Insults to lesbian couple results in fine...

[Cid_B]

A Canadian comic has been ordered to pay CA$15,000 (US$15,745) to a woman he taunted along with her same-sex partner during a show in a Vancouver restaurant three years ago, the Vancouver Sun reported Thursday.

Stand-up comedian Guy Earl was ordered to pay the money to Lorna Pardy, 32, while the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal also ordered the Vancouver restaurant owner, Salam Ishmail, to pay her $7,500

more at link...

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/news/lesbian-insults-get-comic-fined-dpgonc-km-20110421_12871288

________________________________________________________-

I realize that it isn't America but the idea of being fined for hurting someone's feelings leads down a bad road...

[EmmettKelly]

1. Don Rickles and Jack E. Leonard

should have been imprisoned years ago if that's the case.

[rurallib]

2. i'd go for that.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

4. Don Rickles is horrible. I don't know how negative people live with themselves.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Mr Rickels did not need to hurt feelings

He made people laugh when he 'insulted' them, and he said the word 'love' more often than any comic I can think of. And of course, even the hack in question is not being 'imprisoned' he is being fined. Sort of a difference there. Prison, pay money. See the difference? Hockey puck, basket ball.

[JackRiddler]

44. Just one thing: Don Rickles is still around and performing, afaik.

[tekisui]

3. Glad he got a fine.

[ZombieHorde]

6. Why don't you like free speech? nt

[tekisui]

7. I don't like hate speech.

There are classes that currently need protection.

[ZombieHorde]

9. "I don't like hate speech" = "I don't like free speech."

1984; we're behind schedule.

[moriah]

10. Not all speech is protected speech, even in the US. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

14. Which is unfortunate. People should be free to articulate their thoughts. nt

[moriah]

19. While I admit that someone saying "I screwed your wife and she loved every minute of it...."

.... shouldn't result in the husband hitting you, the trouble is, it likely will.

And that's why the Supreme Court has the "fighting words" doctrine. In their words... "... it has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

[ZombieHorde]

21. I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court...again. nt

[dems_rightnow]

22. But if a comedian onstage says

"I screwed your wife and she loved every minute of it", it certainly would NOT be fighting words. In fact, most times the audience would laugh, and likely the "victim" as well.

As a factual matter, depending upon the comedian, if you go to a live comedy show the entertainer might well make fun of a huge variety of traits.

[moriah]

24. Agreed. Until that comedian comes off stage to your table.

Dude will at least get an appeal, and unfortunately all I can go by is that the incident *did* apparently result in a breach of the peace. Both parties admit a drink was thrown in someone's face at one point in the verbal altercation.

Maybe people shouldn't go to comedy clubs unless they have a sense of humor? Then again, if what the Vancouver Sun says the drink-thrower claims was said before the drink-throwing is accurate, I don't know if there's a large enough of a sense of humor to cover it.

[TheMadMonk]

25. Being the butt of a comedian's joke is of course an occupational...

...hazard of being an audience member, particularly if you're silly enough to call attention to yourself.

Being singled out as the target of a concerted and reportedly hate filled attack is an entirely different matter, no matter how clever/humorous the delivery.

I do find it exceedingly strange that the humiliation of others is well sanctioned for the purpose of gaining advantage over another, but far too barbaric to ever be a permissible part of deserved punishment.

And you cite the First Ammendment to justify the former, and the Eighth Ammendment to forbid the latter.

[primavera]

32. Including assault?

How about intentional infliction of emotional distress? Coercion? There's quite a lot of speech that isn't protected.

[tekisui]

12. I disagree.

It is a tricky line, but there is one. It would be one thing to say it on the radio or tv, in the abstract. But, in this instance it was directed at an individual. In my opinion, this is closer to burning a cross on an african-american's lawn than it is to telling off-color jokes in a sitcom.

I support free speech as long as it isn't directed at a present individual who is not a public figure.

[ZombieHorde]

15. Either people are legally free to articulate their thoughts, or not. nt

[tekisui]

16. Only to the extent that they are not risking injury to others.

[apocalypsehow]

41. Spoken like a true fan of Ari Fleischer, circa 2001...

"they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."

http://www.slate.com/id/2097761/

Congrats! Somewhere, George Orwell is smiling at his ever-prophetic vision of the future as embodied in his seminal work 1984....

[TheMadMonk]

35. Articulate? Yes. Impose on others? No.

And therein lies a great problem.

That understanding is such an integral part of being a Progressive, that our refusal to "impose" ends up being applied even to those clearly attempting to "impose" on ourselves and others.

On the other hand it is integral to being a Conservative, that the thoughts of other's NOT be articulated, lest they gain traction in the populace.

[TheMadMonk]

26. Stuff the "public figure" bit. If the clear intent is solely to elicit a negative...

...(or otherwise advantageous) response, or any reasonable person would conclude that such a negative response was likely then it's not free speech end of fucking story.

Manufactured fame, notoriety, controversy - manufactured anything IS NOT FREE SPEECH. If it's made it has a price, it has a purpose and it is legitimately subjectable to regulation.

If we paid less attention to Charlie's charlie and Brit's bouncing bub then perhaps it would be possible for the proper authorities to step in and take the appropriate action before these things turn into tragedies.

[tekisui]

34. I could care less about a public figure,

or anything that came close. My interest is on protecting those who have no interest in being public figure.

[TheMadMonk]

39. Now define "public figure". Leagally it is any person who's activities...

...are "A matter of public record."

For the purpose of intrusion of privacy, it makes ANYONE who stands up for themselves in open court a "Public Figure".

The protection must extend to all, or ultimately it extends to none.


Just exactly how fucking perverted is it, that the first ammendment is now effectively interpreted to sanction any amount of hate speech AND at the same time used to limit speech against that hatred.

[tekisui]

40. 'Public figure' extends to those who willfully avail

themselves to such.

The measure isn't those who stand up. But, those who seek some semblance of profit, to be callous about it.

And fuck anyone who wants to use their right to exercise speech as an instrument of hate.

Sorry. If you want to direct homophobic slurs at specific members of the audience, we should meet in the parking lot to take care of it.

[TheMadMonk]

43. Unfortunately, the legal measure is "whatever makes a person of public interest."

Which pretty much includes ANY action which causes you to rise above the herd and be noticed.


I strongly suspect that most high profile actors would love to be able to go home and leave their jobs behind them, but the public and their "public interest" makes that impossible. Instead, our appetites demand that they make larger and larger spectacles of themselves, forcing the very situation, you claim gives the precious "public" free reign to make their lives a living hell, dare they disappoint the least expectation.


And your "meet in the parking lot" sollution is the very reason for one of the very few and very limitted restrictions the Supreme Court has seen fit to impose on sacrosanct "Free Speech". If it constitutes a clear (to any reasonable person) invitation to violence it is not constitutionally protected free speech.

[pipoman]

28. Complete nonsense

Burning a cross? Really? This was a comedy show. The person came to the comedy show. The comedian didn't come to the person's house. Have you ever been to a comedy show? Apparently not. Every comedy show I have been to...over 100, would violate your standards, "I support free speech as long as it isn't directed at a present individual who is not a public figure.", every one. Comedians make fun of audience members in almost EVERY live comedy show. Some are over the top. Don't like it? Leave, or better yet don't go in the first place. Simply by going to the show this person should know she may be targeted and made fun of, but to heckle is simply asking for it. Jeez, I only hope none of this idiocy bleeds south of the border.

[tekisui]

30. Sorry. I know gay couples who have made it through

quite a bit to make it to the point they are comfortable going out in public as a couple. I would hope the can go see a show without the worry that they will be subjected to homophobic slanders. Fuck that. No one has the right to make them feel scared or like they don't have a right to go out.

[pipoman]

46. Apparently they didn't think the performer was funny

and maybe he wasn't, but that is far from being threatening. If the Phelps bunch going to a funeral to protest, a venue which the participants don't have the option of walking out, is protected speech (and it should be), then how can this example be anything else (assuming the same happened in the US)? Comedy is an artistic expression. Art is often edgy, emotional, and even offensive, I wouldn't want it any other way.

edit, actually in the US the woman may have been subject to arrest for battery when she threw the drink on the performer.

[DirkGently]

47. Can't agree. Burning a cross is an understood threat of physical violence.

"Leave now, or die." ... and to the best of my recollection, that was the basis of the Supreme Court ruling upholding the ban, which was still a tricky and hotly debated one.

Chipping away at free speech is not something I think any of us should support.

Speech is a special category of conduct which expressly is NOT violence, and we base our powerful protections for it on a preference for speaking, even outrageously, rather than doing actual harm.

The bulk of the arguments I've seen for hate speech boil down to either the notion that some ideas are just too repugnant to allow -- which truly is Orwellian Thoughtcrime, or erasing the distinction between words and actions and equating strong emotions with harm.

Once you erase that line though, it's gone. If we start punishing people for speaking badly the same way we punish for actually hurting someone, there's less incentive to talk at all.

[ZombieHorde]

5. Fucking creepy. nt

[DevonRex]

8. I can't feel sorry for him at all.

Their law is different and it's his responsibility to act accordingly. And I'm okay with protecting glbt folks from harassment. They've endured too much for too long as it is. JMHO.

[Cid_B]

11. All well and good (not really)

until it is extended to everyone.

Do you really want to pay a fine every time something you say is deemed emotionally hurtful by someone else?

[DevonRex]

17. See moriah's post below.

[moriah]

13. "Them's fightin' words..."

Taunting someone is not protected speech even here.

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

– Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

[pipoman]

27. Doesn't apply

it was a comedy show. The women were quite able to walk out. This case may fly in Canada, never in the US.

[Rage for Order]

20. Wow, Canada is seriously backwards

In his ruling, tribunal member Murray Geiger-Adams said Earle repeated vulgar language in public and attacked Pardy’s identity and dignity as a woman and a lesbian.

“His attack showed every sign of being calculated to inflict as much damage as possible, in as short a time as possible, on her greatest vulnerabilities,” he wrote in the decision.

Geiger-Adams ordered Earle and Ishmail to pay a total of $22,500 for lost wages and for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect.

That's some serious Orwellian doublespeak. She heckled a comedian in a nightclub and he made fun of her. Somebody call the wahhmbulance. Thank God for the First Amendment.

:nopity:

[devilgrrl]

23. Not to dispute the OP but this story originated from the Vancouver Sun (Murdoch)

That being said... boo hoo for the comedian.

[Very_Boring_Name]

50. I don't get posts like this

It's not an editorial. It's not pushing an opinion. It's stating what happened. Is anything that was said in the article false? If not, why bother posting this at all?

[Paradoxical]

29. There's a difference between insulting and publicly harrassing.

I think the comedian crossed that line.

In the US, I wouldn't consider it out of line to sue him in civil court. I don't know that I agree that the government can order payment as some sort of punishment.

[NYC Liberal]

31. I support free speech, as should everyone.

Making fun of someone does not fall under the extremely narrow exceptions to "free speech" in the US.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

33. Thanks for cheering us up with good news.

Made even better with your (entirely predictable but no less gratifying because of that) displeasure.

[Bluebear]

36. Gay rights really rankle you. Why?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

37. Must be those male soldiers traumatized by the knowledge there may be gays with them in the shower.

All because of that evil, evil repeal of DADT.

[Bluebear]

38. I see you've run into him before then.

[apocalypsehow]

42. Free speech and the unfettered exercise thereof really rankles you. Why?

[FLAprogressive]

45. Lisa Lampanelli better steer clear of Canada then.

[Ignis]

48. Kicked for visibility (not the asinine final comment in the OP)

:kick:

[Blue_Tires]

49. Some context could help here

I don't know if he just threw out a couple of raunchy one-liners for a quick laugh or if he really laid into them hurtfully for the whole performance...

Either way, if they were that bothered by it, I don't know why they didn't just leave the moment the performer started to single them out...

Based on this ruling, could a hockey player sue a heckler?

[Odin2005]

51. Good.

[FLAprogressive]

52. Some of the responses in this thread are unbelievable, yet, not unexpected.

It's OK to censor stuff we don't like!