Native Americans leave Adam Sandler movie

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's my fucking opinion. Got a problem with it?

If it's your fucking opinion, then frame it as your fucking opinion, and not a self-evident fact. I'm not even trying to comment on the issue here, because without seeing the movie I don't care to comment on how offensive it was, I only care to comment on the supreme arrogance you have in thinking you can decide for other people how to feel.

[TheHammer]

Hammer, come to my local and try impersonating a drunken irishman. It would not go down well. Eyelids would be batted.

The point I'm trying to make is it happens all the time in various forms of comedy and its a complete non-story. But because its "Native Americans" who are offended suddenly its a big fucking deal despite the fact that in context it is no worse than that done to virtually every other group on the planet.

How many times have we seen the stereotypical "White Hillbilly Family" where you've got illiterate Uncle-Grandpa Billy Joe Bob and his Wife-Sister Bobby Jo Billie and the hilarious inbreeding jokes that follow? Don't tell me that's less offensive than the examples we were given in the OP, yet do we have any national stories about white actors walking off because of the "disrespect to white rural culture"? If we have I sure haven't seen them.

That's my fucking opinion. Got a problem with it?

If it's your fucking opinion, then frame it as your fucking opinion, and not a self-evident fact. I'm not even trying to comment on the issue here, because without seeing the movie I don't care to comment on how offensive it was, I only care to comment on the supreme arrogance you have in thinking you can decide for other people how to feel.

I didn't know I needed to state the obvious for you, but anytime anyone says "That's nothing to get upset over" that is their opinion. People are free to feel however they want, and I'm free to feel that they are over-reacting and should lighten the fuck up.

Well, it has been explained to you why. Because the abuse of Native Americans is an ongoing thing but I don't expect you to understand...
*adhominem snipped*

How about you focus on something that is an actual abuse, rather than a case of "treating them like every other culture" for purposes of comedy?

[madd0ct0r]

Hammer, come to my local and try impersonating a drunken irishman. It would not go down well. Eyelids would be batted.

The point I'm trying to make is it happens all the time in various forms of comedy and its a complete non-story. But because its "Native Americans" who are offended suddenly its a big fucking deal despite the fact that in context it is no worse than that done to virtually every other group on the planet.

How many times have we seen the stereotypical "White Hillbilly Family" where you've got illiterate Uncle-Grandpa Billy Joe Bob and his Wife-Sister Bobby Jo Billie and the hilarious inbreeding jokes that follow? Don't tell me that's less offensive than the examples we were given in the OP, yet do we have any national stories about white actors walking off because of the "disrespect to white rural culture"? If we have I sure haven't seen them.

Well, it has been explained to you why. Because the abuse of Native Americans is an ongoing thing but I don't expect you to understand...
*adhominem snipped*

How about you focus on something that is an actual abuse, rather than a case of "treating them like every other culture" for purposes of comedy?

"Happens all the time in various forms of comedy and it's a complete non story" - well, I beg to differ. It's a protected characteristic in the UK and so that's actually an offence. Ho ho ho. You'd be in the local paper and everything. Ho ho ho. Guess it makes up for the decades of racial abuse my dad suffered while being turned down for jobs in mainland britian. Ho ho ho. Isn't it nice when we're all laughing together?

[TheHammer]

"Happens all the time in various forms of comedy and it's a complete non story" - well, I beg to differ. It's a protected characteristic in the UK and so that's actually an offence. Ho ho ho. You'd be in the local paper and everything. Ho ho ho. Guess it makes up for the decades of racial abuse my dad suffered while being turned down for jobs in mainland britian. Ho ho ho. Isn't it nice when we're all laughing together?

Well, here in the US it's a non-story. Unless, apparently, its about Native Americans... The implication is that it's okay to lampoon every other culture, but that NA culture is some sort of sacred cow that must not be besmirched.

Look, if one wants to have "protected characteristics", and make it a point to outlaw certain types of speech that's all well and good as long as its applied equally. But that's not what we have here. In any event, personally, I'd rather err on the side of free speech even if that speech is offensive.

[madd0ct0r]

Dude, read that sentence back to yourself and try to find a way it makes sense. So 'protected characteristics' are fine as long as they are applied evenly? How the Fuck does that work?

[Purple]

Dude, read that sentence back to yourself and try to find a way it makes sense. So 'protected characteristics' are fine as long as they are applied evenly? How the Fuck does that work?

For example you could say that it's not ok to joke about any ethnic or cultural group ever under any condition. That would be the protection of those two characteristics applied equally.

[TheHammer]

Dude, read that sentence back to yourself and try to find a way it makes sense. So 'protected characteristics' are fine as long as they are applied evenly? How the Fuck does that work?

Purple summed it up.

And to be clear, I'm not in favor of that as I noted earlier I'm in favor of free speech. But if you are going to have restrictions they should be applied fairly - No "punching up" as some have propositioned.

[madd0ct0r]

Yeah. Race is a protected characteristic, you'd get in just as much trouble for shouting kill the white bastards as shoot the nigger!

Irish is specifically protected as a subcategory due to the historic racism against them in the UK.

Can uou think of any way that might apply to native Americans?

As I get older, the more I find the keenest defenders of "free speech" are people who don't want to think about how what they say impacts others.

Free speech is not an end in itself, is it? It's a tool of a society to keep the powerful under scrutiny, who could otherwise buy or enforce silence. Laughing at minorities I don't see the value.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah. Race is a protected characteristic, you'd get in just as much trouble for shouting kill the white bastards as shoot the nigger!

Irish is specifically protected as a subcategory due to the historic racism against them in the UK.

Can uou think of any way that might apply to native Americans?

As I get older, the more I find the keenest defenders of "free speech" are people who don't want to think about how what they say impacts others.

Free speech is not an end in itself, is it? It's a tool of a society to keep the powerful under scrutiny, who could otherwise buy or enforce silence. Laughing at minorities I don't see the value.

As someone who is generally an advocate of free speech (with a few obvious exceptions), I find your generalization rather insulting.

You could certainly say that there's no value in mocking minorities and I'd generally agree with you. However, offensive and stupid opinions are still opinions and if you start banning opinions it can set a precedent for further censorship, especially because what is considered an acceptable opinion varies greatly. Those who support a restriction of freedom of speech should remember that it might well be turned against them in the future when the political climate shifts.

I personally have nothing but contempt for bigots, and for those who use free speech to justify their abhorrent prejudices while making anyone else who believes in free speech look bad by association. However, their are many things I personally find repugnant which I recognize cannot and should not be banned. One of the key principles of a free society has to be recognition that the law is not the same as morality.

[TheHammer]

Yeah. Race is a protected characteristic, you'd get in just as much trouble for shouting kill the white bastards as shoot the nigger!

Irish is specifically protected as a subcategory due to the historic racism against them in the UK.

Can uou think of any way that might apply to native Americans?

Threatening to kill someone is generally a crime regardless of the person's race. However, speech advocating violence aside, I'm not in favor of the sort of restrictions in place that you have in Britain, and Europe as a whole regarding speech.

As I get older, the more I find the keenest defenders of "free speech" are people who don't want to think about how what they say impacts others.

A true defend of free speech defends it across the board. That includes speech they themselves would find abhorrent. Anyone else is a hypocrite. I think that's probably my biggest problem with the entire OP. It absolutely reeks of hypocrisy with the selective indignation people seem to have.

Free speech is not an end in itself, is it? It's a tool of a society to keep the powerful under scrutiny, who could otherwise buy or enforce silence. Laughing at minorities I don't see the value.

Free speech is an end in itself yes. TRR essentially summed up my feelings on the matter so I won't rehash.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not sure I'd describe free speech as an end in itself, actually. But it is something vital that should be protected as widely as possible (aside from obvious/basic limitations like banning advocating violence).

[madd0ct0r]

As someone who is generally an advocate of free speech (with a few obvious exceptions), I find your generalization rather insulting.

You could certainly say that there's no value in mocking minorities and I'd generally agree with you. However, offensive and stupid opinions are still opinions and if you start banning opinions it can set a precedent for further censorship, especially because what is considered an acceptable opinion varies greatly. Those who support a restriction of freedom of speech should remember that it might well be turned against them in the future when the political climate shifts.

I personally have nothing but contempt for bigots, and for those who use free speech to justify their abhorrent prejudices while making anyone else who believes in free speech look bad by association. However, their are many things I personally find repugnant which I recognize cannot and should not be banned. One of the key principles of a free society has to be recognition that the law is not the same as morality.

Ok, so thin end of the wedge argument here, except you already accpet the tip, which is banning advocating violence. Let's see how far your barometer goes.

Hammer, I'd be kind of interested to see how you feel about these too, as a paladin of an abstract ideal.

1) If a store refused to serve a man because he has Aids, is that free speech that should be protected, or an action that should be banned?
2) If a multi-billionaire funds a politician on the understanding that enviromental regs will be removed, is that free speech that should be protected, or an action that should be banned? (for the sake of the question, assume the resulting pollution will be linked to several deaths over the next decade, say asbestos)
3) If advocating violence is banned, is urging a boycott of a company allowed? (are companies people?)
4) Is advocating from a soapbox that the residents of a town shun, ignore and refuse to serve a minority in shops allowed?
5) If you reveal a transgender person's history, have them loose their job with the result being suicide, are you culpable to any degree?
6) What if that person, instead of being transgender, was mentally ill and would be considered unfit to make choices?
7) Should shouting "Fire" in a theater or "Bomb" in a full plane on the runway be legally punished?
I advertise a medicine on TV. I lie. People die as a result of ignoring their doctor in favour of the advert. Should that advert be banned?
9) Should building a wall, and building a wall then painting a slogan on it be treated differently under planning law?
10) After a campaign of easily traceable online bullying, a 13 year old girl commits suicide. Are the bullies protected under freedom of speech?

[The Romulan Republic]

1. Well first off, I'd think the store owner was a giant shit. And this is something I really want to ban. I'm just not sure how I would justify doing so. I'm leery of telling business owners "You have to do business with so and so."

On the other hand, I would hate to see a group of people shut out of being able to buy necessities anywhere in society, as could occur if such prejudice was widespread enough. That could do real physical harm.

So I could go either way on this one.

2. Partly depends on weather they simply fund the politician because they believe the politician will do something they support or there's an actual deal made between them. I don't think bribery of officials, especially to commit acts that they know endanger lives, is permissible. Of course, I'm also inclined to feel that elections should be publicly funded or at least that their should be a cap. on donations.

3. Companies aren't people and boycotts are a legitimate form of non-violent protest. People have the right to decide who they want to buy from.

This is an interesting one to me because their was just a report from the CBC here in Canada that the government was going to use hate speech laws to go after people who support boycotting Israel (the government quickly denied this).

4. For the most part, yes, I'd say that should be legal. I want to stress as much as possible that this is not because of any sympathy I have for such beliefs, but simply because they're not actually advocating anything violent or anything like that (well, refusing to serve people is borderline- see above). And once you start criminalizing opinions, you get into exactly the territory I was referring to previously.

5. You had no way of knowing they would commit suicide, and to act like you're responsible for their death because of an indirect chain of events is absurd. By that standard, we're doubtlessly all responsible for the deaths of people we've never met.

6. See above. Also, if anything, in this case their might be a legitimate reason to fire them on the grounds that they're unable to do their job.

7. Well, I think that poses a real, immediate safety risk. It could also be taken as a threat/terrorism- i.e. you're saying something false specifically to induce panic. So yes, ban it.

8. Yes, I'd say so. Not only were you committing fraud, you were undertaking an action that directly risked peoples' lives. This isn't that far removed from advocating violence in my book.

9. Damned if I know. I guess being allowed to paint slogans on your property would fall under freedom of expression. But I don't think it would be reasonable to say "You can never tear that building down because it would be censorship" because that's utterly impractical.

10. Depends on the extent of the bullying. I suppose at some point harassment has to be illegal even if its non-violent. However, I wouldn't want them to be charged with killing the girl because she committed suicide unless they explicitly advocated that she kill herself.

[Joun_Lord]

Hammer, I'd be kind of interested to see how you feel about these too, as a paladin of an abstract ideal........

Not Hammer (or I am? DUN DUN DUN!!) but I'll take a crack...er at it but I'll mostly just refer to the whole post rather then the post and snip things because I'm a rebel and will do want I want, you can't control me!!!

Free speech should be protected but one should also acknowledge the consequences of it. Sometimes free speech can cause violence and harm and while the speech should not be banned if one misuses that speech in a manner that causes harm they should face punishment for it. The fire in a crowded theater, its not illegal to yell fire in a theater until the theater is filled with people and will cause a panic.

I could say "death to all white people" because I find country music offense but until I actually start trying to incite actual violence against "honkeys" it should be protected speech. Same as if I had a store and said I wanted to refuse service to damn dirty green people, I can say it all I want but until I start actually saying "GTFO you green devil" and violating their rights is offensive as all fuck but not a crime.

Essentially if I actually harm more then butts and feelings with my talky mouth bits that is a crime. Butt hurting butts and feels should not be.

For the causing someone to commit suicide by revealing their history, I dunno aboot that one. If maybe I did so with the intent to cause harm I should be accountable but if I did so for some other reasons maybe not. Revealing someone's secrets is certainly a massively cunty thing to do but is not guaranteed to cause them to an hero. There is certainly some privacy issues that I should be held accountable for breaking but if the person is a public figure that might be a different story too.

If they are a danger, as they might be with being mentally ill say if they were in a position where their illness could cause harm some how like handling firearms while schizophrenic that might be cause for releasing that information but again thats debatable. If they are doing their job well despite the illness my blabber mouth could be what causing them to melt down but me not saying anything could leave them a ticking timebomb, sure they are okay now but what about later?

Insulting speech though, much as I don't like it I can't really say it should be banned. I mean I dislike the stereotypes laid at my feet, the almost accepted racist ass shit about WVians being snaggle toothed cousin fucking barefoot hillbillies who like to make people squeal like a pig (forgetting that Deliverance was in GEORGIA!!!!!!) but while it should not be acceptable it should not be illegal.

When it actually goes into the territory of harm that when shit gets real. To use the rednecks example, if a Mountaineer American was denied a job for being seen as a ill educated simpleton or a violent meth head or any of the other stereotypes attributed to hillbillies (you can't use that word, thats OUR word), then thats actually causing financial harm and is a no no.

[Soontir C'boath]

When it actually goes into the territory of harm that when shit gets real. To use the rednecks example, if a Mountaineer American was denied a job for being seen as a ill educated simpleton or a violent meth head or any of the other stereotypes attributed to hillbillies (you can't use that word, thats OUR word), then thats actually causing financial harm and is a no no.

Doesn't sound all that different to what the Indian Nations have been experiencing for more than century.

[Joun_Lord]

When it actually goes into the territory of harm that when shit gets real. To use the rednecks example, if a Mountaineer American was denied a job for being seen as a ill educated simpleton or a violent meth head or any of the other stereotypes attributed to hillbillies (you can't use that word, thats OUR word), then thats actually causing financial harm and is a no no.

Doesn't sound all that different to what the Indian Nations have been experiencing for more than century.

I dare say that had been going on for more then a century but yes, thats like what they and blacks and other races experience and it should be a problem when they are just as much as when its my people. I was just using we hill people as an example not actually implying, atleast I don't think I was, its not a problem for others minorities.

[TheHammer]

Hammer, I'd be kind of interested to see how you feel about these too, as a paladin of an abstract ideal.

1) If a store refused to serve a man because he has Aids, is that free speech that should be protected, or an action that should be banned?

Not free speech. That's discriminatory business practice.

2) If a multi-billionaire funds a politician on the understanding that enviromental regs will be removed, is that free speech that should be protected, or an action that should be banned? (for the sake of the question, assume the resulting pollution will be linked to several deaths over the next decade, say asbestos)

Bribery

3) If advocating violence is banned, is urging a boycott of a company allowed? (are companies people?)

Urging a boycott would be exercise of freedom of speech.

4) Is advocating from a soapbox that the residents of a town shun, ignore and refuse to serve a minority in shops allowed?

Advocating it isn't a crime, unless the shops actually take you up on it then it might be conspiracy to deny someone their civil rights.

5) If you reveal a transgender person's history, have them loose their job with the result being suicide, are you culpable to any degree?

That's a loaded question, but the reality is that even if I revealed a TG person's history, I'm not the one who made the decision to fire them. Ultimately the employer is solely responsible.

6) What if that person, instead of being transgender, was mentally ill and would be considered unfit to make choices?

Then I think you'd have a duty to report them.

7) Should shouting "Fire" in a theater or "Bomb" in a full plane on the runway be legally punished?

Yes it should be punished. Its part of that very fine line where those are less expressions of speech and more irresponsible actions. But attempting to incite imminent panic is something that falls outside the bounds of free speech.

I advertise a medicine on TV. I lie. People die as a result of ignoring their doctor in favour of the advert. Should that advert be banned?

Would depend upon the circumstances, but that could potentially be medical malpractice and or fraud. That sort of thing tends to self police because the maker of the product gets sued, goes out of business, and stops advertising.

Again, the advert isn't the problem its the medicine - which I'm presuming would promptly be pulled from shelves and thus makes the advert irrelevant.

9) Should building a wall, and building a wall then painting a slogan on it be treated differently under planning law?

I have no opinion on that.

10) After a campaign of easily traceable online bullying, a 13 year old girl commits suicide. Are the bullies protected under freedom of speech?

That's a slippery slope that would depend upon the particulars. That being said, children are already given more protections and more restrictions with regards to freedom of expression. I'd rather focus on freedom of speech for adults.

[K. A. Pital]

For adults it also works. Bullies are mocking and insulting, say, a gay student at every corner, and eventually she commits suicide. No need to have children in this example.

[TheHammer]

For adults it also works. Bullies are mocking and insulting, say, a gay student at every corner, and eventually she commits suicide. No need to have children in this example.

Adults have many more options available, and are much better equipped to combat bullying than children do, so it does make a huge difference. But again, it comes back to specifics - are we talking purely words here, or physical intimidation, malicious acts etc? There is certainly a line where it crosses from freedom of expression to harassment. But its a very fine line.

Addendum

Here is a brief but good article that cuts to the heart of where that line is: NY Times Article