to support the return of dapper laughes in the name of free speach

[twoopsie]

I haven't been online for a day or so due to traveling and Xmas. I now see my Facebook full of people telling google to ban dapper laughed who return ed on Xmas. Its not comedy I find funny or watch, but I support his right to be vulgar. And I have a right to ignore him (after starting a thread on him lol...)

m.youtube.com/watch?v=2C0_okmrVW4

It's not comedy full stop if you're remotely civilised, imo.

The best result would be if the return of the talentless little prick is given minimal publicity.

YABU - everyone has a right to be vulgar but this bastard's making a living from making other people feel miserable, humiliated and angry and he's able to do that because he's getting paid to do it for the entertainment of the few tiny-brained arseholes who confuse cruelty with comedy.

Describing a woman as 'gagging for" rape isn't the sort of thing covered by the protections of free speech (which is a concept intended to cover political and social dissent, not general insult).

He's been cancelled by mainstream channels because not enough people want to watch this act. It's simply not funny, which will always be a showstopper for someone attempting to be a comedian.

I've never heard of him.

If you do not like him or his routine, why did you post a link?

"If you do not like him or his routine, why did you post a link?"

Spam?

Spam, eggs, beans, spam and chips?

Well I spent a lot of time at comedy clubs over the years, he doesn't really rank amonst the the most offensive from what I've seen/ heard.

What I do dislike is people who arent ever going to be in his demo calling for him to be banned.

Why post a link? Because...

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Some rights come with responsibilities. The 'right' to free speech does not extend to insulting and threatening people

Incitement to crime (advice on use of arms in crowded places with aim of sexually touching non-consenting bystanders) isn't covered by any "right" to say it. Indeed the contrary, incitement is a crime.

The idea that this is OK because it could be even worse is not a particularly sound line to follow either.

This thread will end well.

Who would defend the right of anyone to describe a woman as "gagging for rape"? I find that attitude incomprehensible.

And defending the right to free speech does not mean trying to promote a controversial person by posting a link in an obvious effort to get people to demonstrate interest by clicking on it.

Go and complain to the guardian that they posted the link on their article, even there your be laughed away as its relivant to the story.

It is your use of the word "support" in your title, rather than, say, "tolerate" that is particularly jarring here.
Oh, that and a link to the man's "comedy".

Looks like you're actively supporting and promoting this idiot rather than ignoring or tolerating in the name of free speech.

YABU. Incitement to violence isn't protected by free speech. Also, someone having the 'right' to say something doesn't put any obligation onto tv/production companies to make and broadcast it. I may as well demand my right to have a tv show of my very own to talk about cats. If I were interesting and funny I may get a tv show. If he wasn't a talentless prick then he might.

free speech does not mean an entitlement to a major media platform from which to make said speech

it is not censorship to not have your pitch for a crappy comedy program picked up and bankrolled by a tv network

ffs.

That is illogical and irrelevant. This is not the Guardian, nor am I reading the Guardian, therefore I have no reason to complain to the Guardian.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask you why you posted a link to this person. You seem to be incapable of answering that. I wonder why?

As for being laughed at, perhaps you should look at your own posts and decide who is holding themselves up to ridicule. Or are you merely trying to pay an ironic tribute to the Guardian's legendary spelling mistakes?

I'm hoping MNHQ will remove this thread as I would hope a "comedian" who mocks rape victims isn't the kind of figure they would wish to promote.

He has his 'free speech'. He can make rape jokes all day to friends, family, people who pay to see him in comedy clubs, twitter... Freedom of speech does not mean and never has meant freedom from consequences.

I'm sorry, but I cannot stand the 'I find what you say vulgar and offensive, but I WILL DEFEND TO THE DEATH YOUR RI- blah, blah, blah.' How about you spend your defending time defending people you actually like and respect? There are plenty of mouth breathers ready to jump to the defence of rape apologists, believe me. He isn't lacking for 'champions'.

People can have free speech, but when that free speech infringes on someone else's rights and can influence behaviours in a negative way then no, he doesn't have the right to it.

I'm a lover of black comedy, I love Frankie Boyle, I can tolerate Chubby Brown. But Dapper Laughs? No. Because I think this 'character' he apparently portrays is rather too close to home.

You don't have the right to free speech in the UK, there are lots of exceptions including being threatening and inciting violence.