Sorry, I don’t agree.

How do you stand on freedom of speech then?

I’m all for freedom of speech, 100% with Voltaire on that one.
Similarly, I don’t think any type of joke should be banned.

I just happen to agree with Jo Brand on this one.
Much modern comedy is just old style prejudice, hatred and mysogyny dressed up in the shiny cloak of ‘irony’ and post modernism.

I think everyone has the freedom to speak but not necessairly the freedom to be offensive
Where do you stand on child pron jokes and websites dedicated to people “meeting up” to research this? Freedom of speech? Inciting racial hatred curtails freedom of speech. I am sur eyou can think of an example you support. We all agree with censorship in extreme cases we only need to discuss where to draw the line. Obviously people will disagree on the exact location.

Edit – double post, apologies..

“I have yet to see the laughs at a rape trial.” actually rape trials are really really stressful to do and that normally results in at least a few attempts to relieve the stress by way of an inapropriate joke. I do think that humour can be a very usefull way of exploring difficult areas challenging asumpions or just breaking tension.

What’s wrong with Reggie Hunter’s joke then?

We all agree with censorship in extreme cases

Nope – simply because of the impossibility in drawing the line. However I do believe Brand is right on this – a lot of it is misogyny masquerading as ironical

What’s wrong with Reggie Hunter’s joke then?

From what I’ve read, it justifies and legitimises rape as vital to the evolution of society.

simply because of the impossibility in drawing the line

Will quote that back to you when you susggest someone cannot incite racial hatred then TJ – that is still censorship

I think everyone has the freedom to speak but not necessairly the freedom to be offensive

No one has the right not to be offended.

As for…

Much modern comedy is just old style prejudice, hatred and mysogyny dressed up in the shiny cloak of ‘irony’ and post modernism.

…perhaps some, is but not all, IMO, I enjoy the 9/10 joke (prbably for the shock value), am I therefore a mysogynist?

The Hunter joke points out that rape played a role in the evolution of society that neither justifies nor legitimises it. Any Historian would tell you the same. it should not make you feel rape is justified or legitimate it might make you ashamed of empire builders and abhor those who seek to impose their will on others.

I think everyone has the freedom to speak but not necessairly the freedom to be offensive

No one has the right not to be offended.

As for…

Much modern comedy is just old style prejudice, hatred and mysogyny dressed up in the shiny cloak of ‘irony’ and post modernism.

…perhaps some, is but not all, IMO, I enjoy the 9/10 joke (prbably for the shock value), am I therefore a mysogynist?

I completely agree, no one has the right not to be offended.
No one on here has said that they find rape jokes offensive.
I just find them unfunny and sad.
They also make me question the motivation behind those that make them and the mindset of those that laugh at them.

As for your second comment – I don’t know, are you a mysoginyst?

I didn’t find it funny because I don’t see the correlation between raping someone and enjoyment. As stated above, I’ve always believed it’s a crime of power, hatred and control, rather than sexual gratification or fulfillment.

Crankboy – thanks for the clarification. Will try and find a full version of the routine and have a closer look.

Edited, apologies Al, got a bit confused as to your response.

As stated above, I’ve always believed it’s a crime of power, hatred and control, rather than sexual gratification or fulfillment.

I’ve not thought about it as much as you 😛

I’ve not thought about it as much as you

Odd, seeing as you’re the most prolific poster on the thread… 🙂

posting =/= thinking 😡

in fact usually,

posting = not thinking 😀

Junkyard – Member

“simply because of the impossibility in drawing the line”

Will quote that back to you when you susggest someone cannot incite racial hatred then TJ – that is still censorship

Not the same thing.

Making distasteful jokes – no censorship

Inciting crime – illigal

TJ is their right to free speech resticted by the law or not? You can say one of them and not th other and yet you dont think this restricts freedom of speech or is censorship 😯

No one has the right not to be offended.

True but I dont have the right to come round your house call your wife names, insult your kids your mother whomever it takes till you are offended and then bang on about my inalieanble right to be a w@nker towards you and your family as you dont have the right ot be treated with respect etc – We have stw for all that innit 😉

We have done this before on may threads.

Junkyard – you continue to miss the point. Its incitement that is a crime. YOu are allowed to express abhorrent views – racist or about rape. You are not allowed to incite others

Its not the sane as censoring jokes.

BTW my comment “So you want to make a “joke” ? You think this is a “funny” subject ?” was designed at trying to find out from the OP whether he had posted this thread to have a serious discussion about rape, or whether he wanted explore the “comic” aspect of rape.

He started off with what appeared to be a serious post/thread, and then went on to make, what I assumed was a “joke”, about stitching up a woman’s fanny.

Are we discussing rape as a serious subject ? Or are we treating it as a funny one ?
You can’t really have it both ways.

The OP didn’t reply.

Indeed, noted, and he’s failed to engage with any of the points made against him.

No surprise TBH!

Its not the sane as censoring jokes.

I can see they are different but we still curtail free speech to incite others so you are censored from saying it. The actual act -speaking- is identical the effect is different – you can do one but not the other so you are censored and lack free speech – to incite
Clearly I agree with this but I cannot see how you think that we have not stopped them saying something.

yes cynic al you are right you are preaching to the unconvertable. the OP asked for opinions and he got mine. you then thought it was ok to basically suggest i was speaking crap, whatever floats your boat mate. u do seem to have a habit of dissagreeing with me on things but thats fine its a forum and in a weird way i look forward to reading you responses even if i do think you and a few others in this thread might be looking through rose tinted glasses. Not excluding the extreme cases Hindley and the yorkshire ripper etc etc the murder rate in the uk is today at least 10 times what it was then. i believe it has fallem from around 1200 a year to nearer 800. Now thats progress eh 😕 How many people were murdered in the year before the death penalty was abolished (1964) shouldn’t take you too long, i found out with google in under .75 seconds. try if you can to also factor in the manslaughter cases which were reduced from murder because we all know some of those buggers are guilty. I am a very black and white person it either is or it is not. I’m not saying it should be back to the chopping hands off for stealing a loaf of bread but harsher punishments are required and yes top billing for me are murderers, rapists and paedos. hang em high! 😈

edit Junkyard i’m asking you to compare crime rates of the early 60’s to the present time which have quite clearly risen so please explain what part of the point i am trying to make that you are missing 😕

There are many factors that influence murder rates and you cannotlook at one thing in isolation. If you look at America where some states have the death rate and some do not you do not see that those with the death penalty have the fewest murders.The picture is complicated and the data open to discourse but it is not as simple as you suggest.

More drugs use and addicts, gangs, child knife murders etc are al factors here for example. The canadian rate redued after they abolished, in the usa

The average murder rate per 100,00 people in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5 and the average murder rate among non-death penalty states was 3.6 (US Dept. of Justice, 2001)

As very few murders are preplanned it is unlikely that sentences affects their decision.

EDIT:written without seeing your edit so for clarity I am not saying the rate has not increased it has I am simply suggesting that killing murderers does not necessarily reduce the rate of murders.