Rowan Atkinson on free speech

[King Heffy]

4 minutes ago, VancouverHabitant said:

I agree, but I think that those consequences shouldn't be necessarily handled by the law. Who gets to define what hate speech is?

 

I've read your messages where you've called players and coaches pieces of shit, gutless, worthless humans, and all kinds of things. 

 

I wouldn't call that hate speech, but one could certainly make a strong argument for it especially if you project 5 years into the future of where we are headed. 

 

There will never be terms taken out of the hate speech definitions, it's a list that will forever keep on growing as more and more people get offended in different ways. 

Fortunately, the Charter specifically says what groups it's illegal to discriminate against.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, StrayDog said:

And to add: I'm sitting here looking at a news story that someone painted "All f*****s must die!" on the side of a gay-friendly church. Perhaps Mr. Atkinson can explain if this is just a harmless jape not worthy of persecution or something else entirely.

Feel free to enlighten me on how this is not a Hate Crime.

That is indeed a hate crime. 

 

If they did that in real life, they would face immediate consequences through getting told to F off, or getting punched, etc. 

 

 

I'd like to make a distinction here, people that argue for freedom of speech aren't in favour of any of these hate crimes or any sort of harassment. 

No one is siding with these people that are defacing churches or throwing out racial/sexist slurs. 

 

I just think that criminalizing speech can end up having unintended consequences that will end up doing much more harm then dealing with the hateful words directly (without the use of law). 

[King Heffy]

8 minutes ago, VancouverHabitant said:

That is indeed a hate crime. 

 

If they did that in real life, they would face immediate consequences through getting told to F off, or getting punched, etc. 

 

 

I'd like to make a distinction here, people that argue for freedom of speech aren't in favour of any of these hate crimes or any sort of harassment. 

No one is siding with these people that are defacing churches or throwing out racial/sexist slurs. 

 

I just think that criminalizing speech can end up having unintended consequences that will end up doing much more harm then dealing with the hateful words directly (without the use of law). 

Your solution also has unintended consequences:

 

Johnny calls Dave the N word

Dave punches Johnny, who falls awkwardly and has brain damage.

Johnny's family sues Dave successfully.

Dave's now paying for this for the rest of his life.

Edited June 8, 2023 by King Heffy

[StrayDog]

11 minutes ago, VancouverHabitant said:

That is indeed a hate crime. 

 

If they did that in real life, they would face immediate consequences through getting told to F off, or getting punched, etc. 

 

 

I'd like to make a distinction here, people that argue for freedom of speech aren't in favour of any of these hate crimes or any sort of harassment. 

No one is siding with these people that are defacing churches or throwing out racial/sexist slurs. 

 

I just think that criminalizing speech can end up having unintended consequences that will end up doing much more harm then dealing with the hateful words directly (without the use of law). 

Just a few posts up you asked who decides what hate speech is, and now you are declaring this instance a hate crime. You can't have it both ways. Either there are instances where speech is against the law or there is not.

I am in favor of free speech, as intended. That the government cannot persecute you for having dissenting opinions. These laws are not about dissenting opinions; they are against using language to intentionally dehumanize others in a hateful fashion.

And if you are not using the law to combat hate, then how do you propose it is dealt with? Mob justice?

[Crabcakes]

8 hours ago, Dazzle said:

We all understand censorship to be shutting down opinions that contradict a government's position. It is dangerous to allow censorship because it results in a one-way narrative (i.e. propaganda). However, this definition appears to ignore some elements, such as deliberate misinformation, especially when someone talks about COVID cures that have no scientific basis. Many websites (social media apps) have the ability to report that.

People say this is "censorship", but that is a very broad interpretation of that.

 

Being unable to use racist language is not censorship, buddy. What a crock position to take lol.

I've read on in the thread and have discovered that our opinions on the matter are not that different.

 

This video is from 2012 when in the UK, there was a Reform Section 5 campaign which, as it was written, allowed the police to arrest people for using insulting language which amounted to censorship.  The campaign was about removing one word from the law, "insulting".  It is not about racist language or hate speech at all.  As a fan of Rowan Atkinson he is a master of the insult which is why he used his high profile as a celebrity to speak out on this matter.  Atkinson prefers dialogue rather than censorship to deal with the matter and having the police arrest people is authoritarian and controlling. He goes on to say that dialogue is more useful at maintaining acceptable social norms than the heavy hand of the law.

 

I am in general agreement with Atkinson as far as he goes, but he doesn't discuss more extreme cases of hate speech.  I can only assume, since he only wants to allow "insults", that he is in favour of allowing the arrest of people engaging in hate speech.

 

So when you criticize this video, and say he missed the mark, I think that maybe you hadn't seen the whole video at that point.

 

 

 

 

[J.I.A.H.N]

I am so tired of all this.............

 

First off, our Canadian rights and freedoms are not Rights and Freedoms, but rather Privileges, that can be taken away if abused

 

Secondly....we have forgotten common decency, where you treat "All" people equally............not white, not yellow, and not green................all Human beings!

 

Thirdly........we do not punish according to the act, but rather the circumstance, it does not mater if you were born rich or poor, or white, or dark skinned, it simply should not matter

 

Fourthly......there is only 1 race.........and only 2 sexes, and you can think what you want, but you can only act as society wants or face the consequences.

 

5thly...........Societies rules are meant to be followed, and if you are an absolute minority, meaning there is not a major group of people wanting the same thing, then follow don't lead.

 

IMO, it all comes back to "Love thy neighbor" and what has happened is that has been distorted, to mean "Love those that agree with you"

 

All our troubles have occured because Race, Nationship, or religion

 

There is only 1 race

There is only 1 earth

and everyone is related to each other............all blood is red.............which is proven, decade, and eon, and millenia, over and over...............

 

Silly Humans!

[D.B Cooper]

Wait a second…….. Mr.Bean can talk?   
wtf?!

[Alflives]

8 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said:

Wait a second…….. Mr.Bean can talk?   
wtf?!

Black Adder to me. 

[D.B Cooper]

13 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Black Adder to me. 

What a classic. 

[Crabcakes]

4 hours ago, J.I.A.H.N said:

I am so tired of all this.............

 

First off, our Canadian rights and freedoms are not Rights and Freedoms, but rather Privileges, that can be taken away if abused

 

Secondly....we have forgotten common decency, where you treat "All" people equally............not white, not yellow, and not green................all Human beings!

 

Thirdly........we do not punish according to the act, but rather the circumstance, it does not mater if you were born rich or poor, or white, or dark skinned, it simply should not matter

 

Fourthly......there is only 1 race.........and only 2 sexes, and you can think what you want, but you can only act as society wants or face the consequences.

 

5thly...........Societies rules are meant to be followed, and if you are an absolute minority, meaning there is not a major group of people wanting the same thing, then follow don't lead.

 

IMO, it all comes back to "Love thy neighbor" and what has happened is that has been distorted, to mean "Love those that agree with you"

 

All our troubles have occured because Race, Nationship, or religion

 

There is only 1 race

There is only 1 earth

and everyone is related to each other............all blood is red.............which is proven, decade, and eon, and millenia, over and over...............

 

Silly Humans!

Love thy neighbour

 

Thguac teg tnod tub

[J.I.A.H.N]

Just now, Crabcakes said:

Love thy neighbour

 

Thguac teg tnod tub

Yes love thy neighbour............whether he/she is beside me, across the street, across the country or across the world.

 

I am not a turn the other cheek kinda guy.......so no throwing rocks.......plz

[J.I.A.H.N]

I think this whole issue is really about the mis-understanding of our charter of Canadian rights and freedoms..........

 

They are not rights and freedoms! They never were. They are privileges , which if not followed to the letter of the law, can be taken away from you.

 

Well, who makes these Laws? Well society does in general. It is the masses who write the laws, by way of our elections and our Judicial system

 

This is IMO, where it has eroded, and where we need a re-boot! Not to change them, but get back on the straight in narrow, sort of speak.

 

We the people have to get our politicians back in line doing our work.......... not the fringe right, or the fringe left, but the middle, who ever they/we are

 

It really comes down to rights and wrongs.........

 

- You can not have a fringe element (Freedom fighters) blocking streets

- You can not have homeless shooting up in our parks

- You can not have Companies not putting in safety/environmental or financial safe guards in place when operating in Canada

- You can not pick on/alienate/bully anyone regardless of color, age, sexual preference, or beliefs

 

It is not to say, we do not listen, it is not to say, we do not help, but it is to say there are rules, which everyone has to abide by. We do not need to be Liberal or conservative, we need to be just: conforming to the standard of correctness

 

It should apply to every and all Canadians regardless if they are the Prime Minister or they are the homeless

 

I know it sounds like a speech, but we need a correction, before it is too late! We need to stop dividing ourselves.....one people indivisible by God(s), and etched in law!

[Dazzle]

18 hours ago, StrayDog said:

To be fair though, have you ever tried to throw a glass house at stones? 

On a more topical note, it seems people fail to understand what can constitute hate speech. Calling (for example) a black man a n****r in an aggressive tone is no different than taking a swing at him. You are deliberately being antagonistic, and have gone beyond being insulting.

I re-read your post and your other posts. I don't know if it's 'assault', per se, but I can understand if someone would feel threatened by it. (I'm not black and I cannot presume to know what I'd feel in that context)

 

It's crazy to me that there are posters in here that agree with Rowan who talk about enabling the racist talk to flourish openly because it is "free speech", all the while claiming that the lack of this said free speech would be terrible for society. It's a ridiculous position to take.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Dazzle

[Dazzle]

17 minutes ago, J.I.A.H.N said:

I think this whole issue is really about the mis-understanding of our charter of Canadian rights and freedoms..........

 

They are not rights and freedoms! They never were. They are privileges , which if not followed to the letter of the law, can be taken away from you.

 

Well, who makes these Laws? Well society does in general. It is the masses who write the laws, by way of our elections and our Judicial system

 

This is IMO, where it has eroded, and where we need a re-boot! Not to change them, but get back on the straight in narrow, sort of speak.

 

We the people have to get our politicians back in line doing our work.......... not the fringe right, or the fringe left, but the middle, who ever they/we are

 

It really comes down to rights and wrongs.........

 

- You can not have a fringe element (Freedom fighters) blocking streets

- You can not have homeless shooting up in our parks

- You can not have Companies not putting in safety/environmental or financial safe guards in place when operating in Canada

- You can not pick on/alienate/bully anyone regardless of color, age, sexual preference, or beliefs

 

It is not to say, we do not listen, it is not to say, we do not help, but it is to say there are rules, which everyone has to abide by. We do not need to be Liberal or conservative, we need to be just: conforming to the standard of correctness

 

It should apply to every and all Canadians regardless if they are the Prime Minister or they are the homeless

 

I know it sounds like a speech, but we need a correction, before it is too late! We need to stop dividing ourselves.....one people indivisible by God(s), and etched in law!

I could feel you were inspired by George Carlin for most of this.

[Gurn]

"There are no bad words, but there are words used badly."  George C.

[J.I.A.H.N]

14 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I could feel you were inspired by George Carlin for most of this.

Geez, I wasn't trying to be funny! I was serious!

[Dazzle]

15 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

I've read on in the thread and have discovered that our opinions on the matter are not that different.

 

This video is from 2012 when in the UK, there was a Reform Section 5 campaign which, as it was written, allowed the police to arrest people for using insulting language which amounted to censorship.  The campaign was about removing one word from the law, "insulting".  It is not about racist language or hate speech at all.  As a fan of Rowan Atkinson he is a master of the insult which is why he used his high profile as a celebrity to speak out on this matter.  Atkinson prefers dialogue rather than censorship to deal with the matter and having the police arrest people is authoritarian and controlling. He goes on to say that dialogue is more useful at maintaining acceptable social norms than the heavy hand of the law.

 

I am in general agreement with Atkinson as far as he goes, but he doesn't discuss more extreme cases of hate speech.  I can only assume, since he only wants to allow "insults", that he is in favour of allowing the arrest of people engaging in hate speech.

 

So when you criticize this video, and say he missed the mark, I think that maybe you hadn't seen the whole video at that point.

 

 

 

 

See, that's the thing, I did watch the video. These are my takeaways from that video:

 

He quickly pointed out the dangers of censorship from the government that he himself would largely be immune to, given his public profile.

 

He said there's a lot of interpretation to what "insulting" means, which I agree with him entirely. His examples included some incidents involving a horse being called gay, among other ridiculous situations, all of which I agree are ridiculous.

 

The problem is that he doesn't distinguish hate speech and its effects on people. He has emphasized that an insult should be allowed (I have no issues with this), but he goes on to talk about "intolerance" and how it's trying to be controlled. THIS is the section where he gets himself into trouble, in my opinion. Just as the logic is that "insulting" is too broad of a category to describe something, racist/hateful language is definitely offensive and insulting (depending on what is said), but Rowan talks NOTHING about this.

 

He makes some good points about "free speech" and mentions that we should take responsibility for what we say. Sure, that's a great message, but in this video specifically, the people who use racist language will not care about that so-called responsibility. I'm not saying the law should intervene either. It's worth noting that his speech which was originally intended for 'mild' insults is open to interpretation, just as his claim that "insult" is too broad. What is mild to one person may not be mild to another.

 

When you think deeper as to how he expressed himself, there are more problems than there are solutions to his talk here. So let's just say someone said something racist, which another person took offense to. The first person could easily claim "it's just a joke bro". In my opinion, that situation is absolutely garbage and we don't want to see that. Rowan should've defined the boundaries on what constitutes free speech, but he didn't. Are we to assume that racist language should be allowed? The fact that he was silent on that front is crappy.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Dazzle

[J.I.A.H.N]

3 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

See, that's the thing, I did watch the video. These are my takeaways from that video:

 

He quickly pointed out the dangers of censorship from the government that he himself would largely be immune to, given his public profile.

 

He said there's a lot of interpretation to what "insulting" means, which I agree with him entirely. His examples included some incidents involving a horse being called gay, among other ridiculous situations, all of which I agree are ridiculous.

 

The problem is that he doesn't distinguish hate speech and its effects on people. He has emphasized that an insult should be allowed (I have no issues with this), but he goes on to talk about "intolerance" and how it's trying to be controlled. THIS is the section where he gets himself into trouble, in my opinion. Just as the logic is that "insulting" is too broad of a title to describe something, racist/hateful language is definitely offensive and insulting (depending on what is said), but Rowan talks NOTHING about this.

 

While he makes some good points about "free speech" and mentions that we should take responsibility for what we say. Sure, that's a great message, but in this video specifically, the people who use racist language will not care about that so-called responsibility. I'm not saying the law should intervene either. However, his speech which was originally intended for 'mild' insults is open to interpretation. What is mild to one person may not be mild to another.

 

When you think deeper as to how he expressed himself, there are more problems than there are solutions to his talk here.

This is what I was getting at in my speech.........it is not....I repeat "NOT" about if one person is offended, but rather, does society think one should be offended. Sorry, but for those that find everything insulting.....not everything is! Sometimes it is the god darn truth!

[Dazzle]

11 minutes ago, J.I.A.H.N said:

This is what I was getting at in my speech.........it is not....I repeat "NOT" about if one person is offended, but rather, does society think one should be offended. Sorry, but for those that find everything insulting.....not everything is! Sometimes it is the god darn truth!

Under no circumstances should police be involved, except in the cases where a person feels threatened. Rowan doesn't establish the boundaries of where free speech is. He only talks about the dangers of censorship and the removed 'right' to insult someone.

 

However, there is a huge missed opportunity to talk about hate speech which is targeting a person's race/religion/gender/sexual orientation etc etc, and how it should not be included in this so-called freedom of speech. He has actually made it more ambiguous about what an insult is. Does it include hateful speech? Because it sure sounds like it.

 

If someone says this black politician is a giant monkey, that is both an insult and probably a racist comment. Rowan SHOULD have drawn the line on this. I get that he wants society to be able to insult politicians without fear of government reprisal, but we all understand that everyone is going to be different. We cannot leave stuff like this open to interpretation.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Dazzle

[J.I.A.H.N]

10 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Under no circumstances should police be involved, except in the cases where a person feels threatened. Rowan doesn't establish the boundaries of where free speech is. He only talks about the dangers of censorship and the removed 'right' to insult someone.

 

However, there is a huge missed opportunity to talk about hate speech which is targeting a person's race/religion/gender/sexual orientation etc etc, and how it should not be included in this so-called freedom of speech. He has actually made it more ambiguous about what an insult is. Does it include hateful speech? Because it sure sounds like it.

 

If someone says this black politician is a giant monkey, that is both an insult and probably a racist comment. Rowan SHOULD have drawn the line on this. I get that he wants society to be able to insult politicians without fear of government reprisal, but we all understand that everyone is going to be different. We cannot leave stuff like this open to interpretation.

I agree.........

 

I mean, if a person wants to say...........all politicians are idiots...........I am fine with that, but if he says all white politicians are idiots, that is racist

 

To me, there is a caveat..........

 

It seems to me, when a dark skinned person says he is dark skinned, that is racist, as it differentiates his skin color from someone else......as I suggest in my speech, skin color is only the covering.........the blood is the same color. The same can be said for every other color of the rainbow. we need to stop, Identifying ourselves by color, we all do it, and it is wrong.

 

B ut as to your statement.............lines and boundaries, need to be established...........which like I said earlier......they already have been......we just have forgot decentcy, and what is right and what is wrong.

 

You simply can not just say what you think or feel. It is not a god given right. There are boundaries, but unfortunately, some parents have stopped teaching them, and there are no consequences, and then it esculates more and more, until we simply forget what they were..............to me that is the sad part! 

 

I mean, look at the Evangelists down in the states......they used to be god fearing, and now they are self serving.......along way from where they started. It all connects!