August 11, 2005

• Offhand, I'd say that the law leaves open a defence of truth. So if, for example, your joke labels Catholic priests as a bunch of pedophiles, your would be able to defend yourself by should that Catholic priests ARE a bunch of pedophiles. Your joke would not be stirring up hatred, as simply stating a matter of fact. The fact that Catholic priests are a bunch of pedophiles.
• Which brings forward an interesting point -- not the fact that Catholic priests are a bunch of pedophiles, but that there is a relationship between jokes and truth. Certainly, there is a kernel of truth behind every joke for it to be 'successful', otherwise it wouldn't make sense (with the obvious exception of non-sequiturs, of course, which may not be jokes as such but something else). Thus, if every joke contains some core truth, and the joke is the vehicle of the expression of that truth, then the joke is simply an expression of fact. Racial or religious jokes, then, cannot be considered as 'stirring up hatred' as defined by this law. Right?
• They brought in a law like this over here in Oz about a decade ago. Made not a jot of difference.
• The bottom line is that Britain has introuduced a series of absolutely insane restrictions on freedom of speech and expression that make the Patriot Act look very benign by comparison. Oddly enough, these laws have until now not merited an FPP or even a comment as far as I know.
• Canada has a similar law, and nobody has ever been - or will ever be - charged for making a religious or racial joke. This is an overreaction to a law that prevents those who really do promote hatred from hiding behind 'freedom of speech' excuses.
• The comments are almost funnier than the jokes. Half the people don't get them, and the other half are offended. Also, the reactions vary according to the target of the joke. Pope jokes are received better than evangelical jokes, for example. It kind of makes me think. How would you feel if a group of christians got together to pick the funniest religious joke, and came up with one that was offensive to muslims, or jews, or catholics? I expect that kind of shit in the US, but I thought the brits were better than that.
• What'd the first elephant say to Adam? "How do you pick up peanuts with that thing?" What was the first thing Adam said to Eve? "Stand back, I don't know how big this is gonna get!" See also Life of Brian and Wholly Moses.
• Well, now I know what the sequel to "The Aristicrats" is going to be about...
• So an old man dies and goes to heaven. St. Peter welcomes him and gives him the tour...he sees people of all races, colours, etc all enjoying their stay. St. Peter shows him a group of Buddhists circled around the first Buddah discussing koans. Then he shows him a group of Native Americans communing with animal spirits. In fact, every religion and belief system on Earth is represented. The old man is amazed and tells St. Peter that he never expected all these groups to have made it to the same heaven. As they approached the edge of the compound they came upon a region encircled by a huge stone wall. "What's in there?" the old man asked. "Shhh! Keep your voice down", St. Peter said, "That's the Catholics...they think they're the only ones here!"
• This is an overreaction to a law that prevents those who really do promote hatred from hiding behind 'freedom of speech' excuses. Yeah I wish we had had those kind of laws back in 1776 when Jefferson and Washington were promoting hatred for the British. And in the 60s when Martin Luther King was promoting hatred for southern whites. And all that German-hating that seemed to permeate the 40s... Damn those pesky freedom of speech excuses!
• Promote hatred - Covered by freedom of speech. Incite violence - No way. Comments? Agree? Disagree?
• d'ems fightin' words!
• Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— Awwwww! That is So Sweet! I even read it with a little accent! Let me try on the wig! Bring hithah the wig! Ha! /tweak
• dr j: I'd like to see you come up with a single quote from MLK that in any way promoted hatred toward whites. Anti-hate speech laws like Canada's aren't nearly as bad as you seem to think. It is illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation. However, under section 319 on hate speech, a person cannot be convicted of hate speech "if the person can establish that the statements made are true." In other words, it's only illegal to publicly slander groups of people, just like it's already illegal to slander individuals in your oh-so-free USA.
• Promote hatred - Covered by freedom of speech. Incite violence - No way. Don't forget, there wouldn't be a first amendment if a band of revolutionaries hadn't successfully incited violence against the lawful government of the 13 colonies. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." Seems pretty clear to me. Talking should never be illegal.
• Monkeys say the darndest things!
• Um rocket88... seriously, take the pills. They're good for you! ;)
• Slander is a civil action. Slander is not a criminal offense in the US.
• Inciting violence is already a crime in the UK. Has been for a long time. Nobody knows exactly what these proposed new laws will add to that (note that they've not actually been introduced or even drafted yet, drjimmy, which may explain the lack of comment). They may be reasonable; they may well be unreasonable. What seems most probable, however, is that they will be utterly useless for whatever purpose they were intended to have, and the majority of them will be overthrown in some manner by the courts within a short time of their passing into law. Because the Blair government is utterly incompetent at planning and drafting legislation.
• This might be nice, if all the jokes on that site weren't so fricken' LAME... The only amusing thing about that site was the irony of so many members replying in outrage at the bland and sanitised 'jokes'
• Slander is a civil action. Slander is not a criminal offense in the US. It's still a limitation on free speech.
• And here they are - the 10 funniest and the ten most offensive religious jokes, as posted to and voted on in the forum. The jokes were to be read out at the Greenbelt Arts festival by a panelist (I think it might have been this guy, since I can't seem to find any other James Cary UK comedy writers), but he changed his mind, and refused to be present while they were read, citing lightning and his trigger happy deity. His holier-than-thou attitude irritated some. So it's disorganized religion all the way - if you can't walk on water, there's always a rowboat.
• The Noxious Fruits of Hate Speech laws