Reply #134: so let's review [View All]

[iverglas]

Your first statement was:

This should be condemned fully and completely, but it is free speech protected by the Constitution

Since no one had said it was not SPEECH protected by your Constitution, what was your point?

We live in a democracy that provides for the exercise of free speech. It is not being broadcast with a government license over public airways, it is a subscription service.

Yes, I missed that one. Of course, that doesn't invalidate what I said about broadcast licensing; it just didn't apply to this particular instance, in the place where it occurred. (How am I to know how ineffectively your governments govern in every tiny nook and cranny of public life? I'm just a silly foreigner.)

I understand that there is some sort of merger deal underway between the subscription service in question and Sirius. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, my public broadcaster, is 40% owner of Sirius Canada. Here, satellite radio *is* subject to federal regulation. Howard Stern is not available on satellite radio in Canada -- Sirius foresaw problems with the regulator. If the XM/Sirius deal proceeds, I'll be watching to see whether these two assholes are to be delivered in Canada, and protesting -- to the broadcaster and the regulator -- if they are.

'Cause the public interest prevails over their private interest ... whatever THAT may be ... in braodcasting vile fantasies of the sexual subjugation of women (of colour).

And that, my friend (what you would be, were we in a Cdn court), is the point. There are often public interests in suppressing certain speech that outweigh the private interest in engaging in the speech. Consider snake oil.

I find it terribly offensive and is worthy of condemnation of the highest order, but we need to be careful about trying to silence free speech we do not like.

And blows the straw. We could just rule out prohibitions on *anything* on the ground that the things being prohibited are something that "we" "don't like", eh? I don't like murder. That's no reason why it should be prohibited, surely. ... And of course, I'm not saying it is. But never mind that.

It is a slippery slope from silencing this kind of speech to silencing speech that we may consider ok but is offensive to someone else.

Really? Damn, it's a slippery slope from prohibiting murder to prohibiting talking loudly in the home, I'd say.

You are aware, I suppose, that "slippery slope" is actually a logical fallacy??

But make no mistake, even if it is protected free speech, rape is never an appropriate subject for comedy.

It may be protected SPEECH (and that, of course, is your opinion and/or an authoritative opinion, i.e. of a constitutionally appointed judicial authority) -- but since no one, as far as I can see, was advocating that anyone be charged, tried, convicted or sentenced for engaging in it, again: what's your point?

Hate speech spewed by the KKK, and the right of the KKK to march in parades, has been upheld time and again by our Supreme Court.

That's charming. But wholly irrelevant. As we've been trying to explain to you.

No one was advocating that a law be made or enforced to prevent these individuals from saying what they said.

(Of course, *I* would propose such a law and enforcement of it, by regulation of satellite broadcasting -- if I lived in the jurisdiction in question. I don't, and I already have rules that I'm quite sure would result in sanctions in this case.)

To live in a democracy that protects free speech for every citizen means we have to bear the cost of that freedom --which sometimes means we have to abide the worst that can come out of the mouth of another individual or group.

Speak for yourself. I don't have to put up with people advertising snake oil to cure cancer. Come to think of it, neither do you.

You have a preference as to where to draw the line. Others have other preferences. Yours doesn't trump anyone else's simply by virtue of you screeching "FREE SPEECH".

The way to deal with issues like this one is to use more free speech, not less.

In your opinion. Did Ratzwhatsit die and leave you his chair?

Once you enter into the realm of the efficacy of measures to combat an evil, my friend, you have abandoned whatever authoritative chair you might think you were speaking of. You want someone else to agree with it, you need to present facts and arguments to establish its merit.

Complain, call, write the owner of the station that employs these idiots, and do the same with the sponsors of their employer. If the advertising dollars go away, these fools will also.

So again -- what's your point?

You started out jousting with a straw effigy, and moved on to join other voices saying exactly what you just said.

None of your free speech pontificating had anything to do with anything. Just as Morgana LaFey said to start with.

Of course, it may be unfortunate that she decided to address the completely irrelevant first three quarters of your post as if even you thought it was actually relevant to something, when in fact it was just a great big red herring dressed up in straw. But it did seem as if you might be imagining it was relevant to something, so a little instruction, gratis, probably seemed wise.