Should comedy be consored?

orestes

What do you reckon?

Should comedians be allowed to be say whatever they like on-stage or should there be limits on what they say?

Should some things be off-limits (and if so what do you think they are) or is everything a fair target?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

everything's a fair target or nothing's a fair target, you're always likely to offend someone if you go around making fun of things.

grames_bond

comedy should NOT be censored but the unfortunate thing is that more often than not it is. at the montreal festival comedians are told not to swear and not talk about "dirty topics". this is why comedians call the kilkenny festival the best in the world, for example:

mike wilmot: very funny in montreal
: histerically side splittingly funny in kilkenny!!

for comedy to be funny there should be no barriers, if comedians want to use risque material.....go for it!!

6th

Some people do go a bit nuts though ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgmCBKPHnSY

grames_bond

good aul michael richards.......what a racist. but lets be fair, that wasnt part of his act....it was ****in hilarious, but for all the wrong reasons!!

Zapp Brannigan

As its discussed in the 'Offensive = Funny thread', in the right situations offensive non-censored jokes can be hilarious. If, Michael Richards being a prime example, the comic is just being a bigotted muppet then yes he should be censored.

6th

So they shouldnt be free to just say what they want and not have to face consequences?

kaimera

Hell no.

Look for Eddie Murphy's old stuff, Delerious is one. He was brilliant and completely uncensored.

hotspur

kaimera wrote: »

Hell no.

Look for Eddie Murphy's old stuff, Delerious is one. He was brilliant and completely uncensored.

Delirious was absolute rubbish, Murphy was a 2 bit moron with an infantile sense of humour and a similar intellect. At least suggest someone like Richard Pryor.

Should comedians be allowed to say what they want by whom orestes, and in what conext? Montreal has different shows for different kinds of comedy and they ask for certain material to be omitted from certain general shows. This is entirely legitimate in my opinion. They say look if you want to do that material it's fine, but we have designated shows for it.

If a promoter wants to put on a comedy show appropriate for everyone from kids to old people then it's legitimate for them to decide what kind of performer they want. The same with a musical act. But with comedy there are some performers who may have only a small amount of inappropriate material, so booking them on the understanding that they don't perform that material is fine. It's the way stand up works on TV too.

It's hypocritical to have the attitude that a comic can talk about anything in any way but then never book that comic ever again because of what they have said. If you know a comic has material you believe to be unacceptable isn't it better to ask them beforehand if they are willing not to do it rather than saying nothing and then banning them if they go off on some racist crap that you knew they had in their act?

I don't even like the word 'censorship' because it brings out a natural snap reaction in more libertarian minded people. If I ran a club I would take off any comic doing overtly racist comedy because I wouldn't want that in my club. That's censorship. If it's your show then it's your choice, within limits, on the kind of comedy permissible. Just not booking Roy Chubby Brown or the thankfully dead Bernard Manning is a form of censorship.

Mostly it just isn't an issue, but censorship will always exist, it's just that you have to realise that it exists in many different ways, it doesn't have to be explicitly stated.

grames_bond

hotspur wrote: »

the thankfully dead Bernard Manning

dont you think that's a BIT much?

DeVore

I wouldnt accept that hate-speech should be covered/allowed because of opposition to censorship. We are signatories of the UN Charter of Human Rights which guaruntees the right to live your life free from such things. Thats hardly an overbearing restriction though!

In the realm of comedy, I think anything else pretty much goes but I think people should vote with their feet, I don't want to hear Chubby Brown or Bernard Manning but I dont think they should be "censored" ... just not booked because they wont sell because we, the people, wont go to see them.

Is it censorship if you are allowed to say it but nobody hears?

DeV.

Zapp Brannigan

DeVore wrote: »

Is it censorship if you are allowed to say it but nobody hears?

DeV.

What is the sound of one hand clapping at a BM or RCB gig...

Galvasean

I'm totally opposed to censoring comedy routines. If we censor one thing it will lead to another and another and another until theres nothing left to talk about.

hotspur

Galvasean wrote: »

If we censor one thing it will lead to another and another and another until theres nothing left to talk about.

Why would it lead to that? Censorship exists all around the place and it hasn't led to that. I don't think it's a tenable argument. And it shouldn't even be a hypothetical issue.

Galvasean

hotspur wrote: »

Why would it lead to that? Censorship exists all around the place and it hasn't led to that. I don't think it's a tenable argument. And it shouldn't even be a hypothetical issue.

I'm talking purely in the stand up world here. We can ban the N word because its racist. Then we ban words like 'fag' because gay people complain. Then we ban phrases like 'fat dumb Americans'. Then before you know it we ban all things questionable and suddenly its un PC to make fun of say Scientology or anything else for that matter. You'll find EVERYTHING offends somebody and I don't want to live in a world where funny jokes get censored because someone cant take a joke.

grames_bond

"scientology isnt a religion, it's a silly little club"

this sentence caused uproar, but it's still funny to most (smart) people. just because tom cruise had a fit doesnt mean stuff like this should be consored completely!

DeVore

You're right to freedom of speech does not supercede the right of people to live their lives without hatred being stirred up against them.

What constitutes the latter is a moot point but the concept I have outlined in that first sentence is rock solid in my opinion.

My opinion is that people who be a LOT more selective about who they book tickets for rather then censoring comedians, but that doesnt mean I want to support/allow some racist comedian doing "fncking ni gger, fnckin' jew" jokes to a hall of cheering neo-nazis. There are limits; using reductio ad absurdum doesnt work here either, its logically lazy way of arguing and doesnt hold because there is no proof or evidence that by making one concession due to conflicting rights, you will end up where you claim we will.

Its funny that people claim freedom of speech over others rights to freedom of life without persecution, when both claims are based on the same document (the UN Charter of Human Rights) where both are given equal status and explicitly neither can claim priority over the other (as outlined in the last article of that document).

Its also shocking how many people have never read it....

DeV.

grames_bond

lets have an example of what,one of my favourite comedians, the late great bill hicks, has to say on the topic of censorship, and how he was censored on the letterman show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkptz2YfZik

and heres a bit more on the same topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zT1SpdOlNc

Galvasean

DeVore wrote: »

You're right to freedom of speech does not supersede the right of people to live their lives without hatred being stirred up against them.

This is true. Unfortunately a lot of people can't tell the difference of being offensive just for fun, no harm intended and.. well.. actually meaning it.
I can see where the confusion comes in. Its pretty hard to draw an absolute line, "Okay that Kramer guy was being a racist when he yelled the N word constantly... but is Eddie Murphy just as bad?"

hotspur

Galvasean wrote: »

This is true. Unfortunately a lot of people can't tell the difference of being offensive just for fun, no harm intended and.. well.. actually meaning it.

It is ultimately irrelevant what a comic's intention is if the end product is still making marginalised people feel bad about themselves, reinforce negative stereotypes, and normalise making fun of a put upon group of people. The question is whether harm was done, not just was harm intended or *really* meant.

Who cares what a comic *really* thinks. It is to misunderstand the fundamental nature of communication to privilege the original intention of the communicator in analysing the meaningfulness of it, never mind the effect of it. I'll stop there because I have a feeling I'm about to get into Deconstruction, and none of us will survive that foray If you have a spare year and plenty of headache tablets read Derrida.

orestes

hotspur wrote: »

Who cares what a comic *really* thinks. It is to misunderstand the fundamental nature of communication to privilege the original intention of the communicator in analysing the meaningfulness of it, never mind the effect of it. I'll stop there because I have a feeling I'm about to get into Deconstruction, and none of us will survive that foray If you have a spare year and plenty of headache tablets read Derrida.

You can quote Derrida, I can quote Wittgenstein: the meaning is in the use. Anybody can read a book and restate the ideas in it. Trading other peoples sound-bites is hardly what I would call a discussion.

I'm not trying to be a smart-arse, I appreciate you are obviously well read and
a very clever person, but I reckon a more common english approach would probably be useful, that way the rest of us can know what you're talking about without getting a head-ache!

I was performing at a comedy club earlier tonight. During my set I used the terms coon, sand-****** and towel-head. They were relevant to the material and the idea behind it, which was actually against racism, but should I be banned from using them on stage regardless of their use?

hotspur

Um, I didn't quote anyone or include any sound byte. In fact what I wrote was the exact opposite - that I didn't want to get into something so esoteric. But I believe if you want to fully investigate the topic then you would *have* to get into philosophical areas relating to meaning and language.

Notwithstanding that. Okay so you used a bunch of racist terms in your act in a bit that was presumably making fun of racists. I accept that in your mind that is 100% fine because your intention wasn't to offend minorities.

Sticking specifically with the N word. Let's say you used it without the 'sand' prefix. As a (presumably) white guy what percentage of black people do you think would be either offended by or object to you using that word irrespective of the joke? I'm gonna guess that you haven't a notion, I couldn't begin to put a figure on it either. But I know 100% that some would find it offensive, and consider the use of the term unacceptable in almost any context by a white person - and certainly in the context of getting laugh onstage.

Personally I would never use the term onstage. The reason is that I cannot control the context sufficiently to ensure that it is not offensive because the contextual history of the word is so overpowering. Being in a comedy club, being onstage with a mic, and doing material not intended to be offensive is helpful but not necessarily sufficient.

What if a comic were a complete moron who thought he could do gags using the n-word, gags about baby rape etc. that in his mind weren't designed to shock or be offensive, but because he is a total idiot they were incredibly offensive to the vast majority of the audience? Do you see where the problem is in privileging the intention of the performer?

The meaningfulness and impact on the audience is not necessarily in the use of the language in the mind of the performer. The ultimate arbiter is the audience. It's no use saying that they 'didn't get it' and 'ought not to have been offended' if they were. Extraordinarily emotive and sensitive topics demand extraordinarily careful treatment. Something that many comics are just not capable of, particularly because subconsciously the reason many are doing anti-racist material is precisely so they can utilise highly charged terms for the purpose of getting laughs.

I actually agree with the journalist who questioned a lot of recent comedy that includes 'ironic' offensive material. The last thing I would say about intent, and this comes from being a psychologist I suppose, is that people are not always privy to the real intent of what they say and do. A comic who enjoys racist humour may work some into their act while consciously thinking that their intention is to make fun of racists, but really they just like trading in that area of taboo.

So I guess it comes down to - do you think that it is ever acceptable to stand in front of a wholly black audience as a white comic and use the N word in your act? Lenny Bruce did it in order to make a point about destigmatising the word, but that hasn't happened. I say it is unacceptable irrespective of your intent.

Earthhorse

Guys, if you're going to quote other users please use the quote tags!

And I thought that Wittgenstein fella was banned for launching a personal attack on another user???

orestes

Sorry Hotspur about the crap at the start of my last post, I was out of order and shouldn't have tried to be such a smart-arse. I just had a bit of trouble understanding the part of your piece I quoted and got kinda frustrated, my bad.

I know that it's a sensitive subject, and no word is more contreversial than the N-word these days, but I don't believe that any word is offensive just in itself. Surely the meaning of a word depends on it's use and it's context?

I don't use racially charged terms just for the hell of it or for shock value, I use them to point out the irony and absurdity of people who are unknowingly being racist through their efforts to be politically correct. I think all forms of racism are disgusting, but I don't feel that a person (not just a performer) should not be able to use certain words in an effort to get a point across.

What is wrong with a comedian liking the idea of dealing with taboo subjects?
Should every comedian shy away from dealing with subjects that might make some people feel uneasy?

I firmly believe that either everything is fair game for comedy or nothing is. The only job of a comedian is to be funny. If s/he can do that, then how they do it is up to them.

randylonghorn

It is an age old tradition that comedy can take difficult, taboo or hurtful subjects out into the open, and allow them to be discussed and looked at from different angles ... often allowing an element of catharsis; often, indeed, encouraging people to look at their preconceptions in a different light. It would be a pity if too much "PC-ness" were to take that very valid role away from comedy and the comic.

Some comics have the gift of making almost anything funny. Others are able to keep an audience constantly aware, even at a subconscious level, that this is an act, a performance, a moment out of time and reality. Those who combine both gifts can get away with almost anything.

That is at least one reason why it it is very difficult to answer this question ... because, realistically, one size does NOT fit all. However, imo the following comments come close to a good general rule-of-thumb:

Zapp Brannigan wrote: »

As it's discussed in the 'Offensive = Funny thread', in the right situations offensive non-censored jokes can be hilarious. If ... the comic is just being a bigotted muppet then yes he should be censored.

DeVore wrote: »

I wouldnt accept that hate-speech should be covered/allowed because of opposition to censorship.

DeVore wrote: »

Your right to freedom of speech does not supercede the right of people to live their lives without hatred being stirred up against them.

I would also agree that shows should be age appropriate ... if children are to be present, either appropriate acts should be booked or it should be agreed with the comic that a certain element of self-censorship should be applied if necessary. I wouldn't worry unduly about older teenagers tbh ... in to-day's world, unfortunately, they will hear far worse in the schoolyard and the street. A warning on the advertising such as "Some material may be considered offensive / 15+ accompanied by adult" or some such would be acceptable to me, others may not feel the same. I would be quite happy, if I were the parent of a teenager, to have certain issues raised in an environment where I was present and able to discuss them with said teen afterwards, rather than out of my sight where I had no idea what misinformation was being uploaded. That was always my parents attitude, and I think they were completely right on that one, at least.

As I read some of the previous posts, and even as I typed the above, a particular incident kept coming into my head. A few years ago, while in London, I went with a mate of mine who is bi-sexual to hear an Ozzie comic (sorry, can't remember his name!).

The guy came out on the stage and, fairly near the start of his act, asked "how many people here are English?" ... a fair few hands went up, naturally! There may have been another question or two, then ... "how many people here are gay or bisexual?". People looked a bit surprised, but a few hands went up, including my mate's. We were quite close to the front, so he got a nod from the comic, as did someone else on the other side. "Sorry for all the questions," says he "just wondering how many people I was going to offend to-night!" ... and he launched in.

And he was bloody brilliant! And yes, he did get down and durty at times, and he took the pish out of the poms, and the overly religious (of whatever creed), and the ultra-PC brigade, and he had quite a lot of bi / gay material ... not anti bi or gay by any means, but a million miles from PC all the same. And the place howled, and I sincerely doubt that one person there took him seriously or took offence. The guy who was with me, who has been involved in many a campaign and initiative targetted at homophobia, and cannot stand bigotry in any form, certainly didn't ... he nearly slid off the chair laughing at one point, and myself and his other neighbour had to haul him back up! For that matter, I can't abide bigotry myself, and I saw nothing offensive about his material. What the small but highly vocal ultra-PC fanatics forget is that most of us have the ability to laugh at what is funny in the world, and to laugh at and take the pish out of ourselves even, and not take offence where offence is not intended.

hotspur

Don't get me wrong I fully recognise the historical role of the clown / comic in addressing taboo subjects for the purpose of audience catharsis. Also I respect comics who transcend more ephemeral or banal humour for good social critique. But I can count the good exponents of it on one hand probably.

You know the role of 'political correctness' (a term I hate as it is actually a dig at the concept) has been very important in changing not just social behaviour but thinking too. Take the UK for example. Political correctness really started in the 1980's. In that decade black people were still stereotyped, underrepresented, and made fun of on national TV. Lenny Henry had a gag that if they saw a black actor on British TV there would be huge excitement in the family, he would be called down from upstairs, but before he got down the character would have been shot dead.

It was still a somewhat racist society. The top-down decision to disallow this type of representation, including changing the cultural use of language pertaining to minorities played a huge role in my opinion in changing society. By 1990 the average person would have viewed Bernard Manning as a bigot, 10 years previously he would have been viewed as anything particularly unusual. Altering language can alter thoughts and attitudes, which in turn alters society.

Randylonghorn was the comic Brendan Burns or Jim Jeffries maybe? One of the defining features of the average Aussie comic (apart from being not very good) is very low brow and classless material.

grames_bond

hotspur wrote: »

Randylonghorn was the comic Brendan Burns or Jim Jeffries maybe? One of the defining features of the average Aussie comic (apart from being not very good) is very low brow and classless material.

ah here jim jeffries is amazing, i know that it can be very easy to get offended by what he says (for instance the whole bit about stickin a vibrating egg up his arse) but comedy is just that, subjective!! someone may get horified with jims material, but i think its brilliant!

randylonghorn

hotspur wrote: »

Randylonghorn was the comic Brendan Burns or Jim Jeffries maybe? One of the defining features of the average Aussie comic (apart from being not very good) is very low brow and classless material.

Neither ... I'm not familiar with Jim Jeffries, I've heard Brendan all right. This guy was far better, tbh, but I've not come across him since, hence my being unable to remember his name. He was certainly classless ... in the sense of "a classless society", rather than in the negative sense.

hotspur wrote: »

Lenny Henry had a gag that if they saw a black actor on British TV there would be huge excitement in the family, he would be called down from upstairs, but before he got down the character would have been shot dead.

Was that Lenny Henry? I'm abysmal with remembering who does what, even in music. I do remember a comedian, quite possibly Henry, on one of the BBC late night chatshows making a similar remark, and tracing the development of Lt. Uhuru as a character through the earlier series and on through the feature films as an exemplar of changing attitudes in America.

hotspur wrote: »

Altering language can alter thoughts and attitudes, which in turn alters society.

Indeed. However, subverting it, and by doing so encouraging people to think about it for themselves, is often more effective than telling people what to think.

hotspur

grames_bond wrote: »

ah here jim jeffries is amazing,

Jeffries has some great material no doubt about it. I like his gag about Jesus who, having been a carpenter for years, whenever he was giving a speech on a mount there must always have been at least one person in the crowd going *squints* "here that's the bloke who did our gazebo!".

grames_bond

hotspur wrote: »

Jeffries has some great material no doubt about it. I like his gag about Jesus who, having been a carpenter for years, whenever he was giving a speech on a mount there must always have been at least one person in the crowd going *squints* "here that's the bloke who did our gazebo!".

oh so you like him but not when he does his "offensive" or "low brow" stuff? well thats fair enough, i can see where you're coming from.....wait. was this you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WCGKb8ikRc

hotspur

I bet that rarely happened to Pavarotti. I remember Jerry Sadowitz getting punched at the Just for Laughs festival years ago just for opening with "Good evening moose f***ers".
Here's Bill Hicks talking about his worst ever gig:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc6yCinSlZk