Jump to content

Jo Brand - Hate Speech vs Free Speech

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, I1L2T3 said:

Have argued exactly this point before: we don’t want to shut people down and anybody should be free to say what they want, but they should be prepared to take responsibility for what they say and to deal with any consequences.

 

Brand made a massive mistake. Joking about acid attacks is way beyond what is reasonable. She should expect to deal with consequences of that.

One hundred percent agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can a definition of what free speach is actually be given?

 

It has been established that certain speach has consequences.

 

Can a person be free to do or say something if there are consequences?

 

I suppose the word free only refers to whether something is legal or not.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baker and Brand have always been edgy.  Baker's jibe was at the media portrayal of the royals,  and was interpreted as being racist.

 

Brand's attack was on the majority of pathetic selfish, self serving politicians.

 

Humour should be a tool to provoke comment and debate.

 

Perhaps those who are "offended" should stick to the puerile "comedy" of "Mrs Brown's Boys."  Now there IS an offence...to viewers' intelligence and the formerly great tradition of BBC comedy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean she's just awful as a comedian but overlooking that any comments or jokes about acid attacks is a little silly at this point in time considering what has been happening particularly in London over the last year or so. More to the point why do comedians still do this? I mean I like edgy and dark humour personally, I wouldn't even think twice about a joke like this but surely people like Jo and Danny Baker must know making a joke like this could have serious repercussions when being broadcast to masses of people?

 

Is it done simply in the heat of a moment when you think of a joke and just want to get it out? I don't know but I've always thought should I be the one in their seat, I'd probably think twice about commenting on something that will easily offend someone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Janus said:

Can a definition of what free speach is actually be given?

 

It has been established that certain speach has consequences.

 

Can a person be free to do or say something if there are consequences?

 

I suppose the word free only refers to whether something is legal or not.

 

 

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” in the UK. But the law states that this freedom “may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”.

 

Those restrictions may be “in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”.

 

Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA), makes it an offence for a person to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress”.

Edited by Robin-H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Janus said:

Can a definition of what free speach is actually be given?

 

It has been established that certain speach has consequences.

 

Can a person be free to do or say something if there are consequences?

 

I suppose the word free only refers to whether something is legal or not.

 

 

Ignoring the legal aspect, free means you aren't restricted from saying it.  Not that there won't be any consequences to saying it.  You might lose friends, make enemies, or end up in a fight, depending on what you say to whom.

And there are of course legal consequences, being sued for libel, or being prosecuted by the state for inciting violent acts for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jaffa1 said:

She's  a fat ugly crude disgusting  person, how about that for free speech.

Another elite  luvvie  spouting off.

She'd probably agree herself with your description so far - but an 'elite luvvie'? Your having a laffa, Jaffa ! She was a mental health nurse.

The best comedy threatens power and the abuse of power.  

It wasn't so long ago that Mr Farage was threatening to take up arms and march on Parliament if Brexit wasn't delivered. Although the outrageous milkshake attack did lead to him waving to his supporters from the safety of the top floor of a bus for a couple of hours.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jo Brand should visit a burns unit and see for herself the terrible disfiguring, life changing injuries acid attacks cause before joking about such things. Her wealth has removed her from the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is 'edgy' comedy to some will always be offensive to someone else. There's no straightforward answer to this as you either have free speech or you don't - there's no halfway house!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The met police are investigating  Jo Brand.

https://www.thejournal.ie/theresa-may-bbc-jo-brand-battery-joke-4681273-Jun2019/

 

In a statement, the BBC said it was “not intended to be taken seriously”.

Were the comments made on Twitter by Danny Baker intended to be taken seriously? Wasn't the BBC their employer in both of these situations.

Is this double standards?

Edited by Janus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Janus said:

The met police are investigating  Jo Brand.

https://www.thejournal.ie/theresa-may-bbc-jo-brand-battery-joke-4681273-Jun2019/

 

In a statement, the BBC said it was “not intended to be taken seriously”.

Were the comments made on Twitter by Danny Baker intended to be taken seriously? Wasn't the BBC their employer in both of these situations.

Is this double standards?

Yes, it is.

 

The BBC is politically biased to left leaning political agenda. Its double standards are a reflection of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's face it, if these comments were made by Trump, Farage, Boris or even edgy comedians like Frankie Boyle everyone would be up in arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.