This is a sensitive issue! But I am hoping to start a thread without the Mods pulling it.
But what I am fundamentally asking. Is, in a democracy is there ANYTHING unacceptable for the purpose of a joke? Where do you draw the line? I ask this, in part, as I have been accused of taking a joke too far and even bullying, in the name of comedy. May be I was.

Also, in the light of a Muslim comic going to the Edinburgh festival and making jokes about suicide bombers. Is this acceptable?

Another example that springs to mind is Chris Morris, who famously, produced a Brass Eye special on the subject of paedophilia. This, as you would imagine won him both admiration for its sheer bravery and at the same time caused outrage. The point of the programme, I believe, was not about laughing at chid sex abuse but a satirical expose of the hysteria caused by the media at the time: naming and shaming paedophiles so they were unable to live anywhere. He claimed one paedophile ‘monster’ being shot into space to orbit the earth forever, claimed Chris at the news desk. He then reported that, NASA had reported that it had mistakenly sent up a 12 year old boy with him. NASA stating, ‘this was the one thing they didn’t want to happen.’ Is this unacceptable? Was this acceptable given the hysteria at the time? Note the media has ‘moved on’ their new targets being ‘hoodies/chavs’ or ‘Muslims.’

Another example would be Bernard Manning the fouled mouth comic from the Embassy club Manchester. He claims, that they are just jokes and would add that, Paki’s, blacks, and Jews regularly enjoy his shows. He claims if you can’t laugh at ‘ones’ self it is a sign of social weakness. But he mainly laughs at others different from himself? Is this right?

Another popular show 'Have I got news for you,' regularly launches personal and vicious attacks on people who are not there to defend themselves, in the name of satire they claim. One recent example, someone called Piers Morgan a ‘****’ on the show. Too far?

A thorny issue.

Bringing me last to Bill Hicks, famously cut from the Dave letterman show for, as the producers state ‘challenging the status quo.’ It was later revealed that the ‘Pro life’ group that he was attacking had a huge sponsorship deal with the TV network and although it was not explicitly stated it would not take such a leap of imagination to deduce that this was the main reason why the segment was pulled. Declaring afther this that USA stood for the United States of Advertising. He believed it was the comic’s duty to challenge the audience and not necessarily give them what they wanted to hear!

To qualify all this in our own context, I was once banned from the forum for threatening a ‘political opponent’ with a thesaurus. The reason, and some may agree, ‘aggression to a fellow member’. The fact that I used the term thesaurus and not 'baseball bat' may have led some to assume the ‘comedic’ if not satirical’ intention and therefore a not ‘genuine’ or ‘serious’ threat. If some one threatened you with a thesaurus, how scared would you be? Particularly if you are a bouncer at a busy city night spot.

I’m not saying that to feel hard done to. Some of my bans have been justified and can be put down to errors in judgement. But if you have a comedy brain, the urge is constantly to push the envelope. Sometimes it works, other times you fall foul. Julian Clary’s ‘fisting’ Norman Lamont incident springs to mind.

So, my point is, where do you draw the line? Should everything (in joke terms) be allowed to be said. Should comedians be censored? Should they only be allowed to say these things at special shows, and not in general public areas?

My fear is we are going back to an age where people have to be guarded about subjects they cover but in a perverse way this would help comedy; as the more taboos there are in society, the more opportunites arise to break them.

I would be interested to know what our resident comedian thinks of this ,as I have seen his shows and the phrase ‘fine-line’ springs to mind! Keep pushing it Toby!

Discuss.

I think there is a fine line to draw, but as to who draws the line and where it gets drawn are two things that we can't decide. That is something only the owners or Moderators can decide, and until there is some consistency by the moderating team then there will always be unrest when a thread is pulled.

I posted a joke yesterday about the Birmingham Tornado which wasn't in the best taste, but was made acceptable to me by the fact that it had been sent by a friend who lives in Edgbaston, other forum members may not see it that way.

I have seen threads that I think shouldn't be on a family forum that have remained for weeks, yet I don't want them removing, because they are being posted on by other forum members who do find them acceptable.

We are individuals who thankfully have found a medium where we can post whatever pleases us, and long may it continue.:thumbsup:

My friends and i were saying this was one of the best things about the British, joking about horrific events within hours, sometimes minutes, of them taking place.

keep it up

Originally posted by 21steve
My friends and i were saying this was one of the best things about the British, joking about horrific events within hours, sometimes minutes, of them taking place.

keep it up

What about this then - is it acceptable or not?

A guy goes into a sex shop and asks for a an inflatable woman (of the 'Doreen the Spaceman's Delight' variety). The assistant says we have two types, a Western woman and an Islamic fundamentalist woman. The customer asks, what's the difference? The assistant replies, well, with the first type you have to blow it up yourself, the second type blows itself up.

NB: I am quite happy to remove this post, or have it removed, if it found to be offensive. I use it for purposes of illustration.

One of the worst situations one could find oneself in , I suppose , would be to be Jewish in a German concentration camp ; not just the isolated horror to deal with but horrors by the day .
In a book [I think ] by Bruno Bettelheim , a survivor of the camps , he said that if anyone could manage to rustle up a joke or a pithy comment in the camp that he [ B.B.] was in , then it was as valuable as food. It showed the listener that the civilised world had not completely disappeared and it boosted what little morale there was left.
So , I'm sure humour and a wry way of looking at the world has its uses , in the worst of circumstances. During the blitz , people would often put jokey notices in shop , "windows " , for example.
The real problem is , is that humour is like an , "ear " for music . Some people have it and some don't. On top of that humour is such a vast subject that what one person finds funny ,another doesn't.
On balance , I don't think we should ban humour. If humour is not popular , it will die off in any case. If it is popular , it will thrive , legal , illegal , banned or not , in one way or another.
The proof of this lies in the way that types of humour die away and new variations keep appearing.

Within 45 minutes of 9/11 Sass came up with the 'fuller than a New York dyson' phrase
Nobody could ever accuse him of not caring though, sometimes you just have to have humour to comprehend the sheer scale of a thing.

Leave the sick jokes alone, I say. they bring home to you the truth of a situation faster than a newspaper can

Originally posted by LordChaverly
What about this then - is it acceptable or not?

A guy goes into a sex shop and asks for a an inflatable woman (of the 'Doreen the Spaceman's Delight' variety). The assistant says we have two types, a Western woman and an Islamic fundamentalist woman. The customer asks, what's the difference? The assistant replies, well, with the first type you have to blow it up yourself, the second type blows itself up.

NB: I am quite happy to remove this post, or have it removed, if it found to be offensive. I use it for purposes of illustration.

the joke itself is fine, just a shame its so old! got any new ones?

It's the same old thing that we keep going over really. As you all (should) know, we are a family friendly place. That means that there are some restrictions on content, language, salaciousness, etc, etc.

A comedy club is a different place, and has different rules, and the audience is in different frame of mind, as is a Morcombe & Wise audience (GRTS) or a Chubby Brown audience.

In fact I was at Toby's last night, and had a good time. However, on the open mike spot, Stanley Knife was funny, but to a point. but I got bored of having to think his that ****, **** and ****** were razor sharp wit after 5 minutes. I didn't get the point of the cutting room language.

Content is all with comedy don't you think? And that can quite happily be offensively funny.

Miniminch - Chris Morris is a god - usually.

... and owdlad, that Birmingham Tornado joke was rubbish the first time :D


... If anyone is interested, I have a Chubby Brown DVD still in its cellophane wrapper - unwanted Christmas Gift.

Humour is relative. New jokes, or variations upon the old ones , emerge after any newsworthy tragedy. There are jokes circulating about sucide bombers, which Mini and Lord C refer to, and there will be those who appreciate such 'sick' humour, and those whose lips curl and quiver with Pilger-like indignation and outrage.

Consensus about what is acceptable and what is beyond the pale shifts over time. This does not just apply to the obvious examples of gender [mother-in-law jokes] and race ['thick' Paddies, untrustworthy Asians etc]. Take the absolutely taboo subject of paedophilia that Mini mentions. Nowadays, a stand up comedian who made fun of the subject might risk a public lynching. Yet, back in the 80s [at a private party], I watched a comedian tell a mixed audience a rather cruel joke about the child victim of a sex murder that had recently made the news. Some laughed, and some did not. The 'comedian' got away with it, as even those who found the joke achingly-unfunny and crass [ me] understood the unspoken rule that 'sick' humour was allowed in that context. Nowadays, the man would be, at the very least, booed off stage by the same crowd. The consensus on that particular subject has shifted, and some might say that is a good thing.

Like Fareast, I am not in favour of banning any kind of humour. There is a libertarian argument for allowing any kind whatsoever, and I am not easily offended. However, to reiterate, whether certain types of humour thrive or are considered indecent and in bad taste depends upon the continually shifting consensus in our country. In others, where norms and values are less relative and more rigid, the spectrum of humour will be less broad. Comedians must have a terribly hard time of it in North Korea, for example. Imagine the trouser-darkening effect of the 'Great Leader's' disapproval.

I definitely think anything goes - censorship of comedy is a complete non-starter. However, I do think there is a difference between jokes that are purely intended to be racist (or sexist or whatever) and ones that make a genuine point.

Both should be allowed, however.

Richard Herring puts it better than I can in his blog - http://www.richardherring.com/warmingup/warmingup.php?id=971

The only joke/comment I have ever been appalled by was when Billy Connelly referred to the fate of hostage Ken Bigley...and 'sickly' urged his captors ' to get on with it'!! ......Which they did some days later....that really made my blood run cold, the poor guys life was still in the balance and his family were going through hell!!

:(

PS I have voted for the middle one...It is the moral responsibility of the comic; who must take the consequences!!

Good point , Timo , about the North Korean comedian. What on earth would they get away with ?

" Well , there was this capitalist-Imperialist running -dog of American fascism and he was walking along Wall Street one day and he fell down a big hole......ha ha ha ha "

[ Takes a sly peep to see if Kim , too , is laughing his stocking tops off ].
Generally speaking , it's true that the more represssive and nanny-ish a regime is , the less official humour , at any rate , is permitted.

Bit pushed for time today, but cheers Fareast for making me giggle. The North Korean joke was really rather good.

Shiesh,
The Billy Connolly 'Ken Bigley' joke made me laugh, because , like all 'sick' humour, it is a form of exorcism. Connolly said the unsayable with the exquisite timing of a master comedian. People were getting tired with the scenario, weary with the cruel stalemate, and along comes Connolly to say what many are thinking. He delivered the ultimate punchline when tension was at its highest. I couldn't help but laugh because of the comedian's sheer audacity, and because I recognised similar repressed feelings in myself. Had Bigley been a relative of mine, it would have been quite different. As the Germans are wont to say,'It is always funny when it is somebody else'. Mind you, they only laugh when they are shooting someone. I'll get my coat...

Who need the jokes ? some of the dry comments on the forum are hilarious, British humour at it's best.

Ive voted for anything goes. I dont think anything should go in terms of what can be shown on TV, but for a DVD or for someone to go and see a live show then yes the comic should be able to say anything at all.

Generally when you see your favourite comic, you normally know the tyoe of jokes that they will be coming out with. The type of comics that I like are always joking about colour and making fun of different races including my own. Theres nothing wrong with it imo, if you dont like it then dont watch it. Simple as.

i do think we english have an odd sense of humour and it also changes as to where u live. even sheffield to barnsley...seriously dont get their humour! english tend to joke about alsorts and its very dry, almost black. didnt take long b4 the diane jokes and i found them a little harsh, not to my likely.
suppose its socially acceptable to joke about "ur own" but not about others.
personally i like vicar of dibley woman and father ted! god bless

Originally posted by miniminch
Another popular show 'Have I got news for you,' regularly launches personal and vicious attacks on people who are not there to defend themselves, in the name of satire they claim. One recent example, someone called Piers Morgan a ‘****’ on the show. Too far?


Not nearly far enough.

One of the funniest things about comedy is watching those without a sense of humour turn purple with outrage the moment the sensibilities of one interest group are offended. It's even funnier when this actually leads to a hypertensive incident, obviously, because everyone likes to see something taken to a logical conclusion. "Oops, off you pop. One less closed mind in the world".

And as our once-great nation moves inexorably in a blandwards direction its one saving grace is the unquenchable capacity of some bright individuals to articulate absurdity.

There was a radical muslim, an Israli and a black, one-legged single mother in a nightclub...

...they all had a brilliant night.

's , the crowd I knocked around with were always laughing [not so much telling jokes ] at the stereo-type English man. We imagined a Colonel Blimp type who had just returned from India and many , many others. In fact we would take the p**s out of anybody but mainly us English , as we knew us best !
Gradually , as we got know more and more about the world e extended the humour to foreign people .....and naturally the Scots and the Irish and the Welsh !
There was nothing really malicious in any of it . At least we were as biting towads the English as anyone else .
That's why I've never felt too ofended by , "racist " jokes . They stand or fall by their content , to me , not at whom they're aimed at .

p.s. the top bit of my post above is missing . Dunno why ?
It should start ,

As far back as the nineteen fifties ....

Chris Morris was sacked from a job for shouting 'Christ's fat Cock' at Sir Cliff Richard! The organisation he worked for were outraged but some of us found it very funny. However, if he was just a member of the public it probably would have never been metioned or comented on.

If you think about it, there is nothing blasphemous about it. Yet another example of how certain institutions feel they need to safeguard our moral welfare; when, in fact, there isn’t much to save.

He did nothing wrong but because it was said to Sir Cliff he was sacked. Again, what he did was expose his audience to how society wrongly Idolises celebrity and this is perpetrated by the institutions that have it within their interest to maintain the status quo.. If he’d said it to me ‘we’d have all had a good laugh about it.’

But that returns us to Bill Hicks whose sole agenda was to challenge and destroy the status quo. The status quo that purports to be the central truth and in fact keeps a very small percentage of humanity wealthy and in power.

I read somewhere that if you divide the wealth of the world in half. 500 people own the top half and the rest of us share the rest. These 500 are whom the status quo protects.

No joke should be banned or censored because by banning one joke no matter how wrong it is or how righteous you are for doing so, it opens the doors for people to ban other things in their own interest. If you hate the joke, just think that it has made you think and confirmed a belief you have about something.

just as no drug should be banned, but that may be a topic for an entirely new thread...

The best humour speaks the truth so I think that offensive jokes should be allowed as they are the ones that are most likely to do this. My faveourite comidian is Richard Pryor and his stuff can be really inappropriate depending on your beliefs and opinions, however people probably find this offensive because it has hit a nerve. IMO this is because they dont want to listen to the truth.

I really admire good wit and especially if this is telling a truth that maybe people dont want to hear. Im not saying that Ive never been offended by a joke or never will be but i would ask myself the reason why it offended me. Is it because I dont want to hear the truth??