1111: I Want to Kill You

[Badger]

Cracking show. Pat Dixon is always awesome but it was especially cool to have his lady on to make him squirm. Loved when Carmen called him Moo-moo and he fired back "dammit! I used to be cool on this show!"

Also excellent to have Jesse Joyce and his CD of 'jokes-that-never-really-worked' ridiculed.

But Keith, you're confusing us! The show is full of examples where you've threatened some form violence or other dark fate upon your numerous transgressors. These outbursts are inevitably followed by Chemda's nervous clarification "Er, Jokes, people! Just jokes!". Should the police look into that or does Chemda's waiver exonerate you?

You've also stated many times that the police should look into rappers who talk about their crimes in their lyrics. Should they also look into someone who publicly broadcasts that they left the scene of a possibly fatal accident?

Some clarification please, sir. Surely police time is better served looking into actual crime than obviously facetious twitter comments?

[Junkenstein]

An airport blowing up is a sensitive subject, so this guy should've been more careful. But arresting somebody for a twitter post is plain idiotic and the type of action that takes away time and attention from more serious threats.

People who really blow up airports do not post it on twitter. Plus that's the typw of action that makes the libertards scream for fascism and freedom of speech.

Just stupid.

[Grampoo]

The mistake that resulted in the problem of Pat and his lady both answering "10" was that Keith said something like, "10 means this is the love of your life". Keith doesn't usually tell the contestants in the 1 to 10 game the meaning of the numbers. I knew they'd both say "10" as soon as he said that. Any serious couple knows they have to say that, I'd think. Leave them flapping in the wind, not knowing how to rate their love. That is how to create a real discrepancy in number rating.

[Blitzgal]

We just had a couple of kids call in bomb threats to the Madison airport this week. At least they had the excuse of being retarded children.

[Namdnal Siroj]

Originally Posted by Keith

You're being silly.

I'm genuinely interested because you react very strongly for and against regulation of related behaviors.
What sets them so far apart IYO?

Verbal abuse is already punishable by law in certain contexts.
Name calling can be cause for discrimination or harassment law suits.

[Junkenstein]

Name Calling: "You're a fucking idiot and you smell like doggie doo"

Not against the law (and if it is, it's a silly law)

Verbal Threat: "I know you live at (insert address here). I'm gonna find you, kill you in front of your children and then use your face as toilet paper"

Illegal.

Case closed.

[Blitzgal]

Originally Posted by Namdnal Siroj

I'm genuinely interested because you react very strongly for and against regulation of related behaviors.
What sets them so far apart IYO?

Verbal abuse is already punishable by law in certain contexts.
Name calling can be cause for discrimination or harassment law suits.

He made his stance pretty clear when he talked about the French law on the show. While making a concrete threat ("I'm going to blow up this airport") is very easy to categorize as a threat, emotional abuse is much more complex than that, and actually enforcing a law against emotional abuse is practically impossible. We don't even do a good job of stopping physical violence in the home. You think the government is going to do a better job of dealing with emotional violence?

Also, what Junkenstein said above.

[Namdnal Siroj]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

While making a concrete threat ("I'm going to blow up this airport") is very easy to categorize as a threat, emotional abuse is much more complex than that, and actually enforcing a law against emotional abuse is practically impossible.

K & C's reactions were not limited to the practicalities of enforcing laws, me thinks?
On that point, I suppose threats, discrimination, harassment are often equally hard to prove in a court situation.
There's a practical (enforcable) threshold, which also exists for physical violence.

Verbal threats and name calling are both forms of verbal violence, agreed?
Laws in this area are about the intention behind words, and possible effects on individuals and groups.

"Why do you need to have the right to verbally threaten me?" <-> "Why do you need to have the right to verbally abuse me?"

I'm not trying to catch Keith on a mistake.
Just asking what sets things apart so much in his opinion, what the tipping point is.

[Grapist]

Of course threatening to blow up a plane on twitter is the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater, the point is simple, will there be a response to what you do, and will that response put people in danger? Yes, it will, it is known what can happen when people tweet things, so the "I didn't know" excuse doesn't fly, like it ever did anyway.

[Namdnal Siroj]

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

Name Calling: "You're a fucking idiot and you smell like doggie doo"

Now that's being silly.
You know that this is not the type of verbal abuse that any French law is aimed at…