favor of anything that stifles freedom of speech, especially when extreme means (comedy) may be the only way sometimes you can get a message across. Sometimes the jester is the only person in the room who can say the truth... sad, but true. Society is regressing back towards stricter guidelines and stifled discourse. Comedians have ways to skip through social barriers that none of us can as easily fit through... and so they may be able to tell a story through their jokes, despite it having comedic value, without a ton of stifling and ridiculous social filtering occurring throughout the process which stifles that expression.

I'm also not in favor of hate speech laws and am glad we don't have this here. Hate speech laws don't do anything to counteract bad ideas. All it does is force them out of the mainstream and into the underground. This may seem like a great thing. Yes, with free speech, these elements are in the foreground, sometimes even emboldened (The ACLU, etc support this freedom of expression as well, controversially here in the states)... that's a good thing, because it's out in the open--which means we can study it, learn that bad idea's anatomy and figure out how to counteract it by improving our ideas to crack it open...

Prosecuting people for "wrong" speech is silly anyway... it doesn't stop bad ideas from forming, much less spreading. It just encourages certain societal elements to get craftier with how they create and encourage social divisions. How can we expect society to craft it's best ideas if we don't know about the bad ones that need to be eliminated from our discourse... and sometimes there is necessary information there to learn you're in trouble... kind of like the "hidden voter" of the Trump election, and not even necessarily the hate speech/anti-immigrant variety.. but the portions that would "enable" those factors to rise and have an ear so to speak... you know, the folk that the media felt were hostile towards, that they were kept (and still are) out of discourse for being uneducated and lowlife... this is another reason I dislike hate speech laws, because while they're supposedly crafted to protect folk from troubling speech, they're used to stifle intellectual diversity or to encourage those who don't fit into certain narratives to remain silent.

Most people had no idea there was even this much push back, because the mainstream made very clear what ideas were best to air and how narrow their focus should remain... If just simple news coverage could create blind spots, imagine laws that regulate speech and intellectual diversity... when we shield society from it's internal demons, then it's no surprise that a gulf will be created beneath our feet... this shouldn't be the case at all if we really do have good ideas, then we should be able to develop the antidote to help treat and lessen the numbers of the bad ones... and that's just it, people don't even question or test their ideas... it's about confirmation bias now... if we know all the correct buttons to push, people to hang around with, things to center our world around, to avoid things that cause discomfort... then it's very easy to slip into a complacent state of mind and sleep through the alarms so to speak... it's good to be woken up every once in a while, reminded there are dangers around you, and that we can't be asleep at the wheel thinking that law can handle everything that creates discomfort for us. The law only functions as well as the society that it supports...

Anyway I wrote a lot, and it may not even get read... but I don't like hate speech laws and I don't like this type of "comedian". TDLR, not amused.

[Ammi]

..it was read Mari...and very eloquently written with much thought applied....as always...I won’t respond further ..(..atm..)...just because I don’t have the energy to be able to give it the thought deserved...but I will try to get some thoughts together and think about your words specifically....