Canadian comedian fined $42k for joke

[dead0man]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hope we don't head in this direction.

[MaxQue]

Complicated affair, here.

Let's note two things.

1. Most comedians who expressed an opinion are actually against the comedian, saying that the level of the "jokes" is actually not humour, but plain personal attacks on the plaintiff and his mother. By the way, your title is missing an "s" to "joke".

2. The plaintiff didn't sue for libel in a normal court, he instead did a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, which means than, if your complaint is accepted, it will be heard in front of a special tribunal (which is more likely to award damage than a normal court) and than the prosecution is done by an attorney of the commission. Great way to make money.

The court decision in itself is trying to walk on a very thin line, saying petty much we can laugh of a person, but not of an protected characteristic (which is a Constitutionnal concept), i.e. we can laugh of his attention-seeking but not saying than he looks like a subwoofer (yes, that was said), because that's due to an handicap, which is a protected characteristic, and bordering on libel.

In fact, I hope the Appeal Court will take up the case, because the lower decision is raising more questions than answers on the question of the border between humour and libel/personal attacks (because, let's be honest, that will get raised in the future) and it's the main concern expressed by the comedian community in Quebec (because that's under Quebec laws, it doesn't involve other provinces).

Only recent decision on that subject is than publishing a letter about the rape of known personnality is not considered as humour (and the writer of the letter withdrew for the public sphere after being accused and jailed for having sex with an underaged teen).

[Hatman 🍁]

While I don't support this, obviously, anything that bugs dead0man is fine by me!

[Cory]

Ugh. Why do so many people seriously believe that one has a fundamental human right not to see or hear things you don't like. It's just like... do people seriously not see the long-term implications of this stuff?

[Figueira]

Sounds like some tasteless jokes, but not something that people should be fined for.

[JerryArkansas]

Good.  A joke is one thing, but this, no.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Sounds like some tasteless jokes, but not something that people should be fined for.

Exactly.

[SWE]

Sounds like some tasteless jokes, but not something that people should be fined for.

In that case, it's a good thing that nobody was fined.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Will a higher court likely take up this case?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

That "joke" he made was despicable. I'm honestly not that upset that he may be fined for it

[Cory]

That "joke" he made was despicable. I'm honestly not that upset that he may be fined for it

Because it sets such a great precedent for freedom of speech! We can't have "freedom of speech but". We either have freedom of speech or we don't, even if it is offensive and even vile.