The sad and obvious answer is that too many do not.
To some people, nothing is ever ‘a big deal’ or a “real” problem… until it has a direct negative impact on their lives. And by that point, it’s usually too late.
12 Likes
As best I can tell - and I imagine this is no surprise to you - Saudi Arabia doesn’t recognize freedom of speech. They don’t balance individual freedoms against public good when they write laws. They don’t have a judicial system that can declare that a law has overstepped its bounds in restricting personal freedoms. I doubt it has a judiciary that would stand up to the government on behalf of individuals at all.
So, no, Saudi Arabia doesn’t have free speech. They don’t have any laws guaranteeing it or any systems to uphold it. In the UK they do. You disagree with the outcomes of those systems, but nothing other than raw American exceptionalism would lead a person to think that if their laws don’t match the USAs then they don’t have free speech.
The twitter thread in this post:
Does a better job of explaining what I mean than I can.
What I am saying is that if a Tory came around the corner and saw your friends mocking Tories and took offense, then “come on, it’s just a joke” would be a disingenuous way to try to defuse the situation. The joke shows real disdain.
So I’m not saying that this video makes me think that the guy is a nazi. It does make me think they’re an asshole (not that that’s criminal). But you do sometimes get charged for what you did rather than why you did it.
First of all that’s not generalizing, that jumping to conclusions. That’s also not what happened here.
The guy wasn’t convicted for “being the sort of person who must be crushed lest fascism overtake the world”. He was convicted for violating the Communications Act of 2003. There is nothing “general” about applying a specific law to a specific set of facts. (Having looked at the specific law I’m a little skeptical of it’s application, it sort of hinges on whether there is a reasonable accepted test on what constitutes “grossly offensive” and honestly I think it was written by people who had broadcast media in mind, not youtube)
What we can’t generalize is the idea that because of this case, comedians who tell offensive jokes will be charged with doing so in the UK.
But “never jail people for jokes” is an absurd position. What if every time a Mr. Charles Masnon tells a joke about a person that person winds up dead?
At some point you have to link back into the real world, not just talk about principles.
12 Likes
Scotland? How many people get shot annualy by the police in Scotland?
Now just what is it they need to learn from us and our perfection on the subject of a creeping police state?
9 Likes
Hmm it’s almost as what used to be acceptable and which marginal groups simply had to tolerate is no longer acceptable by society! Odd that.
8 Likes
There have been studies done on the effect of denigrating humor. The effects that it has on the groups being denigrated are real and by no means hyperbole:
"Most of the time prejudiced people conceal their true beliefs and attitudes because they fear others’ criticism. They express prejudice only when the norms in a given context clearly communicate approval to do so. They need something in the immediate environment to signal that it is safe to freely express their prejudice.
Disparagement humor appears to do just that by affecting people’s understanding of the social norms – implicit rules of acceptable conduct – in the immediate context. And in a variety of experiments, my colleagues and I have found support for this idea, which we call prejudiced norm theory.
For instance, in studies, men higher in hostile sexism – antagonism against women – reported greater tolerance of gender harassment in the workplace upon exposure to sexist versus neutral (nonsexist) jokes. Men higher in hostile sexism also recommended greater funding cuts to a women’s organization at their university after watching sexist versus neutral comedy skits. Even more disturbing, other researchers found that men higher in hostile sexism expressed greater willingness to rape a woman upon exposure to sexist versus nonsexist humor.
Sexist humor can expand the bounds of what’s an acceptable way to treat women. How did sexist humor make the sexist men in these studies feel freer to express their sexist attitudes? Imagine that the social norms about acceptable and unacceptable ways of treating women are represented by a rubber band. Everything on the inside of the rubber band is socially acceptable; everything on the outside is unacceptable.
Sexist humor essentially stretched the rubber band; it expanded the bounds of acceptable behavior to include responses that would otherwise be considered wrong or inappropriate. So, in this context of expanded acceptability, sexist men felt free to express their antagonism without the risk of violating social norms and facing disapproval from others. Sexist humor signaled that it’s safe to express sexist attitudes.
Some groups occupy a unique social position of what social psychologists call “shifting acceptability.” For these groups, the overall culture is changing from considering prejudice and discrimination against them completely justified to considering them completely unjustified. But even as society as a whole becomes increasingly accepting of them, many individuals still harbor mixed feelings.
For instance, over the past 60 years or so, the United States has seen a dramatic decline in overt and institutional racism. Public opinion polls over the same period have shown whites holding progressively less prejudiced views of minorities, particularly blacks. At the same time, however, many whites still covertly have negative associations with and feelings toward blacks – feelings they largely don’t acknowledge because they conflict with their ideas about themselves being egalitarian.
Disparagement humor fosters discrimination against social groups – like black Americans – that occupy this kind of shifting ground. "
15 Likes
I have often felt the need for a church based on the teachings of Pratchett and Vonnegut. Perhaps Heller, too.
Basic rule: it doesn’t matter what you use to draw faith and inspiration from, or whether it’s true; what matters is if it helps you be a better person and make sense of this crazy world.
2 Likes
Wouldn’t it annoy you if I made your pet internet famous as a fascist a little bit more than if i just showed it to you then deleted it?
Just saying.
2 Likes
He also said he believed Meechan - who was supported at court by Tommy Robinson, former leader of far-right group the English Defence League (EDL) - left the video on YouTube to drive traffic to other material he had on there.
The dude was a Nazi posting a meme to bring traffic to his Nazi propaganda, not just making a joke. That is the metric used convicting him.
Also, free speech is not the first target of most dictatorships. They establish political power by the time they criminalize speech, normally through control of the court system or military/police.
11 Likes
See my comment above, they guy was literally promoting hate videos by introducing his channel with memable content.
4 Likes
I admit I only watched the dog video. If the rest were worse, yeesh.
Nazis with studs and plugs, smh.
1 Like
“In my defense, your honor, I’m an asshole who was just trying my best to offend and alienate those closest to me.”
12 Likes
Nobody intends to follow their “joke” with “hey, it was just a joke”.
That excuse only comes out when the expected racist solidarity fails to appear. The “just a joke” line functions to provide a space for racists to identify each other.
12 Likes
To quote a relevant bit from the Freeze Peach thread:
5 Likes
1 Like
In Italy Lazio and Inter Milan are notoriously antisemitic; fans regularly unfurl banners or chant slogans with jokes about Auschwitz or Hitler. As recently as last October Lazio “pranked” Roma this way:
3 Likes
Personally, I’d agree, but as long as we allow the red states to be part of the union, things like Trump are just going to happen. That’s the price we pay for reassimilating the Confederacy.
As the great Loriot said: Ein Leben ohne Möpse ist möglich, aber sinnlos.
Also, fuck this Nazi shit. And yo, defenders of the Gefrierpfirsich, please note that the last paper of Stephen Hawking gives you hope: somewhere in the multiverse there exists a place where your arguments make sense.
5 Likes
