Jo Brand's "throw acid not milk" at politicians joke

[8ball]

Pet hate alert. Why do people do this? Referring to slebs by their first names as if they know them.

You do not know them. It's wanky. Stop it.

You know everyone's going to start doing it now, right?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You know everyone's going to start doing it now, right?

Quick search of 'Spymaster' in the cricket threads may be in order... Is Sachin your mate?

 

[8ball]

The US comes closest, though. Loads of offensive shit you can say there and can't say here.

Indeed. It's a pretty big difference.
Things get policed by social censure and capital, though.

Plus for most people the things that sit in the 'allowed in US/not allowed here' part of the Venn diagram aren't things that most people would do.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Pet hate alert. Why do people do this? Referring to slebs by their first names as if they know them.

You do not know them. It's wanky. Stop it.

Seems reasonable in this case, as using 'Brand' could be mistaken as meaning the cunt known as Russell Brand.

 

[Spymaster]

Seems reasonable in this case, as using 'Brand' could be mistaken as meaning the cunt known as Russell Brand.

Only by fuckwits on a thread all about Jo Brand.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Indeed. It's a pretty big difference.
Things get policed by social censure and capital, though.

Plus for most people the things that sit in the 'allowed in US/not allowed here' part of the Venn diagram aren't things that most people would do.

Sort of. The free-for-all of hate speech that you get in the US is pretty hard to stomach, but the UK can go the other way too much, veering into thought crime territory by prosecuting people writing pro-Jihad poetry, for instance. I think sometimes we need to be braver in not calling the law in against things we don't like. We shouldn't have a right not to be offended.

 

[8ball]

Sort of.

If you mean the 'policing' bit, I'm talking about things like yer man from Seinfeld and what happened after his stand-up outburst, and also how sportspeople can lose sponsors etc. In terms of people not doing it... I guess you're right that a few people here might start doing some more dumbass things without some of our current hate speech restrictions .

We shouldn't have a right not to be offended.

A general willingness to avoid being a dick might work, if only people could agree on the definition.

 

[8ball]

Only by fuckwits on a thread all about Jo Brand.

The fuckwits will inherit the Earth.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A general willingness to avoid being a dick might work, if only people could agree on the definition.

Works both ways. We shouldn't expect a right not to be offended, but equally we shouldn't expect a right to say what we like without consequences. I'm uneasy about the criminalisation aspect of it here. On balance, despite its downsides, I prefer the US version - probably a minority view on here.

 

[Spymaster]

Quick search of 'Spymaster' in the cricket threads may be in order... Is Sachin your mate?

Not a mate but we are acquainted.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not a mate but we are acquainted.

Fuck I thought that might have been the case. I'm mates with a mate of his. Does that count?

 

[Spymaster]

Sort of. The free-for-all of hate speech that you get in the US is pretty hard to stomach, but the UK can go the other way too much, veering into thought crime territory by prosecuting people writing pro-Jihad poetry, for instance.

Has this happened?

On what basis was it prosecuted? If it's not considered inciteful it shouldn't have been prosecuted.

 

[8ball]

Works both ways. We shouldn't expect a right not to be offended, but equally we shouldn't expect a right to say what we like without consequences. I'm uneasy about the criminalisation aspect of it here. On balance, despite its downsides, I prefer the US version - probably a minority view on here.

I think not too long ago the balance would have been different on here. People get older, more scared.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Has this happened?

On what basis was it prosecuted? If it's not considered inciteful it shouldn't have been prosecuted.

A woman was sent to jail for it a few years ago. Think she got two years iirc.

 

[Spymaster]

A woman was sent to jail for it a few years ago. Think she got two years iirc.

Can you find a link? Interested to see on what basis she was nicked. I generally think UK hate speech/expression laws are quite sound. They pretty much boil down to 'say whatever you like but don't incite others to illegal activity'.

 

[8ball]

Has this happened?

On what basis was it prosecuted? If it's not considered inciteful it shouldn't have been prosecuted.

I think direct incitement is the main American restriction (maybe one or two others).
Here, intention to cause offence is enough, I believe, when certain protected groups are involved.

Not that the jihadi poetry necessarily fits in with that.

 

[Spymaster]

I think direct incitement is the main American restriction (maybe one or two others).
Here, intention to cause offence is enough, I believe, when certain protected groups are involved.

Not that the jihadi poetry necessarily fits in with that.

Is it "offence"? Not 'distress' or 'fear' or something similar?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Can you find a link? Interested to see on what basis she was nicked. I generally think UK hate speech/expression laws are quite sound. They pretty much boil down to 'say whatever you like but don't incite others to illegal activity'.

I misremembered. She got a suspended sentence in the end.

Muslim who wrote jihad poetry is spared prison

 

[8ball]

Can you find a link? Interested to see on what basis she was nicked. I generally think UK hate speech/expression laws are quite sound. They pretty much boil down to 'say whatever you like but don't incite others to illegal activity'.

That's *actual* freedom of speech imo.

Our laws have quite a few exceptions, including criminalising expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

 

[8ball]

Is it "offence"? Not 'distress' or 'fear' or something similar?

You're right - intention isn't written in specifically - it's more like what I have posted above.
"Expression of hatred" could be read to imply intent, but some might disagree.

 

[no-no]

Works both ways. We shouldn't expect a right not to be offended, but equally we shouldn't expect a right to say what we like without consequences. I'm uneasy about the criminalisation aspect of it here. On balance, despite its downsides, I prefer the US version - probably a minority view on here.

spot on, the consequences should be social rather than criminal.

 

[Spymaster]

I misremembered. She got a suspended sentence in the end.

Muslim who wrote jihad poetry is spared prison

Ok, so she was convicted of quite a bit more than 'writing poetry' dude.

 

[no-no]

Can you find a link? Interested to see on what basis she was nicked. I generally think UK hate speech/expression laws are quite sound. They pretty much boil down to 'say whatever you like but don't incite others to illegal activity'.

you can get done for being "grossly offensive".

the judge in the dankula case even sided with the prosecution, saying "context and intent are irrelevant" whether you find dankula hilarious or repulsive that's not a good precedent.

 

[8ball]

you can get done for being "grossly offensive".

the judge in the dankula case even sided with the prosecution, saying "context and intent are irrelevant" whether you find dankula hilarious or repulsive that's not a good precedent.

Yeah, I find it bizarre. You get people thinking if you remove the complexities of context and intent, then everything will be so much safer, but all you've basically done is reduce yourself to banning the use of particular symbols.

So then you get things like Pepe the fucking frog becoming a symbol of hatred because you've given twats the power to pick up anything they like and weaponise it.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

i tend to think that if they didn't mean it literally then it's a joke, funny or not.

That'd apply to Sargon's rape tweet and Jo Brand's acid attack joke.

At the moment we literally have the joke police, I'd love to be a fly on the wall to see what their "investigations" look like.

I was going to at least start on this but honestly I think you're just being disingenuous and drawing false equivalencies between this and the far right to justify the latter so I'm not going to bother.

 

[8ball]

I was going to at least start on this but honestly I think you're just being disingenuous and drawing false equivalencies between this and the far right to justify the latter so I'm not going to bother.

Sargon's tweet doesn't qualify as a joke imv. It's more a kind of pre-withdrawn rape threat.
But with Jo Brand's case it *literally* is a matter of the joke police, which is concerning.

The joke police are usually a bit more metaphorical, and Twitter-based.
Not paid officers.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sargon's tweet doesn't qualify as a joke imv. It's more a kind of pre-withdrawn rape threat.
But with Jo Brand's case it *literally* is a matter of the joke police, which is concerning.

The joke police are usually a bit more metaphorical, and Twitter-based.
Not paid officers.

Yep, this. You can't cover yourself retrospectively by saying it was a joke when it clearly wasn't. And the idea that context and intent are irrelevant is quite mad. So what? You ban irony?

 

[8ball]

Yep, this. You can't cover yourself retrospectively by saying it was a joke when it clearly wasn't. And the idea that context and intent are irrelevant is quite mad. So what? You ban irony?

I'm not sure of the legal status of irony in this context.
Interestingly, US libel law has amendments relating to the use of irony.

 

[no-no]

I was going to at least start on this but honestly I think you're just being disingenuous and drawing false equivalencies between this and the far right to justify the latter so I'm not going to bother.

We deserve the same protections no matter where we are on the political spectrum. If we want to disrupt the far rights mantra of white oppression and censorship then it's even more important that the rules are applied consistently.

I find it hard to make much of a distinction between their jokes. Both target individuals with what could be interpreted as either veiled threats or incitement of others.

Personally I don't think either joke is a crime, but the far right will be looking at cases like dankula's and then pointing to brand getting away with comments which are actually worse.

It might be time to throw brand under the bus just to deprive the far right of a talking point anything less helps confirm their bullshit.

or we could grow up, stop pretending we don't know the difference between jokes and incitement and put the comedy detectives back onto real police work.

 

[8ball]

We deserve the same protections no matter where we are on the political spectrum. If we want to disrupt the far rights mantra of white oppression and censorship then it's even more important that the rules are applied consistently.

I find it hard to make much of a distinction between their jokes. Both target individuals with what could be interpreted as either veiled threats or incitement of others.

Personally I don't think either joke is a crime, but the far right will be looking at cases like dankula's and then pointing to brand getting away with comments which are actually worse.

It might be time to throw brand under the bus just to deprive the far right of a talking point anything less helps confirm their bullshit.

or we could grow up, stop pretending we don't know the difference between jokes and incitement and put the comedy detectives back onto real police work.

I agree with a lot of this in principle, but I think the example of 'joke' that you've chosen is too weak.
It compromises the rest of the argument.

I'm sure if a better example isn't to hand, one will come along soon enough, in which case it would be interesting to see if anyone is persuaded.