[Update] Ofcom raps Channel 4 over Frankie Boyle's Harvey Price 'joke'

[punky]

Originally Posted by Chris

No, I'm not shifting the goalposts. I'm trying to discover where you've put them, by exploring the absolute which you used earlier: namely, your use of the word 'always', when quoting and agreeing with comments made by Ignition: "Freedom of speech should always trump peoples' sense of offense."

I deliberately asked you if you would define the boundaries, if any, or whether you considered 'always' to be truly absolute, because I wanted to establish whether you were defending freedom of speech in private surroundings or whether you were making a case for people being free to say whatever, wherever, whenever.

It appears that the extent of your proposition is actually that "[Where comments are made in surroundings that could reasonably be construed to be 'private'], freedom of speech should always trump peoples' sense of offense."

Please correct me if I have misunderstood your position.

I'm completely lost now. We were talking about Frankie Boyle now you're talking about people walking into cathedrals and outright insulting christians.

Going back to start again I don't think it's right that comedians should have their subject matter vet their jokes.

Perhaps you find it difficult because you're grappling with something that I didn't actually say. I used the word 'community'; I did not qualify it with the term 'ethnic minority', or anything else.

My use of 'community' was a very broad one, intended to describe any identifiable group or possibly a society as a whole.

This is just getting more bizarre now. Ethnic minorities or not I find it odd that any community based upon an populaous to get together and collaboratively decide what the community (and presumably everyone in it) will and be offended at

Originally Posted by danielf

Surely an omnipotent being has every opportunity to defend him/herself?

Like in The Exorcist, such a vulgar display or power!

The difference is that the fact that Royals can't defend themselves is a consequence of the role they play in society. As such, it stands to reason to give them some additional protection imo.

If a woman makes a joke about men, can I realistically defend myself?

I don't know why a joke would mean anyone defend themselves. It's a joke not an accusation.

[QUOTE=punky;35135973]I'm completely lost now. We were talking about Frankie Boyle now you're talking about people walking into cathedrals and outright insulting christians.

Going back to start again I don't think it's right that comedians should have their subject matter vet their jokes.[quote]

Re-read what I said, there's really nothing difficult about it. You made a claim that on the face of it was absolute - i.e. it would apply way beyond circumstances of a comedian at a private performance. I attempted to get you to elaborate. When you said 'always', did you actually mean 'always'? Apparently you didn't.

This is just getting more bizarre now. Ethnic minorities or not I find it odd that any community based upon an populaous to get together and collaboratively decide what the community (and presumably everyone in it) will and be offended at

Not being funny here but the bit I've bolded makes no sense - 'populaous' isn't even an English word. If you could clarify and elaborate, I'll respond to your point.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

Not being funny here but the bit I've bolded makes no sense - 'populaous' isn't even an English word. If you could clarify and elaborate, I'll respond to your point.

I'll pick up the baton,

Communities may well come to a concensus about what actions or words they deem offensive and within their community they may agree to not undertake such offensive deeds.

But that doesn't mean they can push those ideals onto wider society.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by punky

I won't like it but there is a big difference between not liking something and trying to ban people from saying it or punishing it.

Likeminded people should be able to share like-minded jokes. I refer you back to Ignition's excellent and succinct comment: "Freedom of speech should always trump peoples' sense of offense."

So, you are saying it's OK to say what you want about anyone as long as someone thinks it's funny, and that it's wrong that the person being offended does anything about it?

All Katie Price has done is complain to OFCOM, after asking Channel 4 for an apology. She is not banning anyone from saying anything.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I'll pick up the baton,

Communities may well come to a concensus about what actions or words they deem offensive and within their community they may agree to not undertake such offensive deeds.

But that doesn't mean they can push those ideals onto wider society.

But I don't think this is a difficult one?

Do you think that naming a disabled child and making him the subject of a joke is acceptable?

Does Katie Price have a right to complain?

Do we not have a right to call it unacceptable?

[punky]

Originally Posted by Chris

Re-read what I said, there's really nothing difficult about it. You made a claim that on the face of it was absolute - i.e. it would apply way beyond circumstances of a comedian at a private performance. I attempted to get you to elaborate. When you said 'always', did you actually mean 'always'? Apparently you didn't.

I said the comment in a thread about Frankie Boyle. You're trying to claim that my comment was "absolute" and to things completely irelevent to the thread.

If you want to talk about hate crimes in society, start another thread.

Not being funny here but the bit I've bolded makes no sense - 'populaous' isn't even an English word. If you could clarify and elaborate, I'll respond to your point.

A typo. It should read populace. I.e. a part of a population, be it ethnic minority or otherwise.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Stuart

So, you are saying it's OK to say what you want about anyone as long as someone thinks it's funny, and that it's wrong that the person being offended does anything about it?

All Katie Price has done is complain to OFCOM, after asking Channel 4 for an apology. She is not banning anyone from saying anything.

I believe you can say anything about anybody - doesn't have to be funny.

Nor is it wrong for anybody to be offended, they can be offended as much as they want - but that's where it ends.

In so far as the above Jordan has the absolute right to complain and request an apology.

Whether CH4 or F.Boyle apologise is their perogative.

---------- Post added at 18:48 ---------- Previous post was at 18:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Do you think that naming a disabled child and making him the subject of a joke is acceptable?

No, but whether I think it is acceptable or not is irrelevant

Does Katie Price have a right to complain?

Absolutely

Do we not have a right to call it unacceptable?

Of course, but that is all - but there should be no further punitive recourse

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by punky

Going back to start again I don't think it's right that comedians should have their subject matter vet their jokes.

This, I do agree with. However, I do also think the subjects should have the right to reply.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Stuart

So, you are saying it's OK to say what you want about anyone as long as someone thinks it's funny, and that it's wrong that the person being offended does anything about it?

All Katie Price has done is complain to OFCOM, after asking Channel 4 for an apology. She is not banning anyone from saying anything.

It doesn't matter if anyone thinks it's funny or not but Frankie Boyle delivering a what essentially is a private-performance. He deserves to do so without interference. whether people like it or not shouldn't impact that.

She can ask C4 for an apology. That's fine, and its a PR issue which i'm sure they'll gush over. What would reporting to OfCom do? Can the ban re-transmission of the material? Fine Boyle? OfCom have a duty to address material which I guess would be illegal of which Boyle's material here shouldn't be.

Originally Posted by Pierre

No, but whether I think it is acceptable or not is irrelevant

Absolutely

Of course, but that is all - but there should be no further punitive recourse

But no one is arguing for that.

The main points raised are that it was a nasty 'joke' in very poor taste, Price is more than entitled to complain, as are we to find it distasteful.

---------- Post added at 18:53 ---------- Previous post was at 18:51 ----------

Originally Posted by punky

It doesn't matter if anyone thinks it's funny or not but Frankie Boyle delivering a what essentially is a private-performance. He deserves to do so without interference. whether people like it or not shouldn't impact that.

She can ask C4 for an apology. That's fine, and its a PR issue which i'm sure they'll gush over. What would reporting to OfCom do? Can the ban re-transmission of the material? Fine Boyle? OfCom have a duty to address material which I guess would be illegal of which Boyle's material here shouldn't be.

Ofcom have a wider scope than simply stopping illegal material. There are rules regarding decency and the fact he named the child in question may also be an issue they need to deal with.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by punky

It doesn't matter if anyone thinks it's funny or not but Frankie Boyle delivering a what essentially is a private-performance. He deserves to do so without interference. whether people like it or not shouldn't impact that.

I think you'll find that as it was being recorded for broadcast on a channel that is free for everyone to view (by free, I mean no subscriptions are required beyond the licence fee and there are no restrictions on viewing) it is actually a public performance, not private.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

But no one is arguing for that.

The main points raised are that it was a nasty 'joke' in very poor taste, Price is more than entitled to complain, as are we to find it distasteful.

Therefore we are in agreement on that matter

Originally Posted by punky

I said the comment in a thread about Frankie Boyle. You're trying to claim that my comment was "absolute" and to things completely irelevent to the thread.

I'm not trying to claim anything. I am trying to establish (as I have stated at least 3 times now) what you meant by 'always'. I asked a question. That's all.

Wilful misunderstanding is pretty poor as a debating tactic. I know you're more intelligent than this and I am having a hard time accepting you didn't understand my first post, the first time you read it.

If you want to talk about hate crimes in society, start another thread.

If you honestly don't instinctively see the wider context of the discussion at hand I'm not about to waste my time trying to explain it for you. However, once again I'm not going along with this. You fully understand the wider implications of Boyle's comments and the response to them, but you prefer not to engage with those implications. Well, fine, ignore that strand of the discussion if you choose.

A typo. It should read populace. I.e. a part of a population, be it ethnic minority or otherwise.

Interest groups are constantly lobbying for their view to be acknowledged and legislated for. Why do you find it astonishing when there are so many real-world examples? The recent controversy over Catholic adoption agencies and whether they were allowed to refuse to place children with homosexual couples is a good example of one 'community's' outlook being legislated for at the expense of an (arguably larger) one.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Chris

I'm not trying to claim anything. I am trying to establish (as I have stated at least 3 times now) what you meant by 'always'. I asked a question. That's all.

And I have answered. My answer is within the context of this thread - i.e. telling jokes. Comedians should always have the right to a joke without having to risk punishment because they stepped on some fobidden area - be it black people, disabled people, sexuality, kids, religion, royals etc. A joke will always have to have a butt. The butt shouldn't always have to be healthy, white heterosexual men. Otherwise, where is their right to complain?

I referenced what Ignition said because I thought it was a succinct way of putting across what I was trying to say in this thread. If you want a catchy slogan that encompasses comedians telling jokes and BNP members commiting hate crimes I suggest you go back to him.

Wilful misunderstanding is pretty poor as a debating tactic. I know you're more intelligent than this and I am having a hard time accepting you didn't understand my first post, the first time you read it.

There is nothing wilful about it. I'm genuinely having a hard time grasping what you are trying to get at.

If you honestly don't instinctively see the wider context of the discussion at hand I'm not about to waste my time trying to explain it for you. However, once again I'm not going along with this. You fully understand the wider implications of Boyle's comments and the response to them, but you prefer not to engage with those implications. Well, fine, ignore that strand of the discussion if you choose.

I fully understand the wider implications but prefer not to engage in those implications? Again, what?

Maybe i'm just not as smart as you but I can only do my best replying to what I think you are trying to say. If you think i'm being obtuse (deliberately or otherwise) then fine, don't reply. I never asked you to in the first place.

Interest groups are constantly lobbying for their view to be acknowledged and legislated for. Why do you find it astonishing when there are so many real-world examples? The recent controversy over Catholic adoption agencies and whether they were allowed to refuse to place children with homosexual couples is a good example of one 'community's' outlook being legislated for at the expense of an (arguably larger) one.

I don't find it astonishing that special interest groups exist. However I don't expect the NBPA (to name but one example) to be able to speak for every black police officer.

Also, I fail to see what this has to do with Boyle telling a joke about Harvey. Jordan has every right to speak on Harvey's behalf as his guardian. Lobbying groups doesn't come into it.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by punky

Ribaldry is dead in this country. Unfortunately it is now restricted to countries that respect the right to free speech.

We have to base what we say around Jordan's/Clare Balding's feelings now. It's rather sad.

If people heard the Aristocrats joke performed by anyone in the last 15 years they'd just explode with Daily-Mail-esque rage.

This is not a free speech issue. It is about insulting a disabled child and alleging that he is a potential sexual predator who needs a cage fighter to repel him.

---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 21:30 ----------

Originally Posted by budwieser

I agree with Gary, I`ve got both of Frankies dvd`s and he does go lower than any other comedian with his gags, but like he says to people offended by his shows, you know what to expect so, don`t come to the show if you`re offended. I know that Katie Price didn`t go to a show but to Frankie Boyle, everything is fair game like it or not.
He makes jokes about Cancer, i`ve had cancer but i`m not offended, I can see what Katie Price is complaining about but its not a personal dig at her son, its just the way Frankie Boyle jokes about certain situations or conditions that people may get into or have.

So what did he mean when he said that Alex Reid needs to fight him off to stop him from "f******* her," if it was not a personal dig at her son?

---------- Post added at 21:36 ---------- Previous post was at 21:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

They may be scripted, but he still thought them up in the first place.

Which would kind of indicate that he knew exactly what he was doing and his remarks were premeditated

---------- Post added at 21:41 ---------- Previous post was at 21:36 ----------

Originally Posted by iFrankie

Most comedians say things they regret later on, remember when Alan Carr dedicated an award to Karen Matthews.

This was no "off-the-cuff" remark, it is not first time he has used the same material.

Ofcom will probably reply saying its freedom of speech ect.

No, I don't think they will. This is not a freedom of speech issue, it involves an accusation of a sexual nature towards an eight year old child.

---------- Post added at 21:42 ---------- Previous post was at 21:41 ----------

Originally Posted by Derek

It gets him viewers? (And ticket, DVD) sales.

Whilst a fan of him the show isn't particularly funny. The sketches are a bit lame and the stand up sections are lifted straight from his standup act. In a theatre as part of an ongoing stream of thought it was hilarious, on TV it just seemed a bit desperate.

Hopefully he will end up on the same pile that Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning did.