Can comedy have free speech?
By Matthew Robinson (GCSE, STD, RIP to the girl I used to be)
The Dictionary.com definition of offense is: “a violation or breaking of a social or moral rule." Offense is an all too commonly heard word when describing a huge variety of subjects and ideas in modern society. For some reason it has been significantly associated with comedy; a brand new spring of apparent ‘anti-PC’ comedians have arisen in recent years, and alongside the rise of stand-up comedy into mainstream society and the seemingly endless drop in standards from Channel 4, these comedians have risen to prominence in everyday cultural understandings. Some of these have become household names, but not always for conventional reasons. The name Frankie Boyle has been so over-used by newspapers in vehement hatred of contemporary attitudes that it’s hard to escape, as with Ricky Gervais. These two comedians have become infamous for their boundary-pushing humour, yet are often branded as ‘sick’ and ‘offensive’ for their controversial material. Their catalogue of content has included severe disability such as downs-syndrome, religion and alleged racism (of which has been regularly counteracted by them). Whilst subjects like this are not common or, arguably, traditional in any comedic form, it’s become apparent from mere observation that a large portion of society would deem these topics totally unacceptable for comedy, some going even further to announce that some ideas, word and opinions should be outright reviled from any future use, possibly not just within comedy. Being politically correct has also become one of the most prominent issues that one must adhere to in modern society; all those that do not do so become practically chastised, whether what they say is genuinely heartfelt or if it is from within a veil of irony (of varying thickness). Alas, many within society have sought to thrive from this ‘commonly believed’ derisive and derogatory humour. Despite all views present within society and past everyone’s individual interpretations of and tastes in comedy, one thing is universal: this kind of comedy is not what it says on the tin.
Right from the start, this was always going to be a difficult issue to investigate, especially through research. The sheer number of ideas and opinions is obviously incalculable (why so many Guardian readers seem to beat others to the punch is beyond me). So, for research and sanity’s sake, I had to narrow this down so I could make clear and precise conclusions. Something I should make clear is the fact that I have many previously garnered opinions on the nature of comedy having been a fan of it and an admirer of the comedians mentioned above for many years. As a result of this, this essay will primarily take the form of somewhat philosophical and inescapably subjective arguments based on primary and secondary research as well as my own personal introspections. I wanted to focus on the opinions of my college student age group, not merely out of convenience, but as I believe to be a less commonly heard view in modern society. Subjectivity is a highly important notion throughout this whole essay; all possible academic research that one can conduct on this topic is based on opinion, and therefore obviously is prone to some significant bias and individual examination and knowledge of the subject. This will also be discussed as an issue in ‘offensiveness’ as well, though. An emphasis on artistry will be placed on the comedians and their material throughout, also, so that we can speak of their craft with respect as opposed to blindly rushing in to praise or blame. To narrow down research I decided to focus on four specific examples of comedians that had been challenged over their material concerning disability, race and religion in the past. As well as Gervais and Boyle, mainstream comic with significant TV personality, I decided to look at two ‘underground’ comics as well, as I figured that if certain material is down-right unacceptable in comedy, this outrage over jokes and comedy routines should be prevalent in affecting all comedians and their acts, surely?
A big element of political correctness that people take primary issue with is the nature of motivation; what drives a person to produce such opinions and ideas? Is it to challenge the norms and values of society? Or could it be out of sheer, unjustifiable rudeness and cruelty? Since the 1980s one comedian has been subject to all forms of possible criticism. He’s had every negative term and argument thrown his way throughout his career, and he’s willingly thrown them right back. Well known on the comedy circuit for inspiring tremendous uproar from many of his audience members, including many walk-outs, and on two specific occasions having a whole audience walk out during his introductory set and being punched five minutes into a set at the Montreal comedy festival, Jerry Sadowitz has produced some of the most controversial comedy in stand-up history (“his publicity machine dubbing him as
the “the most offensive comedian in the world”") His act generally hasn’t changed or adapted significantly since its abrasive arrival in the extreme PC age of the early 80s, consisting of a constant stream of angry, relentless, taboo-crushing venting interspersed with brutal sarcasm and some of the greatest close-up card magic in the world. As for his material itself, there are no limits whatsoever. When most modern comedians draw themselves significant lines as to what is acceptable and to what degree, Sadowitz’ act implies that no such line exists for him, or indeed for most of his audience.
Having had first-hand (front row, directly in front of the microphone) experience of his 21st century act during his “Return of the Baw-Bag” Christmas shows in London’s Leicester Square Theatre, he certainly lives up to the legendary status bestowed upon him by his predecessors; entering the stage dressed as Jimmy Saville, this followed closely by his “Rabbi Burns” character, conducting haikus about Madeleine McCann and Stephen Hawking; homosexuality as “unnatural”, the Connecticut high-school shooting, as well as some deeply insidious routines stating that men who can rape women are “real men” and that Elton John has created a paedophile ring (this being the purpose of his adopting of a child). To top it all off is a harsh, seemingly resentful send-up of modern comedians, with the likes of Frankie Boyle, Jimmy Carr, Michael McIntyre and Stephen Fry all being viciously scathed with gratuitous amounts of swearing that couldn’t even be shown on post-watershed channel 4. Most appropriate to my particular areas of interest with regards to my research would be a bleak routine claiming that Muslims can’t talk properly (because they apparently don’t speak English) and a sinister, rather disturbing routine about the Paralympics, in which he claimed it was “sick” that society could be sexually aroused by the Paralympics as it was with the Olympics, graphically illustrating this point by aggressively yanking a rubber penis in his flies. This latter routine developed further as he joked about how the Paralympics was only devised for those with physical but not mental disabilities, and how he’d enjoy a schizophrenic version. This is only a sample of what he commented on in that show alone and what he has done throughout his entire career, but nonetheless, even on paper, Sadowitz’material appears as scathing and intimidating as it appears in person, aptly lending itself towards the question in focus.
Despite his fervent protest, Sadowitz is not generally considered a unique or individual
stand-up in relation to the state of modern comedy and how much comedians are willing to joke about. He has implied in the past that he lives in the shadow, as it were, of comedians such as Ricky Gervais and Frankie Boyle, the latter of which he claims to be offended by. He claims these comedians have “hijacked” the subjects he uses and thusly he’s been “ripped
off”.Indeed, these comedians seem to possess similar characteristics both intentionally and inadvertently, i.e. they are more than willing to voice their opinions despite their esoteric and non-conformist nature, yet show little concern for the consequences of doing so, this very possibly being the issue of utmost importance with regards to causing offense. Indeed, Frankie Boyle has been hounded throughout his career in television and stand-up comedy for causing significant outrage to both individuals and groups in society. The Scottish comedian came to prominence on the BBC 2 panel show ‘Mock the Week’, being instantly popular with many, especially youths, due to his boundary-pushing sense of humour. During and after quitting the show, his stand-up material came to prominence in the social media, with bestselling DVDs being made of his three commercial stand-up tours. Boyle also had his own television series 'Frankie Boyle’s Tramadol Nights’ on Channel 4, which received poor reviews and was cancelled after the first series was aired.
Throughout all his exploits in TV and stand-up, Boyle has been no stranger to controversy;
considerable questioning has taken place on television shows such as BBC 2’s ‘Newsnight’ inquiring as to whether he should be allowed to perform what is commonly known as ‘dark' comedy. His 2008 tour ‘I Would Happily Punch Every One of You in the Face”’drew media attention after a woman complained with regards to a routine about Down’s syndrome. With Boyle joking about the clothes and hair-cuts of people with Down’s syndrome as well as mimicking their voices, Hampshire mother to a Down’s syndrome child Sharon Smith complained to Boyle when during conducting this routine live onstage. As he was challenged by Smith who has been upset by his remarks, his only response was to say ‘Oh, but it’s true, isn’t it?’ She claimed, following that incident that what he was saying was ‘so ignorant’. An article written in the Guardian newspaper about the incident as well as Smith’s original blog, has inspired subsequent comments to be made questioning this routine. Boyle arguably, however, received his most significant criticism by making a joke regarding Katie Price’s disabled son Harvey price; ‘Apparently Jordan and Peter Andre have been fighting each other over custody of Harvey, although eventually one of them will lose and have to keep him.’ ‘I have a theory that Jordan married a cage-fighter because she needed someone strong enough to stop Harvey from f***ing her.’Channel 4 were forced to disallow comments being
made on their website as too many complaints were being registered with regards to these jokes. Ofcom also took the comments very seriously and instigated a report into the jokes, and in a formal letter it was stated that Channel 4 had 'failed to apply generally
accepted standards’ in relation to televised material.' Aside from jokes regarding disability, Boyle has been criticized similarly by religious groups with in an apparent comparison between Catholics and autistic people. Most recently Boyle was accused in the Daily Mail for being portraying racism in his act derived from jokes involving the word 'n***er’ (the joke had been taken out of significant context), which Boyle retaliated to by successfully suing the newspaper for libel, donating the money gained to charity. Just these instances alone may provide fitting examples to depict that Boyle is definitively one of the most controversial comedians in recent years, especially in considering the intense societal impact of his material.
Both Sadowitz and Boyle may have been similarly raised in hardened, economically unstable Glasgow (no smugness intended), yet merely from my observations of both comedians’ work there are distinct differences. It appears to me that Sadowitz’material stems from something very personal and essentially intrinsic to his being. Some kind of inner despair is artistically released with tremendous angst over both himself and the world. It’s important to highlight that as much as we may find ease in artistically comparing his material to the likes of Boyle, Sadowitz was essentially the first of his “kind”. The 1980s was a decade in which society changed significantly in its attitudes, opinions and beliefs (as I’m sure you older readers will remember). In comedy, a new set of rules and ideas had been established rebelling against outdated ‘gentlemen’s club’style material, typically characterized by its general lack of acceptance or acknowledgement in culture and society, with comedians such as Bernard Manning producing what was perceived as racist and homophobic material, amongst other subjects then/now depleted from comedy. Comedians were now making their own rules in comedy, finding humor in stranger, more obscure areas of life. A younger movement of comedians such as the Comic Strip, the birthplace of ‘The Young Ones’, portrayed more surrealistic and esoteric forms of comedy, making it more acceptable to the
youth of society, reversing the social order and alienating the older generation. When reflecting on this decade, Sadowitz alone appeared to rebel against this movement itself, as well as those of past attitudes and beliefs portrayed in comedy. He created a wholly individual stand-up style that wasn’t PC-baiting for the sake of PC-baiting but a unique artistic rebellion against, basically, everything. It seems that Sadowitz has inadvertently manufactured a whole generation of comedians throughout the 90s, 2000s, and in the present day that he claims “hijack the material I put across”; I guess Sadowitz is inferring by this that comedians have used his techniques and methods out of context, using them to their own ends, this subsequently detracting from his own act as it is easy to assume these days that Sadowitz is merely another ‘offensive’ comedian without any necessary context.
Sadowitz himself has cited Boyle as one of these “imitators”; having seen Boyle perform live on his ‘Last Days of Sodom’ tour, I find it artistically very hard to compare them without gross generalization of forms of comedic material. Boyle appears to me more of an entertainer than an artist, finding humor in non-traditional areas of life to relieve societal rather than private, intimate tension. His act certainly implies an individual perspective of the world, as does his television work, but in comparison to Sadowitz his act is without a doubt more about external than internal values. I mean, it is of course possible that Boyle may possess this integral necessity as I perceive Sadowitz does, but his broad move into the mainstream from the smaller, more underground comedy circuit with work on ‘Mock the Week’ and other panel shows suggests to me that Boyle may be more about finding shared societal values, norms and all forms of taboo and providing his, as society would deem controversial, opinions on them to as larger audience as possible. In a way it’s very much about inviting us to look at things from a different perspective, a less commonly heard one at that. As I see it, Sadowitz’ motivation for his act can be traced in his relationship with the audience; with every bitter, abrasive rant there is never an emotional connection being made. Without a doubt this may be totally independent to my interpretation, however, having seen a considerable amount of stand-up comedy, there is no act like Sadowitz’in his creating of a fourth wall; a psychic distance, if you will. There is very little audience participation, except in his magic tricks, which enables the audience to laugh at not laugh with. It could be said that this is an important issue with comedy; it is easy to misconstrue a non-specific joke as a personal attack if the issue is meaningful to you. I feel this is something Sadowitz portrays beautifully, as I do not see his act as threatening or violating, despite the often overwhelming and alarming sense of personal abhorrence he portrays. As an audience member, it feels as if you’re laughing at a caricature of ignorance and obscenity as opposed to genuine totemic figure one can invest their hopes and beliefs into. This is a boundary not present in Boyle’s comedy: one feels as if he’s talking directly to you, as if he’s gained a driver’s seat in the car of your conscience and crashed it, before dousing it in petrol. This may be most prevalent in his interactions with
the audience; Boyle is particularly well known for his highly personal comments made towards particular audience members, especially in the front row, often remarking on their appearance, making rude and crude comparisons. The experience of his shows feel not so much intimate like, for example, a Simon Amstell show, where one feels totally immersed within his thought and emotion as he bares his very soul, creating a hive of delicate empathy. Instead, the intimacy Boyle creates acts as an exclusive attack on the moral conscience, throwing us in the deep end, as it were, to gather our reactions towards taboo subjects being used within a non-traditional medium.
Furthering the two comic’s artistic distinction, the differences between their audiences is of marked division. Put bluntly, due to Boyle’s transition into the mainstream (i.e. into television and cooperate gigs) from the underground comedy circuit (the traditional clubs, pubs and festivals) compared to Sadowitz’ remaining within this aforementioned position (despite some commercial success during the 80’s), each of their audiences don’t have necessarily different expectations of the comedian, but demographically remain intrinsically exclusive. This is observable simply by looking at numbers. Sadowitz attracts a highly niche audience, who he describes as “the ignorant, the optimistic, the comedy connoisseur, the nihilist and the eternally depressed.”Of course this isn’t to say that Boyle does not attract these types of people, but rather than being part of his audience, these are, with tremendous accuracy, more or less with entire makeup of his audience. Boyle appeals to many different ages, genders and cultures and on a much larger scale. I speculate that this is for two key reasons: firstly, due to a portion of society enjoying the catharsis of PC-baiting within any medium, and secondly because Boyle’s comedy is far more readily available. We can flick a page of a
newspaper or a TV channel and see Boyle being portrayed at the centre of yet another moral uproar or being repeated on ‘Dave’. Due to this greater availability, I believe people are more likely to be ‘offended’ by Boyle than by Sadowitz. We must actively seek out Sadowitz’ comedy due to his low profile on the comedy circuit; this implies that his audience go deliberately and willingly to see his comedy, and accept what is delivered with a few more pinches of salt
than Boyle’s audience. Alas, his mass audience expect from Sadowitz some very different ideas, but also I believe they view comedy in an entirely different way.
I will develop this idea in more detail later, but I think it may be help further develop the understanding of such comedic material with two other example comparisons. Ricky Gervais has come under similar media fire as Boyle throughout his career. His stand-up material is an origin of his societal impact; Gervais is famed for his sarcastic, shocking and frequently absurdist material and delivery. He has been portrayed as one of the ‘main offenders’
in British comedy, with numerous newspaper stories and television discussions (such as on Newsnight) being conducted on the moral right he possesses in producing such comedy. Some examples would be his alleged mockery of the overweight on his most recent stand-up show ‘Science’, or his most recent televisual incarnation as an apparently disabled character in his Channel 4 series ‘Derek’. Most appropriate to my areas of interest, though, would be his seemingly relentless comedic attacks on religion, particularly on Twitter, commonly posed alongside routines concerning disability on numerous occasions also. For example, in 2010 columnist and journalist Victoria Wright, who has a rare genetic condition called Cherubism, wrote an article detailing some of her experiences of media prejudice towards her and others with the same condition. She wrote of how Gervais and writing partner Stephen Merchant asked on air the producer of their XFM radio show where she would come in his “freak of the year list”. Also, a media furore was incited by a use of the word ‘mong’ both onstage (most specifically when describing Susan Boyle) and on Twitter. Gervais defended his use of the word by claiming that it was no longer associated with its original use (in degradingly describing people with downs-syndrome) and is now simply a “term of endearment”. Despite the uproar his comedy often inspires, Gervais stated to fans in his third live show ‘Fame’ that offense wasn’t the main aim of what he does. Although many appear to loath Gervais (if the comments below an articles in the Guardian are good indications of a large demographic), an article written by Nicky Clark (again, in the Guardian) thanks Gervais for his style of humour as it challenges common aspersions on the truth behind, in the highlighted case, disability in society, particularly in the workplace. From observations on Twitter I could gather that his fan base have particular affection for his desire to fight for free speech, not simply to shock and
appal. There does often appear, as I see it, a struggle to decipher between acharacter and Gervais in reality, i.e. between a factious or genuine presentation of ideas. But is this important? Maybe it would be of interest at this juncture to examine his influences in comedy. He cites two specifically: Sean Lock and Stewart Lee. The latter is a comedian most relevant to this question, having encountered problems with‘offensiveness’ himself.
Stewart Lee is generally revered and regarded by the comedy connoisseur as a grand-daddy of modern alternative comedy, yet for all his admirers, there are an equivocally bile-filled number of detractors. Lee has been in stand-up since the late 80’s, and is famed for engaging with unusual comedic tactics and techniques in orderto examine and portray comedy as an art form more than for any other means. In terms of stage presence, Gervais and Lee have similar delivery styles and approaches to material, though the key distinction would most probably be Gervais’ seemingly anti-PC motivation, whereas Lee accepts political correctness as a positive idea, often acknowledging this in his act (whilst condoning other comedian’s employing of opposition). Although Lee is keen on being politically correct within comedy, unless for artistic purposes (e.g. challenging the taboos of society), he has come under a moral spotlight for some of his stand-up routines, as well as for writing the book for controversial West End production ‘Jerry Springer: The Opera’. With regards to the latter, Lee came under fire from 22,000 religious protestors for the opera, which depicted a satirical take on several genuine events that occurred during episodes of ‘The Jerry Springer Show’, before the death and subsequent journey to Hell for Jerry Springer, where he conducted a show between Jesus and Satan. As well as this, the play also featured a rather contentious image of tap-dancing Klu Klux Klan before the back-drop of a burning cross. The play was protested against for being highly blasphemous, with both Lee and lyricist Richard Thomas bizarrely being nearly persecuted for this action. Lee actively disputes any such claims made towards
the play. He has also been taken to task for stand-up routines concerning the use of the word ‘n****r’ in a quotation; a 45-minute routine detailing why he hates ‘Top Gear’ in which he claimed that he’d wished Richard Hammond had been killed in the car crash he survived in 2006 (growing more explicit throughout) and that he hoped Jeremy Clarkson’s three daughters all went blind; and a routine in which, whilst drunk, he was carried home by Jesus Christ before vomiting into all over his mother’s bathroom, before vomiting into the mouth and gaping anus of Christ, before subsequently urinating into the gaping anus of Christ, and subsequently being sick into the gaping anus of Christ again.
Of course, the main question now is, is there anything wrong with what these comedians do and say onstage? Earlier I mentioned how laughing at and not with may be an important issue in comedic contexts. Lee highlights this as an issue in a DVD-exclusive interview. One may feel more socially comfortable if they’re laughing at a subject such as racism or prejudice towards disability or religion. When we laugh at others saying things we would never dream of saying in everyday life, an instant tension can be released. The cathartic element to stand-up is prevalent in all comedy, I believe. The role of the comedian is to provide a voice that our collective society does not. They act independently in an attempt to offer different perspectives on subjects, ideas and opinions. These opinions can either be appropriate to esoteric or mainstream audiences. Certain material will be more appropriate to larger or smaller audiences. I have highlighted in previous paragraphs that I believe it may be easier to laugh at Sadowitz’ material in considering his comedic role and the techniques he employs in his shows. However, he actively acknowledges that a considerable proportion of his audience
will go to see his comedy to possibly have their independent,‘outsider’ opinions validated (e.g. inferred homophobic or racist attitudes) without taking into account the necessary context of Sadowitz’ act. Sadowitz presents and subsequently rejects all common and generally accepted arguments put forward on more or less any subject, with only specific emphasis on specific ones (generally the more controversial matters). He recognizes his appeal to the more nihilistic of society as a problem, ultimately defying his implied artistic intentions, but also believes that, as he states in an interview with the Guardian newspaper, “there is something healthy about anybody getting their darkness out in a theatre rather than going out in the street and robbing someone or throwing a bottle."This implies that Sadowitz’ act has genuine societal value; but I would speculate that this outcome isn’t a particularly sought after reaction. Sadowitz’ act is most certainly a contextually dependent one, but also highly subjective. Great numbers of reviewers have specified that, as everysubject is off limits, there will undoubtedly be lines that we will individually all personally possess.
On the other hand, from experience, I cannot actually agree with this idea. Being homosexual, I pondered having witnessed his abrasive routine comparing homosexuals to pedophiles wondering whether I possibly should have found it personally offensive. I didn’t, at all. I actually cried with laughter as I did to the entire show whilst many around me, including my companion, chuckled at best, possibly feigning a genuine reaction; but then again, very possibly not. But I found myself in a strange moral position; should I have felt offended for other homosexuals’ sake, even if it didn’t offend me? Why didn’t it offend me? For a short time I felt peculiarly guilty that I had been weeping with joy at what could obviously be very offensive. But I paused to realize that it could have offended me. It had that power, yet it didn’t affect me in the way others within a similar demographic as I may have reacted. Of course, it’s important to remember that Sadowitz’ audience is not completely packed with homosexuals, yet alone eighteen year-old student homosexuals writing an essay on the nature of“offensiveness”. Having speculated momentarily, I had to remember this latter fact. I may be part of a particular culture of people who stereotypically have very specific and similar traits in terms of attitude and social demeanor, yet that doesn’t me I need to be defined by this culture and accumulate the shared values of it in an attempt to defy the reason of a fifty year-old Scottish man in a Father Christmas hat aggressively delivering a seemingly deeply homophobic rant in a darkened, modestly sold room. The way I interpret something need not imply that I am against anything or anyone, but more simply that I laugh at it for a different reason than another homosexual or indeed any other person may. Just because it appears to be homophobic doesn’t mean I have to temporarily launch the Margaret Cho mode within me and complain or feel infuriated (OH GIRL!). I laughed at this routine, and speculate that I would do as such in witnessing other similar routines, because of its sheer ridiculousness and absurdity. To me, like race, gender or appearance, sexuality is a perfectly natural and an inescapable component to the human condition. It’s just silliness to possess this attitude and present such an argument, and thusly, it inspires humor.
I feel this experience exemplifies some essential ideas vital to answering the proposed question. Due to this musing on the nature of offense, I thought to myself, is the nature of offense purely subjective? Can it ever be objectified? I.e. is anything inherently offensive per se, or is it derived merely from interpretation? I was then reminded of a segment in Stewart Lee’s (kind of) autobiography ‘How I Escaped My Certain Fate: The Life and Deaths of a Stand-Up Comedian’, in which he details watching a documentary film by Paul Provenza and Penn Jillette at the Aspen Comedy Festival called ‘The Aristocrats’, which concerned a joke entrenched within American stand-up. The basic premise is that the joke has one constant structure, this being that a man with varying numbers of family, but most commonly a wife and two children, enter a showbiz agent’s office with an called‘the aristocrats’. Having announced this, the comedian then enters into the main body of the joke, which changes with each delivery, but always consists of the most obscene, pornographic, scatological,
disgusting and repulsive behavior the comedian can think of within improvisation. The joke ends with some form of the punch line: “Well, that’s quite an act. What do you call it?” To which the family reply “The aristocrats!” As Lee outlines, it is more of a film concerning ideas than simply a film about joke. However, it is Lee’s analysis of the film and subsequent description of his experience that I drew comparisons to this experience with Sadowitz’ act.
Lee detailed how in an interview Provenza detailed his and Jillette’s intentions for the film, but was set aback, as it were, by hearing this sentence: “Repeating the same joke actually allows us to get over the issue of content and concentrate instead on the thorny issue of aesthetics.” Lee followed this claiming that the documentary “became a living object lesson in the fact that a one-size-fits-all approach to making decisions about what is acceptable just won’t fit.” I truly grasped what that sentence meant within my moment of deliberation. When asking myself if I should have been offended by Sadowitz’ comments, I realized that no reaction was a mandatory one. I reacted to Sadowitz’ in the same manner as upon watching the aforementioned ‘The Aristocrats’ documentary. Sadowitz’ artistry made it possible to laugh at; the precise construction of his pugnacious venting in terms of his tone, pitch, confidence and unmistakable way with words defeated the chilling often disturbing content. The artistry, including the delivery of a joke or routine is so exceptionally more important than the content that we can laugh at anything; as long as it’s done well. Thusly, Lee’s beautiful appraisal alongside my personal experience inferred to me that, yes, the nature of offense was a subjective truth. To objectify offense would mean that we were all offended by the same things, alas being essentially one and the same. Either that, or if we have no respect for comedic artistry; do people see comedy as more of a transaction/distraction than a legitimate art form?
My opinions on the matter may have been partially established this far, but I wished to develop my knowledge further by instigating the views of others within my peer and age group. This is not merely out of convenience (despite this being my instant thought) but also out of interest as I believe the opinions of youth are not so heavily voiced on a subject such as this. To do this, I decided to carry out a questionnaire and three separate interviews. I selected my interviewees simply out of convenience; I had three friends who I considered very insightful, interesting people who had a lot to say on a variety of subjects. They also related to a desired demographic, by which I refer to the three specific subjects in question of disability, religion and race. These interviews actually took on the form more of a discussion of ideas as opposed to a structured system, purely because I believed I could gain some deeper ideas on the subject through argumentation as opposed to any determined set of questions.
My first discussion took place upper sixth (2nd college year) student Benedict Clarke. Ben was raised and still holds very strict Protestant religious values. I was interested to see whether any subjects in comedy were off limits through the eyes of both him and his religion.
~ I jump straight in and ask him whether there’s anything (subject, idea opinion etc.) that shouldn’t be used/discussed/involved in comedy. “[It] Depends how bad it is.” He develops this claiming that certain people in society have carte blanche to say certain things, e.g. Adam Hills discussing the Paralympics on Channel 4 due to his disability is acceptable, but Frankie Boyle and Ricky Gervais (citing both without my suggestion) do not have this right “as they just call everybody offensive words… [and] find it funny to use the word even though they don’t know what it means.” Inquisitive, I offered Gervais’ argument that words such as ‘mong’, which Clarke hints towards here, change meaning over time. “Yes but it’s still associated with it, isn’t it?”
- ~ He then claims his views are reasonably “old fashioned” when compared to modern society; whether this is religion or attitude related is not established. We then move on to the idea of persona in comedic contexts. I ask whether he believes certain comedians can “get away” with saying things that other comedians cannot. He replies claiming that it may be the material but is more likely to be the context which the material will be delivered in and who delivers it, charmingly illustrating his point claiming that Shappi Korsandi could but Al Murray couldn’t discuss period pains onstage, simply by nature of who they are. Similarly comedy is context-dependent Ben interjects: “I was watching a piece of comedy last night where an Irish comedian walks in who’s kind of pale… he walks into this comedy club in the USA and they’d inadvertently booked him for African American night, and some of his material didn’t work there.”
- ~ I decide to accumulate our previous points by assuming that he would believe that comedy was half material, half delivery; he opposes this with “Comedy is all in the reception. So for example, me saying one thing to you which you will find funny; if I said that to my mother, she wouldn’t find that funny. You’ve got to know your audience, and you always tailor your persona towards it.”
- ~ My next question proposes that comedians often use freedom of speech to justify their comedy; a fundamentally unfounded belief, in that research does not generally conclude this notion, but it probed some interesting answers. Clarke claimed that freedom of speech is a tricky issue due to significant cultural differences. “America… they can get away with saying offensive stuff about Muslims because of the First Amendment, whereas if we did it here we’d be bunged up in jail for incitement to racial hatred… overall there are some bits of freedom of speech which I do agree shouldn’t be constrained, like opponents to political people.”
- ~ “Do you feel some comedians… abuse the art form [of stand-up]?” Ben immediately highlights Boyle, claiming that he “does hide behind the whole freedom of speech ‘oh I’m allowed to say this because we live in a pluralist society’.”
- ~ I gage his opinions on the ‘switch it off’ argument. Clarke claims that some things are
very easy to ignore and switch offer, but in extreme circumstances, noting here the “French cartoons on the prophet Mohammed. I’m sure the guy who wrote them found them funny. But that’s insulting to Muslims, and they can’t exactly say ‘oh no we’re just going to ignore this’. This guy has insulted the entire basis of their religion.”
- ~ Most appropriately our discussion turns to Christianity in comedy. “Do you see a lot of comedy that not necessarily targets Christianity but involves it?” Ben begins by claiming that potentially causing offense to religion is inherently not present in British comedy. I interject by providing some examples of Gervais’ atheistic tweets that many newspapers may claim to ‘bully’ religious believers. He claims that freedom of speech is not something that should be used simply because one possesses it; it should be used only with purpose. I suggest that free speech is something we should be able to have if we have an opinion we wish to impart. “They have an opinion and therefore they should say it. I think Ricky Gervais goes out to be particularly offensive,” Ben replies, “I think he does hold those views, but I think he does just go out there to annoy everybody.” “Do you know much of the comedy that he actually does, though?” “Not particularly, no.”
- ~ I enquire as to what societal impact comedy can deliver. Clarke claims that it can be a powerful social tool as “politicians won’t do something because their afraid what the media image will be.” “So comedy can [influence], but if it’s something fundamental like religion people won’t change their opinion because, I don’t know… some ratty man with goatee says [it].” I sum up his argument briefly, but following this he claims that it’s due to a stable society that this latter notion doesn’t occur; in one less so, it may do.
- ~ Outside of politics, I ask whether there are any other ‘targets’ in comedy. “People have learnt to kind of shy away from making fun of disabilities. They do otherwise they’d just get shot by the media.” With this matter, I raise the media uproar of Boyle’s joke concerning Harvey Price. I quote the joke word for word: Ben gives a slight smirk for the first half, and displays sheer unmuted horror and disgust to the second half. “The first bit can construe
as slightly funny, but, kind of, it’s wrong to find that funny. But the second bit is most definitely offensive.”
- ~ “If someone made a ‘disabled’ joke, would you have the right or ability to be
offended?”
“It depends on the level of disabled joke, doesn’t it? I mean, you could have someone dyslexia whereas there are deep set kind of learning difficulties or people with locked-in syndrome and stuff. ”
“Well, you don’t have a serious condition like that, so do you have the right to be offended?”
“Yes… because I’m a member of society as are disabled people. Society as a whole has the right to be offended for every single little pocket of society. Like people finding jokes about other religions; they’ll find that offensive even though it’s not their religion. It’s all about a king of mob mentality. I’m much more of a collectivist than an individualist.” At this point I give an example of a white middle-class housewife being “offended” by the ‘n’ word; does she have the right or the ability to be so? “Once again it depends on context. Different things suit different things in context.”
“But why would she be offended at all? It’s not offending her directly.”
“Once again it’s back to society again, isn’t it? There are black people in society, so people may not like that and they will use the offensive words like that” He then extends this by suggesting that she has the right to be offended and to furthermore complain about the situation in defence of the black community.
- ~ “But should it be censored?”
“That is a very difficult question. And I have no answer.”
My second discussion took place with fellow philosophy student Reema
Begum. I was primarily interested to gain her insights due to her Islamic
background and religious leanings.
$ Begum begins by clarifying that his highly familiar and has been significantly exposed to racism where humour is also similarly concerned in society. Without any prompt by me, she introduces an example of the BBC One sitcom Citizen Khan that received complaints due to its representation of characters within a Pakistani household. She claims to perceive it as “satirical of the typicality of that kind of environment”, stressing that she may have less uncertainty about the humour due to her ethnicity and through an understanding of different cultural contexts that others may lack. I inquire as to whether she believe this ‘satire’ could be misinterpreted in any way: “people that, say, aren’t as well educated in their own culture tend to perceive that [other cultural contexts used in comedy] as rude or offensive when that may not necessarily be the case.”
$ She follows this claiming that “if you attach funny little characteristics onto people and put them in kind of friendly, safe environment, then those feelings actually transfer onto the real thing.” In context of Citizen Khan, when society may be hesitant towards approaching subjects of an ethnic minority in day-to-day life, having a sitcom attach more positive traits to a character, we may feel more positive towards similar figures in reality. Due to her implications that comedy can affect society positively, I dig a little deeper; “Of cause it can; it is a part of culture, and culture is there to help us deal with change and helps us develop society. Without culture we wouldn’t be able to handle changes in society. But when we’re able to laugh about something or look back at it in hindsight then we can learn from it.”
$ I wondered, therefore, whether she finds anything personally offensive herself in comedy. “It’s all very fair and nice someone saying ‘well we shouldn’t be mean to people or discriminate; it’s all in humour and fun’… if you know that they’re actively trying to be vindictive towards you or actively trying to offend you, that’s a different issue.”
$ Can comedy be‘abused’, as it were, to affiliate with someone’s negation of a culture or religion, then? “Of course it can. Comedy is just another form of the media which is another form of communication, and so of course it can be used to ridicule people.” She provides the example of a song/video created by the Westboro Baptist Church as seen in Louis Theroux’s
‘America’s Most Hated Family in Crisis’ documentary. “I don’t know that many Jews, but even I could recognise that as offensive. And the point is that they’re doing that personally to upset these people… they’re attacking these people, and they are using comedy for it.” “But I don’t think comedy itself should be demonised, because comedy is not an actual person, it is abstract. The main point about offending people is that it is actual physical people who use the resource of comedy and turn it into something which is not good; or is good; because of course comedy can do really good things as well. So it’s not comedy itself that’s evil, it’s things that people do.”
$ This being said, I enquire as to whether she can offer specific examples. “Some of the things that Frankie Boyle says… I don’t think that he’s actively trying to be a bad person. I think he’s very much in the spirit of this age.” Begum goes onto explain that due to the “rawness” of Boyle’s material and the subjects that he utilises, people will be offended as they are affective in modern society today, yet in “10, 20 years and people will be looking back on him and calling it genius because we would have grown and developed”, as in these issues will not affect us as strongly, suggesting that a big component in causing offense is related explicitly to present societal values as opposed to eternal ones.
$ If Boyle isn’t out to be elaborately spiteful as some would have it, what is he doing then? “I think he’s just doing his job. He’s just entertaining people.” But people do find it offensive… “I think the thing that really upsets people is not that he’s talking about these issues, it’s that people are finding it funny. I know that if someone else took the mick out of someone with a disabled child and I laughed, I would feel bad. Somebody needs to be blamed here; we don’t want to blame ourselves and so we blame someone else and that someone else in this particular scenario is Frankie Boyle.”
$ Does Boyle have the right to deliver such material? In reply, Reema quotes Voltaire: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.” She follows this with “I do think, though, that, if he doesn’t say these things, then how do we know
that it’s wrong? It’s only through trial and error… that we understand them as being wrong,” following this with an example of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany; having witnessed the full horror of the events that ensued within this time, some, albeit a minority, must have come to a realisation that their beliefs are questionable.
$ Nonetheless, Begum has failed until now to address my question directly: does he possess the legal right to create such comedy? “The freedom to say what we like is backed up by local laws and National laws, so yes, that [freedom of speech] is a human right, but then that conflicts with other human rights. He has the right to say whatever he wants to say, but then I have the right to act upon it … In theory, yes, he should be able to say it, but what we say and what we do are two different things. I’m a bit on the fence with that one.”
$ I was very intrigued to gain her opinions upon censorship at this juncture: “Censorship is a complete and utter waste of time… If you seek the truth or if you want to know about where you are in the world… then you need to be able to see the good, the bad and the ugly because we wouldn’t learn otherwise.”
$ “Would/could you be offended by someone else speaking out for you then when not of your religious or ethnic origin?” “Not necessarily. If I knew that they were a kind of staunch Islamophobic, I’d assume that they may not mean it in a very nice way. Context is really important in comedy; like I was saying, it’s about the people behind it and what they choose to do with that comedy.”
$ Concluding this discussion, the issue of persona appears a resounding concept. Alas: “Yes, it is. I think one of the reasons that Frankie Boyle is hated is that he just doesn’t give a damn. People see this, I think, as a form of provocation and see it as too extreme and therefore get
upset with that. Like, looking at Citizen Kahn again, he appears likeable and so we indulge him because he’s just a bit of an idiot, really.”
My third discussion had a somewhat different set-up. I showed upper sixth student Bradley Pace a clip of each comedian’s material, each example being outlined or detailed at some point in the essay previously. These clips, in order, consisted of: Frankie Boyle’s ‘Harvey Price joke’; Jerry Sadowitz’ YouTube advertisement for his ‘Return of the Baw-Bag’ London shows; Stewart Lee’s 'Top Gear routine’; and Ricky Gervais’ ‘politically incorrect’ introduction to his ‘Politics’ show. I wanted to gage his instant reaction to both the material and the artistry, which helped me to evaluate the effect this material has upon individuals. Bradley is of white, British decent with no religious beliefs or diagnosed disability. I recorded his reactions as I observed them, subsequently asking him the same set of questions following each clip, as well as occasionally delving into discussion as with Benedict;
- Were you personally offended by anything portrayed in this clip?
- To what extent do you believe others could be offended by this clip, if at all?
- How could this offend people?
- Do others have the right to be offended on someone else’s behalf, bearing these examples in mind?
- Are there any distinctions between these examples of routines/jokes?
- Do you think these examples could have significant societal impact (e.g. change people’s minds, etc.)?
- Is it right for them to deliver such a routine/joke? (Bradley offers the same answer to this with each clip: “yes, because it’s their free speech, and everyone should have free speech.”)
Frankie Boyle: ‘Harvey Price joke’:
Bradley enjoys the entire joke, although he laughs more at the first half. The second half is presented with a chuckled followed by a look of bemusement and sullenness. Bradley acknowledges that he is not personally offended because “he is not a disabled child”, he should be offended as “you feel bad for Harvey.” Following this he claims it is “obviously wrong to laugh at; it’s funny, but you’re aware that you shouldn’t be laughing.” I dig a little deeper into this: "Well, you’re laughing because it’s shocking, but you don’t agree with it and
never could… because it’s such a controversial thing to say.”
Jerry Sadowitz’ YouTube advert:
Chuckles abound, except for Sadowitz’ closing statements (which can’t be repeated here). Brad claims that others could be highly offended by this, if they were related in any to the Jimmy Saville abuse scandal, purely because they are personally affected by it. No acknowledgement is given with regards to others being offended, only shocked and appalled. Brad provides a difference between Boyle and Sadowitz: “the last one [Sadowitz] is obviously just trying to shock, whereas it feels more as if Boyle is making a social point.” I inquire as to
whether this may have anything do with the distinction between their audiences, i.e. mainstream and underground. “Yeah; their audiences might want to see them for different reasons.”
Stewart Lee’s ‘Top Gear’ routine:
I only show him 15 minutes of this routine (Lee’s claims in wishing Richard Hammond “had been killed in that crash”; hoping Jeremy Clarkson’s daughters “all go blind”; the Top Gear cast kicking Gypsies to death). Bradley is not fond of Lee’s comedic style; alas he claims to not possess an opinion on the “offensiveness” of this routine as it “would be unfair to judge it without an unbiased view.” Following this, however, he claims people could find it offensive, though only through a relation to personal events, e.g. a car crash, a direct personal relationship with the cast of ‘Top Gear’ or blindness, amongst others. Lee, during the routine explicitly states onstage why he is conducting this routine, i.e. for satirical purposes; I ask whether, having seen this, the fact that it could be offensive changes in his view. Brad says: “it helps, but people will still find it offensive…because it still speaks in a derogatory way about TV personalities.”
Ricky Gervais’ ‘Politics’ introduction:
Brad enjoys this most of all. “It’s deliberately politically incorrect to make a point, to say something about society. He’s obviously playing a character… because of the suit, and the way he’s portraying himself.” I.e. the way Gervais plays the part. He regards this as the key distinction between Gervais and Boyle: “With the first one [Boyle], it’s hard to tell whether he’s a character or himself, whereas with Ricky it’s obviously a character… [which is] important
because people can understand that he doesn’t mean it. It could still offend people, but at least you can tell it’s a character.”
So what does this mean with regards to free speech? I’ve hardly adopted a
generalizable sample for interviews, but it highlights some important
issues:
% It appears that persona is a very important component; perceiving comedians as legitimate character actors/presences as opposed to “themselves” appears to be a key distinction between what people can and can’t say. Yet, even this present, “offense” can still be caused.
% Comedians can “get away” with saying certain things in different contexts and to different people. Yet some things cannot outright be discussed/involved/portrayed in comedy, these tending to be the bigger more prevalent subjects in society, e.g. religion, race, disability, etc.
However, a representative more prone to racism in comedy (Begum) due to an ethnic minority background would deem this otherwise due to societal/cultural value.
% Despite an acknowledgement from both parties that everyone should possess the right to free speech, there still appear to be subjects that others would deem inappropriate or wrong to be used in comedic contexts, yet little clarification as to whether this is a definitive legal issue or an ultimately subjective, personal one.
% Comedy has such significant societal impact that it can change people’s attitudes in everyday reality aside from entertainment purposes.
% Others can be offended on another’s behalf; offenseis an objective thing. Is this just a cultural/societal element? Is this just a lie that we’ve been bred to believe in, i.e. that we can speak for others’ sake? Or am I just approaching this from an entirely different angle?
To develop this new knowledge, I continued research with a questionnaire.
I randomly selected 48 students, 24 from lower sixth and 24 from upper sixth,
via their tutors. I gained 47 in reply (damned science department!) and replies
are briefly detailed below.
§ Participants were generally aware of a variety of comedians and comedic forms.
§ When asked ‘Are there any topics which you believe comedy shouldn’t be allowed to discuss/challenge/utilise?’: 45% said no,however the importance of context was often specified; 50% stated specific topics including terminal illness, race/racism, death, disability & religion.
§ 35% specified Frankie Boyle’s comedy as ‘offensive’.
§ 67.5% - comedians shouldn’t be restrained in what they discuss.
§ Majority stated that the media portrayed a negative attitude towards ‘dark’ humour. However, some specified a variety of attitudes depending on sources (e.g. “politicians love it because it gives them something to complain about”), whilst others claimed that the media approved of it (as in believed it to possess societal impact).
§ 60% - freedom of speech is a justified argument for such humour.
§ 50% - comedians and media shouldn’t be censored from such humour.
Although these are some interesting findings with valuable answers, I don’t find these results entirely consistent and somewhat infrequently ambiguous. There appear to be glaring holes in the opinions of 17-18 year old students: if 67.5% of students don’t believe that comedians should have their material constrained, with presumably that same 60% believing free speech justifies this claim, why do 50% believe that certain topics shouldn’t be discussed in comedy? These results imply that comedians can have free speech, but should not discuss/challenge/utilise specific topics such as disability, race and religion, logically negating the whole purpose of free speech. A mysterious 17.5% of people possess seemingly inconsistent and conflicting ideas on the nature of comedy, inferring that they have similar ideas on what they find funny. Also on this note, if freedom of speech is a justified argument according to 60%, then why do 10% think that such comedy presumably should be censored in the media and outright from comedians’ use? Surely if freedom of speech is applicable to
everyone, it should be available to everyone at all times via whatever medium? Finally, and possibly most importantly, why do 67.5% of young people believe that comedian shouldn’t be constrained in terms of material, yet only 60% believe that freedom of speech is a justifiable argument? Do 7.5% of 47 17-18 year old students harbour prejudiced feelings towards the disabled, the religious or those of ethnic minorities?
We can come to conclusive results through these inconsistencies, however. With regards to the conflicting 17.5%, we could conclude that whilst never explicitly stated by any participants of the questionnaire, this may be down to personal taste as opposed to definitive opinion. The two may be prone to confusion; when affected by a subject or idea we often tend to react in the most instinctual of ways, and with comedy drawing on one of our most basic human components, that of our sense of humour, the subject is highly personal. However, this still does infer the fact that offense is essentially subjective, relying on personal experience of an event, individual or certain group of people. Therefore, nothing is inherently ‘offensive’ as not only do we all view things with totally individual perspectives and attitudes but we have not all encountered the same experiences in life. This may backup my previous arguments on the nature of comedy, meaning that attitudes towards comedy, for young people, may be primarily subjective truths reliant on individual perspectives and personal tastes.
Relating to this issue of personal taste is the idea raised by the second inconsistency portrayed in results from my questionnaire. If everyone has the right to speak out as they wish, surely it doesn’t matter how this is delivered as long as it is done so? Well, preceding this I suggested, when comparing Boyle and Sadowitz’ different appeals to mainstream and underground audiences respectively, that possibly due to the wide dispersion and availability of Boyle’s comedy that people will feel more actively open to protest against it, not only as it is of very unique appeal but also because it is so regularly presented that people will become naturally tired of it. Could this be the idea touched upon by 10% of students? Maybe due to the esoteric nature of the material, with a full awareness and appreciation of the right to free speech involved, due to our individual personal tastes in comedy, the media’s endless onslaught of material such as Boyle’s or Gervais’ makes some more sensitive to the issues they discuss/utilise in their comedy. Subsequently, it may be wiser to censor this material in attempts to divert attention to more important matters.
I personally can’t help agreeing with Begum in her beliefs on censorship, but a possible conclusion from this questionnaire would suggest that 17-18 years olds would have it so that
despite the presence of free speech, it may be unnecessary to hear one’s opinions on certain occasions. However, if this were so, the idea of context in comedy is raised once again. It is of course an important issue in most comedy, but here it could be considered even more significant. In comparing Sadowitz and Boyle once again, it could be argued, and I would, that Sadowitz is not dubbed as an‘offensive’ comic due to the audience that he delivers his comedy to. Indeed, Boyle in his autobiography ‘My Shit Life So Far’ claimed that his material is suited to an esoteric audience and was never meant to be mainstream. This could add in the
idea that maybe the audience to certain subjects in comedy are the true cause of 'offense’ and not the comedians themselves. A comedian may produce a certain form of comedy form a huge number of reasons, yet the reception to that material can only lie in the audience. A traditional claim of comedians is that you can never truly predict how an audience will react to your comedy without the process of trial and error. If comedians don’t try out things, we’ll never know if it will/could be funny. Therefore one cannot predict what subjects and topics
will be negatively received by an audience. In relation to the nature of censorship, simply because it is on the television does not mean that it does not appeal to an esoteric audience. Is this something comedy audiences have lost or maybe even the very art of comedy itself in its modern success and publicity?
Ricky Gervais has stated through Twitter that “Being offended is natural. it means you care about things.” In his live tour ‘Science’ he also delivers a routine offering solutions to being potentially offended, such as that we could just switch off the TV rather than complaining about it. The ‘switch it off’ argument has been regularly used by Gervais, and personally, it makes some rather poignant sense. If things are censored, then that means certain things cannot be heard, which logically negates freedom of speech. Therefore, if those‘offended’ by what a comedian has to say, they could just turn it off from the TV, or leave the theatre/comedy club and ignore it, allowing others to find it if they wish. In reading a blog on this topic, in a thread actually concerning Boyle, I found this argument by semi-anonymous‘andy-hughes’ who claims that “Frankly, simply using the 'switch off' argument is dodging the issue because it side-steps what is acceptable, and what is not, in terms of our society,” following this with “As a society, we have to have cultural boundaries and simply advocating the some people find something funny does not of itself excuse the upset and offence caused to o[t]hers.” What struck me with this is that the user employs terminology referring to everyone in society as opposed to him individually. This idea of potentially upsetting people because of comedy is obviously bizarre due to the nature of comedy intending to lighten one’s spirits. This is the same kind of argument put forward by both Clarke and Pace in our discussions in that we can be offended for others as we are part of society as other’s are, and therefore we can complain on another’s behalf. But is this‘switch it off’ argument really so illogical? Surely, if people did just ‘switch it off’ then they wouldn’t be upset? Otherwise one would merely be upset by the potential of being upset or even offended, something even more illogical. And nonetheless, comedians only truly intend to make us laugh as a universal goal, so if they don’t, maybe you should just ignore it as is so easy with other mediums. But this may relate to my previous argument on the nature of the mainstream: as it is so widely dispersed and commercially available when put on TV, people will feel more ready to complain or be upset because it is so easily accessed without due care or thought. But what we cannot overlook is that the media has such power and prominence in modern society that we may take the opinions portrayed on TV far too seriously. With Boyle and Gervais being TV regulars are therefore not so ignorable. Nonetheless, it still does not imply one cannot simply ignore one’s comedy, or why someone cannot deliver one’s comedy. After all, in the words of Jerry Sadowitz “Who's to deny anybody their comedy? You can't say that one person's strand of comedy is OK to laugh at, but this person's isn't."
What leads me investigate this most pertinent of ideas, however, is the third apparently anomalous result. Personally, despite however prejudiced against my generation I may be, I don’t like to think that 7.5% of students my age or a year younger possess negative, prejudicial attitudes towards societal minorities, and alas comedians portraying humour involving these topics could act as figures providing solace and a source to justify ones arguments. Whilst this could be a viable option, and a seemingly drastic one when taking into
account the very PC age we are raised within and also the very nature of comedy itself, it could also raise the idea that maybe free speech just isn’t a satisfactory argument. If the audience to a certain joke or routine is inherently diverse and fundamentally unpredictable, especially depending on the availability of the method of communication (e.g. TV, theatre, etc.), we could question whether it is right both artistically and in terms of free speech on
whether one’s comedian should be made. Some of these audience members will be easier to offend than others, and at risk of this occurring, whether this comedy should be made is questionable. So, in laymen’s terms, if comedy can cause offense to many and this effect is incalculable due to the sheer number of people that comedy is available to, who all possess different outlooks on and understandings of comedy, is freedom of speech justifiable for comedy when it can potentially offend anybody?
The idea to insert at this point is that this idea is, of course, totally absurd. No one should have their right to free speech denied. Instead, there may be an issue with the idea of offense. Ben Pobjie highlights this in an excellent article concerning offensiveness in comedy (which anyone with any sense would read instead of this). He claims that “If we rule out any subject that could conceivably upset someone, we rule out pretty much everything,” providing the example of a comedian joking about crashing their car without knowing that someone in the audience had lost a family member in a car accident. Logically, we could replace this with any possible sequence of events. Any joke about a person, place, time, or any other possible premises has the potential to offend someone, especially, as established through analysis of research, comedy associates with our feelings and beliefs, things core to our very being. If this is so, a comedian would have to not say anything. However, an important factor here is that people don’t complain about the things certain comedians say. In the questionnaire, it was claimed by 35% of 47 students that Frankie Boyle’s material is within itself outright offensive. When participants were asked about what other comedians they enjoyed, the majority claimed to enjoy Michael McIntyre, Russell Howard and Dara O’ Brien the most. These are comedians not commonly associated with ‘dark’ comedy, yet their material is as widely dispersed as Boyle’s or Gervais’ if not more so. Comedians always use shock and surprise as a comedic tool. Arguably, this is something inherent within the very art of comedy itself. And yet, with this in mind, these comedians are not as commonly complained about or categorised as being 'offensive’. This implies that there is in fact specific material and ideas that people take issue with. This may also relate to the comedian’s persona, I believe; if the material they deliver is not a traditional format then people will be adverse to it as it is not a common occurrence within comedy. So offense may not be just an arbitrary thing that will inevitably occur, but we could claim that comedians arguably know what will potentially offend and what won’t. These subjects are inescapable, in a sense.
But ultimately, the underlying issue entails that even if the audience of certain comedians take issue with material and claim it as ‘offensive’, if we attempt to draw the line on what comedy can and can’t say where on earth does this line stop? What ideas and opinions are and are not acceptable? If we said that Frankie Boyle can’t talk about/use downs-syndrome as subject matter for comedic material, who can talk about downs-syndrome? Is it merely because it’s in a comedic context that people take issue with it? Arguably, when discussed/utilised as an idea in other art forms, people will be less likely to take issue with it. I believe this might be due to the association with contexts and different audience demographics. Comedians make things funny, not find things that are funny and report them to others. We could probably all do the latter. So maybe Frankie Boyle‘making’ downs-syndrome funny is what people take issue with. But nonetheless, even if he was doing exactly this, he may possess different intentions for his audience than, say, Michael McIntyre, whom we could claim to be merely an entertainer. Boyle could wish to make us laugh and think; although, I did personally establish way back in this essay that I believed Boyle to more of an entertainer than an artist, and despite further thought this still appears a more prevalent interpretation. But then of course, I could always be wrong. Boyle may be the new Bill Hicks for all you or I either know. But then again he could simply be an ‘abuser’ as I discussed with Begum.
The crux of the matter at this point is that whatever one interprets another’s comedy to be or to mean, it is only an interpretation. It is widely considered that comedians like to retain a sense of mystery around what they do. Comedian Richard Herring (of ‘Fist of Fun’ fame with Stewart Lee) claims in an interview concerning Jerry Sadowitz that “he needs the mystery. He needs you to not be sure what is and isn't the real him.” Using Sadowitz as an example, despite his elaborately shocking and ‘offensive’ act, one cannot know what indeed is the real him and what is a character. And if he retains this sense mystery intentionally, how does anyone know what it is he’s doing, or why? But an issue touched upon earlier is essential here: what if he is deliberately being anti-homosexual or anti-Muslim and I was laughing at his comedy for the wrong reasons? But personally, I wish to put forward a personal philosophy on the nature of art. I perceive comedy as an art form, and therefore anyone can use it for any purpose. Despite that purpose, and despite whoever the listener/viewer may be, they have the right to voice an opinion. The true nature and meaning of that art lies not in what the artist puts into it but the manner in which each audience member interprets it. That’s where the true nature of art itself lies. This is something I believe has been lost by our democratised society and its under-appreciation of what it possesses. Putting this into context, I believe that I should laugh at Sadowitz, Boyle, Gervais or Lee as I have my own reasons to laugh at that comedy act/joke/routine. Each comedian leads to different conclusions for me as a person. So in relation to points raised in my discussions with Clarke and Pace, I find it necessary to ask, why should I be offended for someone else when what the comedian has said means something totally different to me, with totally different attitudes, opinions and life experiences? And with regards to potentially upsetting, disrupting or violating your audience’s sense of moral or social conduct, I ask this: isn’t that what all great art does?
As a heavily delayed conclusion that effectively anybody could have come to, comedy can indeed have free speech. My main argument in response to this entire question both before and after conducting any research has been that overall, as an artistic function, comedy is designed to make one laugh. We all possess different attitudes, tastes and individual interpretations of artistic forms and these constantly affect the way in which we perceive comedy due to the societal boundaries that some comedians regularly push and we all, with some more than others, live by. If one doesn’t desire to or simply cannot laugh at a certain comedian for doing so, there is nothing that justifies stopping that comedian from doing so. Ultimately, despite societal powers, one’s boundaries are entirely one’s own, both artistically and morally. If one does not wish to have these pushed, then they can by all means ignore it, but it makes no sense to deplete someone’s ability to hear such ideas at the potential expense of others. This entirely negates the whole premise of free speech, a right to which we all possess. Comedians such as Frankie Boyle and Ricky Gervais may have significant popularity in comedy due to their media presence, and this is something I propose to be a key component in driving people’s vehement rejection of it as it is so widely and easily accessible, meaning anyone can see it. Taking as examples Stewart Lee and Jerry Sadowitz, who despite appearing on TV in the past, remain fundamentally underground artists, are not regularly taken to task; this may be, as I would suggest, due to les media prominence, and alas their audiences must seek out their comedy, meaning that one is entirely to blame when one is upset or ‘offended’ by either of these comedians. My ideas could debatably be supported by my primary research. The results of my questionnaire infer that 17-18 year old students would believe that comedians should be unrestrained in their material as they have the right to free speech. These results are, however, marginally inconsistent in that they do not display coherent results, suggesting that whilst the majority believe that comedians should be unconstrained in what they can say, some small numbers claim simultaneously that there are certain subjects which comedian cannot discuss. This implies that my results may not be entirely reliable. On the other hand, my individual discussions on the topic with some fellow sixth form students lead to interesting results affecting my opinions. Benedict Clarke, of white-British middle class Christian background and belief, claimed that one can be offended on behalf of others as we are all equal members of society. Bradley Pace also gave a similar line of argument, using Boyle’s jokes concerning Harvey Price as an example; he could be offended for Harvey Price because they are both members of society. My discussion with Reema Begum, on the other hand, took a deliberately “on the fence” attitude to the nature of offense, not giving an option, yet her passionate statements on the nature of censorship inferred that she was more lenient toward my view on things. It appeared to me the perceptions of Clarke and Pace took on a wholly separate and distinct attitude to mine, viewing the issue as a collective, societal problem, whereas mine appear considerably more individualistic.
As I see it, to claim to be ‘offended’ on another’s behalf undermines that person’s own ability to be offended. It leans towards a widespread and deindividualised perspective on both society and the individual, almost as if some believe that we are shared by the common value of having the right to be offended, a right of which we simply do not possess. But at the end of the day, this is a whole-heartedly subjective argument in and of itself, as is indeed any interpretation of comedy. Comedy is reliant on the interpretations of its audience; alas why you can never know what joke/routine will work at all and if it does with which audience. Despite what medium you portray any form of comedy within, any comedian is always prone to upsetting someone in any number of ways with their material or possibly even their persona. Ultimately, any attempt to censor the comedy of another, something fundamental to ourselves as an artistic, societal, entertainment or even as a coping device, would negate the idea of free speech, something which by rights and by logical we should all have. So in the Tweeted words of Ricky Gervais “If you think something is funny, you're right. If you think something is not funny, you're right too. Just don't expect everyone to agree.”
very easy to ignore and switch offer, but in extreme circumstances, noting here the “French cartoons on the prophet Mohammed. I’m sure the guy who wrote them found them funny. But that’s insulting to Muslims, and they can’t exactly say ‘oh no we’re just going to ignore this’. This guy has insulted the entire basis of their religion.”
as slightly funny, but, kind of, it’s wrong to find that funny. But the second bit is most definitely offensive.”
offended?”
“It depends on the level of disabled joke, doesn’t it? I mean, you could have someone dyslexia whereas there are deep set kind of learning difficulties or people with locked-in syndrome and stuff. ”
“Well, you don’t have a serious condition like that, so do you have the right to be offended?”
“Yes… because I’m a member of society as are disabled people. Society as a whole has the right to be offended for every single little pocket of society. Like people finding jokes about other religions; they’ll find that offensive even though it’s not their religion. It’s all about a king of mob mentality. I’m much more of a collectivist than an individualist.” At this point I give an example of a white middle-class housewife being “offended” by the ‘n’ word; does she have the right or the ability to be so? “Once again it depends on context. Different things suit different things in context.”
“But why would she be offended at all? It’s not offending her directly.”
“Once again it’s back to society again, isn’t it? There are black people in society, so people may not like that and they will use the offensive words like that” He then extends this by suggesting that she has the right to be offended and to furthermore complain about the situation in defence of the black community.
“That is a very difficult question. And I have no answer.”