2 ms·

Just as I expected, I'm downvoted into oblivion. Anyway, maybe in the US there are no limits to satire, but I am sure most of the rest of the world has limits

by chirau 10y ago

Just as I expected, I'm downvoted into oblivion. Anyway, maybe in the US there are no limits to satire, but I am sure most of the rest of the world has limits to satire. Ridiculing the premier of a nation in such a manner does not in any way aid to the strength of face of that nation to the rest of the world. Just look at how the ridiculousness of the Trump satire makes a joke out of the US system. Just saying... More downvotes in 3, 2, 1 .... ALSO, TO YOUR POINT: Who is the judge of what is satire and what is fake news? If Donald Trump called Obama an illegal immigrant today, or better still a wiretapper, is that satire or false accusation? Could he possibly eventually defend himself saying it was satire, his own type albeit? This whole satire thing is a slippery slope. It must have limits.

Archio 10y ago
Replace "ridiculing" with "criticizing" in your third sentence. The statement is also equally true - criticism of a world leader from within their own country certainly doesn't add strength to the public perception of a nation. But do you see how dangerous that would be to make illegal, and how it applies to "ridiculing" as well?
- chirau 10y ago
  Criticism has room for discussion. Criticism can be destructive and constructive. Ridiculing is never constructive. What does ridiculing yield? What benefit does ridiculing have?
  - Archio 10y ago
    You say that criticism can be destructive and constructive, which is true. Ridicule, defined as "[applying] contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior" can swiftly and temptingly become "deconstructive criticism". Or, "criticism that I find humiliating because I don't like it". Does most ridiculing, aside from satire, have a benefit? Probably not. But it would be a mistake to make any speech without benefit illegal, especially since it is just so easy for anyone in power to conveniently select people for jailtime when legislation uses such broad words as "ridicule".
    - chirau 10y ago
      What's your point? Not only is ridicule non-beneficial, it's destructive. Which is why I wouldn't blame any system that chooses to punish it.
mikeash 10y ago
It's not the satire of Trump that makes us a joke....

by chirau 10y ago

Archio 10y ago

Replace "ridiculing" with "criticizing" in your third sentence. The statement is also equally true - criticism of a world leader from within their own country certainly doesn't add strength to the public perception of a nation. But do you see how dangerous that would be to make illegal, and how it applies to "ridiculing" as well?

chirau 10y ago
Criticism has room for discussion. Criticism can be destructive and constructive. Ridiculing is never constructive. What does ridiculing yield? What benefit does ridiculing have?
- Archio 10y ago
  You say that criticism can be destructive and constructive, which is true. Ridicule, defined as "[applying] contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior" can swiftly and temptingly become "deconstructive criticism". Or, "criticism that I find humiliating because I don't like it". Does most ridiculing, aside from satire, have a benefit? Probably not. But it would be a mistake to make any speech without benefit illegal, especially since it is just so easy for anyone in power to conveniently select people for jailtime when legislation uses such broad words as "ridicule".
  - chirau 10y ago
    What's your point? Not only is ridicule non-beneficial, it's destructive. Which is why I wouldn't blame any system that chooses to punish it.

mikeash 10y ago

It's not the satire of Trump that makes us a joke....