I’m confused about your question. You asked if Leo Lins’ ARREST was dreadful, not so bad, etc. I’d have to say the ARREST did not go so far as to be ”dreadful,” but the SENTENCING certainly did. Eight years (or even eight weeks) for spewing offensive material (that does not advocate violence) is way over the top.
Advocating violence is protected by the First Amendment unless, as the Supreme Court held, it “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
I am shocked that 13% (of the readers of this Substack, of all people!) do not think that imprisoning someone for eight years for his speech is dreadful. Even people who don't care about freedom of speech should think that it's dreadful to sentence him to eight years. Can you imagine eight years in prison? Eight days would have been sufficient to teach him a lesson (if he needed one). He would not have resumed his act after eight days in prison, knowing that a second offense would get him a longer sentence.
"It’s his shtick, which is based on the idea — warranted or not — that when you are scattershot offensive to everyone, when you are targeting everyone, being promiscuously cruel to everyone, you are actually targeting no one. It’s essentially a continuing joke about the joke — about the ridiculousness of stereotyping."
Sorry, Gene, but this interpretation makes literally no sense. Trump insults everybody except for those fellow straight white male cons who kowtow to him, but surely you wouldn't argue he's harmless just because he targets millions of people instead of one group, would you? It's like arguing that volume is more important than content.
I do agree that Lins shouldn't be jailed for his "humor." But please don't dress up his vileness as anything worthy of respect. It's not.
First of all, everyone knows Lins is a comedian. And I understand he delivers his jokes in the persona of an over-the-top comic, so he’s really making fun of cheap shot humor. Maybe that’s just a matter of semantics, but it’s a far cry from Trump degrading and insulting whole communities every day, not with any humorous intent, but to dehumanize them as part of his war on diversity and tolerance. Lins’s act may be tasteless, but he doesn’t have the full force of the government behind him to promote white Christians above all others.
"May" be tasteless? Seriously? If Lins is merely taking on "the persona of a tasteless comic," he should get an acting award. He's utterly convincing as a bigot and jerk.
Luckily for Brazilians, it's true that Lins doesn't have Trump's power. But I see no reason to think he would moderate his rhetoric and actions if (God forbid) he did. Remember the "comedians" who performed at Trump's Madison Square Garden rally the week before his re-election? I'm willing to bet his campaign told them to be as offensive as possible to energize the MAGA base, and it worked.
As far as I'm concerned, treating Lins as a thoughtful artist makes as much sense as sane-washing Trump's viciousness as motivated by anything other than his ego.
I don’t believe anyone on this thread has described Lins as “a thoughtful artist.” And the core of this debate is not whether Lins is tasteless, but whether he deserves to go to jail.
You're right that Gene didn't use that phrase; I never claimed he did. But he DID call Lins' act "a continuing joke about the joke." That sure sounds like an attempt to give Lins credit for having a larger purpose behind his "humor" than simply offending people.
And with all due respect, the POLL was about Lins' arrest--which, as I noted in my original post, was unjustified. I see no reason for that point of agreement to preclude a DEBATE about Lins' act--which, again, I based on Gene's own framing of the issue.
It is pretty dreadful, though I didn't vote. But the ARREST is not the dreadful part (who did the arresting?) It is the conviction and the eight-year sentence. If the implication is that the police and judicial system all work at the behest of the government, that is beyond dreadful.
Like us, Brazil has a constitution that protects speech, and specifically "artistic" speech although its protections are somewhat narrower. Words have a consequence, whatever their intent, and however smugly wrapped in legal protection. Nevertheless, the "slope" when it comes to what is acceptable speech is perhaps the slipperiest of all guarantees in a democracy. Because of this, the kinds of speech not protected here (incitement to immediate lawless action, defamation, fraud among them) are relatively few and require the highest level of judicial review in litigation when it comes to content. Interestingly, it would appear that Lins has been caught up in a seemingly worthy government crusade against mis- and disinformation particularly on social media platforms which includes (unlike here) a long-standing prohibition on racist speech. It even banned Brand X for a time until it paid overdue fines of $5M. But as distasteful as the metaphor may be, "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" is apt, and one of the inherent conundrums or the often double-edged nature of living in a free society.
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” --- John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty."
Even 1%, taken in the context of the email, is an affront to the right to free speech. Speech that does not incite or glorify violence should be free and never considered criminal. Maybe free speech needs some limits, you know, not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but that is a very high bar which Lins never came close to approaching. And let's face it, this country is currently under the rule of the inciter and chief who certainly does deserve time behind bars.
I've never understood why those next to the one yelling "fire" don't ask where? and when there's no good answer they tell him to STFU and settle the crowd down in doing so. I'm arguing in favor of taking decisive action when it's called for.
It’s one thing for a comedian to say he’s just joking, and another for a head of state to issue offensive statements, and then claim he wasn’t being serious only when the blowback bites him in the ass.
Without getting any further into the weeds, it is pretty much an article of faith that humor, as opposed to other emotional elements is highly subjective. The typical emotional elements of drama (e.g. conflict, love, hate, fear) are virtually universal, while humor tends to be idiosyncratic because of its very nature.
I am going to openly admit my ignorance and ask if Brazil has laws protecting free speech? Is it in any constitutional type document they have? The sentence is still awful in my eyes either way. But is it a founding principle like it is here? Then the arrest would seem worse
To state upfront, I deplore the arrest, trial, conviction and sentencing of Leo Lins. ALL are despicable and wrong. Considering the subject of comedy, I think the best comedians establish the difference between offensiveness (which can also be made funny) and deliberate malice (which is never funny at all). Reading Gene's "beanie" joke made me look up the history and significance of the yarmulke worn by Jewish men. I learn that it is a symbol of reverence and humility before God. Not a trace of humor there. Having said that, I have on occasion wondered what makes this cap stay in place. It seems to defy the force of gravity, placed, not on top of the head, but toward the back. Why doesn't it fall off? And is this, in itself, a disrespectful question?
That propeller joke may not be tasteless (I'm not convinced, but tastelessness is in the eye of the beholder, as they say), but it's also not funny. Just saying.
Hortense, have you ever laughed at a joke and then, thinking about it afterwards, been regretful or even ashamed that your first reaction was laughter? There's a benefit there: it made you think.
Kicking down is never funny. Mocking the suffering of trans people, gay people, and immigrants is never funny. It is a joke the way firing spitballs at kids who limp is a joke. That kind of thing may get big laughs in middle school, but mature people don’t laugh at such things.
The comedian claims he makes fun of everyone so lighten up! What a guy. But the list of examples of his targets are mostly powerless people facing difficulties. (I would not count evangelicals among the marginalized and vulnerable. They tend to be the cruelest of the cruel.)
Even if he were to make fun of the authoritarians as well, it would not make it ok or funny to mock disabled people. The guy sounds like an insufferable jerk.
That all said, it is horrifying that this guy’s being a jackass is considered a crime in Brazil or in any democratic nation, and that his crappy insults would lead to a prison sentence. It is a chilling reminder of the authoritarian direction in which the US is heading.
In the US it is conventional to pretend it is “leftists” who try to silence speakers of whom they disapprove. Here at least, government violence against constitutionally protected free speech is exclusively a right-wing thing.
Assuming that the Brazilian government is not going after him for saying bad things about *them,* then they're just imprisoning a man for being an asshole. Eight years! You'd think their jails would be full by now.
I’m confused about your question. You asked if Leo Lins’ ARREST was dreadful, not so bad, etc. I’d have to say the ARREST did not go so far as to be ”dreadful,” but the SENTENCING certainly did. Eight years (or even eight weeks) for spewing offensive material (that does not advocate violence) is way over the top.
Actually, I meant the arrest. The prosecution.
Advocating violence is protected by the First Amendment unless, as the Supreme Court held, it “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
The plane's engines losing power wasn't so bad, as it hurtled to the ground. It was the impact at the end — that was truly bad.
I think you are choking on gnats and swallowing camels.
I am shocked that 13% (of the readers of this Substack, of all people!) do not think that imprisoning someone for eight years for his speech is dreadful. Even people who don't care about freedom of speech should think that it's dreadful to sentence him to eight years. Can you imagine eight years in prison? Eight days would have been sufficient to teach him a lesson (if he needed one). He would not have resumed his act after eight days in prison, knowing that a second offense would get him a longer sentence.
I have my doubts that saying "I'm rude to everyone" is the same as saying "I'm not rude to anyone."
I didn’t poison a few drinks. I poisoned all the drinks.
You're being too literal.
"It’s his shtick, which is based on the idea — warranted or not — that when you are scattershot offensive to everyone, when you are targeting everyone, being promiscuously cruel to everyone, you are actually targeting no one. It’s essentially a continuing joke about the joke — about the ridiculousness of stereotyping."
Sorry, Gene, but this interpretation makes literally no sense. Trump insults everybody except for those fellow straight white male cons who kowtow to him, but surely you wouldn't argue he's harmless just because he targets millions of people instead of one group, would you? It's like arguing that volume is more important than content.
I do agree that Lins shouldn't be jailed for his "humor." But please don't dress up his vileness as anything worthy of respect. It's not.
First of all, everyone knows Lins is a comedian. And I understand he delivers his jokes in the persona of an over-the-top comic, so he’s really making fun of cheap shot humor. Maybe that’s just a matter of semantics, but it’s a far cry from Trump degrading and insulting whole communities every day, not with any humorous intent, but to dehumanize them as part of his war on diversity and tolerance. Lins’s act may be tasteless, but he doesn’t have the full force of the government behind him to promote white Christians above all others.
"May" be tasteless? Seriously? If Lins is merely taking on "the persona of a tasteless comic," he should get an acting award. He's utterly convincing as a bigot and jerk.
Luckily for Brazilians, it's true that Lins doesn't have Trump's power. But I see no reason to think he would moderate his rhetoric and actions if (God forbid) he did. Remember the "comedians" who performed at Trump's Madison Square Garden rally the week before his re-election? I'm willing to bet his campaign told them to be as offensive as possible to energize the MAGA base, and it worked.
As far as I'm concerned, treating Lins as a thoughtful artist makes as much sense as sane-washing Trump's viciousness as motivated by anything other than his ego.
I don’t believe anyone on this thread has described Lins as “a thoughtful artist.” And the core of this debate is not whether Lins is tasteless, but whether he deserves to go to jail.
You're right that Gene didn't use that phrase; I never claimed he did. But he DID call Lins' act "a continuing joke about the joke." That sure sounds like an attempt to give Lins credit for having a larger purpose behind his "humor" than simply offending people.
And with all due respect, the POLL was about Lins' arrest--which, as I noted in my original post, was unjustified. I see no reason for that point of agreement to preclude a DEBATE about Lins' act--which, again, I based on Gene's own framing of the issue.
“ except for those fellow straight white male cons who kowtow to him” kind of skewers your argument.
It is pretty dreadful, though I didn't vote. But the ARREST is not the dreadful part (who did the arresting?) It is the conviction and the eight-year sentence. If the implication is that the police and judicial system all work at the behest of the government, that is beyond dreadful.
Like us, Brazil has a constitution that protects speech, and specifically "artistic" speech although its protections are somewhat narrower. Words have a consequence, whatever their intent, and however smugly wrapped in legal protection. Nevertheless, the "slope" when it comes to what is acceptable speech is perhaps the slipperiest of all guarantees in a democracy. Because of this, the kinds of speech not protected here (incitement to immediate lawless action, defamation, fraud among them) are relatively few and require the highest level of judicial review in litigation when it comes to content. Interestingly, it would appear that Lins has been caught up in a seemingly worthy government crusade against mis- and disinformation particularly on social media platforms which includes (unlike here) a long-standing prohibition on racist speech. It even banned Brand X for a time until it paid overdue fines of $5M. But as distasteful as the metaphor may be, "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" is apt, and one of the inherent conundrums or the often double-edged nature of living in a free society.
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” --- John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty."
Even 1%, taken in the context of the email, is an affront to the right to free speech. Speech that does not incite or glorify violence should be free and never considered criminal. Maybe free speech needs some limits, you know, not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but that is a very high bar which Lins never came close to approaching. And let's face it, this country is currently under the rule of the inciter and chief who certainly does deserve time behind bars.
It's perfectly legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. The liability comes from the consequences of the utterance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
I've never understood why those next to the one yelling "fire" don't ask where? and when there's no good answer they tell him to STFU and settle the crowd down in doing so. I'm arguing in favor of taking decisive action when it's called for.
Maybe I should come back and haunt those hockey pucks.
- Don Rickles
On the other hand, bullies love to gaslight their victims by claiming they were “just joking”.
It’s one thing for a comedian to say he’s just joking, and another for a head of state to issue offensive statements, and then claim he wasn’t being serious only when the blowback bites him in the ass.
Without getting any further into the weeds, it is pretty much an article of faith that humor, as opposed to other emotional elements is highly subjective. The typical emotional elements of drama (e.g. conflict, love, hate, fear) are virtually universal, while humor tends to be idiosyncratic because of its very nature.
I am going to openly admit my ignorance and ask if Brazil has laws protecting free speech? Is it in any constitutional type document they have? The sentence is still awful in my eyes either way. But is it a founding principle like it is here? Then the arrest would seem worse
Yes, it has a constitution that protects speech although somewhat narrower than ours.
“Avenue Q” has a song “Everyone’s a little bit racist” that addresses this in a milder, more humorous way. That song runs through my head frequently.
To state upfront, I deplore the arrest, trial, conviction and sentencing of Leo Lins. ALL are despicable and wrong. Considering the subject of comedy, I think the best comedians establish the difference between offensiveness (which can also be made funny) and deliberate malice (which is never funny at all). Reading Gene's "beanie" joke made me look up the history and significance of the yarmulke worn by Jewish men. I learn that it is a symbol of reverence and humility before God. Not a trace of humor there. Having said that, I have on occasion wondered what makes this cap stay in place. It seems to defy the force of gravity, placed, not on top of the head, but toward the back. Why doesn't it fall off? And is this, in itself, a disrespectful question?
Bobby pins, traditionally.
What do bald men do? 🤔
epoxy
(I do suspect that you are making a joke here. Unique, especially in the context of this discussion. :O)
Thank you. I guess bobby pins (or their equivalent) have been around far longer than I had thought.
That propeller joke may not be tasteless (I'm not convinced, but tastelessness is in the eye of the beholder, as they say), but it's also not funny. Just saying.
Hortense, have you ever laughed at a joke and then, thinking about it afterwards, been regretful or even ashamed that your first reaction was laughter? There's a benefit there: it made you think.
Kicking down is never funny. Mocking the suffering of trans people, gay people, and immigrants is never funny. It is a joke the way firing spitballs at kids who limp is a joke. That kind of thing may get big laughs in middle school, but mature people don’t laugh at such things.
The comedian claims he makes fun of everyone so lighten up! What a guy. But the list of examples of his targets are mostly powerless people facing difficulties. (I would not count evangelicals among the marginalized and vulnerable. They tend to be the cruelest of the cruel.)
Even if he were to make fun of the authoritarians as well, it would not make it ok or funny to mock disabled people. The guy sounds like an insufferable jerk.
That all said, it is horrifying that this guy’s being a jackass is considered a crime in Brazil or in any democratic nation, and that his crappy insults would lead to a prison sentence. It is a chilling reminder of the authoritarian direction in which the US is heading.
In the US it is conventional to pretend it is “leftists” who try to silence speakers of whom they disapprove. Here at least, government violence against constitutionally protected free speech is exclusively a right-wing thing.
Assuming that the Brazilian government is not going after him for saying bad things about *them,* then they're just imprisoning a man for being an asshole. Eight years! You'd think their jails would be full by now.