Should There Be a Line for Comedians?

How far comedians can go?

Recently, a comedian, which I don't find her funny at all, posted a somewhat disturbing image on the internet and many, including herself, believed that she went too far and crossed the line. But there were some other comedians, including Jim Carrey, that defended her and believed that comedians shouldn't be suppressed and stuff:

"I think it is the job of a comedian to cross the line at all times, because that line is not real," Carrey said. "If you step out into that spotlight and you're doing the crazy things that [Trump] is doing, we're the last line of defense. And really, comedians are the last voice of truth in this whole thing."

I don't have a firm stance on this, I'm all in for being free, for freedom of artistic expression, but that image neither looked funny or "artistic" to me.

So, what are your thoughts?

And this is not a political thread, so let's avoid deviating from the main issue aka how far comedians can go.

No. Absolutely not. To do so is to put restrictions on the freedom of speech.

Without comedy, we wouldn't have had George Carlin's Seven Words You Can't Say on Television among many, many other boundary pushers.

I thought the image was in poor taste, but she has every right to make it, publish it and share it.

I look at it the same way as I see free speech. You should be able to say whatever the **** you want as long as you don't advocate for harm/death of other people. Hell, we don't even have that luxury in Canada. If the joke fails, then everyone points and laughs at the "comedian". No harm done except to their reputation.

I would like to know why you don't hold the individual you cared not to name to the same standard.

I'm not going to call for speech limitations myself.

@mjorh:

I see what Jim Carrey is saying. Despite Kathy's stunt being in bad taste, it is in that level of freedom that makes USA great. Not just for artistic expression but the freedom to choose to admire or abhor our own government and leadership. This is something we should still defend and there will be times when that freedom is challenged too. I know this also quotes South Park but it's still true. If we don't defend even the vulgar side of freedom then we're just a nation pretending to have it but does nothing to defend it.

The only problem is that people don't generally know how to handle criticism. And this goes to EVERYONE. I still stand by my personal stance and respect the presidential office itself but I do see reason behind this Kathy defense thing.

@foxhound_fox: @SOedipus: Yeah; that makes sense.

I didn't wanna go into that story, that's why i tried to avoid mentioning names.

Agreed.

It's just that majority of ppl bashed her for this to the point that she aplogized, I mean if ppl really care about freedom of speech then why the huge backlash? Maybe because they find it so disturbing? not sure.

Wait, comedians are the last line of defense? Ha!

@mjorh: Well I was more interested in your double standard really.....

I don't get it, I used a recent hot topic - avoiding going into that story as much as possible - to analyze a broader issue which the topic hinges on, where does the double standard you're talking about lays here?

What would be your counter argument then? :D

I think comedians have a great impact on social issues, I mean a good joke can hit the right spot without making the target going all defensive and aggressive.

I think it's on a case-by-case basis. I did not see said picture, but when I heard about it the other day, it didn't sound funny.

There really shouldn't be a line, and in fact comedians are often at their best when they cross some taboo subject in our own minds. In Kathy's case I can see why people who support Trump were upset, I'd be rather upset if she did the same to Hillary or Obama so yeah, I definitely question her wisdom to do it, buuuuut she absolutely had the right to do so.

That woman claims that Trump ruined her life, but really she ruined it herself.

In some places, you can't even hint that you disapprove of certain leaders/dictators. We should consider ourselves lucky that we live in democratic societies and not abuse our privileges.

Everyone has their own personal line. Comedians have every right to cross it and the good ones often do. However, everyone else has a right to their reaction to that (as long as it isn't violence).

It's really very simple.

Should comedians be given a free pass to do what they want without being criticized for it? Hell no. The same free speech that allows them to "cross a line" allows people to tell that comedian that he "crossed the line."

Now, should that comedian be allowed to "cross the line" and then deal with the backlash? Absolutely.

Comedians (and artists of any sort, really) set their own boundaries. If they want to tell the most f***ed up tasteless joke they can think of, then they're free to do so as long as they're not doing anything criminal in the process. People are also free to criticize that comedian to hell. Comedians can set the line for themselves. If they're prepared for the backlash, go ahead and do it. If they're not prepared for the backlash, then they should probably find some different material.

someone needs to push the limits, to find them.

It's society's job to reel them in. Checks and balances, more or less.

There was nothing wrong with her being allowed to say what she said. That's how it goes; someone says something shocking, then everyone makes a big deal out of it, then we talk about it. Everyone has their part to play.

It's OK to be offended.

Would make for a funny Halloween costume now.

I was going to write a big reply but I think you've summed it up perfectly.

I have a feeling I know what you are talking about. All I will say is those snowflakes who were offended by what she did, are the same ones who call other people sensitive when they get called out.

Same lol, had a bible sized reply but just deleting it.

The point is pretty simple, in the end.

I don't like the Orange Ape but I wouldn't find jokes about harming him or his family funny. But just as others have said, she is within her rights. A lot of people here in America think that freedom of speech is only good as long as it falls in line with their perspectives.....grow the FXXX up people!!!

South Park Comedy cartoon is basically good at this shit. They go as far as they can be compare to her what she did. It wouldn't surprise me if South Park does an episode related to Kathy's stunt and South Park is basically good at loopholes.

Anyone remember when Ted Nugent said he wanted Obama's head cut off?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-ted-nugent-donald-trump_us_592f1ec9e4b09ec37c31577e

And he's not even a comedian.

I agree with this, but I also agree that she shouldn't be free from repercussions for saying something dumb and/or tasteless. Freedom of Speech means say what you want, but that doesn't make you any less responsible for what you say. If she loses work over this, well, that's a reasonable backlash that she should have been prepared for. I don't like the guy either, but creating images of yourself holding the bloody head of our country's sitting president and distributing them online is all kinds of problematic.

What's not cool are death threats and crap like that in retaliation. Anyone who does that is no better than the person they are criticizing.

Yeah, there's also that...

-Byshop

@Byshop: That's right B, people have a right to express themselves but they better be able to embrace the backlash as well, if not shut the hell up.

There's always a line for comedians, or anyone for that matter. If they cross that line then people will let them know.

Pretty good respones, thx guys, I had doubts but now I'm sure.

Why?

You can let me know by private msg

They also has to take the fall out and repercussions from actions and not cry about them.

There is free speech in the world so they can say what they want.

But each action has a reaction so they can´t come cry afterwards if the response is to "harsh" .

Free speech lets comedians say tasteless jokes, it also allow people to criticise said comedian for making tasteless jokes.

Nobody has suppressed Kathy Griffons freedom of speech. She's free to continue making terrible jokes as much as she wants.

Comedians can joke about anything they want. Unfortunately, there will be consequences for some of their jokes. As for the Kathy Griffin thing, no one censored or oppressed her at all. She was the one the one who chose to do the apology. I would have respected her more if she didn't apologize for it, because one thing I truly believe about comedy is that you stand behind your material. If you think for a second that a joke you're going to tell is going to offend anyone to the point where you have the entire social media coming for your throat and you can't deal with that... then you shouldn't tell the joke.

And "joke"? I don't see how showing a depicted head of Trump is any kind of joke at all, even as much as I hate the guy.

Well, there's a difference in using figure of speech and then depicting someone's head being chopped off... Also, he was investigated by the Secret Service, just like Kathy was.

Action always have consequences be it good or bad...so yea a comedian is free to say what he/she says for their skit..but be be ready for the consequences...be it good & or bad...if you accept good ones then you gotta accept the bad one also. :P

The line should be defined socially based on whether anyone laughs or not.

The US needs to desperately hang onto the 1st amendment though. It's pretty much the only serious defence of freedom of speech left in the world. So many other western countries have abandoned it, at least in part.

Comedians have been charged for offensive jokes in both Canada and Germany. Absolute madness.

I know it's popular these days for people to talk about how they're not allowed to say something (whole PC culture and what-ever) but from what I can see the USA is actually VERY serious about protecting people's freedom of speech.

Of course there are always going to be some violations of people's right to free speech, and there have definitely been (and will continue to be) attempts to ban this or that kind of speech. But for the most part, the USA is doing VERY well in this regard right now. When it comes to social consequences for expressing your speech, you may absolutely face some HUGE consequences. But that's a necessary side-effect of freedom of speech. If you're allowed to say almost anything that you want, then that sort of means that you're also allowed to say shit that's gonna burn a whole lot of bridges.

@MrGeezer:

The US DOES protect it very well for the most part.

But given how many other western countries more or less had freedom of speech 30 years ago, but now don't, it's definitely worth worrying about.

I dunno man. Chick was holding a bloody replica of the president's head, and then crying that she's the victim. I'm all for free speech, but don't serve me shit and tell me it's coffee.

Oh, I agree. And that's not even taking into account the times the USA has tried to (or DID) pass laws that were unconstitutional. People are ALWAYS going to be trying to chip away at freedom of speech because there's always going to be a very real incentive to limit what people are allowed to say. People DEFINITELY need to remain vigilant about protecting the right to free speech.

However, I'm just saying that the vast majority of times I hear people going "wah, free speech, what about rights" these days, it's about an issue that has absolutely not a single damn thing to do with violations of free speech. Stuff like comedians getting shitballed for doing something stupid, employees getting fired for saying something dumb or kids being denied acceptance to university for posting some stupid shit on their social media accounts. That kind of stuff has NOTHING to do with free speech being violated since the consequences (be they unfair or not) ARE free speech.

The fact that free speech is so important is part of the reason why it annoys the hell out of me whenever people try to turn "someone acts like an ass" into "people are violating that guy's free speech". It's just meaningless noise. It's like the boy who cried "wolf". The more people whine about this kind of stuff and try to frame it as free speech violations in order to give their agenda some legitimacy, the more that "free speech violations" turns into just noise. The kind of noise that people tune out and ignore. The USA right now is actually VERY good about protecting free speech. Violations will absolutely happen, but going "wha, my rights" every time some dumbass gets screwed over for saying something dumb just makes it more likely for people to ignore ACTUAL violations of free speech.

The main issue here is when this stuff is actually funny to some people, and others just wanna censor it because of some fake 'moral' beliefs.

I mean I think South Park did a great episode on what I'll be trying to say here: but there is comedy and there is also respect.

Like if there was this huge tragedy, say the manchester bombings of late, it's just not respectful to make a joke about it the next day. It can be funny to some people, but honestly it shows a lack of taste towards the people that suffered in that tragedy.

That's not too say a huge tragedy will never become funny, look at all the jokes about Hitler and even the Holocaust... But there is some time that needs to pass before you can start making jokes about just anything.

That to me is the only rule or line in comedy: have some respect. Apart from that, nah I don't like any limitations to comedy. And what is funny to you might not be funny for someone else. Comedy is subjective. And trying to censor comedy just shows what a small, intolerable person you are.

I don't think that's necessarily what's happening. I think people just use the term "free speech" in 2 different ways. There's the philosophical principle and then there's the first amendment, which is based on that philosophical principle but is not identical to it (and only exists in the US). So first of all the term free speech doesn't even mean that same thing in all countries, because most don't have a first amendment type protection.

When people say free speech in the more general sense, they usually mean something like a marketplace of ideas. So just the idea that you should allow as many people as possible to express their views (though you don't have to listen to them) and then you should allow the public (the market) to vote on which ideas win through their support.

So if comedians are having people calling for them to get fired, that would be a violation of the marketplace of ideas because that's not a proper marketplace. That's usually a small minority using scare tactics to bruteforce a particular outcome. The marketplace of ideas would be if a comedian did something dumb and then their audience just chose to no longer go and watch them.

I think that's what people are getting at.

I think we are pretty much in agreement. Just like with free speech in general comedians are allowed to go as far as they wish to but there will be consequences depending on how far they go. I like that arrangement, without it I wouldn't get stuff like this:

I just love how Americans always talk about how great the freedom in their country is, when a bad joke causes so much discussion and every "bad word" has to be censored. Meanwhile in Europe, guys like Jan Böhmermann put out stuff like this uncensored on national Tv in germany:

So, wait...calling for someone to get fired is a violation of the "marketplace of ideas"? That a person should get fired for saying something awful IS an idea.

Again, you're oversimplifying things. If a comedy club hires Michael Richards, and then Michael Richards goes on an insane racist rant, then how is it not perfectly valid to not support that comedy club until Michael Richards is gone? Even if you avoid going to Michael Richards' performances, the fact that Michael Richards is still getting paid to work could easily bee seen as an endorsement of Michael Richards' material. After all, they aren't making up the material but they're sure as hell giving someone a platform for expressing that material. How is it not valid to say that you're not going to support that comedy club until the material in question is gone? The "marketplace of ideas" doesn't just refer to the performer but to the person PAYING the performer.

The thing is, people appearing on TV/movies/whatever generally aren't providing the TV/movie/whatever platform on which they're appearing. Someone else (Universal/Sony/Disney/whatever) is providing the platform for that person to be heard. So if what that person says is offensive, then that doesn't just reflect on the performer. That also reflects on whoever is giving the performer a platform. This is why if Disney distributes a movie that's racist as hell, that reflects poorly on Disney even if Disney didn't make the movie. This is the core concept behind "making your employer look bad."

The first part is incoherent semantics. It's not a marketplace if one idea is directly negating others. Coca Cola can't sell as a product the idea that Pepsi should be banned.

To your second part, it IS valid to not support that comedy club, under the system I'm suggesting. That's exactly the correct response. The key difference is that that would be the consequence of the collective decisions of the audience members. Whereas pressuring someone to get fired is often not the reflection of the collective will of the market. It's usually the sign of a very dedicated and loud minority. Think about that Pewdiepie incident. The entire thing was perpetrated by 3 journalists. Whereas millions in the audience disagreed. That's not the operation of a marketplace.

Yes and for the last part, the marketplace idea would work fine. No contradiction there. The distinction is once again between the collective audience reaction and a narrative generated by a loud minority. If the audience didn't like it, they could choose to avoid supporting the company. That's something I've always done. If I dislike the behaviour of a particular company, I just take a principled stand to stop buying anything from them.

Comedians are also people. Everything we do or say has its consequences, the same concernes comedians as well

Coca-Cola most DEFINITELY can sell the idea that you should give your money to Coca-Cola instead of its competitors. The whole idea behind stuff like "Genesis does what Nintendon't" is "STOP giving your money to Nintendo and give it to us instead." Companies are often in direct competition with each other, and many companies have policies that their employees cannot simultaneously work for a company that is in direct competition with them.

Secondly, do you understand how COMPLAINTS work? When you go to a restaurant and complain to the manager because your waiter gave you shitty service, do you first stop to check and see what everyone else says about that waiter? No, the "collective" opinion is irrelevant. What's relevant is that YOU were dissatisfied, therefore YOU are lodging the complaint. The "collective" opinion only becomes relevant in regards to the management's decision on what to do with the waiter. If that waiter has a stellar track record and you're the only dude who has ever filed any kind of complaint, then it's likely that the manager will chalk that up to the person who was complaining simply being an asshole. However, the "collective" has absolutely no bearing on that asshole's decision to complain in the first place. Regardless of how many five star reviews you see from a company/product, YOU are gonna give a one star review if YOU get shitty customer service and then the product arrives broken and they try to avoid sending a replacement/refund.

Thirdly, you do realize that "not buying it" is typically the ONLY leverage that people have when "trying to get someone fired", right? As in, even if I supported the hypothetical comedy club EXCEPT on the nights when Michael Richards is performing, that Michael Richards is STILL gonna get canned if enough people avoid Michael Richards Night. The only thing that matters here is loss of money, which is PRECISELY what people are threatening when they try to get someone fired. Again, in the vast majority of cases that's the only thing that "trying to get someone fired" amounts to: saying that the money flow stops until someone gets canned. And how exactly is that unreasonable? No one is entitled to YOUR freaking money, you're well within your rights to cut off the money at any time and for any reason.

Depends. The question is very vague and broad.

Should comedians be potentially fined for saying things that might be interpreted as offensive, like in Canada? Hell no

Should comedians be able to say anything they want free from society's judgment? I don't think so.

But ultimately, I think comedians should be able to say what they want. That's why I think places like Canada have gone to hell (comedians have to watch their tongues or get fined by the government).

Do I wish society itself was more open to radically offensive comedy? I don't know. It would be nice if I could listen to jokes containing the "n-word" without people getting shocked. It would also be great if people appreciated the principle of free speech, in the sense that people can say what comes to mind without the threat of an angry mob going "REEEEEEEEEEEEE" to their employers.

Europe has some of the worst laws pertaining to free speech. You're confusing the standard for what's considered acceptable to be aired on cable television and what's considered acceptable to say (anywhere).

The only line there should be is not making a good show.

Edit: And that line should not be enforced legally. Just by the invisible hand.

@ArchoNils2 not surprising. Germany is 16th place when it comes to freedom of the press. According to RSF.

https://rsf.org/en/germany