Should a public personality be allowed to make jokes with impunity about disadvantaged people?
A trial is starting where I live about an man with a physical handicap who sang for the pope Benedict XVI about 10 years ago. A local humorist, known for his hardcore jokes about everything, everyone and anything, has made jokes about him saying he sang for a pedophile and his deformed head looks like a sub-woofer. The young man, now 18, said each time a show from said humorist took place somewhere, he received insults and threats, to the point of contemplating suicide.
So my question is this : the humorist didn't ask anyone to say or do hateful things to the young handicapped man, but he did laugh at him profusely. Should the principle of free speech protect everything he or anyone might say, even when it has such grave consequences?
8 years ago by Bastou
with
7 comments
Join the Discussion
My personal philosophy is an ethical hedonism. Do what you like, so long as you don't interfere with another's ability to do the same.
While I (obviously) don't have all the details in this case, I don't think the comedian should be confronted with any legal problems here. The people who sent threatening messages, should. Now, if the comedian had been asking his audience to harass this person, that's a different story. While it sucks in this particular case, I do think the rights of free speech are important to uphold, especially for those in comedy and satire.
That doesn't mean I think the comedian's topics were moral or decent, but morality and legality are two different subjects and I think it's important not to conflate the two.
I'd have to agree with you, even if I personally find their act deplorable, I don't see any serious reason for legal actions. As he broke no laws as far as I could tell.
True, but the law shout srive to stay as close to morality as possible, most of the time.
While I would tentatively agree, I'd also advise strong caution. Some people claim that gay marriage is immoral, and it certainly shouldn't be illegal. The problem with conflating morality and legality is that I've yet to find two people who can agree 100% on morality. So if we ask that our legal system enforce morality, then what we're really asking is for whoever is in charge of said system to enforce their own personal morality, regardless of our feelings about the matter.
Of course, that's what I meant by "most of the time".
There are two questions here. Is it good to have a man make fun of someone, and is it something that should be punished by the government.
First, the man was mean and cruel to the boy. There's no humor in mocking a disabled child. Especially publicly.
But at the same time, I don't think a free society can exist if the government is punishing ideas. Even if the ideas are terrible, it's bad, because what ends up happening is that controversial things are not said. It's too risky. If you say the wrong thing, you're going to jail. And I don't think you can get by with just banning insults, because the list of things that can be called insulting is ever growing. It might be disagreeing on a deeply held political idea, if the argument gets heated. You might be insulted when I say that abortion is wrong because it kills a baby. I might get insulted when you say that it's just tissue. Debates can get heated, and it's actually good when that happens. It means that both sides give a crap about what's good for the country.
For anyone interested to know more about the case that inspired my question, here it is.