You are wrong about your level of free speech, but that’s your issue. Developing from, and codifying it, is a long way from the slippery slope upon which Brits find themselves. Enjoy the ride.I've read through the thread to this point, and from memory, i don't recall anyone suggesting Jimmy Carr should be sensored or removed. Some people have said it was funny, others said it was not. The main conversation seemed to be about Frankie Boyle. So your post, as usual, is a massive over-reaction. It's exactly the type of reaction ignorant bigots give when people explain to them that certain words, phrases or jokes are racist or discriminatory. "Can't even call them Easter Eggs now, cos of the bloody muslims, we might offend them iniit Dave". It takes criticism of an abhorrent joke and suggests that peoples freedoms are being harmed. They're not. Carr has the freedom so say racist stuff, he is not free from the consequences of his words.
The fact is we have as much free speech here as you do in the US. Because we don't have a written constitution, with a first amendment mandating free speech it is easy to lose sight of the fact that Britons historically have, and still do, exercise some of the broadest free speech rights of any people on earth, especially in their ability to criticize the government, a most important bellwether of free speech rights. The American concept of free speech developed directly from the British, and in many important respects, the free speech rights exercised in both countries are quite similar.
I think this is the thing for me, i'm not offended, i'm not a traveller, but it is offensive and to add unnecessarily targets a minority group who still suffer significant racism with little societal support.
Both Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are considered specific racial groups and are probably the only racial group that it is still considered ok to essentially persecute. They are still seen as "fair game". If Jimmy does the same joke about g*ys, n*ggers, k*kes or p*kis, i suspect we would see very few of the "its just jokes" crowd out hear defending them, because they recognise that its unacceptable within society, but for travellers the attitude is, meh its just jokes.
Jimmy Carr does another bit about how he loves edgier jokes, and how he loves the moment the punchline lands and he hears that collective oooh and then people laugh as they accept that it is just a joke. You can hear an example of it in this latest clip when he first mentions the holocaust. Then, however, when he does the traveller punchline its just a big long laugh, elongated (with some of the ooh) but also with some cheers and applause. Its the audience reaction that i find really distasteful, because you know (and Jimmy knows which is why he chose the travellers as the target of the joke) that there is a significant minority within that crowd (and indeed any crowd in the UK) that don't see an issue with rounding up this specific minority and massacaring them.
I'm a big fan of Jimmy Carr and i think he could have done a lot better. His final section about the Jehovahs witnesses was infinitely funnier because of the wordplay involved. In my view, he's picked an easy target, and that is a bully and a cunts trick.
I see the difference, but you missed the point. It wasn’t about lawyers!The difference with your example being that Lawyers have never been persecuted to the same extent as say Jews or Gypsies. Certainly there is no real life, in living memory, example of Lawyers being killed in bus/ cliff accidents in the same way that millions of people were killed by the Nazi's. So the joke has very little historic pain attached to it.
Lawyers have also always sat at the "top" of society, and punching up as opposed to punching down is much less likely to be seen as bullying / persecution / demonization.
It's not a question of their being humour in death or not, its whether there is humour in specifically targeting groups who have historically been treated abhorrently by the majority of society and whether you think they are a suitable target for "jokes" about it being a good thing for them to be killed systematically in order to wipe them off the planet.
See the difference?
What’s left to joke about?
That first sentence proves my point about free speech. In the context it is used, it is clearly SELF-CENSORED, yet the poster is STILL cautioned to edit it.Asterix or not, I'd have chosen different words there. Might be worth considering editing it.
It actually isn't that different to the joke itself, if you think about it, leaves a similar level of discomfort and distaste, even if it is to emphasize a point and there is no real intent there. The main difference being people tuned in to Carr knowing what to expect.
Not playing devil's advocate here, being obtuse or facetious btw, just giving you my gut reaction.
Come in!Knock knock..
Not seeing a smiley, I call BS!Cancel culture doesn't exist.
You have a PhD in Logic and I claim my £5!Challenging something, criticising something are not the same as cancelling something.
I'm with you there, the use of asterisks clearly recognises that the words are not acceptable in general use, but seeking to ban words is f*cking weird.That first sentence proves my point about free speech. In the context it is used, it is clearly SELF-CENSORED, yet the poster is STILL cautioned to edit it.
Come in!
That first sentence proves my point about free speech. In the context it is used, it is clearly SELF-CENSORED, yet the poster is STILL cautioned to edit it.