Uncensored video of Will Smith and Chris Rock at the Oscars

But, this can. It's called assault.




What this sounds like is using violence to limit free speech, which I'm pretty sure we have both been on record here as wanting to protect.

But at what cost? At what cost?!

I saw you raise a ship out of a swamp just by closing your eyes and pointing your hand at it... so yeah, I wouldn't put it past you!

This is a hell of a topic, one I would enjoy discussing; but it’d take up far more space than this entire thread so far and move way away from the original issue at hand. I have a theology degree, and to me, the very idea of relying on Judeo-Christian morality in law enforcement/legislation in our meta-modern reality seems very random and outdated. But that’s neither here, nor there.

Yup, and I never said anything different.

No, but then in practice, this is unlikely to (and didn’t) result in prosecution, so the law can and will often decide to wash its hands off it. That’s equally up to said law enforcement.

Hmm, I don’t know. I think that’s a whole other discussion which is completely out of place here, but in short, my feeling about this is akin to my thought that, were it an anti-LGBT/anti-trans joke, things would turn out much different. I.e., had we been talking about abortion or homosexuality, the argument that laws should be based on “religious and cultural” norms/bases would be a tougher one to make. And an argument either makes sense or it doesn’t. I think this kind of argument doesn’t, so I’ve never really made this kind of argument via inherent morals, or taken it seriously.

Thank goodness... because you really had us going there for a while!

Wasn’t that Jesus Christ? Nah, must have been @Yoda.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

Yes, I have been on record wanting to protect free speech. But responding to an insult with violence is not in itself limiting free speech. If one chooses not to call me a ****/“smelly whore” (to quote a post from this thread) because my brother/boyfriend/I will punch this person, I am not really limiting their free speech. They are just weighing up consequences. It’s up to them.

I certainly understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think that’s limiting free speech. I have said stuff in my new office that could get me fired (criticised a boss over, would you believe it, the Ukraine crisis, and gone on record doing that). Did I know I could be fired for that because my criticism of him was personal (that he was milking the crisis to slack off/for personal gain)? Yes. Did that limit my right to free speech? I personally don’t think so. Did that affect my decision to speak/make the comment? No.

Jesus just kept the ship from sinking by stilling the waves.
(And then he dunked Peter... just for fun!)

I’m sure. But I get this a lot here. Why do we expect all human behaviour to be rational? I find that profoundly ridiculous. It isn’t, never has been and probably never really will be.

The entire incident that we’re swiftly moving away from here is a great illustration of inherent human irrationality.

U.S. law is originally descended from English common law--more specifically, the Constitution, along with statutory, regulatory, and treaty law. It's not based on Jewish, Christian, or any other kind of moral codes (the very concept of "Judeo-Christianity" is a 19th centruy neologism and was not used in relation to ethics until the 20th century). The existence of legal codes is not predetermined by concepts of morality.

Thank you. I would have argued the same, but didn’t have the data/stamina.

Not to mention that, and yes, I am bringing this up, there have been many a profoundly unjust law in human history (most of them have been unjust, I’d argue), be that antisemitic laws, or those discriminatory against the Copts in Egypt or early Christians in Rome (let alone the elephant in the room - Germany). Something being “the law” in no way makes it “morally right”. Duh.

Not sure what your point here is, Agrippina.

I don't think anyone expects human behavior to be rational overall, but I guess this incident is promoting discussion because we expect a modicum of rational behavior within the confines of an awards show. This expectation is enhanced by the whole show of friendly competition, everyone dressing up in their finest clothes, the lengthy appreciation speeches, etc.

Granted, some are giddy just to see the formula of monotony broken in such a way!

It's an upper crust event observed by the masses, so a certain level of refinement is expected. As others have already compared - if flaring tempers & fisticuffs are desired, audiences can turn to professional wrestling.

Sigh. If you go back far enough, it is. Or you can go back further than Christianity and also accurately say that Greek philosophy was another basis that contributed to the evolution of modern law.

Conversely, you can argue that man is not a descendent of apes, but rather evolved from an earlier upright walking hominid - both are true depending on how far back you want to go.

Laws evolved from codes of morality which themselves were derived from religion & philosophy.

Yes, and then someone gets offended, whether rationally or not, and acts against all expectations. Originally, before the Judeo-Christian aspect came into play, my point was simply that human beings have a right to react in whichever way they find appropriate to something they deemed insulting, then face the music. There’s been no suggestion of him refusing to face the consequences, should they follow, so I think the widespread condemnation is, well, excessive and, as noted, a little bit hypocritical.

My broader point was also that to me it’s nice to see someone defending a woman, for once, even if it was a little for show. To me that’s still, to use a recurring term in this thread, “the right thing to do” if she was uncomfortable.

I wasn’t making any point beyond that.

No one's arguing that.

I’m not in the habit of going back and quoting what I was responding to, but there was a comment that laws (in the US) are based on morality and hence should be respected/that breaking them is “wrong” for that reason. I took issue with the argument via morality being at the heart of laws, and that being reason enough to respect them. In terms of laws I’m a social contract/Hobbes/Rousseau type person, i.e. I think that yes, they help society function, but are in no way inherently moral, so I find the argument via morality of law odd.

I agree with the comments that Will defending his wife would've been fine, but going up on stage and slapping him right after we've just seen him laugh at the joke is ridiculous. It makes him look disingenous, and actually makes Chris Rock come off more likable by comparison. Who wouldn't be shocked at someone going up and slapping you out of nowhere?
This whole narrative of Will Smith being some kind of hero for using physical violence to defend his wife is just silly to me. Have we become so conditioned by movies that this kind of behavior is seen as socially acceptable in real life? It wasn't the best joke ever, and Jada clearly got upset, but we shouldn't use it as an excuse to promote casual violence against people who might be annoying.
Even if someone really pisses me off I wouldn't feel any better if I started fist fighting them all of a sudden. All it would result in is getting shocked at my own behavior and wonder if I went a bit too far. I find it so hard to imagine myself ever actually fighting someone that if I'm ever forced to one day it would be purely out of fear. "Your joke was mean" is simply not a justifiable cause.

__________________

I understand.

But you'll note I used terms like "mostly" and "the vast majority" as I try not to speak in absolutes since there are always exceptions.

We can agree that some bygone laws were immoral based on modern interpretations or scientific understanding that has raised our level of awareness (of, say, the fact that all human beings are part of the same species and should thus all be treated with equal rights).

But most would agree that most laws about public safety are based in morality (it's man's obligation within the structure of government to protect their fellow man from potential harm - that is a moral code). Of course, even such laws that have a moral basis could also be abused - like speed limits intended as protections being used as a means to collect revenue when enforced in an unequitable fashion.

I think the law pertinent here - that assault in response to words being illegal - is one based in morality.

I find your narrative above a little “silly” (nothing personal & no disrespect). I do understand that if you haven’t been insulted like that about something physical/health-related that you can’t help, you won’t be able to imagine it. I can and I have experienced it. It’a not about being “pissed off”. It’s about being completely cornered.

I would even argue that the thing you feel at that moment is akin to fear, the fear of being in that room, that situation, with people laughing, and you can’t find anywhere to hide. It’s a total Carrie moment. I have experienced that many times (though I was a good 3 decades younger than Jada) and even at the time, I kind of wished someone would throw a punch.

I mean, yes, we did get very much into the legal side of things, but Will punching Chris is in no way a threat to public safety (except in a very general/far-fetched way that well, it normalises violence, but so do a myriad other things/news/cinema itself). I don’t feel that a man defending his wife/a single fight between two people who have a personal altercation can be a threat to anything or anyone, least of all “public safety”.