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

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chris

On the contrary, the statement you made earlier today suggests to me that you're a narrow-minded racist bigot who thinks anything goes just so long as you get a laugh out of it.

To each their own, Chris.

[peanut]

I'm a bit stuck on what to say really. My trouble is I don't think, well I will say I'm not racist, yet my ignorance of what you can say and what you can't say isn't probably up to date. So I will be picked up on and labelled racist regardless to what I think which I suppose is the sad part. Also having an opinion doesn't seem worth anything anymore, you have to follow the guidelines or else.

I can take the mick out of myself, and I'm not offended by being a butt of a joke as I hope I can give as good as I receive, so if I go to one of his shows, I'd expect to him to throw his full book at me if sit in the front row. I can distinguish the context, call me anything you like in a joke but if it's not intended to be funny then obviously that's different. I've said it before, and I'll have to say it again, I'm more offended by those that are offended because they can't distinguish it's context or that they just like to follow the PC crowd.

There is a clear difference with singling out a child, naming and making fun at his disability, at least without consent, that to me whilst still funny and I will laugh (because I don't take it seriously nor personal), I can understand Jordon taking offense and it's up to her how she responds to it.

[Pierre]

I find that I can't stand the hypocrisy of modern "comedians"

As they all sing in one voice in opposition in regards to so called "racist" comedians such as Bernard manning and alike.

I personally found Bernard Manning quite funny, and as I recall I never heard him take the piddle out of mentally handicapped people ala messrs Carr and Boyle.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Stuart

Ask yourself. How would you feel if someone made fun of you and your disabled son on primetime national TV?

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."

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Really?Even to making racist jokes?

Shame it's a bit late to ask Richard Pryor about that one. Maybe ask Chris Rock?

---------- Post added at 16:43 ---------- Previous post was at 16:38 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

I find that I can't stand the hypocrisy of modern "comedians"

As they all sing in one voice in opposition in regards to so called "racist" comedians such as Bernard manning and alike.

I personally found Bernard Manning quite funny, and as I recall I never heard him take the piddle out of mentally handicapped people ala messrs Carr and Boyle.

The thing is that any ethnic minorities that knew or met Bernard Manning knew he wasn't racist. He did so much to help people of all backgrounds in his local area around Manchester.

Making a joke about an ethnic minority doesn't make you racist. To deliberately exempt ethnic minoroties from jokes because of the colour of their skin always seemed rather patronising to me.

Originally Posted by punky

"Freedom of speech should always trump peoples' sense of offense."

Do you take 'always' to be an absolute, or are there limits? Do you see any circumstances at all where someone's freedom to say something grossly offensive should be curbed?

[punky]

Originally Posted by Chris

Do you take 'always' to be an absolute, or are there limits? Do you see any circumstances at all where someone's freedom to say something grossly offensive should be curbed?

Not with regards to causing offense. There is no concrete definition of what "offence" is. It's something that every individual person sets the boundary of. A couple of hundred years ago taking the lord's name in vain was offensive. To a tiny minority it still is. Same with insulting royals. How can people be held account to something that's impossible to define?

[Pierre]

I agree with Punky on this one.

As posts of previous threads will testify.

Offence is a "point of view". It's a personal emotion that affects only the individual and ahould not have a retribution or recourse to the offending item.

You're entitled to be offended as much as you like, "be offended"

but nothing happens.

Originally Posted by punky

Not with regards to causing offense. There is no concrete definition of what "offence" is. It's something that every individual person sets the boundary of. A couple of hundred years ago taking the lord's name in vain was offensive. To a tiny minority it still is. Same with insulting royals. How can people be held account to something that's impossible to define?

On the contrary, I think communities of people are entirely capable of agreeing amongst themselves that they consider certain words, sentiments or activities to be offensive and to seek to exclude such behaviour from within the community.

To take your example of blasphemy: would you consider it acceptable for someone visiting a cathedral, abbey or any other Christian institution that is normally open to the public (say for example the monastery at Buckfast Abbey in Devon) to arrive with a small group of friends and then stand up and deliver a lecture on the folly of religion?

[Niles Crane]

I don't see why people always talk about "freedom of speech" with topics like this. There's no freedom of speech issue here, people are free to say whatever they want - and face the consequences. In turn other people are free to feel offended.

"Freedom of speech" isn't the right to say whatever you want without repercussion, never has been.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by punky

<snip> Same with insulting royals.

Royals can't really defend themselves can they?

Originally Posted by Niles Crane

I don't see why people always talk about "freedom of speech" with topics like this. There's no freedom of speech issue here, people are free to say whatever they want - and face the consequences. In turn other people are free to feel offended.

Also as I mentioned we have never had freedom of speech on Television or printed press.

In this case I find it hard to believe that any right-minded person would consider a joke at the expensive of a named disabled child inoffensive. Katie Price has every right to complain to Ofcom. The fact he explicitly named the child in question makes it much worse.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Chris

To take your example of blasphemy: would you consider it acceptable for someone visiting a cathedral, abbey or any other Christian institution that is normally open to the public (say for example the monastery at Buckfast Abbey in Devon) to arrive with a small group of friends and then stand up and deliver a lecture on the folly of religion?

You're moving the goal posts here from a private performance (even on thought it is on TV) to someone. It is entirely different having a BNP support standing on a soapbox in a high street telling outright racist jokes and Richard Pryor telling them in a theatre of paying customers. Hence my "Likeminded people should be able to share like-minded jokes" comment.

And I find your comment about communities of ethnic minorities getting together and deciding what is offensive or not to be just bizarre really.

Originally Posted by danielf

Royals can't really defend themselves can they?

Neither can God. All jokes about gods are banned now? If a woman makes a joke about men, I can't really defend myself either?

Anyway the point is that what people finds offensive not only varies by person/location but by time.It will be a real shame to have comedy that is completely unoffensive to everyone.

[Niles Crane]

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."



Shame it's a bit late to ask Richard Pryor about that one. Maybe ask Chris Rock?

---------- Post added at 16:43 ---------- Previous post was at 16:38 ----------



The thing is that any ethnic minorities that knew or met Bernard Manning knew he wasn't racist. He did so much to help people of all backgrounds in his local area around Manchester.

Making a joke about an ethnic minority doesn't make you racist. To deliberately exempt ethnic minoroties from jokes because of the colour of their skin always seemed rather patronising to me.

You talk as if Manning was some self-deprecating, nihilistic comedian. If you want to talk about exempt, please go ahead and find some footage of Manning mocking white people like he did other races. As far as i'm aware, the only demographic who were exempt were white, heterosexual males - himself and his core audience funnily enough. Now that's patronising.

Originally Posted by punky

You're moving the goal posts here from a private performance (even on thought it is on TV) to someone. It is entirely different having a BNP support standing on a soapbox in a high street telling outright racist jokes and Richard Pryor telling them in a theatre of paying customers. Hence my "Likeminded people should be able to share like-minded jokes" comment.

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.

And I find your comment about communities of ethnic minorities getting together and deciding what is offensive or not to be just bizarre really.

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.

Personally I do not subscribe to the idea that individualism trumps everything else. Society, via its Government, is entitled to legislate against behaviour it disapproves of. The things society disapproves of shifts over time and so do the laws that reflect that disapproval.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by punky

Neither can God.

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

All jokes about gods are banned now? If a woman makes a joke about men, I can't really defend myself either?

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.

Anyway the point is that what people finds offensive not only varies by person/location but by time.It will be a real shame to have comedy that is completely unoffensive to everyone.

Oh I agree, and I think there are very few people who would want that. I like comedy that pushes the boundaries of what is considered acceptable, but I think it should try to make a wider point. Personally, my main gripe with Boyle is that he isn't funny, and I don't see the point in being crass at the expense of others just for the sake of it.