Yes you can. Don’t be that guy.
Yes, it’s a commonly misused term in these discussions.
I didn’t misuse it.
The supreme court ruling said free speech can be curtailed if it “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”.
I said speech can be curtailed if it “incites violence or immediate public harm”.
I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see a great deal of difference between those two statements, unless you consider that inciting a stampede in a theater, potentially hurting many people, isn’t lawless action.
Nope. The current Court ruling is the speech must do both.
[quote]
In 1969, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech–and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan–is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”[/quote]
The “and” is the important part. You can’t just yell “Let’s riot!” in the middle of the street and be prosecuted for inciting lawless action. You have to be yelling it to a crowd of people already agitated towards violence.
The difference being, one of my supporters should take care of her.
vs.
Hey, you guys with guns, go kill someone I don’t like for me.
I understand the distinction you’re trying to make, I just don’t see why that distinction applies. The specific example I used is likely to cause public harm.
The fact that sites like The Daily Stormer are opportunistically capitalizing on this is a problem. And PDP should share in the problem. Just like Trump is America’s problem.
Kotaku elaborates a bit on the situation that I mentioned before with “Idubbbz”
Earlier this month, one of the biggest controversies on YouTube unfolded
between entertainer iDubbbzTV and hyperbolic vlogger Tana Mongeau. To
make a long story short: Mongeau had a history of using the n word in a
derogatory way. At some point, Mongeau tweeted in disbelief that iDubbbz
openly uses the n word in his videos, and angrily suggested that he
should kill himself because of it. iDubbbz, smelling the blood of
hypocrisy in the water, took a road trip to slyly confront Mongeau in
person over the whole thing:
In what is now an infamous event, iDubbbz bought a ticket to a
Mongeau meet and greet, went up to her, hugged her, and instead of
prompting a photo with ‘say cheese,’ happily asked her to ‘say nir.’
She didn’t. iDubbbz got kicked out, and Mongeau went on to make it sound
as if iDubbbz was trying to physically attack her—the video shows him
hugging her—rather than just trying to make a joke.
By iDubbbz’s own admission, it was a terrible joke. “I replaced ‘say
cheese’ with ‘say nir,’” he said in his video addressing the
squabble. “How funny is that? Not really funny, but what is funny is
your reaction to it.”
This is a pretty big thing going on with Youtube lately. The anti-PC counterculture (which I think is a bit misaligned), I mean, I hate overtly PC culture too, but I don’t think that this is the right way to go against it.
People on youtube are doing a lot of shock humor. Just be warned if you do watch those videos, they are extremely NSFW for language.
While I think it is offensive, I also think it is artistically brilliant. It is, as Ethan Klein says, youtube counterculture. The social media and youtube culture really feels like the first steps towards a Black Mirror episode. So, of course there is going to be the inevitable culture backlash, being offensive, saying swear words, not being made up, and doing disgusting things.
Making a channel where you ‘bad unboxing’ reviews where you get a “lootcrate” style item and then end up filling the box with canned chili and setting it on fire… is awesome. Or making fun of stupid Kickstarter gizmos. I personally don’t like his stance on the use of offensive language, but, that is the way he chooses to make his videos. He thinks that the context matters.
My take on all this is that a responsibility does exist, and indeed as a fundamental part of what keeps society together. This responsibility naturally increases with the amount of people you exert a powerful influence over. Artist or non-artist, that’s irrelevant. This is not a responsibility to be a “role model”; that’s a false dichotomy-- in this case, it suffices not to disseminate hatred-based memes for the sake of lulz to a large audience composed primarily of youngsters. Lest we overestimate audiences and followers who may not be as discriminating when separating a “joke” from an insidious statement.
Another thing I’ve learned about this whole idealized textbook approach to freedom is that opinions tend to change quickly when the target of the “jokes” is too close for comfort and the consequences of naturalizing hate speech (for the lulz, no less) begin to creep up in the real world in very tangible and unfunny fashion.
Thank you. That’s where my remark on civil society earlier fits in. Anyone who says that free speech comes without any sense of responsibility is, knowingly or unknowingly, fostering the growth of outright anti-social – and possibly destructive – behaviour.
I mean… he is. Disney isn’t his channel and expecting them to just let him do whatever he wants is silly. No company is going to do that.
Because laws.
It shows up so much online that nearly ever lawyer with a presence wants to strange people who talk about it.
I would disagree. I think a complete absence of role models is a bad thing, but I don’t think that means that everyone needs to be a role model. Or a model citizen. The term role model is very subjective as well. I think the very freedom to be offensive or in opposition is what makes our society what it is today. We should be allowed to protest, write music our parents don’t like, smoke drugs, burn flags, depict our leaders in a saturday night comedy program, parade around to stand for women’s rights.
Because if everyone is a role model, everything is the same, and there is no opposition. For sure your definition of a role model may differ from mine. Many families in the U.S. would pick Jesus, or their version of him. Many would pick a Billy Graham or Jerry Falwell. Or some people would look up to Che Guevara, Bobby Seale, Malcom X, or John Lewis. Many people in America probably would fundamentally agree on who a good role model is. So what is the definition of being a good role model? What if our president picked what America should see as a role model?
Now, I am not talking about dank memes or racial jokes for the lolz here, that is petty bullshit from an internet comedian. But if we move a few steps further, I think that every citizen deserves the same amount of rights as everyone else. So whether we are talking dank memes on the internet, the freedom to flip the bird at the presidential motorcade as you march on Washington, or call out “President Agent Orange” for his hatred at the grammys, you protect all speech or nothing. So Mr. Kjellberg should have the freedom to make whatever program he wants to. (Whether or not someone pays for it, however, is not a right he has)
I think that the responsibility exists to uphold the freedoms to create whatever you want. This is important because, your idea of what being a good role model could differ greatly from someone else. I am sure there were many people in the 1960s who very much had the idea that Martin Luther King was a bad role model and ruining society. To many people George Wallace was a hero, and a role model.
To some, films like “A Clockwork Orange” are horrible, why would anyone want to watch that? To others it is high art. Some books, “Huckleberry Finn” and “Tom Sawyer” are banned in schools. Those are important American works of art. Every child should read Twain. Slaughterhouse Five, also banned. I am sure there are many people that would wish that Mr. Vonnegut stuck to sci fi, and laid off the politics and graphic imagery.
Additionally, this conversation is one we can have because we are lucky enough to be free from the yoke of some despotic leadership. We are free to choose our role models, and what we think is good and what we think as bad. We don’t have a leader telling us what to do, and how to think. We are free to even joke about facism because we live in a society free from it. (for now) People need to be able to express these opinions, however awful, because not allowing them to would be unamerican.
Oh my God, this thread, just stop. Might be time for the mute button.
The only thing left that interests me about this story is a theory I read that PDP was attempting to insulate himself from criticism by deliberately doing shocking things over and over until everyone just rolls their eyes at his bad behavior and leaves him alone.
I’m not sure I agree with that theory since it probably cost him a lot of money. But I do wonder if this is how generation Z will fight back against millenial SJW outrage (since generations tend to react against the previous ones). [Not that meltdowns toward anti-Semitism jokes are unique to SJWs, only that desensitization is one possible vector to constrain outrage in general. This is also why I’m not sure I agree with the comment earlier that jokes normalize hate speech to the point that people suddenly have genuine hate in their hearts or enjoy hearing it.]
It’ll be interesting to watch over the next decade or two.
I agree with the YouTubers like PewDiePie and iDubbbz that context matters. Their jokes are terrible and there’s no substance to their anti-SJW demonstrations.
If you’re just running around blasting the n-word, cursing, and aping Nazi sentiment for shock value, then congratulations. You have the sense of humor of a small child. You’re the six-year-old that screams “poop” or “pee pee” because he just discovered the power of naughty words. I suppose you can consider that counter-culture or anti-PC if you want.
Get off my lawn and all that, but a good comic or or observer of hypocrisy uses words carefully and with devastating effect. When George Carlin did his Seven Words bit, he wasn’t just repeating curses to flout TV standards. He was making a commentary about how we all ascribe power to those words in particular, and pointing out the inherent double-think of censoring them on our broadcast networks. When Louis C.K. did his bit about “faggots” he wasn’t just shocking people with the use of the word. He was presenting an argument for why it was bad and offensive to gays and that maybe people should think about the origin of the slang. Then, he deftly flipped that into a self-depreciating joke about his own prejudicial tendencies. When Chris Rock or Dave Chappelle did stand-up about the n-word, they weren’t just using it flippantly. They were making points about its place in history and asserting their right to use it. Mel Brooks used fart and sex jokes along with liberal dashes of the n-word in Blazing Saddles because a scathing commentary on racism goes down a lot better with some laughs.
And if you just want potty humor, that’s fine too. Sometimes you just want some Benny Hill boobies or a plumber’s butt and some flatulence with no politics beyond the breaking of taboos.
But these goobers? They suck.
Worked for the President.
Sounds like PDP is tryiing to turn this political, but he is already a clown to begin first. Is no the right platform to make political staments. So every thing he do to prove he can be a asshole only prove that he is a asshole (IMHO) and not whatever point hes tryiing to make.
Stop embarrassing yourself, PDP.
Yeah, I am done. Again, my takeaway is that I have continued to make the right choice not watching PDP.
Thank you. You’re spot on.
I still think people exploit and do harm when they do this, but maybe all humor exploits the condition of someone, somewhere, somewhen. I mean, even supposedly family-friendly humor like Bill Cosby is exploitative if you consider how he lived his personal life.