FCC Won't Punish Stephen Colbert For Controversial Trump Insult (slashdot.org)

Earlier this month, the FCC said it would look into complaints made against The Late Show host Stephen Colbert over a homophobic joke he made about President Donald Trump. Well, it turns out the FCC is not going to levy a fine against the comedian for using the word "cock" on late-night network television, reports The Verge. From the report: "Consistent with standard operating procedure, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau has reviewed the complaints and the material that was the subject of these complaints," reads the FCC's statement, according to Variety. "The Bureau has concluded that there was nothing actionable under the FCC's rules." Helping Colbert's case was the fact that the broadcast, time delayed for incidents like these, bleeped out the questionable word and also blurred the host's mouth as he was saying it. The FCC has broad authority to regulate what can and cannot be broadcast based on legal precedent regarding obscenity laws. Yet looser rules apply during the hours of 10PM and 6AM ET, when Colbert's show airs. So it would appear that the ample self-censorship on behalf of CBS saved the program from a guilty verdict in this case.

Comments

If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock holster

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it isn't America.

Hey BeauHD

[Beau1080p]

Airwaves. Jurisdiction. The FCC also doesn't regulate drugs. That's all I'm gonna say.

Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[iMadeGhostzilla]

He didn't harm anyone, it wasn't hate speech, he just made a crude unfunny joke. If people think that's fine, it's fine. If they think he's an idiot, they should ask their network to fire him. If they think he's a hypocrite (as I do) they don't need to watch him. Save legal enforcement for serious things.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not hate speech because it's not targeting Trump for what he is, but what he does. It has nothing to do with his political leaning.

Also, fuck any conservative that thinks they, of all people, get to decide what is and is not homophobic. They lost that footing when they launched a multi-decade anti-queer campaign across the globe.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

The joke was funny, crude for sure, which made it funny.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[sexconker]

It's not hate speech because it's not targeting Trump for what he is, but what he does. It has nothing to do with his political leaning.

Also, fuck any conservative that thinks they, of all people, get to decide what is and is not homophobic. They lost that footing when they launched a multi-decade anti-queer campaign across the globe.

It's not hate speech because hate speech doesn't exist. Hate is subjective.

But if you do believe in hate speech and related legislation, your "for what he does" vs "for what he is" doesn't hold water.
If you're a choz, and someone says "fuck you, you shib sankler!", are they insulting you for being a choz? After all, chozzes frequently engage in shib sankling, though not all do. Or are they insulting you because you sankle shibs? Maybe they're fine with chozzes but are just against the act of sankling shibs.

And of course you bring it full retard with your last line. Yes, yes, fuck conservatives. THEY don't get to decide what hate speech is! THEY'RE TOO HATEFUL! Only WE get to decide, because we're not HATEFUL! FUCK THEM!

This is why ALL speech has to be free. Otherwise some group of idiots like yourself will decide that they control all speech.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Phusion]

It was! Hilarious even, I was shocked that he managed to get that joke out, but glad that he did.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[dywolf]

conservative AC unable to identify hate speech, news at 11.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Narcocide]

So, the issue I see here is we've grievously mislabeled the political parties. The "conservatives," as they call themselves, are in fact authoritarians. The entire Republican party has actually now become the party of extreme authoritarianism. There's nothing even remotely conservative about their key views anymore. The label "conservative" they wield like torches and pitchforks is nothing but a weak but surprisingly effective disguise that they only really care to use to fool themselves. And make no mistake; Nothing offends them more than disrespecting what they perceive as their righteous authority. Once you realize that, the apparent madness of the situation evaporates and the big picture becomes completely clear.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[swillden]

he just made a crude unfunny joke

Actually, it wasn't intended to be that much of a joke. A little, sure, but the only source of humor was the shock value.

His real point, and his reason for using such a surprisingly crude phrase, was a very serious one. He was making the point that in America one can say the nastiest things possible about the most powerful government officials without fear of consequences. His rant was about free speech, about how crucial it is and about how Trump has absolutely no respect for it... but in spite of Trump's lack of respect for the principle, the principle holds, and Trump's power can do nothing about it.

When you understand the whole context, this FCC ruling is an important victory for all Americans, even those who found it offensive. Which, to be honest, included me, though I understood the point and appreciated the value of the point and the fact that the very offensiveness of the comment was what made the point forceful.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[fahrbot-bot]

It's not hate speech because it's not targeting Trump for what he is, but what he does.

Holstering?

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[hyades1]

Actually, I thought the joke was pretty funny, and an apt description of the President.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[iMadeGhostzilla]

We can only guess his reasons since we don't know what was going on in his head. My guess would be something simpler -- Colbert is angry that Trump is President, and he profits from venting his anger (see what happened to Jimmy Fallon), which is a powerful combo. Anger makes people not funny as they lose detachment necessary for humor.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[RazorSharp]

Why should hate speech be punishable? Do you mean just on network television or in general? If you mean on network television, you have a case but I do find the FCC's claim to be able so censor the airwaves to be dubious. If you mean in general then I would argue that hate speech is unequivocally protected by the Constitution.

Also, why is Colbert a hypocrite? I don't understand that comment. Is it because he criticizes the president for being crass while being crass himself? I don't buy that as hypocrisy because they occupy extremely different roles. If Colbert were to excuse crassness on the part of Obama and then be critical of Trump's crassness, then he would be a hypocrite. Or do you think Colbert's a hypocrite for some other reason? I'm genuinely curious about this one.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[hyades1]

As a matter of fact, he has a point. There's a reason why the KKK, as well as other white supremacist organizations and neo-Nazi groups overwhelmingly support conservative politicians. It's because they like what they see. When a neo-Nazi terrorist organization comes out in support of Bernie Sanders, you might have a point.

Until that happens, you should probably just shut the fuck up and quit embarrassing yourself.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[hyades1]

You are so right.

Trust me on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

If it doesn't make you laugh, your soul is dead.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[swillden]

We can only guess his reasons since we don't know what was going on in his head.

You haven't watched the monologue. He explained his rationale very clearly. There was no ambiguity, and no need for guessing.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Dragonslicer]

Why should hate speech be punishable? ... If you mean in general then I would argue that hate speech is unequivocally protected by the Constitution.

In general, speech that carries a threat is not protected by the Constitution. "Canadians are greedy assholes" might be considered hate speech by some people, but it certainly wouldn't be punishable. "Canadians are greedy assholes, and I wish someone would kill them all" would be arguable, since you're intentionally encouraging violence against a group of people. "Canadians are greedy assholes, and I'm going to shoot them if I see them" will probably get you into trouble, since you are clearly threatening a group of people.

Similarly, this is why hate crimes carry additional punishments. It isn't because of your hatred of a group of people, it's because your crime also includes an implied threat to other members of the targeted group. Hating people isn't illegal, but threatening people is.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Post below sums it up well re hate speech. I believe speech that carries the threat of physical harm is hate speech and it should be punishable -- you know it when you hear it -- and Colbert's clearly wasn't that.

Hypocrisy in my view comes from the Colbert-adopted far left view that Trump is demeaning people -- whether it's women, illegal immigrants, or Ted Cruz -- which in turn comes from the set of values that no human being should be so treated, yet Colbert demeans Trump. Hypocrisy is defined as "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense." Not related to crassness at all, crassness in itself is not necessarily a vice.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[iMadeGhostzilla]

I never saw that argument, maybe I missed it. He did look angry though. That said he's an entertainer, and an actor, but it seemed genuine.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Aighearach]

The whole claim that it is "homophobic" is silly, because the clear purpose of the joke was to offend Putin because Putin is believed to be homophobic.

If Putin isn't homophobic, then the homosexual nature of it is irrelevant anyways. There is no "phobia" there at all, it just becomes an accusation that they're too close, even personally close.

If somebody wants it to be phobic, it is merely homophobaphobic.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypocrisy in my view comes from the Colbert-adopted far left view that Trump is demeaning people -- whether it's women, illegal immigrants, or Ted Cruz -which in turn comes from the set of values that no human being should be so treated, yet Colbert demeans Trump.

Sorry, that's bullshit. It may be the far left view that no person deserves being demeaned, but it is merely the moderate left view that people in general shouldn't be demeaned--women, immigrants, etc--but individuals may have done actions deserving of being demeaned--Ted Cruz, possibly, but I don't know enough about him. It follows from the same logic that one cannot take away freedom or liberty from all people, but a person who commits a crime can be judged and punished that reduces or removes freedom or liberty.

Of course the flip side of that is something like respect which is earned, which I think is like being demeaned*. The "let others live their own lives" aspect of the left doesn't have the time or desire to waste respecting or demeaning the vast majority of people or persons. It's mostly nosy busy-bodies that involve themselves in that, including writing letters to government officials about they're offended.

Now, if you can show me something from Colbert that he's actually far left and is of the do-not-demean crowd, I'll change my mind. But there's plenty of people who are decried as "far left" who aren't of the sort to think individuals aren't, well, individuals.

* Funny thing, btw, since it would seem more of a southern thing--and hence a "conservative" thing--to be of the mindset of "if you have nothing nice to say [about someone], don't say anything at all". Although I've always seen that as a rather thin veneer on either (1) very vindictive people who are so prone to think negatively that they have to give themselves such a rule and/or (2) people who simply don't actually follow that rule. Not being an expert on Christianity or anything, but the whole "love thy neighbor" doesn't mean not speaking negatively of other people but of trying to engage them in more positive action through talk, which invariably brings up discussion of the not-nice things you believe they're doing. It also includes not, you know, trying to force yourself on them to do your bidding or otherwise make them live under your world view because smothering people is not love.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[hyades1]

There isn't much point on spending time coming up with clever retorts to conservative remarks. It would be like reading Proust to a reptile.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[zifn4b]

He didn't harm anyone, it wasn't hate speech, he just made a crude unfunny joke. If people think that's fine, it's fine. If they think he's an idiot, they should ask their network to fire him. If they think he's a hypocrite (as I do) they don't need to watch him. Save legal enforcement for serious things.

I agree but the Snowflake generation has a very different opinion about that.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[tbannist]

Exactly. Its not hate speech when it comes from a liberal, and there should be no accountability.

Wait, are you saying that Trump is actually in a homosexual relationship with Putin?

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[tehcyder]

It's not hate speech because hate speech doesn't exist. Hate is subjective.

So when (to take an obvious example) the Nazis were whipping up hatred against Jews, that wasn't hate speech?

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[parkinglot777]

I never saw that argument, maybe I missed it. He did look angry though. That said he's an entertainer, and an actor, but it seemed genuine.

Then swillden is completely correct about you after all -- you made an assumption/guess...

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[tehcyder]

Anger makes people not funny as they lose detachment necessary for humor.

Completely untrue. Lenny Bruce and Bill Hicks (for example) were both angry and funny.

Going back to Roman times, satire stems from anger, not detachment.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[deecemobile]

How does Trump not have any respect for free speech? Everyday regular people and the media, through free speech, say every insulting and negative they can think of about him without any fear of retaliation. I haven't heard of anyone disappearing or any magazine being shut down. He has the right to fight back. Also, I thought the issue with Colbert's comment was that he tried to insult Trump by claiming that he performs homosexual acts as if that were something to be ashamed of. That's not very PC of Colbert.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Cederic]

When can I get my soul buried?

That was meant to be funny? Fucking hell, I could list 7 jokes about Manchester on a Monday evening that made me laugh more than that.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[tbannist]

Hey anonymous coward, you're a lying little bitch. You are a hard core Trump supporter pretending to not be one, and you pile the lies on. The only question is whether you are being paid to post this bullshit.

1. The media treats Trump far more fairly than he actually deserves. Trump, however, behaves like a whinny child and constantly complains about how the media is treating him so unfairly by reporting the truth about him.
2. You obviously don't understand American politics, because while many people want Trump gone, the ones who want him gone the most have no hope of ever getting "their guy" to replace him. For example, there are no Democrats in presidential line of succession, and the first independent is 6th in line. That would mean that Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Orrin Hatch, Rex Tillerson and Steven Mnuchin would all have to resign or be impeached before someone who's not a Republican could become President.
3. The investigations haven't produced anything because they're not done yet. Generally speaking, unless there are leaks, investigations provide their findings when they are done. Idiots should take note of that fact.
4. Yes Clinton supporters wanted Comey fired in January for his actions in November, actions which Trump praised and refused to fire Comey over. If you've got a half brain you'd realize that only a fool would believe that Trump fired Comey because he was too unfair to Clinton. It's blindingly obvious that Comey was fired because he refused to abort the Russia investigation, not in the least because Trump himself said that's why he fired Comey in a TV interview, after he let his staff lie about the reasons for a full day.
5. Trump has a below average record of achievement in his first 100 days, and he has done little of note other than sign a lot of executive orders.
6. Trump did not finance his own campaign, it was mostly financed by a few large conservative billionaires and he is completely beholden to them.
7. The rest of your braying is just endless wishful thinking from a die-hard-trump-lover.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Cederic]

Nobody on the left has ever called for anything offensive to be banned or restricted.

What utter fucking nonsense. Exhibit A: Milo Yiannoupolos.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[silentcoder]

Oh bullshit. Milo DISPROVES your claim !

Where exactly has anybody called for Milo to be jailed ? Where has anybody called for him to be arrested, or for government to censor his columns ?

That he got himself fired by saying stupid shit isn't anybody's fault but his own.

Nobody tried to ban Milo. Some people protested against him. That's not censorship. That IS free speech and it's AS PROTECTED as his speech is.

And that was the ONLY thing that ever happened to him. He was protested against. Boohoo. Poor little snowflake couldn't handle people having a different opinion from him.

But since you apparently stopped reading after my first sentence, you don't know how your post actually PROVED my point. That whole bit about 'complex issue' with no 'simple answers' - you presented an attempt

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[swillden]

Trump has made many attempts to silence speech he doesn't like, like kicking major news organizations out of the White House press corps, to name just one example among many. He undertstands that the system stops him from doing it, but he clearly sees that as a bug, not a feature. Watch the monologue, Colbert makes this point quite well.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[swillden]

Oops, forgot to respond to this part:

Also, I thought the issue with Colbert's comment was that he tried to insult Trump by claiming that he performs homosexual acts as if that were something to be ashamed of.

Nope. That's how Trump's partisans tried to spin it, but that's not at all what Colbert was doing. Watch the monologue. There isn't really any doubt about the intent.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Cederic]

Nobody tried to ban Milo

https://www.change.org/p/ban-m...
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/...
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/...
http://www.dailyuw.com/opinion...

Look, I could keep going but I think that presents extensive proof that you're full of shit.

But since you apparently stopped reading after my first sentence, you don't know how your post actually PROVED my point.

I didn't stop reading. I merely went back and highlighted that you lied in your opening sentence, and since the rest of your illogical rant ridden with falsehoods was based on that lie I couldn't be arsed to go through and point out where you're full of shit.

Milo is offensive and a lot of people have tried to ban him. Many of those identify as 'left' on the political spectrum.

It's clearly too complex an issue for you as you can't properly articulate it. You're too busy throwing around labels like 'left' and 'right', and misrepresenting even those arbitrary positions, and you're operating from a bigoted ignorant base that will prevent you finding any answers, simple or otherwise.

Now fuck off and watch how adults do it.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[luis_a_espinal]

I never saw that argument, maybe I missed it. He did look angry though. That said he's an entertainer, and an actor, but it seemed genuine.

The state of mind that you "see" is irrelevant to the content from that monologue (and to the fact that political satire always come from a position of anger, disapproval or discomfort.)

You were so imbued into the emotion you saw in Colbert (projecting much?) that you missed important pieces in it. In doing so, you made... brace yourself... an assumption.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Daetrin]

During the campaign Trump said he wants to "open up libel laws" to make it easier to sue the media for reporting things he disagrees with. In his own words.) He keeps accusing the media of being "fake news". He reportedly asked Comey to start jailing reporters.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[silentcoder]

None of those things count as a "ban".

Saying "Get the fuck out of MY HOUSE" is not a ban, has fuckall to do with the first ammendment or the law and has fuckall to do with censorship.

>Milo is offensive and a lot of people have tried to ban him
Nope and not a single one of your sources are correct about this - because that's not what 'ban' means.

However, as a proud leftist liberal, I will now tell you to go fuck yourself and I won't feed the troll anymore.

Hell he was never even prevented from going anywhere he wanted to go. He got protested, but he was never banned. And asking that his invitation be revoked is NOT A BAN.

You want to know what a 'ban' means ? Ask Beyers Naude - Milo is a fucking crybaby who has no idea what real banning implies and who isn't not worthy to suck the dicks of ACTUAL free speech champions.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[SuiteSisterMary]

Colbert didn't call Trump gay, he called him a cock holster. In other words, he didn't attack what he 'is,' but what he 'does.'

The Nazis didn't call for the extermination of people who refuse to eat pork, which would include some Jews (but not other Jews), some Muslims, some vegetarians, some people who just happen to dislike pork, some people who can't afford pork, and so on.

Colbert's remark was a cruder version of 'ass kisser.' Or, in Yiddish, 'tuchus lecher.'

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[meta-monkey]

but it is merely the moderate left view that people in general shouldn't be demeaned--women, immigrants, etc--but individuals may have done actions deserving of being demeaned

Meh. Hillary ran the ad with the women saying "here's how Trump describes women" with things like "fat pig," which is just how Trump described a specific woman, Rosie O'Donnell. Trump did not describe women in general as "fat pigs," which wouldn't make any sense at all, but they pretended like he did.

The left also has absolutely no problem generalizing the evils of "white people," "men," Christians, etc.

The variable that determines whether someone is insultable or not seems to be "likely voting habits."

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[meta-monkey]

Wait, so I can call someone a fag, so long as I think they're heterosexual and likely to be offended by being called a fag? Good to know.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[iMadeGhostzilla]

It wasn't in the 2+ minute clip I saw, if you have a longer clip or a transcript feel free to post it. That said, state of mind expressed through voice, body language and so on is more telling about the person than the content.

Re projecting -- the only way we can even *know* about another person's emotion is by having their emotions resonate with our own. An autistic person can't do that. However when it resonates, you need to keep detachment in order to register that emotion consciously. Projecting is when you get lost in it without realizing it.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[meta-monkey]

And that was the ONLY thing that ever happened to him. He was protested against. Boohoo. Poor little snowflake couldn't handle people having a different opinion from him.

Wait, so if you want to hear someone speak and I pepper spray you, beat you over the head with a flag pole, and set fire to the venue, you'll recognize that as someone simply having a difference of opinion with you? Huh. Good to know.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[iMadeGhostzilla]

True, however satire only works if it's clever, and even then is more bitter than funny, as the goal is to cause bitterness. There's nothing clever in what Colbert said. So it wasn't funny (by my measure) nor good satire, if that was his goal, it seemed more like someone just venting frustration. SNL in their attacks of Trump et al can be both funny and clever ("I will not be de-terred" comes to mind.)

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[TangoMargarine]

The gay panic defense is generally invoked in cases where the guilt of the defendant is unquestionable, but only as a means to strengthen a more "traditional criminal law defense such as insanity, diminished capacity, provocation, or self-defense" and is not meant to provide justification of the crime on its own.[23] While using the gay panic defense to explain insanity has typically not been successful in winning a complete acquittal, diminished capacity, provocation, and self-defense have all been used successfully to reduce charges and sentences.[23] Historically, in US courts, use of the gay panic defense has not typically resulted the acquittal of the defendant; instead, the defendant was usually found guilty, but on lesser charges, or judges and juries may have cited homosexual solicitation as a mitigating factor, resulting in reduced culpability and sentences.[24] The most famous case in which this occurred was the "Jenny Jones" case, where Jonathan Schmitz was tried for the first-degree murder of Scott Amedure and was instead found guilty of the lesser offense of second-degree murder.[25]

Wikipedia - considering how liberal Wikipedia is, I'd expect them to call it out if "killing trans people is legal" were a real thing.

And apparently California is that 50th state.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[silentcoder]

If the content of that person's speech is: "Here is a list of people who deserve to have their lives fucked up, but don't actually harass them or be violent to them or fuck their lives up to them nudge-nudge-wink-wink* then yeah - the guy who beat me up, who is on that list, is acting in self defense. And that was the content of Milo's speeches. In a previous speech he outed a Trans girl - leading to such severe abuse, harassment and threats she was forced to drop out of college- the fucker destroyed her future. At berkeley - the stated purpose of his speech was to out a list of undocumented students and encourage other students to keep reporting them to the INS until they got deported.

But then - like I said -this is where the issue gets really, really complex. Should Milo's actions be considered a crime ? Do they count as 'incitement' ?

I think they obviously do. You apparently think the do not. But that doesn't mean you're automagically right, it doesn't even mean the LAW is automagically correct and nobody has any real idea if a judge would think they do since none of those liberals you think hate free speech so much ever laid a charge of incitement against him - none of them sought to use the government to punish Milo even though there is a potential case of direct incitement to harm. All they did was say "Not in my house motherfucker".

It means the issue is complex.

I started this all by admitting I don't know exactly what the best balance of rights is - admitting I don't have a solution, but pretending your do - means you are much further the truth than me.
Nothing makes a person MORE wrong than thinking they know a simple answer to a complex issue.

But in case you were wondering. Saying "Not in my house motherfucker" to a neo-nazi piece of shit, punching a dickbag like Richard Spencer in the face, or protesting an inciter of harm like Milo makes somebody a fucking hero. That's not how freedom dies (as you seem to think) that's how it's preserved.
Milo just had to learn, like all people, that free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. If you act like a dick - I still get to treat you like a dick.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[TangoMargarine]

A lot of people seem to use "hypocrite" to mean "I hate him but have a hard time explaining why." Then half the time whoever they're talking to assumes they have their reasons but don't really want to get into them.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[TangoMargarine]

It's the stupid redefining of "-phobia" from a psychiatric condition ("an irrational fear of") to "any of a range of negative feelings towards."

I have negative feelings towards murder, does that make me murderphobic?

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[ichthus]

*High-five*. That was perfect. The concept of "hate speech" is nothing more than an attempt to quell dissent and suppress meaningful debate.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[meta-monkey]

In a previous speech he outed a Trans girl - leading to such severe abuse, harassment and threats she was forced to drop out of college- the fucker destroyed her future.

This did not happen. The person was already graduated. And the purpose of showing the photo was not to harass. The individual had made use of Title IX to gain access to the women's locker room, while looking entirely like a man in a dress. Here's the video of the speech already cued up to the portion in question.

This is the problem. You don't actually know what you're talking about, so you're fine with not just inciting, but committing violence when you don't even understand the facts of the case.

Look at that video. Do you think that speech justifies a beating, fire, vandalism, chemical spray?

If so, then this is very, very bad, and yes, is exactly how freedom dies. "If I can label you as a neo-nazi I can use violence against you." Kind of gives someone an incentive to label people you don't like as neo-nazis, doesn't it? Two can play at this game. "If I can label you a marxist then I can throw you out of a helicopter." Doesn't sound so great, does it?

Maybe we should just swear off violence instead, and listen to what people have to say and then argue with them?

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[silentcoder]

Why do you think it matters WHICH state is the 50th ?
Yes, the one state that does not allow this defense is California. Just another case, yet again, of California being the most civilized state in America.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[meta-monkey]

I'm pretty sure when the modern left is talking about the evils of white people, they're talking about current white people, not white people who've been dead for 100 years. If not, man, can they shut up about it already?

Meanwhile, Trump did make the general statement about women about how as a celebrity he can grab their pussy--a very demeaning act--, which also doesn't make any sense.

No, it makes perfect sense. If you're rich and famous, women will want to have sex with you. They're often called "groupies." They'll let you do anything! Grab 'em by the pussy! This is crude, but entirely true, and you've heard it from every rock star and every rapper and every movie star. The difference in whether or not it's horribly unconscionably offensive or not is entirely dependent on whether or not you like said celebrity. If it's your favorite rock star, then of course he's just telling it like it is when he says bitches want to get all up on his junk, what're you naive?

Once again, selective outrage. What determines whether or not someone is insultable is whether or not they're part of your political tribe. What determines whether what someone says is offensive or not depends on whether or not they're part of your political tribe.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[LynnwoodRooster]

No more so than when a liberal professor at Drexel College called for white geocide. Or a co-founder of a Black Lives Matter chapter calls for the same. Those are hate speech as well? Should we prosecute them for their speech as well?

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[TangoMargarine]

+1 Informative

FTFY

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[LynnwoodRooster]

Nobody on the left has ever called for anything offensive to be banned or restricted.

Other than speech by those they do not agree with, you mean... Triggering and all. I'm sure all the protesting against Milo Yiannopoulos is shouted down and his events shuttered because of threats of violence is because of the extreme vitriol of the right, right?

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[LynnwoodRooster]

So you're complaining because he did the same thing President Obama tried to do? Of course President Obama failed because the media as a whole said it was wrong. They're not saying that, this time. Perhaps because CNN and the LA Times have been caught flat out lying and refusing to correct their lies...

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[HeckRuler]

I thought Colbert's monologue was hilariously offensive.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[silentcoder]

But let's back up a moment and be utra generous and assume you were right about everything AND that what happened to Milo counts as "banning". None of that is true but let's pretend.
It STILL does NOT prove me wrong because NOBODY CARED if Milo was offensive. Nothing that happened to Milo, right or wrong, at the hands of the left was in any WAY related to him being 'offensive'. Hell most leftist, certainly me, don't think he WAS offensive at all.

He was however dehumanising people - and that is an entirely different thing. That's the point you missed. Offensiveness has NOTHING TO DO WITH HATE SPEECH. It has nothing to do with the protest. That's a right wing strawman to pretend that we care about 'hurt feelings' or 'offence' - which has NOTHING to do with it.
Offending people does not harm them.
Dehumanising people KILLS them.

If you're having trouble with the difference -I suggest you read Karl Popper's 1932 essay: "The paradox of tolerance" and learn something. Don't bother replying unless you have done so (it doesn't take long and is available for free online). Because any further conversation will be waste of time otherwise. If you aren't wiling to know what you're debating against - then it's impossible for you NOT to attack a strawman and I won't bother with you.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[silentcoder]

None of that has anything to do with 'offensiveness'.
You should read the rest oft he post, I kind of explain the difference at length.

The whole POINT was that it's a strawman to call the things we are concerned about 'offensive'.

And you also have no fucking idea what trigger warnings are, hint they are not censorship - in fact they are the OPPOSITE of censorship because they not only allow the discussion to happen but enable MORE people to participate IN that discussion than otherwise could have.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[david_thornley]

There's a reason liberals overwhelmingly support Che Guevara, Mao and Stalin's Holodomor

Is it the same reason that unicorns dislike oranges? I've never heard any of my liberal friends and relatives support any of these. I've seen intense dislike of certain governments, and some sympathy for people engaged in overthrowing them, but that's true across the political spectrum.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[david_thornley]

There is no such legal concept as hate speech in the US. Speech can be illegal when it's fraud, slander, or directly inciting imminent violence, but not because it's hateful.

I can call something hate speech, but that's an expression of my opinion and has no legal force.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[david_thornley]

Nobody on the left has ever called for anything offensive to be banned or restricted.

Speaking as a leftist, that's wrong. There's lots of idiots all over the political spectrum who'd like to ban or restrict things they find offensive. They all phrase it so it sounds good.

Somebody insulting me or reviling me is potentially doing psychological harm, but laws against that would be far too easy to abuse. I'd much rather just condemn speech I disapprove of than try to outlaw it.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[david_thornley]

Not quite. Speech that incites violence is illegal in the US. "Grab that Canadian! Kill him!" is not protected. "Someone should kill all Canadians!" is protected speech. "I'm going to shoot Canadians if I see them" may be part of an assault charge, if it's part of a credible threat against an individual.

Nothing is a hate crime in the US unless it's a crime independently. Implied threats to people of a target group have been considered to increase the severity of the crime. Crimes normally come with a range of possible punishments, allowing the judge to consider aggravating and extenuating circumstances, and this would be one of the aggravating ones. Burning a house down is arson. It's still arson if it's because a Canadian lived there and you hate Canucks. If you leave a "Death to Canadians!" sign at the fire, you're likely to get a longer sentence.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[david_thornley]

"The Left" is not a monolith. There's lots of us with differing views.

I could as easily say that the right has absolutely no problem generalizing the evils of "Muslims", "black people", etc. Some do, some don't.

There are evils that are perpetrated primarily by white people, men, and people who call themselves Christians (but seem to me to have little to do with anything Jesus said). Some people overgeneralize.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[meta-monkey]

Can you link me to the essay? I searched and can find lots of people talking about the essay, but not the essay itself. I think it's still under copyright.

As for Milo, my objection to what you said was that he was "just protested." When no, he wasn't "just protested" at Berkley. People were physically attacked, given concussions, pepper sprayed, windows were smashed, fires were set, the area was made so unsafe the speech had to be canceled.

Are you saying that's okay? Is it just okay because it's a mob that's doing it instead of the government? The government was involved...the police did nothing to stop the violence. This still seems like a tyranny to me. Just have the government selectively enforce for the laws. Mobs of which the government approves are free to reign terror, but mobs of which the government disapproves are dispersed.

And I don't think "but it's the underprivileged against the privileged" works either, because even when the protestors/rioters are not paid directly (and some are), the people organizing the protests/riots are. When Trump's Chicago rally was shut down by rioters, that riot was organized partly by Moveon.org, which is funded by billionaire George Soros, who also gave lots of money to Hillary's campaign and the Democratic party. So basically we have the wealthy funding politicians to control the government while also funding non-governmental organizations to direct violence against political opponents. The mob is just a tool of the elite to use against the middle and working classes. When you're getting beaten over the head with a flagpole for going to hear a speech, I don't see why it matters whether the person beating you is wearing the badge, or just ignored by the person wearing the badge. You're still getting beaten over the head.

Dehumanising people KILLS them.

How did Milo dehumanize anyone? Again, it feels like we're just arguing over definitions. "If I can accuse you of dehumanizing, then I can use violence against you." It seems to me that the leftist labeling of Milo fans or Trump supporters as racists, sexists, transphobic homophobic whateverphobic is dehumanizing, in order to justify violence against them. They're "irredeemably deplorable" and all that. If somebody's irredeemable, what else is there to do besides beat or kill them? They're irredeemable after all.

So, are we justified in using violence against someone who dehumanizes a large group of people as "irredeemably deplorable?"

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[david_thornley]

If you're in the US, you can call someone a fag for any or no reason, provided you're not directly inciting violence. It's probably not going to cause significant harm, so even if it's false it's not going to get you into a libel or slander suit.

I'd probably disapprove of it, depending on circumstances, but I disapprove of a lot of your posts, so who cares?

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[meta-monkey]

But I mean it's not homophobic? So if Trump calls someone a fag, he's homophobic, but if you call Trump a fag, you're not homophobic but he is?

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[silentcoder]

Read the rest of the comment. I'm not denying that leftists want to ban things. I'm denying that it's because those things are offensive.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[meta-monkey]

Some people overgeneralize.

That's entirely my point. See what I quoted and was responding to:

but it is merely the moderate left view that people in general shouldn't be demeaned--women, immigrants, etc--but individuals may have done actions deserving of being demeaned

I didn't say the right doesn't generalize. I was responding to someone who said the "moderate left" thinks generalizing is wrong, when that's complete bullshit. As you said, people overgeneralize.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Dragonslicer]

As far as I know, making threats is an independent crime in most states. So the question would be how credible the threat is. That's going to depend entirely on the details and circumstances of a specific case (and probably the feelings of the jury), so it's hard to predict exact outcomes. I think we're generally in agreement, though.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[silentcoder]

>How did Milo dehumanize anyone?

Seriously ? You can't see it ? How did he NOT ?

>Can you link me to the essay?
  Here's the whole book it's from: http://archive.org/details/Ope...
But it looks like that link is not working anymore - could be that somebody has made a recent copyright claim against it.

This discussion represents it pretty well and relates it to the same events we are discussing: https://medium.com/@parkermoll... the quotes are accurate, the caveats included. It's sufficient for the purpose.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Obfuscant]

(and to the fact that political satire always come from a position of anger, disapproval or discomfort.)

Or profit. Or ratings, which will also probably map into profit.

Amongst the sources of political satire are ...

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[swillden]

Yep. Obama also fails. Not quite as badly as Trump in terms of actions taken, but IMO it's worse in Obama's case because as a former constitutional law professor he really should know better. Trump has the excuses of ignorance and stupidty, Obama doesn't.

And you're wrong that the media as a whole hasn't said that Trump's actions were wrong. Also, there's a difference between one Treasury briefing and the daily White House press briefings.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Obfuscant]

Trump has made many attempts to silence speech he doesn't like, like kicking major news organizations out of the White House press corps,

You do realize that kicking a reporter out of the White House does absolutely nothing to silence him, don't you? In fact, it gets more people to listen to him because now he's a victim. You can't buy results like that.

He undertstands that the system stops him from doing it,

A system that has been in place since at least 1934 and has nothing to do with Trump.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[zifn4b]

Try not to make arguments based on such sweeping generalizations - you might learn a thing or two.

You might learn a thing or two if you spent more time trying to learn something useful instead of getting butt hurt over ever little thing.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Obfuscant]

Colbert didn't call Trump gay, he called him a cock holster. In other words, he didn't attack what he 'is,' but what he 'does.'

The problem is, it isn't "what he does". It's an act that is performed by people who have a certain "what he is" quality, with the direct implication that Trump "is" something he's not based on something that he doesn't actually "does". Yes, saying that Trump performs gay sex is calling him gay.

Consider how you'd feel about someone who refers to "watermelon eaters" in a derogatory way. You'd get the message from that, I assume. You'd laugh your ass off if I tried using the excuse that I was only talking about "what they do" and not "what they are".

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[meta-monkey]

Seriously ? You can't see it ? How did he NOT ?

I don't think he ever claimed anyone wasn't human. If we're specifically talking about the transgender bathroom issue, he did not claim the man in a dress was not human. Just sufficiently over-penised to be allowed in the girls' locker room. Look at the clip, look at what Milo said and how he said it, and the audience's reaction. Do you honestly think anyone there was motivated to do violence against that individual or others?

We have two conflicting interests: 1) a person with a penis who wants to go into the girls' locker room and 2) women who don't want penises in their locker room. This seems like the sort of issue one could discuss rationally and as far as I can tell, Milo is. But you're looking at Milo's speech (or perhaps rather not looking at it? Did you watch the video clip?) and saying that it's so far beyond the pale of rational discourse that he's attempting to turn humans into non-humans to the point that they're under serious threat of death, and therefore a rational and justified response to Milo is violence against people who want to hear him. Not buying it. Is it possible you just want to do violence against your political opponents, and are therefore seeking ways to justify it?

So I read the essay you linked. Again it seems like motivated reasoning. "Violence/denial of speech against 'the intolerant' is not just a necessary evil but a necessary good, I want to hurt/shut up my political opponents, therefore let me engage in motivated reasoning to declare them intolerant."

It seems pretty selective when the left is so tolerant of Islam. Islam is the most intolerant ideology, I'd argue in the history of the planet. I mean, I think Literally Hitler was more tolerant than Islam is (and Hitler was even tolerant of Islam...he rather liked it actually for the whole 'warrior spirit' and Jew-hating parts). In terms of suppression of dissent, different faiths, oppression of and violence against women and homosexuals, you're going to get way, way, way more of that from Islam than from Trumpism/Miloism. Yet I don't see the left organizing demonstrations against Imams spreading Islam. Instead I see the left bending over backwards to apologize for Muslims when they blow up little girls at a pop concert.

It sounds to me more like you can just tolerate anything except the outgroup, and the outgroup is conservatives/Republicans. Read that essay and let me know what you think of the author's ideas.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[SuiteSisterMary]

The problem is, it isn't "what he does". It's an act that is performed by people who have a certain "what he is" quality, with the direct implication that Trump "is" something he's not based on something that he doesn't actually "does". Yes, saying that Trump performs gay sex is calling him gay.

Is referring to somebody as an 'ass-kisser' a gay slur? How about a 'brown-noser?'

Consider how you'd feel about someone who refers to "watermelon eaters" in a derogatory way. You'd get the message from that, I assume. You'd laugh your ass off if I tried using the excuse that I was only talking about "what they do" and not "what they are".

Funny story. I was once at a Wayne Brady show. He asked the audience to pick a fruit. A young woman shouted out 'Watermelon!' Wayne Brady, of course, immediately started riffing on that. The young woman was quite upset, pointed out that she was wearing a dress covered in watermelon designs, and was offended that Wayne Brady assumed she was being racist. The show, by the way, was in Canada.

Colbert wasn't making a gay slur; he was making an obsequious toady slur. An obsequious toady will totally suck your cock, even if he isn't gay, and finds the act personally distasteful, because he's just that eager to please. That's the point Colbert was trying to make.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[LynnwoodRooster]

So why was Milo shouted down, why are people "triggered" if it's not offensive?

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[silentcoder]

Because dehumanizing people, or as he was intending to do at Berkeley - actively encouraging others to run them out of town - is not 'offensive' - it's something else. Pretending that's the same thing as fart jokes and porn is flagrantly dishonest.

Most people probably are not triggered. To be triggered by something you must have PTSD first. People are being protective of vulnerable people - that has even less to do with triggering than your previous post. Is it possible you are becoming MORE ignorant of what you're critiquing ?
If you are going to be critical of something, you have a responsibility to understand what it is first.

shouting somebody down is not censorship.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Rakarra]

And here, Louis CK explains why farts are funny. This is one of the few instances where explaining a joke is funnier than the joke itself.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[ichthus]

You're right. The concern is that laws that prohibit "hate" speech could be enacted, which is what has happened in Canada and other parts of the world.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[swillden]

Trump has made many attempts to silence speech he doesn't like, like kicking major news organizations out of the White House press corps,

You do realize that kicking a reporter out of the White House does absolutely nothing to silence him, don't you? In fact, it gets more people to listen to him because now he's a victim. You can't buy results like that.

That just shows that Trump is dumb.

He undertstands that the system stops him from doing it,

A system that has been in place since at least 1934 and has nothing to do with Trump.

And?

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Obfuscant]

That just shows that Trump is dumb.

Trump wasn't the one claiming that kicking a reporter out of a press conference was an attempt at silencing him.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Brockmire]

When you begin to defend Hitler, you should probably take a step back and take a moment to actually think instead of mouth diarrhiea.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[swillden]

That just shows that Trump is dumb.

Trump wasn't the one claiming that kicking a reporter out of a press conference was an attempt at silencing him.

No, he was the one trying to silence publications (or at least convince them to stop attacking him so aggressively) by removing them from the White House press corps.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[meta-monkey]

"More tolerant than Islam" is damning with faint praise.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Obfuscant]

You wrote: "Trump has made many attempts to silence speech he doesn't like, like kicking major news organizations out of the White House press corps,"

Since kicking a reporter out of a press conference is not in any way an attempt at silencing him, then your example fails. Your example fails, and Trump is dumb because he knows something you don't?

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[iMadeGhostzilla]

I'm not saying the far-left view is that people should not be demeaned. I think it's normal decency and would like to believe that most of us think that way. The far left view is that Trump in particular is demeaning people, a view which is not shared with many outside of that group.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[iMadeGhostzilla]

FWIW I agree the left is not a monolith, I referred specifically to the "far left", the people who are perpetually triggered by Trump and whose behavior is terribly unproductive. That includes the likes NYT and WaPo although they profit from their affliction. I wish the left to be healthy and strong because the country needs it to be in opposition to the right, whoever the right is, and vice versa.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Narcocide]

It doesn't sound as insightful when it's just an "I know you are, but what am I," type argument, is it?

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[RazorSharp]

Hate speech isn't speech that carries the threat of imminent physical harm (one of the few categories of speech not protected). Hate speech is hateful and usually has an explicit desire for people to be harmed, but isn't necessarily threatening. That's why I feel like hate speech should be protected: in order to ensure free speech we must place the fewest restrictions on it as possible, even if it means dealing with loud assholes.

Hypocrisy in my view comes from the Colbert-adopted far left view that Trump is demeaning people

This is what annoys me about politics. Your characterization of this "far left view" is completely detached from political policy. Colbert has made a career out of demeaning people (not just Trump) so I don't know where you got the impression that he pretended to be against such a practice. In the piece with the controversial joke, the whole point of the joke was that he was hurling ad hominem attacks at Trump in retaliation for Trumps berating of an NBC journalist. He was underscoring that, when Trump resorts to petty ad hominem attacks (as he is wont to do), he's throwing stones in glass houses because eventually someone will stoop to his level. While you may see that as hypocritical, most will see it as a comical. And that's why there's a distinct difference between Trump's ad hominem attacks and Colbert's—Colbert's making a joke to illustrate the moral failings of the president whereas the president just engages in ad hominem attacks because he seems to genuinely believe that's the proper way to argue. Left and right has nothing to do with it.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[RazorSharp]

I'm not saying the far-left view is that people should not be demeaned. I think it's normal decency and would like to believe that most of us think that way. The far left view is that Trump in particular is demeaning people, a view which is not shared with many outside of that group.

You genuinely don't believe Trump demeans people? He had a reality show in which all he did was demean people. He described Mexican immigrants, as a group, as a bunch of rapists and killers. Just this week he publicly called Comey "crazy." The guy runs beauty pageants, which are their own special brand of demeaning. He comes up with demeaning nick-names for all of his political opponents—"Lyin' Ted Cruz," for example. He claimed—with no evidence—that the former president wasn't eligible for office. He admitted to using his wealth/power to get away with sexually assaulting women. The sad thing is, I could keep on coming up with examples of how he regularly demeans people, but I think this list is sufficient to make my point.

Aside from all the clear evidence that Trump regularly demeans people, what's with the whole "far-left view" bullshit? Stop viewing the world in binary terms where all of your political opponents have some homogenous mindset. It's academically lazy to say, "everyone on the left views the world this way," or "the right-wing view is. . ."

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Aighearach]

If you believe somebody to be heterosexual and you use "fag" as a pejorative, of course it means you're being homophobic; but it is the use of the term "fag" as a pejorative that does it, not the part where you're insinuating that a straight guy is gay. That part isn't being hobophobic, it is just being an asshole.

Sex isn't a pejorative. That's the difference between showing them in a sex act, and calling somebody a "fag" as an insult.

You "can" say whatever you want, and you probably are a homophobic asshole. Hopefully that clears it up for you.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Aighearach]

The problem is that you're wrong, the casual form has been in continuous use for over 2000 years in numerous languages, and the medical use for barely over 100. Nobody is redefining anything, they simply have larger vocabularies than you.

from Greek -phobia, from phobos "fear, panic fear, terror, outward show of fear; object of fear or terror," originally "flight" (still the only sense in Homer), but it became the common word for "fear" via the notion of "panic, fright" (cf. phobein "put to flight, frighten"), from PIE root *bhegw- "to run" (cf. Lithuanian begu "to flee;" Old Church Slavonic begu "flight," bezati "to flee, run;" Old Norse bekkr "a stream"). Psychological sense attested by 1895.

Furthermore, when we say homophobic, we do mean that you literally have a deep and irrational pathos that relates to your sexual identity.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[silentcoder]

>It seems pretty selective when the left is so tolerant of Islam.
The left is nothing of the kind. What we ARE committed to is not punishing groups for the actions of some people within those groups. We won't call blacks 'criminals' because some criminals are black, nor will we condemn muslims as a whole because some Muslims have committed acts of terror, and we sure as fuck won't refuse to help refugees because ... actually there is absolutely no reason we would ever consider good enough to not help refugees.

>Islam is the most intolerant ideology,
Purple is the heaviest distance.
That sentence makes about as much sense as yours. Islam is NOT an ideology. It's a religion - and like every other religion it has, within it, as many diverse ideologies as you can imagine. There are all sorts of Islamic sects and they have no more in common than Greek Orthodox Christians have in common with the Amish. This is a diverse group of 1.5 billion people - with all sorts of ideologies. Some of those sects are oppressive and intolerant, just like some sects of Christianity are. Some believe in separation of church and state, some believe that the religion should rule the country (just like the dominionist movement of Christians in the USA do).
When you base your conclusions on a massive generalization like that - it's no wonder they are all, entirely, wrong - and in fact the MOST intolerant ideology is the ideology of stereotyping and prejudice. That is to say, what you just did, is just as bad as the worst sects of Islam. There are majority Muslim countries that are ruled by theocratic dictators (and most of those were installed by the USA against the wishes of their people - including the Taliban and Saddam and the crazies running Iran). There are also majority Muslim countries that are democracies where freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. In India in 2003 a group of Hindus tried to commit an act of genocide against Muslims - the man who led that evil act is now the prime minister of India ! Should we condemn all Hindus over what a fairly small number in one state of India did ? On the Isle of Java as we speak Muslims are being murdered in an attempted genocide by Budhist Monks ! Shall we condemn all Budhists over their actions despite the fact that most Budhist sects are pacifist and would certainly claim that behavior is against the religion ?
There's nothing about Islam that isn't also true of every other religion.
Religion itself is, of course, entirely evil as a concept - but while I believe that, I also believe that trying to prevent people from being religious through anything other than pursuasion is no less evil than what religion itself does - and I've seen no evidence that Islam is particularly worse than any other kind. The terror levels in the UK today is far lower than it was during IRA days (just 20 years ago) - and those were Christian terrorists.
The only terrorist act to happen in Norway in decades was by a Christian man who hated refugees, migrants and liberals- (or as one Norwegian described him) "basically a typical Fox viewer" !

You're basing your conclusions on statements which are not only utterly untrue - but so devoid of any real meaning as to be senseless.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[swillden]

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, I see.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[iMadeGhostzilla]

All you said is true -- aside from the fact that when he was talking about Mexican immigrants he was talking about a *tiny minority* who is like that, but that tiny minority of violent people makes all the difference, and it also terrorizes the Mexican community the most -- so yes it's true, but here is a crucial nuance: the Far Left essentially says Trump demeans people because he is an evil person. But look at the pattern in all the things you wrote. I think you will find that Trump demeans only *immediate political opponents* as a way to neutralize them. No greater example than Clinton or Cruz: once they were out of the way, Trump praised both of them. Even Clinton, remember the inauguration day?

And by Far Left I really mean Trump-Triggered "Progressive" Left Who Are Still Whining About The Election In An Incredibly Unproductive Way Which Harms The Country And Themselves, and I absolutely stand by that characterization. Fortunately this is not all of Left, but there is too many of such mindsets. In the Obama days maybe 5% of people I knew on the right where nutjobs who thought Obama was a Muslim traitor who hates America. But these days at least a quarter of people I know on the left think that Trump is an Orange Menace who is destroying the world. I wish the left to be a healthy opposition to the right, not half mad like that.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[david_thornley]

Side note: It is funny (in a sad way) the way in which Trump and his supporters are more than happy to dish it out, but oh, so sensitive when someone dishes back. There is a word for this. Trump and his supporters are hypocrites.

I prefer to call them special snowflakes that appear to need safe places. It seems more appropriate.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[david_thornley]

What you said:

The left also has absolutely no problem generalizing the evils of "white people," "men," Christians, etc.

is a clear overgeneralization, although there are leftist idiots that are as you describe. You were responding to what I perceive as a common left-wing view, and arguing that it was wrong because of the lunatic fringe.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[david_thornley]

The US has some pretty extreme protections of free speech. While most other developed countries are strongly for free speech, they have a lot more exceptions than the US does. Hate speech laws here would be clearly against the First Amendment. I'm not worried.

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[LynnwoodRooster]

Then it hasn't been America for decades. You can say what you like, except on public broadcast TV where there are some limits, as George Carlin famously pointed out.

Re:US censorship?

[guruevi]

Yes. It was a homophobic 'joke' according to SJW's. I stopped watching Colbert myself after he left Comedy Central, it seems the writers didn't make it either to CBS or the Daily Show with Jon Stewart/Colbert Report replacements which made the entire shows very flat and unfunny. The only thing that's still somewhat good from that era is John Oliver's web episodes IMHO.

Any media retractions?

[Kohath]

Remember when Slashdot trolled us with this story about it: FCC Considers Fining Stephen Colbert Over Controversial Trump Joke?

Turns out, there was nothing actionable and the review was pro forma. Oh well. Guess we got trolled. Just like most OMG! FCC and OMG! Trump stories.

Re: The real reason

[slasher999]

I don't believe this was the real reason at all. The FCC was very consistent here with the regulation. Colbert was crude and inappropriate and there is no place for that in responsible broadcasting or anywhere else. However the FCC regulation which is available for all to read is very clear and he didn't run afoul of it.

Re:US censorship?

[Zaelath]

Yes. It was a homophobic 'joke' according to SJW's.

Bullshit. It was a homophobic joke according to Fox commentards.

Someone gave Fox'n'Friends a copy of Saul Alinsky's book and it's been nothing but ever since.

Fucked

[sexconker]

This is all sorts of fucked.

It was a lazy, unfunny "joke", and I'm sure it took Colbert down a peg or two in some people's minds.
But there's nothing wrong with being lazy or unfunny.

It was certainly "homophobic" if you're the type to use such a label. Sane people (gay or not) could see it as a offensive without having to resort to a dumb label.
But there's nothing wrong with being offensive.

The FCC should have fined him to be consistent with all the other shit they've issued fines over.
But the FCC really has no business policing content for morality or decency or whatever else in the first place.

I can't imagine why the FCC has decided not to do anything about this. I doubt they care about their image (see net neutrality) and we all know Trump doesn't give a shit if people see him / his agencies attacking anyone who criticizes him or investigates him.

Above all, Colbert should apologize for being unfunny. I thought the Catholics taught shame.

Re:Fucked

[Imrik]

I would disagree about it being homophobic. It was certainly a joke involving homosexuality, and obviously it was intended to be offensive, but those don't make it homophobic.

Re:Fucked

[DogDude]

But we all know that's now how these labels are used. They're weaponized. Had a conservative figurehead said a similar thing about a liberal figurehead, or an actual homosexual, that word would be bandied about like stink at Coachella.

You're arguing with a scenario that you created in your own mind.

Re:Fucked

[not flu]

I say if it doesn't reflect fear and actual aversion of a thing, then it's not "*-phobic".

So you're saying the joke was homophobic then because clearly it was the "ha ha faggot" kind of derogatory joke that presupposes that homosexuals are subhuman scum.

Re: Fucked

[swillden]

In trying to say the most insulting, offensive thing he could think of to paint Donald Trump with, he thought of an act of love between two men.

With all respect, I don't think the phrase "cock holster" implies any sort of love, regardless of the genders involved. It doesn't imply an act of giving pleasure, it implies use as a storage location.

Re:Fucked

[acrimonious howard]

It was a lazy, unfunny "joke", and I'm sure it took Colbert down a peg or two in some people's minds. But there's nothing wrong with being lazy or unfunny.

I thought it was a little funny, but I'm considering the context. The president regularly uses his position of power to intimidate the press. In this case, he dismissed the reporter simply for asking him 'what his opinion was'. He also stooped down to the level of grade-school insults, a level almost never reached by people in the respected position until now. Usually that type of thing is done by comics. So to approach an equal come-back in defense of the responsible reporter, Colbert had to go beyond the normal limit.

It was certainly "homophobic" if you're the type to use such a label. Sane people (gay or not) could see it as a offensive without having to resort to a dumb label. But there's nothing wrong with being offensive.

I have to almost agree but just barely (there's power aspects in the insult more important than the sexuality of the act), but I think Colbert did too ("I would change a few words that were cruder than they needed to be"). But I'm not upset about it because of my judgement plus the fact that that offense is really judged by those who are offended. The targets take the accused offender into account because they have to decide how it was meant, and Colbert has always been an apparently genuine supporter of LGBT people and rights. My gay friends weren't offended for this reason.

The FCC ...

You had both +/- comments about their decision, so I'll just let them stand.

Re:Fucked

[Anonymous Coward]

> I would disagree about it being homophobic. It was certainly a joke involving homosexuality, and obviously it was intended to be offensive, but those don't make it homophobic.

I agree with you. The joke still works even if it is implying Trump putting Putin's cock in his mouth as a tender act of loving devotion that is only enhanced by their long history of devotion to one another.

The relationship between the two men is the fulcrum of the joke, not a hate for homosexuals.

Re:Fucked

[hey!]

Actually it wasn't a joke involving homosexuality at all -- at least not the whole phenomenon. It's about one thing that homosexuals happen to do.

Fellatio is sometimes performed between men who do not identify as homosexual -- e.g. in prison, boarding schools and other male-only situations -- and who don't take part in same sex relations outside those circumstances. In such situations it often denotes a dominance/submission relationship, which is what the joke is alluding to.

Of course you could argue that anyone who ever engages in a "homosexual act" is a "homosexual", but that's quibbling over definitions; if you define homosexuality that way, then it's clear that the kind that takes place in prison is very different from being a friend of Dorothy.

Re:Fucked

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the joke is that Trump is subservient to Putin. That any sex between them would be gay sex is completely irrelevant to it.

Re:Fucked

[sjames]

It really wasn't homophobic. It would have the same meaning and same offensiveness if Trump was a woman (removing the homosexual element).

As for the rest, as far as the FCC is concerned, it doesn't matter what he actually said, only what actually went over the air. *BEEP* isn't actionable.

Re:Fucked

[ceoyoyo]

The phrase "cock holster" itself very strongly denotes a dominant-submissive relationship, whether it refers to two men or a man and a woman, a mouth, a vagina, a whole person, whatever.

Colbert wasn't in any way calling Trump a bad person for being homosexual. He was calling Trump a bad person for being Russia's cock holster.

Re:Fucked

[hey!]

I have to say it is a lazy joke, and in bad taste, which are more or less the same thing. But it's not homophobic.

Re:Fucked

[Imrik]

If the insulting part is that he is gay, then it is homophobic, that isn't the case with this "joke."

Re:Fucked

[tehcyder]

Honestly, if Clinton had won, could you see Limbaugh, say, describing her as a "cock-holster"?

If she was acting like Putin's little sex slave, then why not?

Re:US censorship?

[desdinova 216]

there is an extremely vocal minority of "christian" fundamentalists who tend to file complaints over anything remotely sexual. There was also a possibility of Trump, being as thin skinned as someone who claims that any negative news stories are "fake news" would use the FCC to silence a critic.

Re:whaaa?

[desdinova 216]

they think that they are above criticism?

Not homophobic

[Anonymous Coward]

I was once in a conversation with a friend's partner. I used the term "my wife" when speaking to her about .... my wife. This woman replied that she thought it was gross of me to refer to the woman in my life using the term "My" which implied that she was a possession, not a human being. I had to make the point that, while yes, I'm sure some people use that term for that purpose, I didn't and I didn't like that she jumped to that conclusion with me. The phrase "my wife" refers to my relationship to her, just like "my uncle" or "my brother" does not refer to ownership. In that conversation, was I being sexist because I was using words that could be construed as sexist if you tried really hard?

Homophobic refers to the attitude in which the comment was made, not the way it was received by you. Could someone uttering those words be trying to make disparaging remarks about the President by suggesting he was homosexual? Sure. But a person uttering those words could instead and equally likely be making a point about the subservient position the person doing the pleasing is in relative to the person getting serviced, without any consideration toward the genders involved.

Knowing the history of Colbert's advocacy, I am as certain as anyone can be that he was making the comment with the latter intent. He could just as easily have made the comment about Theresa May if she were as deeply in Putin's pocket as Trump and it would have the same meaning. His point is about Putin having his way with Trump, not about a male having his way with another male.

Re:Not homophobic

[Dread_ed]

If it takes that much explanation to get around the label "homophobic" you have already lost the argument. No one wants to listen to reason these days. Its all "You offended me and those people over there who can't help themselves so I will stand up for them and protect those poor helpless defenseless inadequate deficient worthless people who I care about but who are so oppressed and intrinsically incapable of doing anything worthwhile on their own that they need me and my like minded friends to interdict the whole world otherwise they would be trampled to death by the mean words of cruel people everywhere."

I swear if people couldn't virtue signal while demeaning the people they are trying to "protect," Twitter, Facebook, CNN, Fox News, and the Washington Post would collapse into a vacuum so strong it would suck the flesh right off of every journalist in America instantaneously.

Also, I like to introduce my wife by name and then say, "I'm her husband." I get some fantastically strange looks, which I fucking love. Suck death you ignorant traditionalist pigs!

Re:Not homophobic

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing something very important. All the Putin/Trump homosexual jokes that have been going around for a long time (as well as Colbert's joke) are capitalizing on the fact that both Trump and Putin openly despise homosexuals, so calling them homosexual is in itself an insult, not because being homosexual is bad, but because they presumably can't stand the thought of being thought of as homosexual.

I don't think this was in any way intended to insult homosexuals. The homophobic assholes crying to fire Colbert for his "homophobia" clearly don't have a clue as to what constitutes homophobia.

Re:Not homophobic

[Pfhorrest]

like how all the tiny hands jokes aren't parvamanuphobic or actually suggesting that there's anything unusual about Trump's hands even, it's just a know sore spot with him, a hangup about being thought to have small hands, which makes it a good insult against him whether or not he really does and whether or not there'd be anything the matter if he did.

Re:Not homophobic

[Patent Lover]

For the record I would like to say Donald Trump can suck my dick. Kudos to Mojo Nixon.

Re:Not homophobic

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. But a person uttering those words could instead and equally likely be making a point about the subservient position the person doing the pleasing is in relative to the person getting serviced, without any consideration toward the genders involved.

Why do you assume the bottom/catcher is subservient? Assuming that is precisely why some gay people - me included - didn't find it funny. I didn't go full-blown "Colbert is a despicable homophobe!" like some people but he has dropped a peg or two in my eyes.

As someone quite rightly pointed out earlier, the joke was meant to poke fun at the supposed power dynamic between Trump and Putin rather than just a variation on the lazy gay=bad thing, so it's probably not meant to offend gay people but it was still a lazy joke. So, I think it was beneath Colbert but not necessarily for the same reason that others think.

There's a comic strip - not all that good generally - but that particular one does touch on the whole top=dom/bottom=sub canard that pisses off so many in the gay community.

Re:Not homophobic

[Trogre]

Did this friend's partner happen to have thick-rimmed glasses and an irritating nasal voice?

Re:Not homophobic

[Tablizer]

This woman replied that she thought it was gross of me to refer to the woman in my life using the term ["my wife"] which implied that she was a possession...

One of my favorite sayings is "don't complain without having an alternative ready".

I'll agree that phrase is a bit awkward, but what's an alternative that doesn't introduce new forms of awkwardness and/or confusion? "The lady I'm married to" is long-winded: "That's a good idea, I'll run the plan by the lady I'm married to and get back to you."

Re:Not homophobic

[wildstoo]

This woman replied that she thought it was gross of me to refer to the woman in my life using the term "My" which implied that she was a possession, not a human being.

If there was ever a time to roll your eyes and walk away, this would have been it. Regardless of how close a friend they were, do you really need that kind of idiocy in your life?

Re:Not homophobic

[tehcyder]

This woman replied that she thought it was gross of me to refer to the woman in my life using the term ["my wife"] which implied that she was a possession...

One of my favorite sayings is "don't complain without having an alternative ready".

I'll agree that phrase is a bit awkward, but what's an alternative that doesn't introduce new forms of awkwardness and/or confusion? "The lady I'm married to" is long-winded: "That's a good idea, I'll run the plan by the lady I'm married to and get back to you."

If I called my wife "the lady I'm married to" I imagine she'd deck me.

Re:Not homophobic

[tehcyder]

This woman replied that she thought it was gross of me to refer to the woman in my life using the term "My" which implied that she was a possession, not a human being.

If there was ever a time to roll your eyes and walk away, this would have been it. Regardless of how close a friend they were, do you really need that kind of idiocy in your life?

It is not compulsory or even usual to be friends with your friends' partners.

Re:Not homophobic

[parkinglot777]

I was once in a conversation with a friend's partner. I used the term "my wife" when speaking to her about .... my wife. This woman replied that she thought it was gross of me to refer to the woman in my life using the term "My" which implied that she was a possession, not a human being.

I am guessing that English is not her native tongue? It is rare for those who are English native speakers or are very familiar with the language to have the similar feeling toward the word "my" as she does. If English is her second or other language, then it explains why she does not feel comfortable using the possessive noun. Her native language may have different ways of use for English possessive nouns.

Re:Not homophobic

[AmiMoJo]

It's just part of an effort to make Trump look less "manly", for values of manly defined by the toxic masculinity that Trump buys into. Small hands = small dick, body shaming with that naked statue of him, that sort of thing.

I'm not really sure how much of a problem it is... On the one hand, those ideas about what it is to be a "real man" are really bad and I wouldn't promote them, but on the other they are only being used here because Trump buys into it. It's a really fine line between just pissing him off and actually starting to agree with him that those things matter.

Re:Not homophobic

[meta-monkey]

I introduce my wife as "my first wife." (we've never been divorced). I think it's funnier than she does, though.

Re:Not homophobic

[meta-monkey]

How do you possibly figure Trump "openly despises homosexuals?" He was for gay marriage back in the early 2000s, long before Obama and Hillary, and had no problem with Caitlyn Jenner using the women's bathroom in Trump Tower.

How do you turn someone's openly positive statements and actions about LGBT people and rights into "openly despises homosexuals?"

Re:Not homophobic

[meta-monkey]

Yeah I don't think anyone on the left would extend that kind of charity to anyone on the right. If Sean Hannity had said Obama was "sucking Castro's dick" during his Cuba visit, merely to imply that Obama was submissive to Castro and Cuban communist ideology and not at all homosexual, I'm pretty sure no thoughtful leftists on /. would be apologizing for Hannity.

Re:Not homophobic

[Pfhorrest]

You know, in a way, the right's "zomg homophobic!" faux-reaction to this joke is kind of the same sort of thing. The people who are usually the last to call anyone out on homophobia, because they're often homophobic themselves, are calling out someone (Colbert) who's part of the group of people who do actually care about homophobia as homophobic because it's an insult they think will stick, because it employs the same rhetoric as the people it's attacking, turning their own ideas against them.

I feel like I see things like this pretty frequently in the modern discourse. The next example that pops to my mind is calling right-wingers "snowflakes", which is originally their rhetoric against left-wingers and so makes a good insult against them when it can be applied, because that's something they claim to care about.

And on the topic of the fine line between doing that and starting to actually incorporate your opponent's ideology into your own through your use of their rhetoric against them, that also seems like something I've seen more and more in recent years. Like how the right, though constantly attacking the idea of identity politics, have simultaneously adopted a straight-white-cis-male identity politics of their own. Particularly disturbing to me, on the left myself, is a faction of the left on the internet who frequently engage with the right-wing filth of places like 4chan and then increasingly seem more and more like that filth themselves.

I guess it's really just the old "gaze long into an abyss..." / "he who fights monsters..." thing rearing its head again.

Re:Not homophobic

[AmiMoJo]

It's their standard operating procedure. Everything they accuse everyone else, you can be sure they are doing themselves.

It's quite common. People assume other people think and act similarly to how they do, so if they accuse someone of something silly like this it's likely because they were thinking about doing it themselves.

Re:Not homophobic

[david_thornley]

I think it was in the Screwtape Letters that C.S. Lewis wrote about the continuity and spectrum of "my", from something like "my boots" to "my God".

Re:Not homophobic

[Obfuscant]

It is rare for those who are English native speakers or are very familiar with the language to have the similar feeling toward the word "my" as she does.

It is not rare at all, especially on modern college campuses. There are departments of Diversity and Inclusion and such that would be happy to give your entire college staff and students hour long seminars on insensitive speech and hidden sexism and such. Just let them catch you referring to "my wife" and you'll get two barrels -- you don't own that person, and what if that person happens to be male?

It's not much different than the native English speakers who cannot fathom that a pronoun can have multiple meanings and apply to multiple genders. Or pretend that they cannot fathom it, so they can pretend to be victims when they see the word "he" applied to a non-specific antecedent. "But what about women?" Or often, "what about womym?"

Re:Not homophobic

[Tablizer]

Um, you're not helping.

Time Delayed?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the heck do they mean time delayed? The show is pre-recorded 5 hours earlier and Post-produced before air.

Imagine the opposite

[ArchieBunker]

I'd just like to imagine what would happen if Rush Limbaugh made that same statement.

Re:Imagine the opposite

[hyades1]

Probably not much. After all, Limbaugh got away with trying to smuggle a bunch of Viagra back into the US after visiting the Dominican Republic, which has become infamous as a sex tourist destination thanks to the "willingness" of its underage boys and girls.

Re:Imagine the opposite

[h33t l4x0r]

It would be perceived as more homophobic. Imagine a scale starting with Anderson Cooper saying it as a 1 and with Mike Pence saying it as a 10. Colbert is around a 3 and Limbaugh is maybe a 7 or 8.

Re:US censorship?

[h33t l4x0r]

Right, Fox viewers wanted to get back at the left for getting O'Reilly fired and saw this as an opportunity. I feel for them though, they don't have anybody to watch on late night anymore. I mean, Tucker Carlson? That is just bleak.

Re: The real reason

[Phusion]

Colbert was crude and inappropriate and there is no place for that in responsible broadcasting or anywhere else.

Bwah hahahahah!!! Wow, really? No place for that in broadcasting OR ANYWHERE ELSE? Have you lost your mind? Crude, yes, inappropriate, no, it was very appropriate, he expressed his anger and frustration with a president who's awash in scandal, isn't prepared or capable of running the country and is trying to strike down investigations into possible collusion with Russia-- I think saying his mouth is a cock holster was wildly appropriate-- but then again I'm not a third grade teacher, after school daycare provider or nanny of any kind.

Hate speech is easy to comprehend.

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA already has something very similar for decades: fighting words.

If your words are intended to rile people up to violence against another, it's hate speech.

Yelling "GET THE FAGGOT!" is hate speech, saying "you're a fag" isn't.

Colbert's remark wasn't homophobic

[hyades1]

Colbert's remark was in no sense homophobic. It was about power and a non-reciprocal relationship. In fact, the only way it could be perceived as homophobic is by people with an agenda...people attempting to insulate themselves from charges of homophobia by falsely accusing others. Colbert's remark could only be considered homophobic by somebody who believes a submissive man fellating another man who is in a position of power is somehow worse than fellatio performed by a woman who is in a subservient position.

In either case, the remark is intended to insult a person, in this case Trump, who has voluntarily reduced themselves to nothing more than an appliance for the sexual gratification of their master. Referring to Trump's mouth as Vladimir Putin's "cock holster" is about Trump's fawning, servile obsequiousness with respect to Russia's dictator, not about homophobia.

Sorry to shoot down that simplistic, misleading right wing meme, but there ya go!

Re:Colbert's remark wasn't homophobic

[misexistentialist]

somehow I doubt that kind of language would be tolerated against Hillary, no network would air it to begin with, but if came up Democrats and Republicans would call it "woman hating"

Re:Colbert's remark wasn't homophobic

[topology]

somehow I doubt that kind of language would be tolerated against Hillary, no network would air it to begin with, but if came up Democrats and Republicans would call it "woman hating"

If Hillary had bragged about how she likes to grab men by the cock, had multiple accusers of sexual assault, and was more than sympathetic to the will of the leader of a rival nation, I'm pretty sure calling her a cock holster for that foreign leader would be fair game. You are forgetting that Trump went crass long before Colbert did.

Re:Colbert's remark wasn't homophobic

[hyades1]

You must have missed the buttons on sale at Trump campaign rallies calling her a "C^nt", and the ones saying she would "go down faster than her husband's pants".

Re:Colbert's remark wasn't homophobic

[SuiteSisterMary]

I said it in a previous article about this, and I'll say it again: 'cock holster' was just a more profane way of saying 'ass kisser.'

Re:Colbert's remark wasn't homophobic

[dristoph]

I was skeptical about the criticism as well. And then someone pointed out to me that there are gay kids going to school the next day, some of whom may not be out and may be struggling with the social stigma, and no doubt kids will be talking about Colbert's joke from the previous night. And then I was like, yeah, that joke was probably irresponsible. It's also not a joke that I think would be allowed to fly in any other configuration of sexes.

Re:Colbert's remark wasn't homophobic

[hyades1]

Nice try. The buttons were being sold at Trump rallies, bought by Trump supporters and worn by Trump supporters. And if you think being a philanderer makes one a sexual deviant, then you must hate about half of the GOP, including, prominently, Newt Gingrich among many others.

Tell me, do you enjoy being a cock holster's cock holster or are you being paid?

Re:Colbert's remark wasn't homophobic

[hyades1]

Parents should stop their children from watching inappropriate content, no matter what their sexual orientation.

And then, of course, there's the fact that those kids are probably better equipped than most to understand the difference between Colbert's remark and a genuinely anti-gay one.

If you think it wouldn't have been allowed in any other "configuration of the sexes", you should check out some of the signs and buttons that were sold at Trump's campaign events...and worn in front of kids.

Re:Colbert's remark wasn't homophobic

[dristoph]

Parents should stop their children from watching inappropriate content, no matter what their sexual orientation.

Yeah, because The Late Show is known for throwing the word "cockholster" around all the time.

And then, of course, there's the fact that those kids are probably better equipped than most to understand the difference between Colbert's remark and a genuinely anti-gay one.

This is a naked assertion. And you're putting a lot on the shoulders of kids who may be literally hiding in plain sight who they are out of a legitimate fear that they might face severe abuse if they are found out.

If you think it wouldn't have been allowed in any other "configuration of the sexes", you should check out some of the signs and buttons that were sold at Trump's campaign events...and worn in front of kids.

Trump's campaign events brought out a lot of horrible shit. If that's where you set the bar for The Late Show I don't really know what to tell you.

Re:Colbert's remark wasn't homophobic

[hyades1]

I enjoy watching you, the cock holster's cock holster, trying unsuccessfully to peddle lies.

Back on your knees, punk, and don't talk with your mouth full.

Re:Colbert's remark wasn't homophobic

[hyades1]

I know exactly what to say...and said it. Now do as you're told.

Oh yeah?

[DontBeAMoran]

I know all about the FCC.

Re:US censorship?

[Zaelath]

Yeah, at least O'Reilly wasn't an empty shirt with a bow-tie or a (publically) raving lunatic like Hannity.

Just a shame he couldn't keep it in his pants.

Federal Cock Censors (FCC)

[UnknownSoldier]

I didn't realize FCC meant Federal Cock Censors.

I miss George Carlin: Political Correctness is fascism pretending to be Manners
--
Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away regardless of how many times Politcal Censorship, aka PC, is tried.

69

[thegreatbob]

69 comments before i posted.

Re:US censorship?

[h33t l4x0r]

Also, there was a time not too long ago when Trump supporters could watch Jimmy Fallon, but even he goes after POTUS too much lately. Lean times indeed. Thank God for Duck Dynasty reruns.

Re:whaaa?

[desdinova 216]

I didn't say that it was right.just an observation based on their behavior.

Re: The real reason

[Njorthbiatr]

How about freedom of fucking speech? It's in the constitution.

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[AthanasiusKircher]

Well, whatever the limits are/were, as TFS says: "bleeped out the questionable word and also blurred the host's mouth as he was saying it.

So, we can argue about what should or shouldn't be acceptable on "public broadcast TV," but since CBS didn't even BROADCAST the supposedly offensive word... I'm not sure why this was ever a thing in the first place.

Be careful if you don't have money..

[Neuronwelder]

You might end up in jail for just laughing at someone.

...blurred his mouth...

[Sir Holo]

Wow, I am SO happy that CBS not only bleeped "cock", but also blurred Stephen's mouth while uttering the word "cock", just in case I was a lip-reader. My my, how considerate.

Cock-holster.

Re:US censorship?

[hyades1]

It was a homophobic joke according to right wing propaganda organs.

Please stop lying.

Re:US censorship?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Yes, but what was bizarre about this case was the timeline. One day, the FCC chairman was interviewed saying it's a free country. The very next day the FCC chairman basically announced that "if we hear complaints, we'll investigate" on Fox. By this point the story had blown up on the internet for a few days. SURPRISE! -- The next day he announces that they've heard complaints, so they'll investigate! Well sure, you basically told them on TV to complain the day before.

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[gl4ss]

well trump would argue that it's the thought that counts ;).

coincidentally, trump didn't ask the fbi boss to drop the investigation to russia ties, he merely expressed hope that he could drop it without hassle.

so yeah, do the actual words matter or the thought?

(of course colbert should be able to say a blurred cock on his show).

Re:US censorship?

[Dragonslicer]

Yes. It was a homophobic 'joke' according to SJW's

It was only homophobic to people who assume that oral sex is only for homosexuals.

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[Aighearach]

The cock is my family crest, you insensitive clod!

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[Aighearach]

The "thing" was a complaint, which they have to investigate. They got the complaint, they investigated, and they didn't find anything worthy of a fine.

Some people are simply confused about why they were investigating. But if you get the details, it is hard to claim it is bad for the government to investigate complaints about rule violations. They didn't even get it wrong!

Re:More distractions, lock her up

[OrangeTide]

We have room in prison for both Senator H.R. Clinton and President Trump. We shouldn't limit ourselves to this being an either-or position.

Unfortunately for Trump, the men's federal prison is not as easy as the women's prison.

Trump should fire Ajit Pai

[ayesnymous]

You're fired.

In Colbert's defense...

[Nyckname]

compare

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/ma...

and

https://d3f650ayx9w00n.cloudfr...

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[mjwx]

For Fucks Sake America... Here in England and other civilised countries we can say "cock" on daytime TV. In fact probably a repeat of Top Gear on Dave with James May saying "Oh Cock" right now.

We can also see boobs.

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[LifesABeach]

It kind of says something about the Trump Snowflakes who can't sleep at night? My wife says, and I agree, "Trump Snowflakes can dish it out, but they can't take it. Typical of a bully."

Onward Christian Soldiers!

[BadTuna]

Welcome to the America that fights tooth and nail to legislate public perception of morality. Where people get blown up, beat up, run over, run down and no one bats an eye. Where one boob flops out or someone says ‘cock’, half of America loses their shit and all the self-righteous, self-appointed saviors of America mobilize en masse.

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[tbannist]

I think the point was that those staunch defenders of Trump's freedom to say anything he damn well pleases seem to get their free-speech-panties in a knot as soon as someone else says something not nice about Trump. The complaint should never have been submitted to the FCC in the first place, but apparently there were a lot of Trump supporters who couldn't stand the fact that someone might criticise their Dear Leader.

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[Walter White]

For Fucks Sake America... Here in England and other civilised countries we can say "cock" on daytime TV.

Can you say bloody?

We can also see boobs.

I am reminded that the Puritans left England to come to what became the US.

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[peawormsworth]

bleeped out the questionable word and also blurred the host's mouth as he was saying it.

Neither of those were true when it broadcast in my area. Which is great, because I hate censorship and I love humour.

Grow up America. Don't be sensitive and whiny like your president.

Re:US censorship?

[tehcyder]

Yes. It was a homophobic 'joke' according to SJW's

It was only homophobic to people who assume that oral sex is only for homosexuals.

Isn't a man receiving oral sex from another man pretty much homosexual by definition?

The reason it's funny is that Trump, and even more Putin, would be offended at being called gay.

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[Cederic]

Of course we can. I recall hearing Ben Elton say the word cunt in 1990 too.

Films such as Pulp Fiction get broadcast uncut.

There are some limits though, primarily around nudity. The stuff I watched on German TV as I went through my puberty wouldn't be broadcast even now in the UK.

Re:What was homophobic about the joke?

[tehcyder]

it boils down to the bottom in anal being described as somehow subservient or weaker than the top

Quite what that has to do with Putin sticking his dick in Trump's mouth I'm not sure.

The Left's KKK

[RobotRunAmok]

>>When a neo-Nazi terrorist organization comes out in support of Bernie Sanders, you might have a point.

They're already out, and they're everywhere. They call themselves "Antifa." They cover themselves in black, KKK covered themselves in white, but otherwise their tactics, vitriol and collective IQ are about the same.

Re:US censorship?

[meta-monkey]

People file complaints to the FCC, all the time, about everything. Just google "Funny FCC complaints." Here's the first result, the top 10 funniest complaints about SNL:

Because the Internet is wonderful, a Freedom of Information Act request was filed for every complaint about SNL the FCC has received in the last five years. That request was carried out and posted in its entirety on this website.

This document is 226 pages long and littered with paranoia, unabashed racism and homophobia, generally angry people, and, of course, fun. Lots and lots of fun.

Included in there are accusations SNL was carrying out a human trafficking ring. It's all nuts.

So what we have here is Colbert makes a vulgar joke. People report it to the FCC because people report everything to the FCC. And they investigate and respond because that's the job of the FCC. Trump critics then turn this into "Trump supporters want the government to shut down anti-Trump views." It's just confirmation bias.

So it wont be levied a fine

[Joviex]

For speaking with his First Amendment Right. No hate speech, no incitement to riot, why would he be fined for calling an asshole out on his cock sucking events?

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[cellocgw]

I am reminded that the Puritans left England to come to what became the US.

Except that they didn't. They tried to settle on the other side of the North Sea,where the locals were not happy with their extremist religion. They got kicked out and *then* went to the Colonies, where there weren't any (European) folk to get in their way.

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[Rakarra]

And how is that a homophobic joke? These faggots need to learn some English.

The faggots weren't the ones who got offended.
As is often the case, it's one group getting outraged "on behalf of" another group that just doesn't care.

Re:US censorship?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Yes, obviously you're right. People submit all sorts of crap complaints to the FCC. The question is -- in how many of the cases that you cite did the FCC chairman comment directly on them? In how many did he publicly announce an investigation into them? In how many did he effectively goad the public into submitting more complaints by saying, "Well... if we get complaints [wink, wink], we'll investigate!" I have no doubt that (1) people were going to submit FCC complaints about this anyway, and (2) the investigation was obviously never going to go anywhere, so I sincerely doubt anyone in the Trump administration thought they could "shut down anti-Trump views." Nevertheless, the whole thing with the FCC chairman is just plain weird.

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[Aighearach]

Naw, they complained when the got to see Janet Jackson's nipple shield, too. They complained about George Carlin all the time. In 1969, the night after their woodstock show, Jefferson Airplane was on the Dick Cavett show and sang the word fuck (and motherfucker, too). People complained. In the studio version of the song they just mixed those words too low to hear, so that it could be played on the radio.

Conservatives wearing bunched panties and complaining to Big Brother whenever they accidentally get aroused is not some new thing. It has nothing at all to do with the green frog, the orange lizard, or the squirrel riding them.

confused about conservative values

[PJ6]

I never understood the point of making the FCC the decency police. Aren't conservatives for "free market", and against "regulation" and "the nanny state"?

TV that people find offensive would seem to be a textbook example of a free market capable of correcting itself. If people don't like it, they can vote with their feet, and so can the advertisers. Why involve government?

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[Walter White]

Thank you for the clarification. My knowledge of history - not so good. But I was pretty sure they wound up here and seemed to influence our culture.