Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Welp, here we go. I don't believe in forbidden words, but we do have a rule against hate speech - lest we turn into a Youtube comment thread.

There's a reason why VideoSift has at least slightly more intelligent commentary than Youtube - we do care about what you write here and always want you to consider that there are humans hanging on the ends of keyboards writing comments.

VideoSift is also akin to a club, a very loose one (we let anybody in) but we reserve the right to kick you out if you violate our rules.

Gman, although I would say you have contributed a great deal of controversial but worthwhile commentary to this community, the line has been crossed.

VideoSift is not your venue for free speech. We have rules and we live by them.

With much deliberation and consideration, I hereby ban Gorillaman from VideoSift. May Siftbot have mercy on your soul.

Governmental enforcement of anti hate speech laws is draconian and antithetical to freedom.
Private institutions outlawing hate speech (or anything else they choose) in their privately run forums is not. Most colleges are not private.
Ideas and discussions can easily be expressed without devolving into racist name calling.

Now the move to legally outlaw the public expression of distasteful thoughts is nutty and fascist, imo, and leaves everyone gagged because any use of language and any thought can be offensive to someone.

Ok. Thank you for clarifying.
I feel you have now invited action against you by moderators AND verbal retaliation from fellow sifters.
You are welcome to your opinion, as disgusting as many may find it, but you are NOT welcome to use blatant racist hate speech when explaining your theories, not here. The rules on that subject are clear, and you have blatantly, repeatedly, and unapologetically violated them.
I do give you props for standing behind your words, that's far more adult than hiding from them and pretending you didn't mean it or were just joking.

Btw, calling you out on your inappropriate actions in no way equates to condoning Obama's inappropriate actions.

For those not in the know, Canada apparently just passed a bill that makes "Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun” legally prosecutable.

i.e. calling someone He or She when they would prefer xe, ve, per, ae, zie (or anything else they care to make up), that is now legally actionable.

I suspect however the reality of the situation may be overblown. Some people are claiming it's now a hate crime which seems a little misleading.
Though that it is technically somewhat correct, the law really just added gender identity to the existing list of classes protected from "hate speech". That is to say, a legal offence predicated on apparent prejudice or hatred towards a specific minority group.

Now the idea of hate speech laws themselves is another can of worms (I have my misgivings). But as far as I can tell the law isn't really about casual use of pronouns, so much as institutional prejudice against said groups, or extremist rhetoric ("Kill all the queers" or whathaveyou).

Still strikes me as questionable, but it's the precedent of having hate speech law in general that concerns me (or rather the ripe potential for misuse).

IDK, complicated issue.

Edit: To be clear that's context for the joke, not the content

Ok, in the interest of fairness I did some further research on this issue.

He was fined a total of 42,000 dollars. This does not count his accrued court and legal fees which are estimated to be around 100,000 dollars at this time. I won't bother converting that to USD, but he is going to be out of pocket 142k as a ballpark figure.

This is the joke:

“Everyone said he sucked, but I defended him,” Ward says. “They said he was terrible, but I was like, ‘He’s dying but he’s living a dream, leave him alone.’ ” The niceties end when Ward figures out Gabriel isn’t actually dying. “He’s unkillable! I saw him at the water park, and I tried to drown him, but I couldn’t. Then I went on the Internet to figure out what was wrong with him, and you know what it was? He’s ugly, goddammit!”

That is all. He was making a joke that he thought the kid was being given a 'make a wish' type thing because he was dying, but that he was just ugly.

I listened to it and it wasn't really funny. However, it wasn't 142k worth of court costs and damages either. The kid, disability or not, is now a public figure and should not be protected from jokes at his expense. The fact that a comedian called him ugly does not mean he should get 42k in recompense because it made him feel bad. Fuck, if I got 42k every time someone called me ugly in jest, I wouldn't be posting here. I'd be on a damn Yacht in the Mediterranean.

People say hurtful things. How many people looked at this kid and made fun of him when he was trying to sing the Canadian anthem at a Hockey game? Does he deserve 42k from each of them?

One of the talks I listened to as part of this research brought up a salient point. The commission that was created to address hurtful speech has clearly ran out of 'real' hate speech to go after. To save their jobs, they need to start going after the next level of 'hate speech'. Where better to look than blue comedians?

This brings me back to my original point. If you create an organization and give it power to control what people say through punitive measures, it may work great when your group is in power. You will probably have no issue with it, as long as it goes after speech you dislike. But, no group is in power forever and organizations don't just disappear when a new group of leaders come into power. Suddenly you might really come to regret your choice to create that organization, especially when they decide it is 'YOUR' words that need to be penalized.

That said, my only dog in this fight is that I think it is idiotic to limit what people can say. They don't stop saying it, they just stop saying it around people they don't trust. This sows the seeds of dissension and the harvest is never a good one.

The problem is, you either allow all speech or you censor what you don't like. Just remember, as recent elections have shown, you may not always be the one who decides what to censor if you go down that path.

I get that hate speech is horrible. Racism is never good. Free speech at least lets you know who is saying what. It also means you can say what you like back.

The problem with offensive jokes is the same as the problem with pornography.

No, I don't mean they're both great. Even if they are.

I mean just like the line between art and pornography, there can be a fine line between comedy and hate speech. It's all in the intention of the creator and the eye of the beholder. Similarly, you can make 'artistic' pornography, and racist jokes can be used to stir up hatred.

It's a tough one, but the problem is it's all subjective. There's no simple way to objectively judge someone else's intentions besides looking at patterns, and even that's not always black and white. So to speak.

The reality is that sceptics today are targeting esjews for the same reason they have every other group of harmful cultists in the past. It shouldn't come as a surprise that a community of dedicated rationalists would be mystified and angered by the sudden rise of a new anti-rational movement; especially where that movement has been directly damaging to their own, see things like elevatorgate and prominent sceptics getting banned from conventions for wrongthink.

But why should the focus be suddenly so sharply on one group of irrationalists, to the apparent neglect of the others? Because esjudaism is the fresher and more exigent threat. Everyone in the current generation who's capable of correcting their ideas about religion, ghosts, scientology and psychics has basically already done so. Whereas esjews, like their frequent allies and ideological partners the islamists, seem to be gaining ground and converts every day. There's more opportunity and more need to change minds there than elsewhere.

Controversially I'm going to claim that 'youtube sceptics' spend a lot of their time on social media. Some of them make their living through social media. I think it's possible to understand why so many of them object so strongly to the tsunami of censorship that's devastating speech on those platforms in response to social justice hysteria; to suppression of the fictional and fascist concept of 'hate speech', to the false reports and takedowns of youtube videos, to twitter's Ministry of Truth and Safety, to reddit's constant ideological purges.

Now, why are so many of these anti-esjew sceptics white males? Well for one thing because most people in the english-speaking world are white, get over it and stop screeching about diversity. More substantially because most people are idiots. Let me explain. When you have a terrible ideology, obviously you look to stupid people for converts, but when you have an explicitly bigoted ideology, one that demonises certain groups of people while advancing special privileges for others, you narrow your focus even more and direct your propaganda efforts specifically at stupid people in the classes you're pretending to represent. You don't get many jewish friends of national socialism, and you don't get many white male esjews. It's not that these people are sitting on their throne of privilege chuckling down at the poor minorities struggling up to meet them. It's that they're a bunch of retards, but the wrong kind of retards to be esjews.

So opposition to esjudaism comprises: every intelligent and moral person in the world, male and female, black and white, gay and straight; a bunch of stupid straight white men; conservatives and other defectives; actual misogynists, homophobes and racists who imagine we're on their side.

TLDR: Sturgeon's Law.

That's a pretty big can of worms you're opening there newt.

Do you REALLY want to make it ok for people to legally discriminate for any reason?

You'd be comfortable with shops refusing services to gays or non-caucasians or atheists or insert-your-own-prejudice-here?

"Awww, but we could boycott them!"

So, a libertarian market solution then? Those don't work. Because as soon as you allow a business to be racist or homophobic or whatever, you will have racist, homophobic assholes queueing up to support them.

Sorry, but you don't get to impose your values on your customer (regardless of whether your values are good or evil). Unless what you're being asked to do is actually illegal (and that includes hate speech, so asking a baker to make a KKK cake would cover that), you suck it up and do your job.

If you want to make a political point in your business, there are other ways to do it. Source your materials through fair trade. Tell this moron Trump supporter that the profits from his t-shirt are going straight to Hillarys campaign fund.

Yeah, his own cock.

Where's the Karma channel, because all that 'shutting down' is totally beautiful karma. I guess the anti-hate speech clauses were a problem for them to abide by?

It doesn't work like that. What you end up with is something akin to Australia's gun laws, which 'technically' still allow certain people to own guns, realistically most won't or can't

Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), circuit loaded firearms. shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles including semi automatic, and paintball gun. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm. [AKA, you have to prove you have a reason to own these weapons. Newsflash, the majority of police will automatically deny you. Oh yeah, for a PAINTBALL gun as well.]

Category B: Centrefire rifles including bolt action, pump action, circuit loaded, and lever action (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. [Same as Cat A, must have a 'genuine reason' to own one, be registered, have a fee, ton of other limitations, so basically hard to own]

Category C: Pump-action or self-loading shotguns having a magazine capacity of 5 or fewer rounds and semi automatic rimfire rifles. [Only Primary producers, farm workers, firearm dealers, firearm safety officers, collectors and clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.]

Category D: Self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns have a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds. [Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies, occupational shooters and primary producers in some states. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.]

Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. [This class is available to target shooters and certain security guards whose job requires possession of a firearm. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a paid-up member of an approved pistol club. Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 sig, handguns that meet the IPSC rules, larger calibres such as .45 were approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests in Australia in 2014. Barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols; magazines are restricted to 10 rounds.]

Category R/E: Restricted weapons, such as machine guns, rocket launchers, full automatic self loading rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, howitzers and other artillery weapons [Obviously this class is right out...]

You can own some muzzleloading weapons without restrictions, although percussion cap pistols are restricted. In addition to these minor rules, all guns must be secured in a safe or other similar location, all must be fully registered so that the government knows the location of every single weapon/owner, and you can't sell them to another person, only to a dealer or the law to be destroyed.

After a few years of de-fanging and getting the citizens used to not having weapons, the Australian government and law enforcement routinely quietly hold gun buybacks to persuade more people to give up their weapons. They also do amnesty turn ins now and then.

So, that is the AMAZING suite of laws Australia put in place to stop mass shootings. Forgive me if, when combined, those type of laws would basically neuter the 2nd amendment. We've already neutered the 1st with 'hate speech' and the ability to sue over getting your feelings hurt. The 4th has been steadily under attack, because GOOD citizens shouldn't mind if the government rummages through everything you own or do. We haven't messed with the 5th amendment too much, so we could look at that next, maybe allow torture of everyone for confessions.

I'm getting tired of listing points, so let me just say this. I am incredibly sorry that people died, they shouldn't have and it is an utter shame. However, we are already fighting on a daily basis to keep a facsimile of the rights that were fought for when we built this country. Watering them down further only helps our government tighten the bonds of enslavement upon us. I can't agree with that.

I believe that you are correct, and Carr was not actually fined or otherwise legally penalized for his remarks.

However, it *was* a possibility that he would be, according to the first line in the article I linked to in my first post in this thread:
"Jimmy Carr could face sanctions for making a joke about dwarves during an appearance on BBC1’s The One Show."

I believe that I read other news articles that suggested that was a possibility at the time it happened, but I can't find anything with a real quick search now.

Going outside of the scope of that single incident, I definitely have seen quite a few reports of things that I would consider to be fairly trivial incidents like this being looked at by the UK government as "hate speech" and therefore potentially subject to "fines, imprisonment, or both" (according to that wikipedia article).

Samples from a quick search include a politician being arrested for quoting a passage about Islam from a book by Winston Churchill, a young man who was jailed for 12 weeks because of "some offensive Facebook posts making derogatory comments about a missing child" (it doesn't say what the posts were exactly; I am not saying I would defend his posts but I don't think anyone should go to jail for being an idiot and running their mouth on the internet), and another young man who was fined for saying that "all soldiers should die and go to hell". Plenty more incidents beyond those as well, it seems.

So while Jimmy Carr didn't end up actually facing any legal repercussions for his joke, I think it is not far fetched at all to suggest that he might have (and there seems to be some evidence that legal repercussions enacted by the government were being considered in that particular incident).

That is what seems crazy / wrong to me. That is NOT freedom of speech; it is freedom of benign speech, with an increasingly narrow view of what speech is benign.

I'm 100% OK with their being "consequences" for Jimmy Carr for his joke. But the government shouldn't be involved in that (and again, to be fair they DID end up staying out of it in that case). The consequences that I think are fine include:

* Ofcom or the BBC passing on some/all of any fines that the government levels against them on to Carr (ie., IF they get fined for breaking broadcast decency standards, make Carr foot the some or all of the bill for that).

* Ofcom or the BBC electing not to invite Carr to appear on any more programs if they are concerned about preventing fines / protecting their image / whatever. They are a business, they gotta look out for themselves.

* Individual people who were offended by Carr's joke boycotting programs that he appears on, refusing to pay to attend his live performances, etc. Obviously. If you don't like what he has to say, you are are of course not obliged to continue to listen to him.

Anything beyond those consequences is going too far in a society that claims it is democratic and free, in my opinion.

My views are heavily biased as well, just from a different point of view. Most of the discussion over here is fueled by misinformation and emotion.

And yes, some people outright refuse to put the blame on the individual. Can't have a proper discussion about anything with those folks. In any case, the laws DO apply to everyone equally, but enforcement has been just as lax in Cologne as it was regarding the hundreds of cases of arson I mentioned. Cost-cutting measures everywhere.

Additionally, what most people outside this country seem unable to understand is our problem with hate speech. It's not "just words" if you have a history where these words quickly turned into blood on the streets. Right-wing extremists and even outright Nazis still are a problem over here. People should keep that in mind before they parade their First Amendment before us -- different culture. Though discussion in general is somewhat lackluster over here, no matter the topic. Used to be better, but people try to avoid confrontation whenever possible...

Anyway, I'd say leave the video as it is. It might be interesting to see how folks react to it.

I can agree with that, it is an issue...I just don't think it applies to this video where he was fired because the business found his behavior unacceptable.

The facebook post thing, it depends on the opinion. For instance, it's some people's opinion that 5 year old girls want to have sex (just to go back to an earlier example). Expressing that opinion, while legal, is certainly reason to fire someone IMO, because it would definitely hurt the company if it came out they hire people that publicly state that, and indicate (rightly or wrongly) that the company supports that sentiment. EDIT: I think that's best left up to the boss, but should be indicated in the contract what's expected and what's unacceptable.

Unsubstantiated claims by competitors is not the same thing as video proof of someone's actions....it doesn't mean people don't still make unsubstantiated claims to other's detriment, but isn't applicable to THIS situation.

It's not a PC police issue because the PC police didn't cause this action, it was taken precipitously by the employer. In fact, there's little indication the protesters even knew who he was, much less where he worked.

Yes, the WBC have the right to be disgusting...just as I have the right to not hire them because I find them disgusting...right? I would also defend to the death their right to be offensive, but not the right to have no social consequence for their words and acts. The two don't go together, in fact the latter would make the former intolerable.
I would certainly rail against a LAW that bars some kind of speech criminally, but never the public's right to decide for themselves what they find appropriate, or the right to not support people they find disgusting and/or dangerous.

If you want to publicly espouse your positions, and you care, you should do a little checking to be sure your boss won't be so offended by you that he no longer wants you as an employee. If you work for a giant corporation, you should understand it comes with conditions like 'don't publicly say or do things that, if seen, would injure the business'. It is controlling, yes, but not forced. It's a contract...you get to work there and be paid, they get to tell you what's unacceptable to them.

Not all companies think or operate that way. It's limiting, but if you find that methodology unacceptable, don't work for a company with a 'behavioral standards' clause in your contract.

The PC police aren't needed. They didn't have to go after the company, the company took action on it's own. Any guess as to exactly WHY they took this action is just that, a guess, but they have SAID it was based on their outrage, and they were not under any pressure YET to act...that's a good indicator to me that they just found him disgusting and fired him because they don't want to employ people they wouldn't spit on if they were on fire.

If there were laws requiring them to fire him, I would be right there with you saying it's terrible. Since it's the company took action by itself, ostensively for their own reasons, I'm not bothered in the least...except by those defending the racist's right to keep his job...a right that never existed.

Yes...there COULD be abuse by PC groups (EDIT: or non PC groups...religious groups use that methodology often) pressuring companies into this kind of reaction, and that's bad....but not here. In fact, you seem to want to remove the decision from the company...which leaves it in the hands of the masses, exactly what you DON'T want.

It HAS been my behavior being vilified. I'm a legal marijuana patient, but I'm not protected from discrimination based on my prescribed medicine. it doesn't even have to be publicly known, they can test me for it. I dislike that, but I do agree a company has a right to do so.
I accept it as a cost of having the same freedom to decide who I hire.

Again, I do see this CAN and HAS been abused by 'pc thugs'...I just disagree that that happened at all in THIS case.

Again, intentional infliction of emotional distress is also an actual legal charge, and can be prosecuted. It does not have to be irreparable harm, that's never been the standard for harm. Aggressive use of 'hate speech' does meet the standard in many if not most places....but he's not being prosecuted, at worst you might say he was persecuted.

I agree that there is a danger with the PC groups exerting too much control over others, but looking at this case by itself, I don't think it is in that category.

It seems you are under the mistaken assumption that they bowed to public pressure by PC warriors and fired him. Read the description, the company itself was disgusted, and has a policy of being intolerant of hate speech by their employees. Do you feel the company has no right to fire him for public statements and actions outside work that run 100% contrary to the company policy?
Where do you draw the line? What if he was advocating for the legalization of sex with prepubescent children? Should they still ignore it if he only does it outside work? If that line is up to the company to decide, what's the issue here?